Re: Richebacher's black scenario

Regards, Brian Lewis:
> Asset prices have risen a lot, and people are a lot wealthier than they 
were before.

Yeah, some people are a lot wealthier, the very rich.  Most are barely any 
better off, and many are worse off in absolute terms.
For instance, Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty 
<http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/reports/longterm.html> estimates 
between 1979 and 1994 the number of children in the US under six living 
beneath the poverty line increased from 3.5 to 6.1 million.
Further, According to Congressional Office Data:
"The average after-tax income of the richest one percent of the [US} 
population is projected to more than double between 1977 and 1999, rising 
115 percent after adjusting for inflation, the analysis found. But the 
average after-tax income for households in the middle of the income scale 
is projected to increase only eight percent over this 22-year period, an 
average real gain of less than one-half a percent per year, while the 
average income of the poorest fifth of Americans is projected to fall." 
(See the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
<http://www.cbpp.org/9-4-99tax.htm>)

This is true of course on a global (systemic) scale, and that's what really 
counts since the US is not an economy, but a wealthy part of the 
world-economy.  Any analysis of only a part (the US) commits the fallacy of 
composition.  But even at that, the US doesn't look so good, as noted.

1.  Year
Share of Global Income going to
2.  Richest 20%
3.  Poorest 20% of World 's Population
4.  Ratio of Richest to Poorest

1.      2.       3.      4.
1960 70.2% 2.3% 30 to 1
1970 73.9% 2.3% 32 to 1
1980 76.3% 1.7% 45 to 1
1989 82.7% 1.4% 59 to 1

Source: United Nations, Human Development Report, 1992.

Elson E. Boles
Assistant Professor, (Historical) Sociology
University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
(405) 574-1243
facbolese@usao.edu