Democrat victory hailed by some Europeans

[AROCES]

Wrong, taxation didn't lead to the recession under Carter, what caused it was panic, when a small amount in the production of oil occured the market panicked expecting another energy crisis, which caused the price of oil to go up and that created a shock to the economic system because a rise in oil prices causes the cost of production to go up

You are a history revisionist then. Interest rate was one of the main culprit for the recession. The government deficit was the biggest reason behind the high interest rate. We were taxing everyone at an all time high and yet government was still in an all high time deficit then..

One of the first thing Ronald Reagan did was cut Taxes and tried his best with minimal success to trim down the government with a Democrat Senate and Congress. Led to a recovery, that of course the Liberals denies or called the trickle down economy.

Edited December 14, 2006 by AROCES

[Avinash_Tyagi]

You are a history revisionist then. Interest rate was one of the main culprit for the recession. The government deficit was the biggest reason behind the high interest rate. We were taxing everyone at an all time high and yet government was still in an all high time deficit then..

One of the first thing Ronald Reagan did was cut Taxes and tried his best with minimal success to trim down the government with a Democrat Senate and Congress. Led to a recovery, that of course the Liberals denies or called the trickle down economy.

Wrong, interest rates are the tool used to fight inflation, and what causes inflation, rises in costs, including cost of production. Also it wasn't Regan's policy's that led to the recovery, that was a standard cyclical recovery, since the recovery began too early for his tax cuts to have been the cause (taxation and spending changes take longer to have an effect on the economy than changes implemented by the federal reserve).

[AROCES]

Wrong, interest rates are the tool used to fight inflation, and what causes inflation, rises in costs, including cost of production. Also it wasn't Regan's policy's that led to the recovery, that was a standard cyclical recovery, since the recovery began too early for his tax cuts to have been the cause (taxation and spending changes take longer to have an effect on the economy than changes implemented by the federal reserve).

When Clinton was President , it was his policy that made the economy grow, when a GOP is a President it is just a cyclical recovery.

Like I said, that ALL liberals denies and been trying to rewrite history.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

When Clinton was President , it was his policy that made the economy grow, when a GOP is a President it is just a cyclical recovery.

Like I said, that ALL liberals denies and been trying to rewrite history.

Nope Clinton's policies didn't make the economy grow, President's have very little direct control of the economy, rather he used a good economy to work with the GOP congress and bring down the deficit.

[AROCES]

Nope Clinton's policies didn't make the economy grow, President's have very little direct control of the economy, rather he used a good economy to work with the GOP congress and bring down the deficit.

True, it was the Bush Policy that kiscked in when he was the President already. But I do credit him for keeping it and allowing it to happen. Instead of putting in some thing just to have a policy.

He was able to keep the government from expanding because of a GOP congress, would not have happened if not for the 1994 GOP take over of congress.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

True, it was the Bush Policy that kiscked in when he was the President already. But I do credit him for keeping it and allowing it to happen. Instead of putting in some thing just to have a policy.

He was able to keep the government from expanding because of a GOP congress, would not have happened if not for the 1994 GOP take over of congress.

Actually it wasn't even Bush's policy that did it (like I said the president has very little control), the federal reserve board has much greater influence, however congress can push through budgets which help determine government spending

Edited December 14, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[AROCES]

Actually it wasn't even Bush's policy that did it (like I said the president has very little control), the federal reserve board has much greater influence, however congress can push through budgets which help determine government spending

For for you then, all these economic policies of the Executive and Legislative branch of the government is all for nothing?

Who else then share that thought with you and how come no one seem to voice that out, Specially the media?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

For for you then, all these economic policies of the Executive and Legislative branch of the government is all for nothing?

Who else then share that thought with you and how come no one seem to voice that out, Specially the media?

No, i'm saying that president's don't directly have control of the economy, and congress has only some control, but that their actions take a while to affect the economy

[Lord Umbarger]

Interesting. Carter lead the U.S. into what was the worst economic period for America in the 20th century, 20+ % interest rates. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed. Under Clinton taxes went up and he cut the military by a third to prevent a recession. Bush cut taxes and the economy is booming.

History shows that if you elect a repuiblican president and give him time to fix the screw ups of the previous guy, the economy will chug right along at a steady clip. Elect a democrat to the same office and you'll have higher un-employment. Remember Clinton and NAFTA? Several large companies in my hometown went to Mexico under that agreement.

I still don't really see why there is so much debate over this. All a person has to do is look at history and see what policies worked and which ones didn't. It's pretty obvious that less government interferance improves the overall economy and standard of living for the vast majority. Sure, there are those who fall behind. Every time that we try to "level the playing field", we end up putting the nation in the tank until a less radical president is elected. Those behind never actually catch up. All that happens is that you hold back the ones who are getting ahead.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Interesting. Carter lead the U.S. into what was the worst economic period for America in the 20th century, 20+ % interest rates. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed. Under Clinton taxes went up and he cut the military by a third to prevent a recession. Bush cut taxes and the economy is booming.

History shows that if you elect a repuiblican president and give him time to fix the screw ups of the previous guy, the economy will chug right along at a steady clip. Elect a democrat to the same office and you'll have higher un-employment. Remember Clinton and NAFTA? Several large companies in my hometown went to Mexico under that agreement.

I still don't really see why there is so much debate over this. All a person has to do is look at history and see what policies worked and which ones didn't. It's pretty obvious that less government interferance improves the overall economy and standard of living for the vast majority. Sure, there are those who fall behind. Every time that we try to "level the playing field", we end up putting the nation in the tank until a less radical president is elected. Those behind never actually catch up. All that happens is that you hold back the ones who are getting ahead.

First off you have no Idea what you're talking about, you're comparing the downturn under Carter, to the utter economic collapse under Hoover

The economy didn't boom under Reagan or under the current Bush, at best there was growth but it wasn't a boom, what did boom was government spending and the debt

If you want to talk Booms, there was one while Clinton was president, along with reduced govt. spending, now i'm not saying that Clinton was responsible, but don't try and say that Bush has brought a boom, because he hasn't, not even close.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Lord Umbarger]

If you want to talk Booms, there was one while Clinton was president

As I stated, it was paid for by slashing our military.

don't try and say that Bush has brought a boom, because he hasn't, not even close.

I don't know. Things seem to be going along quite nicely from where I sit. Higher wages, more buying power, higher empolyment..., what would you call that?

First off you have no Idea what you're talking about,

Secondly, I lived through all the presidents that I mentioned and was old enough to remember what the nation was like at the time. Rewritting history only works for revisionists if they are talking to people who were not there.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

As I stated, it was paid for by slashing our military.

I don't know. Things seem to be going along quite nicely from where I sit. Higher wages, more buying power, higher empolyment..., what would you call that?

Secondly, I lived through all the presidents that I mentioned and was old enough to remember what the nation was like at the time. Rewritting history only works for revisionists if they are talking to people who were not there.

-Better to slash the Military than to drive up the debt, we spend waaay too much on the military as it is, in fact we should be slashing spending across the board right now

-This isn't a Boom, this is at best growth, and its expected to end in the next year, a boom is sustained growth over a long period, not to mention that to even get this little growth he's had to push our country to the brink of economic collapse with the debt

-You're the one who tried to say Carter's presidency had the worst economy in the 20th century, so yes you don't know what you're talking about I suggest your read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

educate yourself.

You may have lived through some of those things, but so what, that doesn't make you an expert, especially with such a stupid statment as you made.

[Startraveler]

Interesting. Carter lead the U.S. into what was the worst economic period for America in the 20th century, 20+ % interest rates. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed. Under Clinton taxes went up and he cut the military by a third to prevent a recession. Bush cut taxes and the economy is booming.

How exactly did Carter "lead" the U.S. into the stagflated economic cesspool that was the 1970s? Inflation was in the double digits before Nixon slinked out of office. Hell, I bet Ford's "WIN" buttons are collector's items now. The reality is that Carter took office following a long and costly war as well as supply shocks orchestrated by OPEC. Not exactly ideal conditions.

Reagan signed the largest tax increase in American history just one year after his fabled tax cut. You can claim the economy under these supply-siders is "booming," and that may be true for some ("Things seem to be going along quite nicely from where I sit") but the reality is that inequity and income stratification have grown under Reagan and Bush. The economy has been growing but real wages haven't kept up. A number of corporations are doing quite nicely, though.

[AROCES]

I still don't really see why there is so much debate over this. All a person has to do is look at history and see what policies worked and which ones didn't. It's pretty obvious that less government interferance improves the overall economy and standard of living for the vast majority. Sure, there are those who fall behind. Every time that we try to "level the playing field", we end up putting the nation in the tank until a less radical president is elected. Those behind never actually catch up. All that happens is that you hold back the ones who are getting ahead.

There is no debate really, it is crystal clear. Just fun to see the Liberal History revisionist try explaining something that isn't so.

[Lord Umbarger]

you don't know what you're talking about I suggest your read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression educate yourself.

I'm certainly not the first to say this but, I'll reiterate it for those that missed it in the past: Wikipedia is not the be all end all of information. As you might recall from history, even during the "Great Depression" of the early 20th century, amny people made vast furtunes. Now, I'm not going to say that every thing is just dandy for everyone. There are those that have not been as lucky, successful, or goal oriented as others. There always are.

You may have lived through some of those things, but so what, that doesn't make you an expert, especially with such a stupid statment as you made.

Speaking as one who was there, you are woefully unaware of what the situation was under Carter. Just because one can dredge up some article praising Carter does not mean that it is true or acurate. You can believe that socialism works and that capitalism is evil if you want to. Obviously, socialism worked out so well for the former Soviet Union. If you choose to stand behind the idea that Carter was simply the heir to a fouled up economy, suit yourself. That still begs the question: "Why wasn't he able to fix the problem?". To quote Reagan,.."It's not that the people on the left don't know anything, it's that they know so much that just isn't so".

Hell, I bet Ford's "WIN" buttons are collector's items now.

Most presidential election memorabilia is collectable if you can find a collector.

Reagan signed the largest tax increase in American history just one year after his fabled tax cut. You can claim the economy under these supply-siders is "booming," and that may be true for some ("Things seem to be going along quite nicely from where I sit") but the reality is that inequity and income stratification have grown under Reagan and Bush.

As I stated before, not for everyone. Notice, I did say ..."From where I sit". I have made efforts to further my education and I have worked at not staying still while the world passes me by. I have never stayed in a position thtat did not suit me or stay there any longer than it took me to find something better. For a sufficiently determined and ambitious person, any time can be a boom time. For such people as myself, advancements are more readily available during times of economic growth, hence I favor the years under more conservative leadership.

The economy has been growing but real wages haven't kept up

From my experiences, yes, real wages have been increacing. Minimum wage has not but, my income has increaced without fail most every year. At this point I am ahead of the curve. There is nothing wrong with entry level positions that pay entry level minimum wage, so long as you do not make a career of them. A 33 year old man who has worked as a pizza delivery boy will certainly disagree with me. He was in my class and graduated high school. I did not. Today my annual salery is probaly in the neighborhood of three to four times what his is. We started in the working world at the same time. He is a HS graduate and I am not. How is it that the economy has worked for me and not for him? Simple, he has never applied himself.

A number of corporations are doing quite nicely, though.

This reminds me of a joke: How did you get rich Mr A.? You know all the oil that the arabs have? Who do you think sells them the barrels? A number of corporations are doing quite nicely. Ever wonder how? In order for me to buy their product, I must first have money. How do they make a furtune? A lot of people must first have the money to buy their products. Large coporations can only make a million dollars if there are a million dollars in the market to be had. Translation: companies can only make money if people have money to spend buying their stuff.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I'm certainly not the first to say this but, I'll reiterate it for those that missed it in the past: Wikipedia is not the be all end all of information. As you might recall from history, even during the "Great Depression" of the early 20th century, amny people made vast furtunes. Now, I'm not going to say that every thing is just dandy for everyone. There are those that have not been as lucky, successful, or goal oriented as others. There always are.

You're actually trying to compare the two periods, yeah people might have gotten rich in the great depression, but so did a lot of people during Carter's admin, and a lot more people got poor during the Great depression

Speaking as one who was there, you are woefully unaware of what the situation was under Carter. Just because one can dredge up some article praising Carter does not mean that it is true or acurate. You can believe that socialism works and that capitalism is evil if you want to. Obviously, socialism worked out so well for the former Soviet Union. If you choose to stand behind the idea that Carter was simply the heir to a fouled up economy, suit yourself. That still begs the question: "Why wasn't he able to fix the problem?". To quote Reagan,.."It's not that the people on the left don't know anything, it's that they know so much that just isn't so".

Umm, I can point to the facts that show that under Ford there was increased inflation, as Startravler pointed out the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons prove it, even then they knew it was a problem, and you want to know why Carter wasn't able to fix it, I recommend you look up the topic of supply shocks, energy crisis and price of oil.

This reminds me of a joke: How did you get rich Mr A.? You know all the oil that the arabs have? Who do you think sells them the barrels? A number of corporations are doing quite nicely. Ever wonder how? In order for me to buy their product, I must first have money. How do they make a furtune? A lot of people must first have the money to buy their products. Large coporations can only make a million dollars if there are a million dollars in the market to be had. Translation: companies can only make money if people have money to spend buying their stuff.

That's because oil has Inelastic demand, because it is a necessary commodity of daily life.

Yes corporations can make money that way, or they can cut costs, send jobs overseas, hire only part time work, cut benefits, get tax breaks from the government, etc.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[AROCES]

I think the point is being missed here. With the very poor Cater era, what the heck is he doing now preaching around what is best for the country.

[Lord Umbarger]

I recommend you look up the topic of supply shocks, energy crisis and price of oil.

As those of us that were there and can still remember know, it wasn't the price of oil that was the problem, it was the scacity of it. The arabs placed an oil embargo on the U.S. for supporting Israel.

a lot more people got poor during the Great depression

Hence the name "Great Depression".

yeah people might have gotten rich in the great depression, but so did a lot of people during Carter's admin

Which proves the point. There are still fortunes to be had. And people are doing it. Payrates for skilled trades have increaced faster under the last two Republican Presidents than under any Democrat since 1970's. Unemployment is roughly 4%. That's the lowest it has been in years.

What it boils down to is this: The economy is doing surprisingly well. I would call it a boom. If you are uncomfortable with that term, o.k., we'll say that it is running smoothly. Nonetheless, it is closer to a boom than a bust.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Lord Umbarger

[Avinash_Tyagi]

As those of us that were there and can still remember know, it wasn't the price of oil that was the problem, it was the scacity of it. The arabs placed an oil embargo on the U.S. for supporting Israel.

scarcity raises prices (supply and demand), which leads to increased costs of production, and as a result inflation

Hence the name "Great Depression".

and why there is no compariosn between the Carter Admin and the GD

Which proves the point. There are still fortunes to be had. And people are doing it. Payrates for skilled trades have increaced faster under the last two Republican Presidents than under any Democrat since 1970's. Unemployment is roughly 4%. That's the lowest it has been in years.

Yeah some can get rich, but most will not, most won't even see much of a rise, and that's the big issue you're missing, what good is economic growth is the majority doesn't experience any of it, all you get is massive disaprity which is followed by economic collapse. Unemployment rates only indicate those who are searching for a job, not those who have given up, are back in school for further education, or are underemployed.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[AROCES]

scarcity raises prices (supply and demand), which leads to increased costs of production, and as a result inflation

and why there is no compariosn between the Carter Admin and the GD

Yeah some can get rich, but most will not, most won't even see much of a rise, and that's the big issue you're missing, what good is economic growth is the majority doesn't experience any of it, all you get is massive disaprity which is followed by economic collapse. Unemployment rates only indicate those who are searching for a job, not those who have given up, are back in school for further education, or are underemployed.

- Increase of production does not always mean an increase in production cost per unit or item. Price increase happens regardless just because of demand, it decreases demand for one thing when price goes up.

- Only some get rich ALWAYS! It can never be most, the rest just get a better job security or have more spending power.

[Lord Umbarger]

Yeah some can get rich, but most will not, most won't even see much of a rise, and that's the big issue you're missing, what good is economic growth is the majority doesn't experience any of it, all you get is massive disaprity

Sort of like winning a war. Some enjoy the fruits of victory and others are dead. Does it therefore follow that you should make every effort to lose the war? Of course not! Certainly all of us can't win at the lottery but, many of us still play. There have always been those that have not succeeded, regardless of the economy. The thing is that if a person is willing to make the effort, he/she has a better chance of finacial stability now than under Clinton.

are back in school for further education, or are underemployed.

Going back to school for further education or a "re-tooling" for a different career is the number one way to move out of underemployment. Those who are willing to sacrifice the time and/or money for the skills are more likely to get more out of the economy, whether it's good or bad.

Also, I'm convinced that illegal immigration skews the percentages of Americans under the "Poverty Line". Unskilled and undereducated people will always live hand to mouth and when things go bad, they will be the first and hardest hit and are generally the last to see any relief.

But, to get back on topic, judging from what I have personally seen and experienced, the economy is doing well at the moment. Maybe the town that you live in is drying up. Maybe all you see is the unskilled and endereducated struggling through each day but, my view is different. This is why I firmly believe that if a person is dedicated and puts forth the effort, they can do alright. Maybe not send Bill Gates to the poor house, but do alright.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

- Increase of production does not always mean an increase in production cost per unit or item. Price increase happens regardless just because of demand, it decreases demand for one thing when price goes up.

- Only some get rich ALWAYS! It can never be most, the rest just get a better job security or have more spending power.

-Increases in the cost of prouction does equal increases in costs, unless you can find some other way to recoup the losses

-Yes only some get rich always, but you didn't read the rest of my post, if most don't experience much or any growth is where you get the problem, if everyone experience some growth in their standar of living then its ok, but if only the rich get rich and everyone else stays the same or gets wors then you have a problem.

Sort of like winning a war. Some enjoy the fruits of victory and others are dead. Does it therefore follow that you should make every effort to lose the war? Of course not! Certainly all of us can't win at the lottery but, many of us still play. There have always been those that have not succeeded, regardless of the economy. The thing is that if a person is willing to make the effort, he/she has a better chance of finacial stability now than under Clinton.

Actually more saw an increase in their standard of living under Clinton than now, so no, and again you're missing the point, like I said its not about some getting rich, its about the rest not seeing any real improvement, I have no problem with some getting rich, I do have a problem when everyone else sees little or no improvement, or even a decrease in their standard of life, especially since that then becomes a drag on the economy as a whole.

Going back to school for further education or a "re-tooling" for a different career is the number one way to move out of underemployment. Those who are willing to sacrifice the time and/or money for the skills are more likely to get more out of the economy, whether it's good or bad.

Also, I'm convinced that illegal immigration skews the percentages of Americans under the "Poverty Line". Unskilled and undereducated people will always live hand to mouth and when things go bad, they will be the first and hardest hit and are generally the last to see any relief.

But, to get back on topic, judging from what I have personally seen and experienced, the economy is doing well at the moment. Maybe the town that you live in is drying up. Maybe all you see is the unskilled and endereducated struggling through each day but, my view is different. This is why I firmly believe that if a person is dedicated and puts forth the effort, they can do alright. Maybe not send Bill Gates to the poor house, but do alright.

Nah, I live fine, but I also deal in facts (a part of studying for my degree), and yeah further education is great, but it doesn't show up in unemployment, so saying we've got low unemployment rates means nothing unless you can show other data to back it up.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Lord Umbarger]

more saw an increase in their standard of living under Clinton than now

from welfare income to Burger King job paycheck is not much of an improvement. It does get people off the dole but, that is really about it. Nonetheless, I do agree with Clintons Welfare reform policies.

yeah further education is great, but it doesn't show up in unemployment, so saying we've got low unemployment rates means nothing unless you can show other data

I don't know of anyone that does that poll. But, let's say that ten percent are in school, if unemployment is a further ten percent, that's bad. If 10% are in school and unemployment is 0%, that is good. So, even though it might not show the whole picture in detail, it is still a good standard to go by.

studying for my degree

Congradulations! A degree in a high demand trade or profession is the a first step to a good quality of living.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

from welfare income to Burger King job paycheck is not much of an improvement. It does get people off the dole but, that is really about it. Nonetheless, I do agree with Clintons Welfare reform policies.

Nope not from welfare or anything, but because of the job growth

I don't know of anyone that does that poll. But, let's say that ten percent are in school, if unemployment is a further ten percent, that's bad. If 10% are in school and unemployment is 0%, that is good. So, even though it might not show the whole picture in detail, it is still a good standard to go by.

No, its only the one we use the most

Congradulations! A degree in a high demand trade or profession is the a first step to a good quality of living.

Difference is I never had to worry, my family is very well off, so I was pretty much garunteed an education and very good quality of living. Problem is when the economy is benefitting the rich only, or even just mostly, its much harder for those starting at the bottom, or even just at the lower end to get the leg up that they need, and facts support this, majority of people who come from lower income starts stay in that same level, the rags to riches stories are the exceptions that prove the rule

Edited December 15, 2006 by Avinash_Tyagi

[Startraveler]

There's a very good Paul Krugman article currently in Rolling Stone that is just chock full of facts that are apparently still news to people. It's fairly lengthy but let me throw out a snippet or two:

The broader picture is equally dismal. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly wage of the average American non-supervisory worker is actually lower, adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1970. Meanwhile, CEO pay has soared -- from less than thirty times the average wage to almost 300 times the typical worker's pay. . .

What's useful about this image is that it explodes several comforting myths we like to tell ourselves about what is happening to our society.

MYTH #1: INEQUALITY IS MAINLY A PROBLEM OF POVERTY.

According to this view, most Americans are sharing in the economy's growth, with only a small minority at the bottom left behind. That places the onus for change on middle-class Americans who -- so the story goes -- will have to sacrifice some of their prosperity if they want to see poverty alleviated.

But as our line illustrates, that's just plain wrong. It's not only the poor who have fallen behind -- the normal-size people in the middle of the line haven't grown much, either. The real divergence in fortunes is between the great majority of Americans and a very small, extremely wealthy minority at the far right of the line.

MYTH #2: INEQUALITY IS MAINLY A PROBLEM OF EDUCATION.

This view -- which I think of as the eighty-twenty fallacy -- is expressed by none other than Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Last year, Greenspan testified that wage gains were going primarily to skilled professionals with college educations -- "essentially," he said, "the top twenty percent." The other eighty percent -- those with less education -- are stuck in routine jobs being replaced by computers or lost to imports. Inequality, Greenspan concluded, is ultimately "an education problem."

It's a good story with a comforting conclusion: Education is the answer. But it's all wrong. A closer look at our line of Americans reveals why. The richest twenty percent are those standing between 800 and 1,000. But even those standing between 800 and 950 -- Americans who earn between $80,000 and $120,000 a year -- have done only slightly better than everyone to their left. Almost all of the gains over the past thirty years have gone to the fifty people at the very end of the line. Being highly educated won't make you into a winner in today's U.S. economy. At best, it makes you somewhat less of a loser.

MYTH #3: INEQUALITY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.

In this view, America is the land of opportunity, where a poor young man or woman can vault into the upper class. In fact, while modest moves up and down the economic ladder are common, true Horatio Alger stories are very rare. America actually has less social mobility than other advanced countries: These days, Horatio Alger has moved to Canada or Finland. It's easier for a poor child to make it into the upper-middle class in just about every other advanced country -- including famously class-conscious Britain -- than it is in the United States. . .

Under Bush, the economy has been growing at a reasonable pace for the past three years. But most Americans have failed to benefit from that growth. All indicators of the economic status of ordinary Americans -- poverty rates, family incomes, the number of people without health insurance -- show that most of us were worse off in 2005 than we were in 2000, and there's little reason to think that 2006 was much better.

So where did all the economic growth go? It went to a relative handful of people at the top. The earnings of the typical full-time worker, adjusted for inflation, have actually fallen since Bush took office. Pay for CEOs, meanwhile, has soared -- from 185 times that of average workers in 2003 to 279 times in 2005. And after-tax corporate profits have also skyrocketed, more than doubling since Bush took office. Those profits will eventually be reflected in dividends and capital gains, which accrue mainly to the very well-off: More than three-quarters of all stocks are owned by the richest ten percent of the population.

It's well-worth reading the whole thing, especially if your conception of the current overall economic picture is based on...well, nothing.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Startraveler