RE: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?

2000-01-24 Thread Max B. Sawicky

. . .
I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified
mail, to the authors.  Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on
his finest letterhead.   Bill


Send to who?  And why on my letterhead?

As I mentioned before (might have been on LBO),
my boss Larry Mishel and I debated Cox (Alm
is a journalist and doesn't know anything)
on a PBS show in Dallas.
Mishel did most of the talking since this
is his bailiwick more than mine.  I was only
there because I did a separate show on the
public sector debating Cato dude Steve Moore.

My favorite line from Cox was that one sign
we are richer now is that we have bottled
water rather than tap water.  Something to
bring tears to Perelman's eyes.

Much material refuting Cox can be found in
State of Working America.  Up to now the
labor market boyz at EPI don't think his
stuff is worth refuting.  Too stupid.

mbs




Re: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?

2000-01-24 Thread Stephen E Philion

Hey, I didn't write that, it's from the NY Times article I sent to the
list...Steve

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, William S. Lear wrote:

 On Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:26:56 (-1000) Stephen E Philion writes:
  
  And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the
  richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider
  the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that
  would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped
  there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies
  that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have
  a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward.
  
  A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of
  Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest
  20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar
  study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 1988, 86 percent
  of Americans in the bottom fifth of income earners improved their
  status.
  
  Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb
  wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation
  might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a
  hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What Americans ought to
  care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of
  gaps in income and wealth.
  
  W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of
  Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor."
 
 Hmm, the 1960s were an era of unmatched growth and relative equality,
 if I'm not mistaken.  And, what exactly are "artificial efforts to try
 to curb wealth gaps", and how do they differ from the artificial
 efforts to impose the cost of operating our system for the benefit of
 the few on the weakest in our society?  I think they need to take a
 look at Horwitz's *Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860*, among
 other things.
 
 Didn't someone on the sane side of the fence recently put out a report
 that debunked this sort of nonsense?
 
 I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified
 mail, to the authors.  Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on
 his finest letterhead.
 
 
 Bill
 
 



Re: RE: Re: Why Decry the Wealth Gap?

2000-01-24 Thread Michael Perelman

send me some Kleenex.

"Max B. Sawicky" wrote:


 My favorite line from Cox was that one sign
 we are richer now is that we have bottled
 water rather than tap water.  Something to
 bring tears to Perelman's eyes.


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]