Re: [CTRL] The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get...
-Caveat Lector- 9/11/99 Don't be fooled by these oinkres' propaganda. The problem with unequal income distribution is NOT inequality. The problem is CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is what has an adverse effect on everyone, even the comfortable middle class. Concentration of wealth = concentration of power through the political and economic systems of any country BUT ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. If you doubt this, LOOK WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! Joshua2 === "M.A. Johnson" wrote: > > -Caveat Lector- > > ~~for educational purposes only~~ > > The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get... > by Mark Skousen > > "The modern market economy accords wealth and distribution > income in a highly unequal, socially adverse and also > functionally damaging fashion." --John Kenneth Galbraith > > The allegation is appearing everywhere: Real average > wages are stagnating and the distribution of wealth and > income in the United States is becoming more unequal. In > his latest book, Galbraith cites recent Federal Reserve > statistics: "By 1992, the top 5 percent were getting an > estimated 18 percent, a share that in more recent years > has become substantially larger, as that of those in the > poorest brackets has been diminishing. This, the good > society cannot accept.'' According to the Bureau of Labor > Statistics, average real wages have been declining since > the mid-1970s. If benefits are included, total real > compensation has been rising, but only modestly. Finally, > Business Week (February 25, 1996) declared, "Is America > Becoming More of a Class Society?'' The magazine cites > several academic studies indicating less upward mobility > for less-educated Americans. The Wall Street Journal > (December 23, 1996) adds, "Inequality may grow for > lifetime earnings." > > Critics of market capitalism are often misled by > conventional measures of economic well-being, in > particular the Lorenz curve, which measures income > distribution. > > The Lorenz curve measures the percentage of a nation's > total income as earned by various income classes. > Typically, it is divided into five income groups. In > the United States, the highest fifth (the highest income > earners) usually receive 40 percent of the nation's > income, while the lowest fifth (the lowest income earners) > receive around 5 percent, Using the Lorenz curve, U.S. > income appears to be seriously maldistributed, "now the > extreme case among the major industrial countries," > says Galbraith. > > However, the Lorenz curve establishes an unfair and > misleading guide for measuring social welfare. > Suppose, for example, that an "ideal" line of "perfect" > equality is achieved on the Lorenz curve, i.e., the > highest fifth (top 20 percent of income earners) only > receive 20 percent of the nation's income, while the > bottom fifth (lower 20 percent) increase their share > to 20 percent. What does this ideal mean? > Everyone -- the teacher, the lawyer, the plumber, the > actor -- earns the same amount of income. (1) > > Since few economists think equal wages for everyone > is an ideal situation, why do they think moving toward > "perfect equality" on the Lorenz curve is appropriate? > Moreover, the Lorenz curve is unable to show an increase > in a country's standard of living over time. It merely > measures distribution of income. > > To measure changes in social welfare, economists often > rely on a second measure-average real income. This, > too, has its shortcomings. A single statistic may mask > improvements in an individual's standard of living over > time. > > For example, average real income shows hardly any change > since the mid-1970s. Yet other measures of well-being, > such as consumer expenditures and the quantity, quality, > and variety of goods and services, show remarkable > advancement over the past 20 years. Consumer spending > rose a dramatic 40 percent per person in real terms > during this period. As Professor Richard Vedder says, > "How many Americans in 1975 had VCRs, microwaves, CD > players, and home computers?" (2) > > The Work of Stanley Lebergott > > Stanley Lebergott, professor of economics at Wesleyan > University, has probably done more work in this area > than anyone else. Instead of relying on general > measures such as average real income, he uses a more > commonsense approach -- looking at individual consumer > markets in food, clothing, housing, fuel, housework, > transportation, health, recreation, and religion. His > work is fascinating. > > For example, he developed the following table to measure > improvements in living standards from 1900 to 1970: > > Living Standards, 1900-1970 > > Among AllAmong Poor > Percentage Families Families > with ...in 1900 in 1970 > > Flush toilets 1599 > Running water 2492 > Central heating
Re: [CTRL] The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get...
-Caveat Lector- Nurev Ind Research wrote: Don't be fooled by these oinkres' propaganda. MJ: Ad hominem Nurev Ind Research wrote: The problem with unequal income distribution is NOT inequality. The problem is CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is what has an adverse effect on everyone, even the comfortable middle class. MJ: Wealth is created not distributed. Nurev Ind Research wrote: Concentration of wealth = concentration of power through the political and economic systems of any country BUT ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. If you doubt this, LOOK WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! MJ: America is NOT a Capitalist nation. There has never been such an animal in recorded history, though the US came the closest back in the late 1700s. What we are reaping is a consequence of the Welfare State. Regard$, --MJ The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. -- Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get...
-Caveat Lector- "M.A. Johnson" wrote: > > -Caveat Lector- > > Nurev Ind Research wrote: > Don't be fooled by these oinkres' propaganda. > > MJ: > Ad hominem If the shoe fits... > > Nurev Ind Research wrote: >The problem with unequal income distribution is NOT >inequality. The problem is CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH >into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is >what has an adverse effect on everyone, even the >comfortable middle class. > > MJ: > Wealth is created not distributed. Wealth is created by someone's labor. Then it's collected as someone's private property. This is concentration #1. Then it's taxed. Concentration #2. Then it's distributed by the government. Distribution #1. Owners of excess capital (profit) invest that money. Distribution #2. Investments are either lost, which leaves them as a " distribution," or reap profits which further concentrates wealth. Don't you get tired of being wrong? > Nurev Ind Research wrote: > Concentration of wealth = concentration of power through > the political and economic systems of any country BUT > ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. If you doubt this, > LOOK WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! > > MJ: > America is NOT a Capitalist nation. You are a ridiculous person. Joshua2 > There has never been > such an animal in recorded history, though the US came > the closest back in the late 1700s. > > What we are reaping is a consequence of the Welfare State. > > Regard$, > --MJ DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get...
-Caveat Lector- Nurev Ind Research wrote: Don't be fooled by these oinkres' propaganda. MJ: Ad hominem Joshua: If the shoe fits... MJ: It is your shoe and apparently it fits your foot as you continue to concentrate on the individual making the statement rather than the statement itself. Nurev Ind Research wrote: The problem with unequal income distribution is NOT inequality. The problem is CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is what has an adverse effect on everyone, even the comfortable middle class. MJ: Wealth is created not distributed. Joshua: Wealth is created by someone's labor. Then it's collected as someone's private property. This is concentration #1. Then it's taxed. Concentration #2. Then it's distributed by the government. Distribution #1. Owners of excess capital (profit) invest that money. Distribution #2. Investments are either lost, which leaves them as a " distribution," or reap profits which further concentrates wealth. MJ: The Government takes/spends only 20% GNP currently -- too large, but not the concentration you claim. Joe contracts with Stan to exchange a certain wage/benefit for a task. Stan spends or saves this wealth. If he spends it, he provides the funds to another for like activities. If he saves it, he makes it available to others for like activities. Perhaps Bastiat's simplified essay _That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen_ will aid you in your studies. Joshua: Don't you get tired of being wrong? MJ: You have yet to prove such, instead only demonstrating your own ignorance and irrationality. Nurev Ind Research wrote: Concentration of wealth = concentration of power through the political and economic systems of any country BUT ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. If you doubt this, LOOK WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! MJ: America is NOT a Capitalist nation. Joshua: You are a ridiculous person. MJ: While that may or may not be, such does not change the fact cited above; America is NOT a Capitalist nation. Regard$, --MJ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's Razor (from Murphy's Laws) DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get...
-Caveat Lector- Is this on a web site?? It is good and information that opens up your eyes! Pied Piper M.A. Johnson wrote: > -Caveat Lector- > > ~~for educational purposes only~~ > > The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get... > by Mark Skousen > > "The modern market economy accords wealth and distribution > income in a highly unequal, socially adverse and also > functionally damaging fashion." --John Kenneth Galbraith > > The allegation is appearing everywhere: Real average > wages are stagnating and the distribution of wealth and > income in the United States is becoming more unequal. In > his latest book, Galbraith cites recent Federal Reserve > statistics: "By 1992, the top 5 percent were getting an > estimated 18 percent, a share that in more recent years > has become substantially larger, as that of those in the > poorest brackets has been diminishing. This, the good > society cannot accept.'' According to the Bureau of Labor > Statistics, average real wages have been declining since > the mid-1970s. If benefits are included, total real > compensation has been rising, but only modestly. Finally, > Business Week (February 25, 1996) declared, "Is America > Becoming More of a Class Society?'' The magazine cites > several academic studies indicating less upward mobility > for less-educated Americans. The Wall Street Journal > (December 23, 1996) adds, "Inequality may grow for > lifetime earnings." > > Critics of market capitalism are often misled by > conventional measures of economic well-being, in > particular the Lorenz curve, which measures income > distribution. > > The Lorenz curve measures the percentage of a nation's > total income as earned by various income classes. > Typically, it is divided into five income groups. In > the United States, the highest fifth (the highest income > earners) usually receive 40 percent of the nation's > income, while the lowest fifth (the lowest income earners) > receive around 5 percent, Using the Lorenz curve, U.S. > income appears to be seriously maldistributed, "now the > extreme case among the major industrial countries," > says Galbraith. > > However, the Lorenz curve establishes an unfair and > misleading guide for measuring social welfare. > Suppose, for example, that an "ideal" line of "perfect" > equality is achieved on the Lorenz curve, i.e., the > highest fifth (top 20 percent of income earners) only > receive 20 percent of the nation's income, while the > bottom fifth (lower 20 percent) increase their share > to 20 percent. What does this ideal mean? > Everyone -- the teacher, the lawyer, the plumber, the > actor -- earns the same amount of income. (1) > > Since few economists think equal wages for everyone > is an ideal situation, why do they think moving toward > "perfect equality" on the Lorenz curve is appropriate? > Moreover, the Lorenz curve is unable to show an increase > in a country's standard of living over time. It merely > measures distribution of income. > > To measure changes in social welfare, economists often > rely on a second measure-average real income. This, > too, has its shortcomings. A single statistic may mask > improvements in an individual's standard of living over > time. > > For example, average real income shows hardly any change > since the mid-1970s. Yet other measures of well-being, > such as consumer expenditures and the quantity, quality, > and variety of goods and services, show remarkable > advancement over the past 20 years. Consumer spending > rose a dramatic 40 percent per person in real terms > during this period. As Professor Richard Vedder says, > "How many Americans in 1975 had VCRs, microwaves, CD > players, and home computers?" (2) > > The Work of Stanley Lebergott > > Stanley Lebergott, professor of economics at Wesleyan > University, has probably done more work in this area > than anyone else. Instead of relying on general > measures such as average real income, he uses a more > commonsense approach -- looking at individual consumer > markets in food, clothing, housing, fuel, housework, > transportation, health, recreation, and religion. His > work is fascinating. > > For example, he developed the following table to measure > improvements in living standards from 1900 to 1970: > > Living Standards, 1900-1970 > > Among AllAmong Poor > Percentage Families Families > with ...in 1900 in 1970 > > Flush toilets 1599 > Running water 2492 > Central heating 0158 > One (or fewer) > occupants > per room4896 > Electricity 0399 > Refrigeration 1899 > Automobiles 0141 > > Source: Stanley Lebergott, The American Economy > (Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 8. > > In Pursuing Happiness, Lebergott demonstrates repeatedly > how American consumers have
