On Feb 26, 4:25*pm, Hawke wrote:


Dan, as an American I though it would be self evident to you that it's
inherently better for the middle class to have more of the country's
wealth than a small group of elites. You need to be told why that is?
Having a prosperous middle class is a fundamental American value. But
are you saying you don't know why and that I need to give you the reasons?

I am looking for something more than" it would be self evident." I am
sure you think it would be self evident, but do you have any good
theories on why it would be better. If you can not give any reasons,
then I conclude you really do not know why.

For example if the middle class got 50 % more and the lower class got
50 % more and the wealthy got 75% more. That would mean the wealthy
had an even larger percentage of the wealth, but the middle class
would still be better off.

Or for example the wealthy got 20% less and the middle and lower
classes got 3% more, then the wealthy would be less well off , but the
middle and lower class would not be as well off as when the wealthy
got 50% more. In that in one case they got 50% more and in the other
case they only get 3% more.


I also particularly singled out Plimpton because any economist worth his
salt should be able to explain that one right off the top of his head.
But then I assumed virtually any American could also do the same thing.
Are you saying you need to have it explained to you?

Hawke

Yes, I am saying that I want you to explain it to me. I do not think
you have thought about it very much and doubt if you can come up with
any good reasons.

Dan