Mainly I put it up as a possible referent in a future debate regarding the middle class over at TSM. But I also wanted someone other than myself...someones plural perhaps....to analyze the data.
Well, considering how little data is actually in that chart, it's little wonder you haven't had any takers. Perhaps if you provided a link to the source it might have more data worth looking at?
As to the point you were trying to argue at TSM, this shows nothing about the US middle-class over time, say from the 50s (your Golden Age, right?) thru today.
But at least you are trying to play the game by the same rules, and for that I applaud you.
It's part of an article from CSM that gives Hank Paulson's take on our economy. If a discussion ever ensues here or there, I would broaden out the information around it.
Hmmm... an interesting chart, but to say the same thing as juris only using different words, it poses more questions than it answers.
For example, it "normalizes" "median income", as if it's the same in all 7 countries. I won't claim to know, but I suspect that one's pretty doubtful.
Also, "snapshots" are pretty useless. One of the premier mistakes someone doing any kind of planning or analysis can make is to apply static information to a dynamic process and expect it to give accurate results. In other words, it treats "median income" as if it's changeless over time as well, when we all know better.
Ultimately, if people making themselves wealthy results in processes that drag the poor upward into higher standards of living, they are welcome to make themselves just as ludicrously wealthy as they please so far as I'm concerned. People forget that economies are not zero-sum games. The wealthy of these countries are no doubt wealthier than they were 20 or 50 years ago, but I suspect the poor of these countries are wealthier too.
I don't claim to know all "the rich", but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of their money goes into plans to actually produce things of value, rather than playing bullshit games in the financial markets. The problem with "finance reform" is that much of that "planning to produce things of value" uses the financial markets as part of the process, and hamstringing the financials will likewise hamstring those people. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And realistically... do you honestly think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to reform the financial markets? That's rather a case of giving the monkeys the key to the banana plantation, is it not? I'm sure they'll try to make it look like reform, but remember these are the people who have already flatly refused tort reform as part of healthcare reform.
Please understand, the above is not meant as an accusation against you folks. It's a recognition of the fact that the Democrat Party leadership is easily as corrupt as the Republican Party leadership, and vice versa.
Most of my objection to government programs of any sort hinges on the fact that the same corrupt power brokers of both parties keep being in charge of them. Until that changes, all you're doing is adding to the problem, not solving it.
7 comments:
Without comment? You don't have something intelligent to say about it? Looks to me like the UK and US are rather similar. Imagine that.
OK M, I give up - two days later and you still haven't given up a point to this.
Mainly I put it up as a possible referent in a future debate regarding the middle class over at TSM. But I also wanted someone other than myself...someones plural perhaps....to analyze the data.
Well, considering how little data is actually in that chart, it's little wonder you haven't had any takers. Perhaps if you provided a link to the source it might have more data worth looking at?
As to the point you were trying to argue at TSM, this shows nothing about the US middle-class over time, say from the 50s (your Golden Age, right?) thru today.
But at least you are trying to play the game by the same rules, and for that I applaud you.
It's part of an article from CSM that gives Hank Paulson's take on our economy. If a discussion ever ensues here or there, I would broaden out the information around it.
Hmmm... an interesting chart, but to say the same thing as juris only using different words, it poses more questions than it answers.
For example, it "normalizes" "median income", as if it's the same in all 7 countries. I won't claim to know, but I suspect that one's pretty doubtful.
Also, "snapshots" are pretty useless. One of the premier mistakes someone doing any kind of planning or analysis can make is to apply static information to a dynamic process and expect it to give accurate results. In other words, it treats "median income" as if it's changeless over time as well, when we all know better.
Ultimately, if people making themselves wealthy results in processes that drag the poor upward into higher standards of living, they are welcome to make themselves just as ludicrously wealthy as they please so far as I'm concerned. People forget that economies are not zero-sum games. The wealthy of these countries are no doubt wealthier than they were 20 or 50 years ago, but I suspect the poor of these countries are wealthier too.
I don't claim to know all "the rich", but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of their money goes into plans to actually produce things of value, rather than playing bullshit games in the financial markets. The problem with "finance reform" is that much of that "planning to produce things of value" uses the financial markets as part of the process, and hamstringing the financials will likewise hamstring those people. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And realistically... do you honestly think that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to reform the financial markets? That's rather a case of giving the monkeys the key to the banana plantation, is it not? I'm sure they'll try to make it look like reform, but remember these are the people who have already flatly refused tort reform as part of healthcare reform.
Please understand, the above is not meant as an accusation against you folks. It's a recognition of the fact that the Democrat Party leadership is easily as corrupt as the Republican Party leadership, and vice versa.
Most of my objection to government programs of any sort hinges on the fact that the same corrupt power brokers of both parties keep being in charge of them. Until that changes, all you're doing is adding to the problem, not solving it.
folio http://sftc.communityserver.com/members/Garage-Door-Openers/default.aspx magnus http://sftc.communityserver.com/members/Area-Rugs/default.aspx johns http://sftc.communityserver.com/members/Omeprazole/default.aspx ednor http://sftc.communityserver.com/members/Vacuum-Cleaners/default.aspx franciscan http://sftc.communityserver.com/members/Annuity-Calculator/default.aspx geelong
Post a Comment