wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Another point that Jim Pharo makes me think of. My mother, more educated than my father, was home with my brother and I are entire childhood. What is the economic value of that special one on one attention. If she had worked outside the home, I contend that I would have been poorer but the GDP would be declared to have been higher. Maybe my mother would have had a 401k, but over all I believe the family would have been "poorer".

Robert Frank's comments seem to be exactly the opposite of The NY Times business section last week. The different method in calculating inflation makes the difference. The Times lists only 7% of the wealthiest 30 people of the last century to be currently alive. I do not believe that the Times calculated inflation accurately. However I believe that Robert Frank is at the other extreme.

Note: I would side with Mr Frank if that were the choice.

How rich will Frank be when Murdoch buys the WSJ? Will he still have a job? He'll certainly NOT be able to write articles about Richistan.

This all strikes me as terribly feudalistic. Our economy is reorganizing around a system of a (relatively) few baronial overlords, and everyone else trying to figure out how to scape up a living off of them.

Is it me, or was there a time not so long ago when we made our living by helping each other -- I'll fix your car, you'll treat my sick kids, you do the teaching, that one does the food selling, etc.

two things:
I have been for 20+ years a socially responsible financial planner and have watched a tremendous shift in American wealth.

One: I strongly believe that the present value of pensions and social security should be included in the calculation. If we do that, i suspect that there may be less increase in the rich than Robert Frank contends. For example my father retired in 1970 with a military pension that was the equivalent of greater than $1 million. My local police chief has the same kind of pension. Neither would consider themselves wealthy. It is unfair to label modern day people who work in the private sector to be rich simply because their pension fund has been wiped out and they must save for their own retirement. Furthermore, the discount rate should be very low to compare with the extremely safe investement that pensions actually are. On this particular point I believe we end up with much more divergence between the rich and the poor.

This entire conversation fuels people's desire for more and more wealth and consumption. But increasingly, a rebellious part of the culture seems interested in being satisfied with what they have, and wanting less...e.g., as in various freegan and green movements.

where has this money come from? Does it have anything to do with Nixon abandoning the gold standard? what does this money represent?

Re RICHISTAN: In Manhattan, the issue is for those who aren't rich is what the market will bear. We know how apartment prices have skyrocketed. Now the NY Times has reported that surgery for pets has reached the $7,000 range. But even the simplest things today cost far more than they did even a few years ago. For years now, I've been taking my dining room chairs to be re-caned at a local furniture repair store. A few years ago, this simple procedure cost $25 per chair. Now it's $75. so prices for even the simplest things. So at this point, New Yorkers can't even afford to keep their old furniture.

If a Hollywood star sells a 20-room CPW condo to a Wall St. mogul for $10 mill and he sells it to a hedge-fund guy for $20 mill, aren't they just shifting the loot among themselves, inflating their own assets as they squander them?

Have you heard of my super sweet sixteen. It is a show in which parents of rich teens throw expensive sweet sixteen parties. We are even teaching our youth to spend without thinking.

The secret of money is:
There is never enough.
Its like sex, or drugs.
And you have to construct a managable psychological attitude to cope.
12 steps for the rich?

Just having ten or more millions these days does not compare to the super rich with hundreds of millions and billions.

My husband and I have been rewarded through the sale of his company with more money than we could have conceived we would have in this lifetime but it has not changed the way we live significantly - we just feel more safe financially. Perhaps this is a result of growing up in working class and lower middle class families.

Money is something that has given me not so much luxury goods as freedom. Since investment income covers my living expenses, I could afford to quit the high paying job in favor of work that I love that pays a lot less. I'm much happier now working harder and making less than I was with a salary three times as high, but I recognize that it's the fact that I inherited money that allows it to happen, and count myself blessed.

That's funny, I think, if I win LOTTO (got the picture) it must be at least $10 million or it's not worth the dollar I spend!! Thank you for proving me out. What the heck can I do with $1 million these days. I'd rather win $2000 to pay off two credit cards and get that out of my hair.

maybe relative happiness is really about the price of basics getting out of reach for the non wealthy. I just heard that in England before WWI 60 percent of the wealth was owned by one percent.

I am an artist here in New York, and at first thought it might seem that the arts would benefit from such an oligarchy as they did throughout most similar situations in the past. However, my experience has been the opposite. I find the "collectors" I encounter to be incredibly miserly about purchasing art. They seem to view it like the stock market - buy it as cheap as possible and sell in a few years to double your profits. It's hard enough to make it as an artist without people refusing to acknowledge the value of your work beyond a monetary investment.

This sounds like a repeat of another show. Wasn't Robert Frank recently on your station if not this show?

So far sounds like a banal characature of nouveau riche. Don't see how that's different or unprecedents. And the ONLY influence is on trickle-down? Come on. Let's get some quality info out of this guy.

And how doesthe current era compare to the Gilded Age in the late 1800s?

Maybe you could get Kristol on the phone to explain how swell the economy is for everyone.