"HeyBub" wrote:

Let's say that sometime back the total wealth of a community was, oh, $1
billion divided 70-30 between the rich and the poor. Further, let's say that
today the wealth of that same community is $2 billion, divided 90-10.

Obviously the rich got richer. The poor probably got richer, too, but by not
nearly as much. Liberals see this as a grievous wrong, but they don't see
the obvious: The total wealth of the community DOUBLED but the poor did not
get a similar percentage increase. Why?

Somebody is arithmetic challenged. In the first case, the poor have $300
million and in the second, $200 million. They definitely did not get richer.
-- Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
news
"HeyBub" wrote:

Let's say that sometime back the total wealth of a community was, oh, $1
billion divided 70-30 between the rich and the poor. Further, let's say
that
today the wealth of that same community is $2 billion, divided 90-10.

Obviously the rich got richer. The poor probably got richer, too, but by
not
nearly as much. Liberals see this as a grievous wrong, but they don't see
the obvious: The total wealth of the community DOUBLED but the poor did
not
get a similar percentage increase. Why?

Somebody is arithmetic challenged. In the first case, the poor have $300
million and in the second, $200 million. They definitely did not get
richer.

More than arithmetically challenged, I fear, based on his understanding of
the difference between creating wealth and transferring wealth.

--
Bobby G.