|
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).
|