On Apr 18, 2:29=A0pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote...
> > Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >>http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/berkeleysympo2.pdf
>
> > >> "Figure 2, Panel A plots the top 1% income share in France and the
> > >> United States since 1913.20 The patterns are strikingly parallel
from=
> > >> the beginning of the century up to the 1970s. The shares were very
> > >> high, around 18-20% in both countries, at the eve of the first
World
> > >> War.21 The top 1% share is highest in the United States in 1929, at
> > >> the onset of the Great Depression. The top 1% income share falls in
> > >> both countries during the Great Depression, and especially during
> > >> World War II. The fall during World War II is more pronounced in
> > >> France, which suffered much more directly from the shock of the war
> > >> than the United States.By the end of World War II, top 1% income
> > >> shares are around 11% in the United States and 9% in France, about
> > >> only 50% of their pre-World War I level. Strikingly, in the
prosperou=
s
> > >> years and decades following World War II, top income shares do not
> > >> come back to their high levels of the pre-war period, but remain
> > >> relatively stable in France or decrease further (and =A0slowly) in
th=
e
> > >> United States. In the 1970s, the top 1% income share is around 8%
in
> > >> both countries. The pattern of top income shares in the two
countries=
> > >> displays a striking contrast over the last 25 years. While the top
1%=
> > >> income share in France has remained stable around 8% up to year
1998,=
> > >> the top 1% income share has increased dramatically and is around
17%
> > >> in 2000, almost as high as in 1913."
>
> > >> We have entered a new "guilded age" in the U.S. with huge income
> > >> disparities. =A0 As a direct consequence, we are entering a new
> > >> Depression.
>
> > > Actually, that's "gilded age", not "guilded age". =A0Sorry about
that.=
>
> > It could be "guilded age" too when you consider all the unions and
> > professional organizations that extort money by virtue of their
> > government enforced privileges.
>
> You might want to check some current stats on unions before you start
> with that line of argument. =A0Unions have been declining in direct
> pro****tion to the growth of the income share in the top 1%.
>
> --
> Taxes are not "punishment for success". =A0Nor are they "theft".
=A0Taxes
> are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
> a shared socio-economic system.
>
> "Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Common Law maxim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hatred of Unions is deeply embedded in U.S. culture, rougly since the
time of Ronald Regan. Notable for decertifying the air traffic
controller's union with a stroke of his pen. Way-to-go Ronnie.
I think a lot of people are beginning to rethink the Regan presidency
a bit. Whether Michkael Gorbachev's Soviet Union was really an "evil
empire" or just a nation in transition to social democracy is far from
clear. He was no Stalin. And, the prosperity of the 1980's was
largely bought at the cost of wars in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan,
promoted and encouraged by the Regan Presidency: curiously, and
possibly not coincidentally WE seem to be now involved in those exact
same places, to our considerable cost.
Unions can be corrupt. They can be incompetent. But, they do promote
good wages for workers, which tends to be good for the economy. And,
without them, CEO's tend to steal whatever they can get their hands
on. As we can now see, on a daily basis. Best to have a balance of
powers: tends to neutralize the corruption a bit.
|
