>Only if ever continously declining percentage of population people is
>enjoying 6% increase of earnings, would it be possible for a
>higher earnings growth rate not to outstrip the GDP if latter is growing
>at slower rate, no? So is the Pollak paradox only another name
>for the tendency towards the centralization of wealth? At any
>rate, profits, as conventionally measured, are fairly stable as perentage
>of GDP, as conventionally measured, no? But this is misleading if ever
>fewer people are sharing in the profits--so stability of shares may
>paradoxically be another expression of the tendency towards ever higher
>levels of proletarianization?
The numbers I was citing are based on the market averages, so they're not per capita. But the wealth distribution figures show some degree of concentration since the first Survey of Consumer Finances (in 1963), but not all that much. See the graphic in the forthcoming LBO #94 for visual proof.
Doug