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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (287584)	5/10/2006 8:34:46 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571736

the top rate varies, that was my point. When it's high.... Of course I have deductions, what does that have to do with profit. You don't own a business I can see

To: Road Walker who wrote (287584)	5/11/2006 5:48:35 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571736

The Postaffluent Society By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON The Washington Post May 10, 2006 You hear the refrain all the time: The U.S. economy looks good statistically (4.7% unemployment), but it doesn't feel good. Although America is the wealthiest nation in history, its quarrels and quibbles with our prosperity are unending. Why doesn't ever-greater wealth promote ever-greater happiness? It is a question that dates at least to the appearance in 1958 of "The Affluent Society" by John Kenneth Galbraith, the ex-Harvard economist who died recently at 97. "Automobiles have an importance greater than the roads on which they are driven," he wrote scornfully. "Alcohol, comic books and mouth wash all bask under the superior reputation of the (private) market. Schools, judges and municipal swimming pools lie under the evil reputation of bad kings (government)." The book argued for more government spending and less private spending. By and large, these ideas have not aged well. For starters, material desires seem infinite. They are not simply contrived by advertising. In January 1985, the number of U.S. mobile phone subscribers was 91,600; by December 2005, it was 207.9 million. In 1984, 8% of American households had home computers; by 2003, 62% did. Were all these consumers simply conned? Are Chinese, Indians, Brazilians and others who exhibit comparable tastes similarly duped? It's often said that only the rich are getting ahead; everyone else is standing still or falling behind. But over any meaningful period, most Americans' incomes are increasing. From 1995 to 2004, inflation-adjusted median U.S. family income -- for families precisely in the middle -- rose 14.3% to $43,200, says the Federal Reserve. People feel "squeezed" because their rising incomes often don't satisfy their rising wants -- for bigger homes, more health care, more education, faster Internet connections. America's is a postaffluent society. Because so much previous suffering and social conflict stemmed from poverty, the advent of widespread affluence suggested utopian possibilities. Up to a point, affluence succeeds. There is much less physical misery than before. Unfortunately, affluence also creates new complaints and contradictions. Advanced societies need economic growth to satisfy the multiplying wants of their citizens. But the quest for growth unleashes new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the social order. Affluence liberates the individual, promising that everyone can choose a "unique way to self-fulfillment," writes historian Avner Offer. But the promise is so extravagant that it preordains many disappointments and sometimes inspires choices that have antisocial consequences, including family breakdown and obesity. Statistical indicators of happiness, Mr. Offer notes, have not risen with incomes. Should we be surprised? Not really. We've simply reaffirmed an old truth: The pursuit of affluence does not always end with bliss.