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 (301935)	9/1/2006 10:46:11 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1572075

Declining numbers of insured people, isn't about people getting poorer (and even if it was you still haven't shown "at the expense of") its about health insurance becoming more expensive. Also - "Americans without health insurance jumped by 1.3 million ..." Americans with health insurance jumped by 1.4 million." Message 22767344 "Don't know about five years, but in 2005 the number of uninsured below $25k in household income actually dropped by over a half million while uninsured with HH incomes over $75k rose by over 800k." Message 22767383 Again, increasing poverty and the loss of health insurance are related. Not so related, as the points above show. Even "increasing poverty" isn't something that is obviously happening. Different ways of measuring poverty show different results and the official method shows a decline for 2005. I have posted article after article to you that has shown the problem both verbally and through graphs, supporting the contention that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor No you haven't. "Rich getting richer while the poor get poorer" (which is what you are actually trying to argue) does not equal "rich getting richer at the expense of the poor". Let's assume there is an economic pie worth $1000. Lets assume the moon is made of green cheese. Its just as reasonable. You don't have an economic pie to divide. There is no fixed amount of wealth to divide. And even if there has been no economic growth during a particular period, you still aren't dividing pie. People get the wealth by making the wealth or by owning investment which produce wealth. Let's assume there is an economic pie worth $1000. Ten years ago, the rich controlled 80% of that pie while the poor controlled 20%. Ten years later, the rich now control 85% of that pie and the poor control 15%. Would you agree that the rich got richer at the expense of the poor? Yes or no? You don't provide enough information to give an answer. There are all sorts of ways this could happen. It could happen even if everyone is richer (as long as the rich get richer faster), in which case the answer is no. If it's "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer" than the answer can be either yes or no.