On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
> And here's the Left, or some of it, conceding that workers won't get a > share of the GDP and settling for BIG and maybe part-time work behind the > wheel of an Uber. > And raising a few chickens in the yard. > Don't we already have a Basic Income Guarantee in the form of the EIRP? Of course that is attached to work requirements, so a truly universal BIG detached from work requirements would be a considerable advance, no? I don't understand why the BIG is considered as a right-wing idea. Every person having a no-strings attached share of national wealth is a good thing, no? > PS And, of course, Buffet's analysis of why some people, those talented > folks, get rich, and others, hard working and decent as they are, do not, > is, in one word, farcical. In two words, historically farcical. > He makes this remarkable claim right in the first paragraph that "we have the Forbes 400, most of whom did not come from privileged backgrounds". Is that really true? Or is this a case of lying with numbers? I'd have guessed that the majority of the super-rich inherited substantial wealth, and I'd be genuinely surprised if that was not the case.. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
