On 2/23/2012 11:43 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Yeah, but don't you think the average guy who applies himself and works
hard ought to have a pretty high level of prosperity considering this is
the richest country in world history?

Just look at what it used to be like here back in the fifties when it
comes to income distribution. It was much more equal. The country's
wealth is far more unequally distributed now.
Can you support that statement. I am NOT saying you are wrong, I just
don't think there is evidence to support it.

I think there is certainly a PERCEPTION that the wealth is
concentrated in fewer hands, but is it really.

Wealth concentration just doesn't matter in terms of how people live
their lives. Suppose there is a given distribution of wealth today -
people own whatever they own. Now suppose that some new innovation by
Microsoft causes their stock price to increase 100 times, so that Bill
Gates's fortune is suddenly substantially larger. That gain in his
wealth did not come at the expense of some cashier at Wal-Mart or anyone
like her. Those people *still* own whatever they owned before; their
standard of living hasn't changed (actually, if the Microsoft innovation
leads to better and cheaper products that they consume, their standard
of living has improved.)

Hawke-Ptooey and other bitter leftists like him always get caught up in
comparisons that are invalid.




I think that perception is driven by media.

OTOH I am quite sure there are far more millionaires today, than
there were in the 50's, but a million bucks ain't what it used to be.

That is wrong in my book.
Way too much money is concentrated in too few hands. As a political
scientist
You forgot to put that first word in quotes. If it isn't
quantitative, it isn't science.

I see that as a threat to the political system and to
democracy. Too much wealth in the hands of too few is a recipe for a
corrupt country and regime.

There are all kinds of reasons why a more equal wealth distribution
would be better for most Americans than what we have now. I really don't
see any argument you could make why 1% should be in control of most of
any country's wealth.


In the past that almost always leads to a
revolution. Is that what you want?
Oh really? When, Where?
I can think off hand of two cases where that probably was seen as one
of the causes of the "revolutions" but a half dozen or so where
similar distributions did NOT lead to revolutions.

In both of the first cases, the regimes revolted against were also
totalitarian.


Hawke
jk