: OK, an easy read written at an eighth grade level. Been a while since I saw a modern book of putative non-fiction without an index.The predicted answer. but some of the following was worthwhile.
: What's wrong with this picture? Well, for starters, the baseline is too small.
There is the point I agree. Thats why its useful to check with the semi-regular fedeeral reserve research, such as the 1995 data showing that that the net worth of those at the bottom end of the income scale have massively increased since 1989 -- by as much as 200 percent. At the same time, many of those higher up the scale are actually worse off in terms of net worth.
This actually showed that the 1989 data was wrong, The changes in family net worth are simply adjustments to figures that showed the wealthy doing far better than they actually were.
But even they dont have anything like a large enough sample base.
Scaremongering reporting of misery and poverty fare no better in terms of credibility. We may conclude that any data thrusted into the field of poverty is suitably tinged with an intent to find results, see the last comment.
: It's pulp fiction. It's---you guessed it---bourgeois propaganda.
Yippee! Good job any research which supports socialist views is never propoganda then.
: Wall Street has always treasured the small investor. But not so much for his sagacity as his gullibility, less for his courage than his pliability and much more for his impetuosity than his cool. The small investor has long been celebrated by the large wire houses, in particular, for his unfailing willingness to pay the highest commissions, his touching eagerness to act as the receptacle the tag ends of sticky new issues and his enthusiastic response to whatever cockamamie 'product' their marketing geniuses can dream up.(1)
An opinion sourced from 1. Barron's, 3 November 1997, p. 6. next?
: Let us close our debate with some words by Thomas Stanley and William Danko (authors of The Millionaire Next Door):
This is somewhat bemusing....
: There has never been more personal wealth in America than there is today (over $22 trillion in 1996). Yet most Americans are not wealthy. Nearly one-half of our wealth is owned by 3.5 percent of our households. Most of the other households don't even come close.(2)
So the research is entirely without credibility, yet this is ok (because it fits ideologically)?
bizarre
