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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (65651)	2/7/2012 2:32:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

How is "Not as a percentage of the population!" a reply to "Income for the lowest 90% hasn't stagnated, neither has wages per person, even household wages are slightly up, and households are smaller, wages per person, and wages per worker, are up." It seems to be a non-sequitur. Income isn't measured as a percentage of the population, the response doesn't make any sense. Your link to johnmauldin.com in no way explains or supports the point. Instead it talks about the question "What can be said to those concerned with the top 1% of the population owning a grossly disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth?" Inequality is a different issue than the absolute level for the lowest 90%. Double the bottom 90% and increase the top 10% three fold and you've increased inequaliy, but who cares? Also he's talking about wealth not income or consumption, we were talking about income. Furthermore wealth inequality, while noticeably greater than income, or esp. consumption inequality, has been going down. Again see blog.american.com Note wealth inequality is lower now than in any 5 year or longer period since 1916 except during the 70s. Are the 70s the economic times you want to return to?