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.)

response 26 of 36:

Sep 17 16:28 UTC 2003

(Joe, items don't happen in a vaccuum and I can't read minds, but I'll
do my best to restate myself.  truth be told, I'm *still* trying to figure
out the intended point of resp:12 myself.) 

(to the best of my interpretation, what we had in the beginning of this
item was a discussion about mutual fund companies, their managers, their
investors, and their influence on business.  along comes a factoid about a
widening economic gap [which, now that I've had a day or two to consider,
I now believe was intended for another item, perhaps one on income taxes]
that, on the surface, doesn't have any relation to the discussion.)

(so what's a casual BBSer to do?  if you're me on the evening of September
12, 2003, you try to find the non-obvious connection, which is what I did,
and I began by trying to figure out just why the economic gap might widen
and how that might relate to mutual funds.  "if you're struggling to make
ends meet, you don't have much in the way of disposable income.  if you
don't have disposable income, you're not investing it.  if you have
disposable income, you might try investing it.  if you're investing in a
mutual fund, you're trusting someone else to manage the money.  managers
of mutual funds are managing a lot of money.  some high-yield investments
require a lot of money in order to participate.  mutual fund managers that
manage well have more money with which to play.  people with more money to
invest are probably seeing higher returns.  many of our richest people are
earning significant amounts from investments.  many of our poorest people
can't afford investments.  richer people have more opportunity to invest
because they have disposable income.  those who have money are better at
making/earning/investing/managing it.")

(there are some faulty assumptions and leaps of logic but so far, with
everything I've read, it's panned out.  even in resp:0 we have mutual fund
managers who have been able to work the system in order to make money for
themselves and their companies because they're *better* at working the
system, even if it's only for a short time [and involves a ridiculous
amount of impropriety and possible illegality].  I'm certainly willing to 
change my mind in the face of better reasoning; until then, I'm sticking
by my comment in resp:16.  Joe, would it have been more palatable to you
if I had included "more education?" in resp:18 in addition to everything
else?)

response 28 of 36:

Sep 17 21:51 UTC 2003

(I didn't gather that anyone mentioned in resp:0 had served any time.
further, I'm getting the strong impression that I wasn't as out of context
as you would have liked for me to be, rather that my comments didn't
complement your world view.  are we reading the same item, Joe?  can you
tell the difference between objectivity and subjectivity?)

response 34 of 36:

Sep 18 14:42 UTC 2003

I just thought it was related, admittedly vaguely.  It's hard to argue
that the widening gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the
huge increases in CEO compensation, which basically amount to CEOs
plundering from the stockholders and general employees.