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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (50688)	8/29/2006 11:00:13 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

Him? Facts You kidding?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (50688)	8/29/2006 12:22:50 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 90947

Oh, I see. You're back on the "rich getting richer at the expense of the poor" populist tripe. Too bad for you that the net operating surpluses (i.e. profits) of private enterprises, at 23% of gross domestic income, are the same as they've been running for decades, but significantly lower than the upper 20s they ran in the late 1940s through the 1950s. And too bad for you that compensation of employees is still around 57% of gross domestic income, less than a point different from its level in the mid-1980s and much higher than the 53% average in the late 1940s. I see........you couldn't argue the point as it relates to people so you are comparing current corporate profits to those in the late 1940s as if that explains everything. Of course, it explains nothing and it does little to address the argument that the wealthy people in this society keep getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class people. It is certainly an interesting discussion in and of itself........23% of 2006's GDI has to be a huge number compared to 23% of 1940s' GDI and might help to explain the huge rise in CEO salaries......esp. in the last 20 years. It will require a lot more research and preparation before it can be useful. In its present form, however, it contributes little to the discussion at hand. Thanks but no thanks.