Monday, April 02, 2007

RICH RICHER, POOR POORER, FEWER IN BETWEEN

One of my theories (theories, mind you, I'm not convinced this is happening) is that the US economy is designed to concentrate most of the money in the hands of a few people while most folks will be more and more poor. Here's a cutting from [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ei=5065&en=f30aed8087a73065&ex=1175745600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print|a March 29, 2007 article] at NYTimes.Com that presets possible evidence that I am right:
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows. The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression. While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent. The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent. The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
Some of that is pretty confusing in my mind, but as long as you understand that inflation never reverses, it will never matter what anyone else says. Money will be worth less and less as time progresses--as long as loans are still given out and the USG keeps borrowing money. So, the people with the most will have a lot and the folks without much will have even less. Anyway, feel free to differ. In fact, please do. I'd love to be wrong on this.

Orignal From: RICH RICHER, POOR POORER, FEWER IN BETWEEN

No comments: