>>>>>>>>To remove the oliarchy is to remove the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but they aren't overthrowing the principle of centralized government which is what you seemed to assert: they're revolting against tyranny of the oligarchs and then again against another set of oligarchs who think the gap was created for them. But people still prefer to have "somebody" in charge and on the rare occasion that a community goes for anarchy, it doesn't last long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree that we have oligarchs in the US, namely professional politicians, regulators, the bureaucracy, after all by definition they are the persons or class so ruling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL. For your viewing pleasure: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
>>>>>
>>>>>Tired, class warfare, marxist (sorry I mean progressive), tripe. The entire article can be summed up by examining the 1st line.
>>>>>The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year
>>>>>
>>>>>Suggested here is that income is "taken" as opposed to earned. Taken implies theft, which implies that the current demon of the day, the upper 1%, have stolen something. So, what did they steal? 1/4 of "the nation's income". As if such a concept exists in a free market economy. But, that too is the point, to designate income as "the nation's", read "the people's". Bringing it full circle to our private property discussion, this author's 1st sentence ignores (or more likely despises) the very concept of private property.
>>>>>
>>>>>The conclusion the writer is implanting with the very first line is that our fair share of the pie is being stolen by those greedy uber-rich bastards.
>>>>>
>>>>>I could go on to point out income mobility in the US, how demographics and lifestyle choices from our remaining liberty play in. I could add how welfare spending is actually hurting the poor, I could point to AN ANALYSIS OF THE CBO’S LATEST STUDY ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION. Oh lookee, a link :
>>>>>http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/CBOInequality.pdf
>>>>
>>>>The proper conclusion IMO is that the wealthy's share of the pie has been increasing, and at a rapid rate. That is factual, not a value judgment.
>>>
>>>From last Thursday's report I linked above:
>>>Answering the normative question of what policymakers should do to address income inequality must begin with a more precise understanding of the problem. There are two divergent approaches to the question policymakers should be asking:
>>>
>>>1. Is the problem simply that some households make more than others, in which case policymakers should be focused on closing this income gap by any means at their disposal, indifferent as to whether government policies aimed to close relative inequality result in lower absolute levels of income?
>>>2. Or is the problem that incomes for households in the middle- and lower-quintiles are not rising fast enough, in which case policymakers should focus first and foremost on creating the conditions for income growth and job creation?
>>>
>>>In the first case, the questioner presupposes that the economy is a fixed pie, and the government’s role is to more equitably slice the pie for citizens. Given this premise, the solution seems simple enough: An aggressively redistributive program of taking more from households at the top of the income distribution and increasing transfer payments to households in the middle and lower quintiles would do the job. The incentive effects of large marginal tax rate increases and government transfers indicates that the result of such an agenda would be much slower economic growth and lower incomes for all – but this should not bother a policymaker who thinks that increasing absolute levels of income is a secondary concern compared to the greater priority of reducing relative levels of income inequality.
>>>If, on the other hand, the goal should be to expand the economic pie for all groups, while making sure that lower- and middle-income households are enjoying the gains, then policymakers must be mindful of the trade-offs between policies that enhance the redistributive power of government versus policies that promote economic growth.
>>
>>For goodness sakes, Jake, did you read the Summary section of the CBO study you cited? It's right at the top. Here is the very first paragraph:
>>
>>"At the request of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and then-Ranking Member Chuck Grassley,
>>the CBO examined the distribution of household income in the United States from 1979 to 2007. These endpoint
>>years allowed for a comparison between periods of similar economic activity – i.e. they were both years before
>>major recessions. The CBO’s central conclusion is that inequality among income groups has
>>increased notably over this period."
>>
>>Not much gray area there.
>
>My points are as follows:
>b) is the question of income inequality relevant in a dynamic economy as opposed to the historically cited nations whose concentraction of wealth was not dynamic as a result of a stagnant feudal, monarachial, etc system which allowed no movement
>c) what are the reasons for the inequality? Greed v. tax policy v. demographics v. immigration v. etc
>d) what are the proposed solutions & their real world v. theoritical outcomes
>
>I would also ask why were those specific dates chosen and what conclusions can we draw if we move them around? Why were quintiles chosen? These are questions that should be asked of all comparison "studies". For instance, what is the definition of a "major recession"?
>
>>The conclusion of my smaller study is that you and Marcia will both go to unbelievable lengths to avoid conceding unwanted facts ;-)
>
>Statistics are not facts. CBO studies are even worse. See any budget/program scored by the CBO ever. ;)

Hokay -- if statistics are not facts, then what are facts? ;-) I would never have gotten away with that argument for a second, LOL.

Maybe I am naive about the CBO. My impression has always been that their reports are as objective as it gets in Washington. Nonpartisan statisticians in a partisan world. No?

Have a good Thanksgiving. I already know mine will be good. I will be up in Madison with my girlfriend and her family. They are a raucous clan of Norwegians, Swedes, and Germans, like most of the rest of the state, and will be paying tribute to our country and the Packers all in one day. Everyone talks at once and ancient family jokes, relatives, and minor resentments pop up. I will probably be the least opinionated person there ;-) Really.

Football wise, I pass this tidbit along for the amusement of NFL fans. Especially those who happen to know bookies. Mice Golic of ESPN's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" radio show has been predicting for weeks that the Packers would remain unbeaten until Thanksgiving Day, when the Lions will knock them off in Detroit. This isn't just the idea of a moment to lure in phone callers. He has been saying it. This morning on the way out of St. Louis I had the show tuned in and he upped the ante in their regular weekly predictions of this week's games against the spread. Golic said he not only thinks the 7-3 Lions will cover the 17 point spread -- "ridiculous," he called it -- they will win the game straight up.

I ran that one by Cindi when she called a half hour ago and she said if I say that out loud tomorrow the next words I hear may be, "Get Mike his coat" ;-) They do love their Packers.