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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (158397)	7/8/2003 4:04:15 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 164684

totally false. What's "totally false"? That the top 400 keeps changing every year? LOL - can you read? highest income does not equal richest american. So what? You're the one who brought this "top 400" study up to begin with, aren't you? Now it doesn't count because it doesn't support your conclusions? come one, the richest 400 people's income rose 300% in nine years! Ha! You may be able to read, but your comprehension sucks. Again, it's not the same people, so you can't conclude from this study that ANYONE's income rose 300% in nine years. BTW, you're flip-flopping again. First you say high income doesn't equate to "rich", then you revert to calling these people the "richest 400" - all 2218 of them. and they own about 37% and 84% of the stuff, respectively. but this clown doesn't want to discuss that. honest discussion is not his intent. political hack job is. More made-up statistics, skeet? How is that "honest discussion"? again, this guy never discussed income tax percent to wealth percent. i know why. his argument disappears into nothingness. Well, if you actually ever produced some credible statistics (instead of made-up ones) to back it up, your "argument" might rise out of nothingness. Give it a try.