So you are able to remember threads older than 3.5 months when you want to.

And apparently you choose not to.

What a bizarre link. I've never seen that before. You're linking to an unposted reply. I didn't know you could do that.

It takes me to the log in page. Obviously I'm already logged in.

Oh boy, I bet this is all entangled up with the apocalypse that's so damn en vogue these days. ;)

Where does one go to get off this earth? It's annoying here on earth, you know? We need tough culling practices.

I'm sorry I said you were not a critical thinker. However you (all) changed the subject when presented with a compelling argument.

Critical thinkers don't casually dismiss evidence that suggests they are wrong. Being wrong is not a bad thing to a critical thinker. It's an opportunity to get closer to the truth.

You're not broken or stupid if you are not a critical thinker. Most people are not even aware of the term. If you would like to become more critical in your thinking, there are many online resources that can help you achieve that goal.

I was just using the fatstrawman argument.

Have we not met? ;)

(I'm no critical thinker, I just hate rich people right now.) :)

I didn't mean to do it. Must've copied the incorrect address.

I accept your apology. Thank you.

I wasn't interested in being right or wrong, or whether rich peoples' income is more volatile. I have no compassion for them, until their income reaches my level.

I'm personally not interested in philosophical arguments about
what does or does not meet a definition of "critical thinking".
I requested clarification about the point you making in your post
on this thread (Wall Street Protests)
So far, UT, you have avoided making your point.

If, --- pls note the "If" --- your point is the graph plot and/or it's coordinants
(%share, or whatever that is vs time), that's one thing.
If, your point is the interpretation of the data, it's another.
I (and others) have assumed you were speaking to the latter,
and responded accordingly to our own politics.

You hypothesized the graph would be steeper in the most recent years.
From the data perspective, would the following article (data) support that hypothesis ?

Wall Street Journal
Robert Frank
6/22/11

U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires
This article even suggests a reason or two as to why these numbers have improved recently...
the financial markets have improved significantly.
---

My point was made 3.5 months ago. Today my point is proven. (told ya so told ya so nyeah)

My point was that the makers of the CBO graph (that all OWS was highly concerned about) were using techniques and approaches to make the problem of income inequality look worse than it is/was. [1]

One of those approaches is to cherry-pick starting and ending points for the data. Because the rich get richer faster during good times, and poorer faster during bad times, you can sway the graph to show more inequality[2] by setting a start point just before good times and an end point just before bad times.[3]

If the graph has made its turnaround in the last year, along with the financial markets, that doesn't invalidate my point at all.

Also, please note for understanding that "number of millionaires" is a statistic that is, by its very definition, not corrected for inflation, and therefore rather useless as a measure.



[1] Critical thinkers note: this statement isn't intended to say the graph makers created the graph that way on purpose.

[2] Critical thinkers note: what is argued is not that there was not an increase in income inequality. What is argued is that the graph created an inaccurate narrative, which scared people. (get a dog)

[3] The authors of my source report make this mistake in their own narrative, comparing the end of Clinton years (just before bust) to 2009 (just before recovery).

Politics are prejudices we keep as a shorthand for original thought.

Agreed on both points above.... i.e. the wealthy do respond faster, and
(positive) inflation generates a larger absolute number of millionaires.

But "useless measure" ? I'd quibble a bit that the magnitude
of recent inflation is greatly changing the "numbers of millionaires"

Politically, I can't say I'm terribly concerned about "the wealthy" suffering
from a higher rate of loss, since they are the group that recovers first
and benefits from the higher rate of gain.

On this point, I believe most in the OWS movement would agree.

To me, the most important question is, how many of the uber-rich today were also uber-rich 30 years ago? How many people who were uber-rich 30 years ago are forced to live (or have heirs who are forced to live) truly modest lifestyles today?

I'm not concerned so much with how much more rich the rich are than the rest of us, as I am with whether there is the genuine opportunity for upward mobility in our society, or whether one must already be above a certain income level before one can expect to become significantly richer.

@Clod It's hard to talk about such things without including or being driven by cliches.

There probably always will be those such as the Gates, Jobs, Zuckerman's, and other unique entrepreneurs.
Cliche: "Country boy makes good"

But for the country and, thus, the majority of the non-wealthy, stability of employment may be the prime factor.
Cliche: "One paycheck from homeless"

But with stability most people (home owners and renters) can look forward in their own lives.
Cliche: "Things will be better for our children than they were for us"

Deflation of an economy works against both the wealthy and non-wealthy.
But inflation works better for the wealthy who can defer taxes,
pay off loans with cheaper $, and accomodate loss of disposible income.
Cliche: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

Also, the wealthy benefit from the losses of the less-wealthy by accumulating
their assets at a reduced price, such as foreclosures of real estate, buy-outs of bankruptcies.
Cliche: "Let them eat cake"

To my mind, these are some reasons I believe "corporations do not die".
In the long run, I fear accumulation of assets by corporations and the wealthy,
will continue to the point that a huge part of our population are "renters"
and "franchisee's" and "employees" of larger and larger corporations.
Cliche: "There's only so much to go around"
.

Ah yes. Two kids with wealthy parents who sent them to exclusive private schools and then on to Harvard. And one middle class guy who went to public school and dropped out of college. I'll give you Jobs as an example of a self made man who came from the middle class.

Don't laugh, I could have cited Mitt Romney who said: