From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.125353.10363@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.051939.726@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be the case.  Now, for the first time,
>>the top 1% have more than the bottom 90% (NPR earlier this evening).
>>Now, if we also buy that the top 1 % have 90% of everything, that says
>>that the bottom 90% must also have something close to 90% of
>>everything (since the two groups just crossed over each other).
>
>That's bizzare reasoning!  If the top 1% has 90% of "everything", that leaves
>10% of "everything" for the remaining 99%.  Regardless of how the two groups
>"cross over each other", whatever that means.

Not at all.  Just sit down and think for a second.  The statement on
NPR was that, for the first time, the top 1% have more than the bottom
90%.  Now, let's go back to last year.  Even if we assume that the
folks from 91%-99% have NOTHING, that says that the bottom 90% had at
least 50.1% or so of everything and the top one percent had the
remaining 49.9%.  Now, no matter what part you decide to put into that
'middle' 9%, last year the bottom 90% had more than the top 1%.  With
me so far?

Ok, this year they 'crossed over each other'.  In other words, the top
1% now has more than the bottom 90%, not less.  Still with me?

Now let's examine this other statement, that the top 1% have 90% of
everything.  Either the top 1% acquired about half their wealth in the
past year (unlikely in the extreme), what I heard on NPR (and others
have heard elsewhere) was wrong, or the statement about how the top 1%
have 90% of everthing is bullshit.

So let's see which of those make sense.  Too many people have heard
the "for the first time, the top 1% have more than the bottom 90%"
statement to reasonably believe that it's bogus, so that eliminates
the middle one.  Change from 1 year to the next is likely to be a
matter of small percentages, when talking about aggregates of wealth
like this.  That says that the likely change in state going from State
A (where the bottom 90% have more than the top 1%) to State B (where
the bottom 90% have less than the top 1%) is a matter of a small
change in the wealth of those two groups.  Still with me?

Ok, now assume that the statement that the top 1% have 90% of
everything.  That says that the bottom 90% must also have pretty close
to 90% of everything, because the two groups just 'crossed over' each
other.  That's almost 180% of everything, even assuming that the
middle 9% have nothing.

Conclusion?  The statement about how the top 1% have 90% of everything
is bogus.  No 'bizarre' reasoning required at all; merely a little
thought, common reasoning, and basic arithmetic.

>
>>The numbers just don't seem to jibe.  I think someone misheard the
>>statement I heard on NPR earlier today.
>
>I think someone made a big boo boo.

Yeah, I think so, too, and I think that big boo boo is the statement
about how the top 1% have 90% of everything.  Something in the
vicinity of 40% (or less) seems to be a much more credible number,
given the commentary about how for the first time the top 1% has more
than the bottom 90%.

Amazing how far a little *reason* will get you, isn't it?



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections