It Takes a Village Idiot
Brace yourselves, we're once again going into the dark, forbidden forest known as the Boston Globe's letters to the editor.
A concept apparently lost on this budding young member of the Karl Marx Admiration Society is the blatantly obvious observation that the American economy is not a zero-sum game. Folks like Eric here honestly believe that in order for a person to become rich in this country, he or she has to literally take that money away from someone of lesser means.
Following young Eric's example, let's have a look at those at the U.S. Census Bureau income tables.
First, the change in percent share of aggregate income, originally cited by our young collectivist friend here, for the bottom fifth of American households (this particular table only goes up to 2003, so I'm using those numbers instead).
Again, if we were playing a zero-sum game, where no money enters or leaves the equation, this would be indicative of "the poor getting poorer", as Eric and his ilk are wont to say. But, let's assume the US economy has strengthened and grown somewhat over the last 38 years - a scary thought to some.
Looking at the actual incomes in dollars associated therewith:
OK, OK, in the interest of being fair and balanced, and to assuage the "concerns" of the "It Takes a Village to Raise a Communist" Brigade, let's see what these numbers look like adjusted for inflation - in 2003 dollars (same link as above):
So, taking inflation into account, the poor people of 2003 were making about 28% more than they were in 1967.
And this is a bad thing?
Apparently, it is to Mr. Biewener and those who believe we'd be better off if there were no "rich" people or "poor" people in the world. The whole notion of someone taking advantage of all the economic opportunities this country has to offer and becoming financially successful as a result thereof just turns their stomachs.
Of course, these are the same people who think that if we could only funnel a few more billion dollars through the coffers of the corrupt dictators running the world's poorest, third-world, shithole countries, then we'd end poverty once and for all.
Just one, small, problem there, folks.
It...ain't...gonna...happen.
Not.
Ever.
That's the funny thing about reality - she is one cold-hearted mother-fucker, huh, kids?
So, you socialist drones can sit around the T entrance at Harvard Square, wearing your hemp-woven Che Guevara t-shirts, banging on empty five-gallon buckets, chanting "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" all day long, but it will never change the fact that the "rich people" in this country are simply getting richer faster than the "poor people" are.
How is that a difficulty concept to understand?
Tell you what - pick two people at random off the street. Give one of them $20, the other $1,000. Now tell them they've got 24 hours to use that money to turn a profit of $20. Who's going to have a tougher time accomplishing that?
I apologize if my application of common sense and factual information here has in any way shattered or damaged your Utopian visions of paradise, but someone had to do it. Just draw the curtains of your dorm room tight, relax, take a deep breath, and count to ten. Everything's going to be fine.
A bit of Bolivia right here
December 28, 2005
IN PROMOTING the need for socioeconomic change in Bolivia, the editorial "Bolivian reality check" (Dec. 26) asserts that "democracy will not have much of a future in countries where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." I could not agree more.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the top fifth of households in the United States accounted for 43.6 percent of aggregate income in 1967, while the lowest fifth only earned 4 percent. In 2004, the top fifth accounted for 50.1 percent while the lowest fifth earned a meager 3.4 percent.
Bolivia does not seem to be the only country whose democracy is threatened by economic inequity.
ERIC BIEWENER
Cambridge
A concept apparently lost on this budding young member of the Karl Marx Admiration Society is the blatantly obvious observation that the American economy is not a zero-sum game. Folks like Eric here honestly believe that in order for a person to become rich in this country, he or she has to literally take that money away from someone of lesser means.
Following young Eric's example, let's have a look at those at the U.S. Census Bureau income tables.
First, the change in percent share of aggregate income, originally cited by our young collectivist friend here, for the bottom fifth of American households (this particular table only goes up to 2003, so I'm using those numbers instead).
2003: 3.4%
1967: 4.0%
Again, if we were playing a zero-sum game, where no money enters or leaves the equation, this would be indicative of "the poor getting poorer", as Eric and his ilk are wont to say. But, let's assume the US economy has strengthened and grown somewhat over the last 38 years - a scary thought to some.
Looking at the actual incomes in dollars associated therewith:
2003: $17,984
1967: $3,000
OK, OK, in the interest of being fair and balanced, and to assuage the "concerns" of the "It Takes a Village to Raise a Communist" Brigade, let's see what these numbers look like adjusted for inflation - in 2003 dollars (same link as above):
2003: $17,984
1967: $14,004
So, taking inflation into account, the poor people of 2003 were making about 28% more than they were in 1967.
And this is a bad thing?
Apparently, it is to Mr. Biewener and those who believe we'd be better off if there were no "rich" people or "poor" people in the world. The whole notion of someone taking advantage of all the economic opportunities this country has to offer and becoming financially successful as a result thereof just turns their stomachs.
Of course, these are the same people who think that if we could only funnel a few more billion dollars through the coffers of the corrupt dictators running the world's poorest, third-world, shithole countries, then we'd end poverty once and for all.
Just one, small, problem there, folks.
It...ain't...gonna...happen.
Not.
Ever.
That's the funny thing about reality - she is one cold-hearted mother-fucker, huh, kids?
So, you socialist drones can sit around the T entrance at Harvard Square, wearing your hemp-woven Che Guevara t-shirts, banging on empty five-gallon buckets, chanting "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" all day long, but it will never change the fact that the "rich people" in this country are simply getting richer faster than the "poor people" are.
How is that a difficulty concept to understand?
Tell you what - pick two people at random off the street. Give one of them $20, the other $1,000. Now tell them they've got 24 hours to use that money to turn a profit of $20. Who's going to have a tougher time accomplishing that?
I apologize if my application of common sense and factual information here has in any way shattered or damaged your Utopian visions of paradise, but someone had to do it. Just draw the curtains of your dorm room tight, relax, take a deep breath, and count to ten. Everything's going to be fine.
