On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, William S. Lear wrote:
> On Monday, January 24, 2000 at 13:26:56 (-1000) Stephen E Philion writes:
> >
> > And what of the poorest Americans' loss of ground compared to the
> > richest, as reported by the Fed? The apostles of equality consider
> > the rising inequality kindling for social unrest. But while that
> > would be true if most workers on the bottom rungs were trapped
> > there for generations, America isn't a caste society, and studies
> > that track individuals' incomes over time show that Americans have
> > a remarkable ability to propel themselves upward.
> >
> > A 17-year study of lifetime earnings by the Federal Reserve Bank of
> > Dallas found that only 5 percent of people in the economy's lowest
> > 20 percent failed to move to a higher income group. In a similar
> > study by the Treasury Department covering 1979 to 1988, 86 percent
> > of Americans in the bottom fifth of income earners improved their
> > status.
> >
> > Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb
> > wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation
> > might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a
> > hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What Americans ought to
> > care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of
> > gaps in income and wealth.
> >
> > W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of
> > Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor."
>
> Hmm, the 1960s were an era of unmatched growth and relative equality,
> if I'm not mistaken. And, what exactly are "artificial efforts to try
> to curb wealth gaps", and how do they differ from the artificial
> efforts to impose the cost of operating our system for the benefit of
> the few on the weakest in our society? I think they need to take a
> look at Horwitz's *Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860*, among
> other things.
>
> Didn't someone on the sane side of the fence recently put out a report
> that debunked this sort of nonsense?
>
> I'd like to see a point-by-point rebuttal to this, sent certified
> mail, to the authors. Let's draft it here and let Max send it off on
> his finest letterhead.
>
>
> Bill
>
>