response 2 of 36:

Sep 9 13:45 UTC 2003

I suspect there won't be as much public outcry over this as there was
over Enron.  It's a bit more abstract, and there's no group of people to
interview that has been completely wiped out.

response 4 of 36:

Sep 9 22:00 UTC 2003

If you want a diverse portfolio stick to ETF's (QQQ, SPY, DIA, IWM, etc..)
you also don't have to worry about MF managers churning the fund.

response 6 of 36:

Sep 11 03:47 UTC 2003

I remember hearing on the radio today that in the 1970s, CEOs made on
average 100 times what the average worker made.  Today it's either 500 times
or 1000 times, depending on which study you look at.  Studies have also
found that corporate performance and executive salaries are not correlated
in any way.

response 8 of 36:

Sep 11 19:38 UTC 2003

Absolutely.  The question is, what can be done about it?

response 10 of 36:

Sep 12 00:08 UTC 2003

Au contraire.  Does not the increasing concentration of individual 
stockholder interests into mutual funds and pension funds put more power 
into the hands of the professional managers whose full-time jobs are 
handling investements?  For example, just look at the pressure that 
CALPERS has brought to bear on companies in which it holds major 
interests.

response 12 of 36:

Sep 12 13:58 UTC 2003

Some statistics I saw today about the widening gap between the rich and
the middle class and working poor.  These are based on Congressional
Budget Office statistics:

From 1979 to 2000...
the poorest 20% of the population increased their after-tax income by 9%.
the middle 20% increased their after-tax income by 15%.
the top 20% increased their after-tax income by 68%.
the top 1% increased their after-tax income by 201%.

In 1997 the top 1% of households had more wealth than the bottom 95%
combined.

response 14 of 36:

Sep 12 17:18 UTC 2003

13:  You're not that stupid.  

response 16 of 36:

Sep 12 21:04 UTC 2003

(those who have money are better at making/earning/investing/managing it?)

response 18 of 36:

Sep 14 17:44 UTC 2003

(more money?  widening global market?  improvements in technology?)

response 20 of 36:

Sep 15 18:20 UTC 2003

(this is true, John, but you're not that stupid.  you simply made a 
quite-likely-false assumption that the increases in income between 1979
and 2000 were due to some intangible increase in skill, whereas I'm
suggesting that other factors were involved that account for the 
disparity.  I suppose we could settle our disagreement over this point
by comparing numbers from, say, 1960 to 1980, or even by looking at two
10-year spreads instead of a single 21-year spread.)

response 22 of 36:

Sep 15 23:36 UTC 2003

(re #20: you first brought up skill (in #16), not me.)

response 24 of 36:

Sep 17 02:00 UTC 2003

(John, you suggested a skill *increase* in resp:17.  I never suggested
that any skill had increased, rather that it was extant and could be a
possible reason for a widening economic gap, especially when combined
with factors that I mentioned in resp:18.)

(however, if you happen to think that money-managing skills have increased
among the general public, you just might be right.  I just read a Census
report that says in the year 2000, 84% of people over the age of 25 had
completed high school, with 26% having a bachelor's degree or higher.  the
figures for 1975 were only 63% and 14%, respectively.)

(Joe, we've been slowly drifting out of context for a while.  we've gone
from abuses/improprieties by mutual fund managers to CEO pay increases to
a widening economic gap.  if you can tell me what point resp:12 was trying
to make within the context of what preceded it, I'll be happy to rein in 
my comments instead of trying to guess just what that point was.)