[A Ruckus of Dogs]

The quote from the author of this article denies a causal relationship between the increasing wealth of the rich, and the decreasing wealth of the poor.

But by what standards do you define someone as poor? If the rich have enormous assets and those 'on the bottom' have TV sets and VCRs, are they really poor?

[general_re]

You're right on in your question, and I should have been a bit clearer in my answer - in absolute terms, the poor are much wealthier now than they ever have been in the past. Even if the "gap" between rich and poor is growing, which I'm not entirely sure I believe either, the standard of living has still risen dramatically for all over the last hundred years.

If we define "poor" in relative terms, then the definition of "poor" will continually shift upward as a society grows wealthier overall. If we define "poor" in absolute terms, then there is little question that the poor of today enjoy a standard of living that is much higher than the poor of a hundred years ago, or the "wealthy" of a thousand years ago.

In any case, the point I wanted to make is that a person being wealthy, whether in absolute or relative terms, is not the cause of someone else being "poor". Like I said, economics is not a zero-sum game.