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: tejek who wrote (301807)	8/31/2006 12:47:54 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573867

LOL, New Jersey has been run by democrats for decades, is the richest state, in income, but also has some of the most poorest areas in the country. So who is letting the rich get richer and poor ghet poorer??

To: tejek who wrote (301807)	9/14/2006 9:58:43 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573867

I've already pointed out how the gini coefficients have been steady under Bush after getting worse under Clinton. I could point out other evidence that inequality isn't for the moment getting much worse but there isn't much point getting bogged down in that detail. The long term trend is for it to get worse and I wouldn't be surprised if the trend resumes. The real point is that you are arguing for one thing while claiming to be arguing for another. You are arguing that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. If that argument is accepted as 100% true, without a shadow of a doubt, and even if you accepted the unsupported (and apparently false) claim that this trend is getting worse under Bush, it still does nothing to show that "the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor". The rich may be getting richer. The poor might not be. Depending on what statistics you like to use and how you adjust for inflation you might even claim they are getting poorer but as I've already sated. -- No the articles that you have shown me haven't even argued for the "phenomenon under discussion". Greater inequality, and "the rich getting richer" or even "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer", doesn't amount to "the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor".

To: tejek who wrote (301807)	10/22/2011 6:11:55 PM
From: John Vosilla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573867

'But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. Even in a country that tolerates inequality, political consequences follow when the rising tide raises too few boats. The impact of stagnant wages has been dulled by rising house prices, but still most Americans are unhappy about the economy According to the latest Gallup survey, fewer than four out of ten think it is in 'excellent' or 'good' shape. The White House professes to be untroubled.' Find a right winger who saw the house of cards casino economy as unsustainable five years ago and i got a bridge to sell you. Of course not including McMannis one of the few real educated refined southerners who spent most of his time on housing and credit bubble boards worrying about other things than the unbridled optimism at the end of six years of a total conservative free market unregulated credit juiced ownership society. Then you got conservative Texans clueless that actually their state REGULATIONS on HELOC withdrawl plus among the highest millage rates on RE taxes in the country that saved their asses.. Of course who was president last time Texas had a real depression in the mid 80's? Thank the lord I am not an ideologue<g>