Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1336)	1/17/2001 8:43:40 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The real problem that faces the US is that there is a growing disparity between rich and poor and many noveau riche butt-brains don't care. Cosmic, I'd be interested in hearing your sense of what an appropriate disparity, if any, between rich and poor might be. People talk about the disparity a lot. I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to argue that there isn't one. But we don't hear much about what an optimum disparity might be. I trust that we have enough of a relationship that you know this isn't a trick question. <g> Karen P.S. In defense of the butt-brains, the nouveau riche tend to become more generous once their riches become less nouveau. I'm willing to let them feel their oats for a while before they start feeling everyone else's pain.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1336)	1/17/2001 10:58:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Isn't this the signatures of the parties? It's like both look for the lowest common denominator and distinguish themselves (if you can call it that) with rather shallow and superficial stances. This is true to a large extent. It doesn't mean there are not useful differences between the parties however. I like personal liberty and am not a Christian - so guess who's corner I'm drawn to? I like personal liberty and I am a Chrisitan (at least sortof). Do you support the libertarian party? The real problem that faces the US is that there is a growing disparity between rich and poor and many noveau riche butt-brains don't care. Judgeing by that statement probably not. I wont go back and delete that guess though it is the guess that most fits your earlier statement. I don't see even a growing disparity of wealth as the biggest problem, probably not even a problem at all. If poverty is increaseing that is a problem but if poor people get slightly richer while rich people get a lot richer that is not a problem for me as long as the poor people are not being held back by force and social mobility is possible. One thing ignored by the usual comparisions between the "top 20%" and the "bottom 20%" and their wealth over different years is that in different years these are not the same people. People move between these groups and people also move in to the country from the outside. If some one in the top group doubles his income then the average for the top group goes up (and the amount of wealth required to be in it goes up as well), if some one in the bottom group doubles his income he probably leaves the bottom group and does nothing to increase its average. Also many at the bottom are recent immigrants (many illegal) for who becoming part of the poorest 20% (or even 5%) in the US is a step up. The person moving up out of the bottom 20% and the person moving in to it from another country could both decrease the average income of the lowest 20% even if the only change is an increase in the income of two poor people. I'm at a loss - don't these anti-environment idiots eat food, breath air and have to look out their windows? Balanced land use means rape the earth and let our kids deal with the mess. Concern for environmental damage that our activities may cause is a good thing. In some cases this concern should properly result in environmental law or regulation. However calls for regulation should respect the cost in money and freedom and balance it against the benefit. (And then of course there are strong disagreements about the costs and benefits but thats another issue, even if a strongly related one). If it was up to you and me to sit and hash out any changes made to environmental regulations you would probably get me to agree to more of your ideas if you considered the cost and pushed for reapeal of intrusive expensive regulations even while you push for new smarter or more correctly targeted regulation. Tim