From: JTS - MCDLXXXVI (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 08:52:14 PDT
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> During this time period we also witnessed a widening between the rich and
> the poor in the US. These figures are consistent with that. The rich got
> richer, and hence still paid more taxes. Is wealth inequality something to
> be proud of?
Sure, as long as the big fatty part of the bell curve gets big and moves
to da retro. "Wide Right," call it Scott Norwood economics. The area
under the curve isn't a constant over time. I would much prefer a big
distribution centered around $74,000 with the sigmas getting shafted than
a real nice, tight spike where everybody sits around $12,000. Too bad you
can't create any artificial plateaus.
> No, the poor have gotten relatively poorer under every President since
> Carter, and this includes Clinton.
By relatively poorer I have to assume you mean in terms of "income gap"
between them and the richest 1%. Which is fine. America has some of the
richest poor in the entire world, if you follow my meaning.
> Again, I will assert that the Federal Reserve, a non-partisan institution,
> has had far greater impact on the economy over the past 20 years than either
> the Executive or Legislative branches. As a result, I tend not to focus too
> heavily on economic issues in elections, and instead focus on their
> environmental records, and their intentions for foreign policy, areas where
> the Executive does have significant power.
Eh. I focus on dietary habits.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 19:38:22 PDT