The following chart that comes to us from the Wall Street Journal opens up a line of discussion, probably several, that can continue on the coming econoblog.
But, let's just put a few words. Essentially, it shows that the Lords take, which does not include a whole lot of other income, went from an astounding 28% to over 32%. Yes, we know that the Lords are a way smaller set, orders of magnitude smaller. Yet, they laugh on their way to the bank with a cornucopia.
Needless to say, at the same time, the large set of un-Lords has seen their take diminish except for a few who have scaled the rungs of the meritocracy ladder.
Consequences, indeed. We have to ask, though, of what? How has this come about?
11/27/2011 -- Continuation, somewhat.
09/03/2009 -- Are these guys/gals 'miracle' workers or only stand-ins? Give us a break, please!
07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.
Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.
07/29/2009 -- For the econoblog, leaning toward FEDaerated, for obvious reasons.
07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.