We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Very wealthy people such a Mr. Buffett tend to earn their money in one of three ways: as investors, as entrepreneurs, or as executives in large enterprises. In each case, salary is a relatively small part of total compensation: Rather than getting a regular paycheck, investors, entrepreneurs, and top executives most often are rewarded with an ownership stake in their firms. As they work to increase the value of the business, they enrich themselves as well. This is a desirable arrangement to the extent that it aligns the financial interests of a company’s management with those of its shareholders.
Good commentary on the grizzly shooting story. Glad the author was willing to call out the gov't bureaucrat, and point out she's juvenile and a liar. Just another small fiefdom where this bureaucrat wants it her way, regardless of her real job to serve the citizens of the country.
My complaint about income distribution studies is the use of the Gini Index. When I was in college, it was used to show how 'unequal' different nations were. And in some nations, perhaps it is a good gauge.
In the US, it's a horrible gauge. Why? Because it assumes that the families in each bracket are the same families in 2000 that they were in 2010. In other words, it makes no distinction for shifts in the members within income breaks.
So if I was a wealthy internet entrepreneur in 2000, and I was in the top 5%, but had squandered my money by 2010 - suddenly the bottom is looking 'worse off'. In reality, it's not accounting for the good times I may have had in the 10 year interim period.
Conversely, as I pointed out to some people, while the wealth is still accumulated to a greater extent 'at the top', what it isn't accounting for is that backin 1980, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and a host of others were barely even visible on the middle to lower end of the Gini equation. 30 years hence, they sit atop the ladder.
Gini proports to show 'inequality', but it doesn't show anything of the sort. It is a snapshot in time which shows where wealth happens to reside, but not how it has shifted, and whether those shifts were beneficial in the whole.
I was just saying earlier this week that mainstreaming what politely used to be called "perversion" has become so common place I am almost inured to it. Little is perverse anymore, and that which could be called such is now a protected handicap. All that came about with the inclusion of Chas Bono on Dancing With the Stars and why my wife will no longer watch it. (I had to explain who ms. Bono was.)