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: TimF who wrote (316709)	12/24/2006 7:47:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575173

Sorry that the facts are too complex for you. That article is hardly "as complicated as possible". Its rather simple assuming you understand normal economic ideas and terms. "Quitile" is a pretty simple concept. If your measuring personal income, people with the top 20% of income are the highest group, people in the top 40% but not in the top 20% are the 2nd quintile, and so forth. The 2nd lowest quintile consists of people in the bottom 40% but not in the bottom 20%. Or to put it another way list people by income, then cut the list in to 5 equal sections. Each section is a quintile. The first six paragraphs of the article.....more than a third of the article.....discusses how the claim that the income of the poorest people is not rising or rising very little is just not true. Well, duh.........that's not the argument presented by economists nor is it that wages are stagnating nor is that the middle class is shrinking.....all part of a laundry list of claims that your guy creates. Buried in that laundry list is sort of the real issue under contention....that is, that 20% or 5% or 1% of the top are getting the lion's share of the gains in the US economy. I say "sort of" because that's not exactly right either. The real issue is that the income of the upper 1-20% is gaining at a faster rate than the incomes of the lower classes at the expense of the lower classes. So already this guy is on a wrong footing and has managed to muck up the waters. Finally, he claims a new book, Income and Wealth, by Alan Reynolds blows this claim of upper income aggression against the lower classes right out of the water. How does Reynolds do it? Well Reynolds claim that the following statement by Paul Krugman is absolutely false: "According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez—confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office—between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent." (Reynolds, p. 38)" How does Reynolds know it's false? He claims CBO estimates go back only to 1979, not 1973. Do we know know if the CBO was the source of Krugman's data? We don't. Could there be another source that Krugman was using? Could be....after all, Krugman is a Princeton economist and presumably has the resources of that great university from which to pull. Do we even know that Krugman made that statement? We don't. What we do know for sure is that Krugman put his enormous reputation on the line and lied....at least according to Reynolds. Let's move on.....Reynolds describes the changes in income per quintile from 1979 to 2000. He claims that these changes prove that the lowest quintiles are not experiencing wage stagnation. Well he did prove that argument but then that was his strawman argument. However, as far as I know, economists like Krugman were never claiming that issue. Instead what they were saying is that "the richer are getting richer at the expense of the poor". And you know what Tim, your guy proved their argument too and I don't think he even knows it. He did it by breaking out the changes in income from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile for the period from 1970 to 2000. Let me break it out for you: From 1970 to 2000, the lowest quintile saw an increase of $1100, or 8%. The next lowest quintile saw an increase of $3900, or 13%. The middle quintile saw an increase of $5,900, or 15%. The second highest quintile saw an increase of $12,700, or 25%. The highest quintile saw an increase of $48,800, or 54%. It sure looks to me like that highest quintile is kicking the piss out of the lower quintiles but then that's just me. In any case, Tim, now you see how your guys do it......they don't deal with the real issue. Instead, they come up with an ancillary/strawman issue and disprove that one for their minions...that would be you all. They never bother to get to the real argument because they know that they probably can't disprove it. I think its why they make so many mistakes when they finally do try to do a job.......its because they are so used to double speak, they can't be straight even when its imperative to the success of the job. That's probably why Katrina was/is such a mess. Same with Iraq; same with the budget deficits. In fact, its probably why the Bush administration is one of the worst in US history.

To: TimF who wrote (316709)	12/24/2006 8:01:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575173

No one is talking about the rest of the world......the comparisons that have been made are with groups within the US. Exactly no one is talking about the rest of the world. The article doesn't compare the wealth of American's to the rest of the world, it compares the wealth of different quintiles of Americans over time. Ranting against comparisons with the rest of the world is rather irrelevant. Uh...uh. On the contrary, the author of the article you posted to me does talk about the rest of the world vis-a-vis the US: "Charles Hooper and I wrote an article laying out the fact that if one looks across the whole world's population that has ever existed, the vast majority of Americans are in the top 1%. Tim, when you find a right leaning economist who speaks clearly, uses simple language and doesn't create a rat's maze of an explanation while actually dealing with the issue at hand let me know. Just follow the link you quoted. For quotes from such an economist. tcsdaily.com; Where the hell do you think I got all the info for this post and the other two I made to you on this subject? Really, Tim, these arguments you present are getting very silly. As far as Reynold's/Henderson's argument disputing the notion of the vanishing middle class, its of secondary concern. The fact the upper classes are gaining at the expense of the lower classes is just so wrong there doesn't need to be any more discussion. We need to be doing things to change that deplorable condition and not talking it to death.