GOD NO! he's a libertarian, i'm normal.
> i'm not a conspiracy theorist. i'm taking a counter-position to He Who
> Believes in Trickle Down Economics. i'm saying wealth distribution argues
> against that theory; it seems as though wealth is trickling UP and staying
> there, not trickling back down like super cold salt water in the north
> atlantic (discovery channel, last night) and creating some sort of
> gulfstream with seasonal predictability.
dave wrote, in response to jbone's "And yet, for every one of us that's had a
liquidity event and managed to generate real dinero, there's ten of us we
know who are living in shared houses where there's six geeks and a T1."
(this is dave)
What's wrong with that? If one is in favor
of unbridled competition, one should not be
surprised when winners do better than losers.
Whether one plays roulette or high tech, the
final distribution looks pretty similar.
Wonderful thing about capitalism, that?
g: except we're not talking about roulette or even capitalism. and it's not
economic darwinism, though that's implicit in the reference to "winners" and
"losers." i was heading for an explication de texte in which we clarified,
for one thing, the meaning of "unbridled."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:32 PDT