Re: Fraud in the CPI

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:59:51 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


<snip>


People first, not as a side-benefit. If you look at
business and assume as long as business is OK
then the people will be, they might not be.

Uh.....whatever. You still can't have one without the other.



Yes you can. There's the French aristocracy, and
the amazing thing Krugman said lately, that the top
hedge-fund manager in the USA made more money
last year than all 80,000 teachers in the NYC school
system made and will make for the next two years,
all added together. Don't try to tell me that doesn't
have much effect on people who aren't rich, even
that single instance!

The following isn't the particular talk I heard, but
here's a reference to that observation of Krugman's,
under "The New Gilded Age" three paragraphs
down from the top:
http://seattlest.com/2007/11/02/paul_krugman_on.php

Maybe you think it's OK. I think it's unspeakable.
It makes me want to look into plans for constructing
a guillotine, since it might be time to bring that back.

A bit further down, "The Great Compression" is one
of the great phrases I heard in Krugman's talk that
I couldn't remember later.

<snip?


In the 1960's, one breadwinner could support a family.
Yeah, I know about computers and VCR's and whatnot,
but even families who don't have those things need
both parents working these days far more often than
before. That's one way it can be argued that quality of
life has decreased.

That's why reality is subjective. Many americans have jumped on the 50's and
60's as an ideal, but to me, it's not reasonable to choose the only 30 year
block in human history when familes who were not rich could get by on a
single salary. Is it a decrease in quality of life? Sure. Was it reasonable
to expect even a perfectly run economy to maintain that standard? No.


Why did it stop? We could probably still do it, except
for the increase in wealth disparity. As I've said often
in my commie way, it takes a lot of poor people to
support one rich person.

In England back before I was 6 in 1951, hardly any
married women worked, and people got along fine
though we weren't rich. That was right after the war
too, a bad time for England economically.

<snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fraud in the CPI
    ... business and assume as long as business is OK ... have much effect on people who aren't rich, ... Developing nations often experience a temporary wealth ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
    ... That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich" ... and that these small business owners are the rich in any ... Rich is actually measured in assets and the PASSIVE income from ... i will sell it or will it to the employees that helped ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: An Amazing Fact
    ... For example, as a few people have said, if you have a website for a ... >> business, you can't afford to put off customers by making them return RAVs. ... Returning a RAV is significantly more complex. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Evangelical professor tackles religious right
    ... Rich on SS payments? ... Are you trying to kill our economy? ... An idea might be correct even if it isn't popular. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Some rags get sillier by the day...
    ... That's why Obama's play to "tax the rich" ... and that these small business owners are the rich in any ... Rich is actually measured in assets and the PASSIVE income from ... i will sell it or will it to the employees that helped ...
    (sci.electronics.design)