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: Solon who wrote (50900)	9/5/2006 4:47:16 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It was stated that the prices were adjusted for any inflation or deflation, so there couldn't have been just a a mark-up of price. The actual amount of product(s) produced had to be increased, along with sales. More constant income is coming in. And, since the previous total income was $1 and is now $3, split $1.40-$1.60, you both have more real income than you possibly could have before. It would appear that BOTH OF YOU are richer, regardless of any previous split. Now, if the previous split was 50-50, you may say inequality has increased. True. BUT you are BOTH better off, having considerably more income available to you than before. The "INEQUALITY!" cry is a red herring and a distraction from the true situation. It is simply a reflection of envy.