Who Knows Who Owns What

[caroljane]

The increasing polarization of wealth in the US concerns Republicans and Democrats equally.

A Financial Post article by Diane Francis yesterday reported a survey taken by a Harvard Business School professor, regarding distribution of wealth.

Reps and Dems were asked what percentage of the nation's wealth is, or should be, in the hands of the richest - defined for this survey as 20%. How much should this group of "Haves" have, leaving the rests of the money for the other 4/5 of the population? 32%, everyone responded. How much do they actually have? 59%, everyone guessed.

I'm aware that of course the each respndent did not choose those exact figures - they'd be arrived at through whatever statistical method was being used.

Probably I should not venture into poll report territory, when I have not looked up the original study and would not understand its methodology if I did. But I did want to comment on this one because first, I was surprised to find that the "should" 32% was so low - I'd have expected a higher figure on that one. And second, that the difference between what people thought the "is" figure was and what it actually is, is striking. The actual number is 84%.

[Selene]

Carol:

Here is Frances' article here

"More research, by Michael Norton who is an associate professor at the Harvard Business School, reveals that Americans don't know that the richest 20% of the population owns 84% of all wealth. His polls showed that people, both Republicans and Democrats, thought the richest owned 59% and that they should only own 32%."

Norton's "study" is here.

I have heard about this study and find its "conclusions," if validated a potential death blow to America and the fertilizer for a "violent" revolution.

Adam

Edited May 29, 2011 by Selene

[william.scherk]

The increasing polarization of wealth in the US concerns Republicans and Democrats equally.

A Financial Post article by Diane Francis yesterday reported a survey taken by a Harvard Business School professor, regarding distribution of wealth.

You, young lady, are about to be enrolled in OL's 'please give link' classes, which meet each day here. Phil will be available to assist via an awkward online teaching tool, Knucklerapper.

[excerpt of Diane Francis's column "Americans voting against best interests," from yesterday's Financial Post]

In April, a surprising poll by GlobeScan revealed disenchantment with America's sacred cow, the freemarket system itself. Some 59% of Americans in general agreed "strongly" or "somewhat" that the free market was the best system. While still a majority, this response was down from the 80% of Americans who agreed "strongly" or "somewhat" that the free market was the best system in 2002. Even more significantly, support for the system among "poor" or low-income Americans, a class that has jumped in size, fell from 76% to 44%.

This shift was inevitable because tax cuts for the very rich do not trickle down. But that notion, along with the American Dream myth that anybody can get to the top, has been why many U.S. voters cast ballots against their own best interests. They believe they, or their kids, could be rich one day and also be able to pay low taxes and write off mortgages on fancy condos and ski chalets. So they vote against universal health care, against tax fairness and against leaders who want to chop military budgets.

This mentality does not exist in Canada, Australia or Europe, where tax cuts are desirable and granted, but never skewed simply to make rich people richer or, as Mr. Bush once said, to help "the haves and have-mores."

More research, by Michael Norton, who is an associate professor at the Harvard Business School, reveals that Americans don't know that the richest 20% of the population owns 84% of all wealth. His polls showed that people, both Republicans and Democrats, thought the richest owned 59% and that they should only own 32%.

For those who don't realize the extent of the country's income disparity, their opinions will begin to change when Congress is forced to default on entitlement obligations for Social Security and Medicare because it won't end the Bush tax cuts for the privileged or axe defence expenditures. Only then will Americans wise up.

Email Diane Francis

[Selene]

Carol:

William and I have different approaches, but I fully support his approach.

3 minutes difference in our posts lol

Adam

with support and understanding from someone who was incapable of providing links at one point in time here on OL

[caroljane]

You, young lady, are about to be enrolled in OL's 'please give link' classes, which meet each day here.

Please, Mr Scherk, like I told you, I lost my paper on the bus. Don't tell Principal Coates!

[caroljane]

I have heard about this study and find its "conclusions," if validated a potential death blow to America and the fertilizer for a "violent" revolution.

Adam

Somehow I knew you would say that.

[Selene]

I have heard about this study and find its "conclusions," if validated a potential death blow to America and the fertilizer for a "violent" revolution.

Adam

Somehow I knew you would say that.

all of it or just the "conclusions," if validated section?

and why are you avoiding help with the links ma'am?

Edited May 29, 2011 by Selene

[caroljane]

All -"conclusions if validated" is valid enough - these could be statistics of the damned lie variety for all I know. And it is Harvard we're talking about here. I was thinking of your own gloomy last-nail-in-coffin conclusions.

I'm not avoiding the links, honest. Well, I won't anymore. I know it's discourteous to refer to things without providing the standard way for you to check them out.

I could say that incorporating this will wreak havoc with the style of my deathless prose,and overtax my frail technological constitution. However a mainstay of said style is laziness, which you've probably noticed, and I exert that all the time elsewhere, so I won't feel the loss too much.

It's been said that writing must evoke and provoke. (Sorry, I don't know by whom, maybe I even thought it up myself though I doubt it). It doesn't have to do both, but it must to one of them.In some of my posts I have evoked the reader's curiosity about a reference enough to provoke them to look it up themselves, but now I know the game is up.

It's been a pretty good run.

Edited May 29, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Selene]

Carol:

You make a wonderful Mrs. Colombo...

Falk and erotic art

Falk discussing sex

This type of self effacing approach which relies on lulling the recipient into a kind of fuzzy relaxation is the basis for the Sandler Selling System which capitalizes on pattern interruption and negative reverse selling techniques.

Here is their website - http://www.sandler.com/ or as a link here.

All my sales people were trained in it, as I was. It is certainly not Randian lol.

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

You make a wonderful Mrs. Colombo...

Falk and erotic art

Falk discussing sex

This type of self effacing approach which relies on lulling the recipient into a kind of fuzzy relaxation is the basis for the Sandler Selling System which capitalizes on pattern interruption and negative reverse selling techniques.

Here is their website - http://www.sandler.com/ or as a link here.

All my sales people were trained in it, as I was. It is certainly not Randian lol.

Adam

Thanks for the clips. Eddie got such a kick out of that show. Falk was just great. The guest stars usually acted him off the screen, as did Lindsay Crouse here, but he seemed to relish it.