The Times has played fast and loose [the Middle Class is not disappearing]

I put the blame where it belongs. 34 was addressing ethics. You went off on some rant about 'it ain't your job'. Yeah, well, tell that to America. It's sure as hell their job when they screw up. It's sure as hell their job when they get the paycheck. It's sure as hell their job when they have to get a loan against it. I understand you wanting very much to try and disown people from their careers to make it seem as though anything you do is just fine. That's your problem. You'll have to convince the US.

1) What is your stance on trade? 2) Given what you have written above, can you defend the use of a tariff?

My stance on trade --- yes we should have trade but real trade --- natural resources like oil and steel would be one thing ---- but manufactured goods should involve real trade --- if we buy $1 billion of something made in another country, they should buy roughly the same from us.

As far as tariffs --- they need to redo the tax code --- is it right that an American business hiring Americans has to contribute to the huge cost of our government yet a business hiring Chinese can avoid paying into to the income tax, the Social Security tax, workman's comp and all the many other taxes? Both businesses are benefitting by the American economy --- let both also support this country through a fair tax system which wouldn't penalize the company providing jobs for Americans.

I was pointing out that some people's standard of living was improved by a redistribution effect.

Yes the welfare class obviously has a lot of purchasing power --- but it tends to waste money. For example --- if standard of living is measured by the number of televisions one owns, or how much spending is taking place --- retail activity or whatever --- then it can be a false illusion of wealth. A typical welfare family with no earning potential easily can have cable tv, the best DVD, a color television in every room, a late model care, cell phones and new clothes ---- a working family might have one television, no cell phones at all, no cable television, a used older car but instead have a savings account, a retirement account, some other investments. To give the welfare family the ability to spend and look prosperous, the government has to confiscate the money from a family which might have put it to far better use.

It's difficult to measure wealth --- but measuring it by consumer spending wouldn't be a good way -- it would be better to measure how many are living in the black, who require no government programs of any kind, and who have built a nestegg of some kind.

From post #49: No! We should measure income based on the purchasing power of one's budget constraints, measured by a hypothetical basket of goods and services that most of us enjoy. Then, we should compare that same basket of goods & services used in 1980 (or pick whatever year you wish) and see what the differences are between those baskets. If the median income buys a better basket today, then the question should be answered to edification.

I'm not quite sure how we got here though I can kind of see why. I realized that in post #48 you were being flippant and you wanted to find a way to interject you're thoughts. into the thread. Up to that point no one had brought up poverty because everyone else was either ripping on each other or discussing the "real median income" graph. I agree with what you've just written in this last post but I never wrote anywhere about equating an individual's standard of living with that individual's wealth. I did, however, suggest that real income should be measured by the kinds of things that that income could purchase and that we should investigate those kinds of things to see if they are better now than in years past. Then, later, in post #53, I wrote this:

Better yet. Let's hypothetically liquidate everyone's and I mean everyone's (business ownership too) assets. Then we'll check the net value and see where we're at. I have no idea what that would yield - whether favorably or unfavorably to my position. By the way, I do not have that answer. My point is, would that really be a meaningful exercise to engage in? Would this really matter and does it really matter to our prosperity?

This is the closest I came to touching on wealth. So, I pose another question for you, one that I do not have a definitive answer for because I flat out do not know. The question is: can a nation of some 280 million enjoy such a great standard of living (relative to the rest of the world), if when entirely liquidated, it has no net wealth?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.