Let me expalin it to you one last time, yes a group can be doing better than other groups, even if income dispartiy has fallen, income disparity is a relative measure, not an absolute measure, so when I say that the rich emerged from the recession in a better position than anyne else, that is true, as they emerged wealthier and without concerns about things like unemployment and stagnant wages that other economic classes face. The issue of income disparity is irrelevant on this point.
Saying that all that 18% in wealth growth is due to memebers is false, since the added numbers at the low end could not account for the rise in wealth, in addition, your comment about how the existing rich suffered is proven false, since the top 400 saw an 8% rise in their net worth in 2009. So again when I say that the wealthy were not hurt by the recession and came out better than anyone else, that is true.
Saying that I'm changing the parameters by pointing tothe top 1% is false, I'm not changing the parameters nor sliding the definition or being silly, the super rich have such a high concentration of wealth, that showing their wealthgrowth is an important part of seeing how well the rich came out of the recession.
So the evidence shows that they came out of the recession more wealthy especially at the upper end, and more numbers of millionaires at the low end, indicating a stronger position than other economic classes. Again the issue of income disparity is irrelevant to this issue.
Income disparity is a different issue than that argument, with income disparity, I merely pointed out, that the disparity is high and that a .2 drop is very small and that there is a wide gulf indicated by that figure. This is a different issue than the other argument.
Anyways I'm done with this discussion, its become repetative and is clearly not going anywhere productive and I'm getting no reward by continuing to argue with proverbial brick walls like yourself, so I'm done posting in this thread.
