text:
Ike is now a Category Four Hurricane, and quite a nice looking one at that.
Hurricanes are giant engines made of air that are driven by the transfer of heat from the sea surface to the top of the troposphere. The greater the difference in SST (sea surface temperature) and higher altitude temperature, the more power in the engine. But, there are some very strong wind currents in the atmosphere above the troposphere, and that matters as well.
When you fly in a commercial air liner over a long distance, sometimes (depending on the airline) they display a chart that shows current location, speed, etc. as well as outside temperature and sometimes windspeed. You see some pretty remarkable numbers up that high, above the Ozone Layer. If the sea surface temperature is 27 degrees C and the at 8 km t is close to -40 C, that is a lot of temperature differential across the area covered by a hurricane.
However, high winds in the upper atmosphere will interfere with this process. This is why hurricanes don't really form farther north (in the northern hemisphere) than they do. Too much upper level wind activity. This 'wind shear' causes the beautiful turning engine that drives itself pumping heat upward and outward to get all messed up.
Right now, Ike is experiencing some wind shear and will weaken over the next several hours. However, that will go away and other factors will contribute to a re-strengthening.
But where is Ike going to go? Where will it make landfall?
It looks like Ike is going to turn northwards as it approaches the US. This entire time it will be scraping the Leeward Islands and the Florida coast with winds and surf, but how bad that will be depend on the exact track.
Ike is going to be a cliffhanger. The entire predicted track has the storm over waters warm enough to keep it running until it reaches, should it stay in the Atlantic US East Coast littoral, until South Carolina. But there are blobs of mcuh warmer water here and there that may crank it to a higher level as it approaches Florida. But wind shear will also increase as it goes north. I think the Hurricane Prediction center is more or less thinking that Ike will stay in the Atlantic and if it makes land fall, do so on the US east coast north of Florida. But it could just make a lot of wave and rain action and head out to sea.
The soonest that this storm could affect the US coast directly in any significant way is probably mid week next week.


text:
DANIEL SMITH Watercolor Ground, Transparent 4 oz
It used to be that watercolor painters had few options beyond white paper or a few colored boards. Now you can turn almost any surface into a toned or black ground for watercolor painting, as well as collage, pastels, pencils and mixed media work.
Transparent Watercolor Ground, lets patterns shine through. Maintain the grain of wood panels or the colors and textures of decorative paper, fabrics or found objects as you enhance them with watercolor paint and mixed media materials. You get a protective coat for your substrate along with pigment-gripping tooth.
You can also lift and scrub without damaging the painting surface!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Why the "Rich" Can Get Richer Faster than the "Poor"
No. 358
Thursday, July 10, 2014
by Kathryn M. Shelton and Richard B. McKenzie
President Barack Obama has tagged the growing inequality of income over the past three or four decades as "the defining challenge of our time," an often-repeated claim recently echoed by economist Thomas Piketty in Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Numerous social and economic factors explain why the income and wealth gaps have grown, from the rise in family breakdown to the incentives embedded in government welfare programs.
Executive Summary
However, there are reasons for the gaps that have gone largely, if not completely, unrecognized. These explanations make the relative growth in the income (and wealth) of the rich practically inevitable - at least as officially measured.
According to official measures, the average and total income of people at the top of the income distribution is growing relative to the incomes of lower income groups. From 1979 to 2007, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew 275 percent, while the bottom fifth's income grew only 18 percent. However, if the incomes of household members are combined, if household income is adjusted to reflect reductions in tax rates and increases in government transfers and if household income is further adjusted to account for the declining number of people in the average household over nearly three decades, the 3.2 percent increase in median taxpayer earnings over the period rises to nearly 37 percent.
Much of the income inequality debate in the United States has focused on "fifths," "tenths" or "the top 1 percent" of households. Such divisions give the appearance of inequality, but there are far more people and workers in the top income brackets than in the lower ones. Indeed, there are 82 percent more people in the top fifth of households than in the bottom fifth. In 2006, 81 percent of households in the top quintile had two or more workers; but only 13 percent of households in the bottom fifth had two or more workers. In nearly 40 percent of these households, no one was working.
Further, people in different income divisions do not remain at those income levels throughout their lives. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that absolute mobility - that is, the extent to which children earn more than their parents - is high:
- Of all U.S. adults, 67 percent had higher incomes than their parents; and among those born into the lowest income bracket, 83 percent exceeded their parents' income.
- About 40 percent of people in the lowest fifth of income earners in 1986 moved to a higher income bracket by 1996, and roughly half the people in the lowest income quintile in 1996 had moved to a higher income bracket by 2005.
Indeed, one study found that a majority of Americans reach the upper income brackets at some point during their lives. Over a 44-year period, 12 percent of 25- to 60-year-olds moved into the top 1 percent for at least one year; 39 percent reached the top 5 percent; over half reached the top 10 percent; and nearly three-fourths were in the top fifth of the income distribution.
Moreover, Americans are moving to the top of the income ladder without inheritances. Thus, an investigation into the 2013 Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans found:
- More than two-thirds (68 percent) of the billionaires were "self-made," which means they built their fortunes without the help of inheritance.
- Furthermore, according to the Internal Revenue Service, between 1992 and 2009, only 2 percent of the people on the Forbes 400 list were on it for 10 or more consecutive years.
The success of people at the bottom of the income distribution can increase inequality, because their newfound success does not improve the average incomes of the lower income brackets they left behind; rather, their economic gains are treated as gains to the higher income and wealth brackets they reach.
An analysis of portfolio investment over time reveals an unheralded reason the "rich" have become richer absolutely and relative to the "poor." The top 1 percent of households hold over a third of the country's total wealth, while the bottom two quintiles hold a fraction of that wealth. As such, the rich are able to develop and maintain highly diversified portfolios of investments, including stocks, bonds, derivatives, insurance, precious metals, degrees, multiple homes and other real estate holdings. The ability of the rich to safely diversity their portfolios allows them to take on riskier investments without incurring the hazards associated with the far less diverse portfolios of lower income individuals.
Moreover, pundits often fail to appreciate the direct and indirect ties between the Federal Reserve's monetary policy and the distribution of wealth and income.
When the Great Recession emerged with force in 2007, the Federal Reserve pushed down interest rates drastically with the expectation of stimulating the economy. The drop in interest rates negatively affected many low-income people who relied on their small amount of interest income earned from bank savings accounts. At the same time, the Fed padded the pockets of firms deemed "too big to fail," giving the privileged firms a form of government-backed insurance for their future profit streams and adding upward pressure on stock prices. As a consequence, the wealth of rich people has escalated over the last several years.
Finally, family breakdown is a large contributor to poverty. Households in the top income brackets are far more likely to be married, stay married and have children after marriage, while households in the bottom income brackets are far more likely to be single-parent households. Wealth taxes, such as those proposed by Piketty, can retard the future accumulation of wealth, with negative consequences for people down the income ladder who depend on capital accumulation for growth in the number of income-producing jobs.
Left-leaning pundits everywhere harp on the "low-hanging fruit" of social welfare policy: The "rich" are getting richer than the "poor." By "rich" they generally are referring to people in the top fifth, or maybe the top 1 percent, of all households in the country. President Barack Obama has tagged the growing inequality of income over the past three or four decades as "the defining challenge of our time," an often-repeated claim made with the suggestion that the rich are getting richer, in nefarious ways, at the expense of the poor.1
A growing chorus of academics, most notably Nobel Laureates in Economics Robert Schiller and Paul Krugman, have also championed the "inequality crisis."2 Most recently, French economist Thomas Piketty was catapulted into the realm of "international economics celebrity" for his cross-Atlantic best-selling tome, Capital in the Twenty-First Century - replete with charts showing that the income and wealth of the rich and poor in the United States (and elsewhere) have been diverging since at least 1980.3 All three economists believe that combating inequality with higher taxes on the rich will have positive effects, generating more revenues and reducing government deficits. But they also argue that inequality, in and of itself, is a social "bad" worth abating for its own sake.
Numerous social and economic factors explain why the income and wealth gaps have grown:
- Family structures have broken down, limiting the economic progress of many children due to lack of support from both parents.
- Executives have gained control of their own compensation packages, allowing them to push their incomes into the stratosphere.
- Schools, especially those in impoverished neighborhoods, have deteriorated, handicapping low-income children at a time when the value of education in the workplace has risen.
- Government welfare programs have provided many low-income Americans with disincentives to move out of poverty.
- The political system has grown progressively rigged in favor of the economic interests of the already rich.
- The globalization of the economy, along with the downfall of communism in China, has worsened the position of American assembly-line workers, who now have to compete on wages with the lowest-paid workers around the world.
And the list of explanations goes on.
This paper, however, will focus on reasons for the wealth and income gaps that have gone largely, if not completely, unrecognized. Many policy partisans - Obama, Schiller, Krugman, Piketty and others - view comparative data on income disparity as the source of economic truth, without the need for serious scrutiny. Consequently, they see modern capitalism as fundamentally flawed and believe that the government should place limits on the growth of incomes and wealth of those at the top of the nation's income ladder. This study will provide a brief and sober look at the trend toward income inequality by considering two explanations for the growing measured income gap that have been overlooked, or simply sidestepped. These explanations make the relative growth in the income (and wealth) of the rich over the past several decades practically inevitable - at least as officially measured:
- The way the "income distribution" is stratified into "fifths of households" (quintiles), or "tenths" (deciles) or even smaller fractions, such as the "top 1 percent," gives the appearance that individuals in the bottom brackets are not making gains.
- The rich have more opportunities to diversify their investment portfolios and to soften the economic consequences of risk taking.
Along the way, this paper will explain how Federal Reserve monetary policy, intended to stimulate the economy out of the Great Recession, has increased the wealth gap through the impact of its easy money policies on equity markets.
Evidence of Growing Inequality
Academics and liberal pundits cite evidence on the growth of inequality that is sometimes stark and, for them, conclusive - but it is ultimately misleading.
Clearly, the average and total income of people at the top of the income distribution is growing relative to the incomes of lower income groups, and at a significantly faster pace, as officially measured. Figure I plots the cumulative average income growth of households in various income distributions from 1979 to 2007, as measured in a 2011 study by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO found that:
- From 1979 to 2007, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the top 1 percent of households grew 275 percent.
- The top fifth of households' income grew by 65 percent over the period.
- The bottom fifth's income grew only 18 percent. However, the lowest quintile's income has slowly trended upward since the early 1980s, as the figure shows.4
Thomas Piketty starts his treatise by pointing to a chart on the share of U.S. national income captured by the top 10 percent of all income earners over the past century, which shows a major U-turn in inequality:
- In the 1920s and 1930s, the top decile took in about 45 percent of national income.
- During World War II, the top decile's share plummeted to the 35 percent range, where it stayed until the very late 1970s.
- At that point, the top cohort's share began a relentless march upward, reaching the 45 percent to 50 percent range in the 2000s.5
Scrutinizing the Numbers.What many pundits, as well as the president, fail to acknowledge is that the hard data paint a significantly different picture of what is happening - or not happening - to income inequality. For example, median taxpayer earnings before taxes and government transfers officially rose just 3.2 percent between 1979 and 2007. However, if the incomes of household members are combined, if household income is adjusted to reflect reductions in tax rates and increases in government transfers and if household income is further adjusted to account for the decline in the number of people in the average household over nearly three decades, the 3.2 percent increase in median taxpayer earnings rises to nearly 37 percent.6
Overlooking Stagnation. The pundits also fail to recognize research that shows, by measures of real income over time, that the middle and lower income classes have done reasonably well during periods of economic growth but not so well during periods of relative economic stagnation. For example, according to Robert Grady, managing director of the Cheyenne Capital Fund, median family income fell during two periods of sluggish growth, 1974-1982 and 2008-present. However, median family income grew nearly 22 percent in real terms during more than two decades of growth from 1983 to 2007, which suggests that a major force behind the growth in income inequality in recent years has been the Great Recession.7
Overstating Inflation. Moreover, pundits often cite data that uses a widely recognized - but flawed and overstated - measure of inflation developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for adjusting current income to real income. This conventional measure of inflation-adjusted income, which inadequately accounts for quality improvements in goods and services over time, suggests that median household income rose 5 percent between 1979 and 2012. An overstated inflation rate can understate real income and income growth. When an improved measure of inflation - one developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and preferred by the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors - is used to make the adjustment, real median income rose 16 percent during the 1979-2012 period. While that rate of growth appears minor, it is growth nonetheless - not stagnant or negative growth, as some inequality pundits claim.8 Inclusion of growth in fringe benefits, most notably health insurance, raises the rate of growth in people's total real compensation even higher.9
Ignoring Non-Money Transfers. Notably, measures of relative income growth often consider only earned money income and do not include growth in non-money, in-kind government transfers in the form of subsidies for health care, housing, day care and food. Additionally, much real income that everyone receives - rich and poor alike - comes in the form of so-called "surplus value," the extent to which the value of the goods people consume exceeds the prices recorded in the consumer price index and, hence, in measures of real income. The value people get from Google searches, for example, is totally excluded from people's real income because there are not market prices for those searches. Tens of millions of iPhone buyers would not pay several hundred dollars for their phones if the value of their calls and texts were not greater than the price of their phones.
Growing income inequality is not restricted to the United States. Over the past three decades, a slight-to-modest increase in inequality has been measured in most advanced countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).10 This observation suggests that the growth in inequality can't be attributed singularly to U.S. capitalistic institutions becoming progressively dominated by the economic elites, as Piketty, Schiller and Krugman suggest.11
Nevertheless, an observation is clear: No matter how income statistics are viewed, key official data series undeniably show that over the last three to five decades, the "rich" have become relatively richer than the "poor" - as the "rich" and "poor" income categories are officially defined. The growing income gap is also apparent in daily news reports of the substantial growth in the compensation packages for CEOs of major corporations and presidents of universities and in the fabulous growth in income and wealth of entrepreneurs, athletes and entertainers.12
Growing Income and Wealth Inequality
Much of the income inequality debate in the United States has focused on divisions of households (or families) into "fifths" or "tenths" or "1 percenters and the lower 99 percent." Readers of reports on inequality might assume that each fifth contains the same number of Americans (63 million) and the same number of households (24 million). That is hardly the case.
There Are More Workers in Upper Income Households. Far more people and workers appear in the top income brackets than in the lower brackets. Indeed, 82 percent more people reside in the top fifth of households than in the bottom fifth.13
- There are three times more workers in households in the top quintile than in the bottom quintile.
- In 2006, 81 percent of households in the top quintile had two or more workers; only 13 percent of the bottom fifth had two or more workers, and nearly 40 percent had no one working.14
- Top income earners tend to put in more hours of work than workers at the bottom of the income ladder, because single elderly people and welfare recipients are congregated in the lowest income bracket.
With multiple workers, households in the top fifth enjoy a built-in form of social insurance to soften the blow of economic and medical vagaries - including the economic downturn after 2007 - that households in the bottom fifth do not typically have. With only a few low-wage workers, most households in the bottom quintile receive various forms of government-based social insurance, welfare payments and in-kind benefits that do not get counted in their "income."
There Are More Intact Families in Upper Income Households. Furthermore, households in the top income brackets are far more likely to be married, stay married and have children after marriage, while households in the bottom income brackets are far more likely to be single-parent households.
The poverty rate among single mothers is more than four times the poverty rate among married couples, and the growth in single motherhood over the past five decades has increased the long-term poverty rate.15 Over the last half-century, single-person households have skyrocketed due to:
- The growth in the divorce rate through the early 1980s;
- The increasing number of elderly who live on their own with government-subsidized health care and social security; and
- The rise in the number of single-parent families, attributable both to the divorce rate and the rise in childbirth out of wedlock, especially among African-Americans.
Researchers believe these changing trends in family structure could explain over two-fifths of the change in income inequality between 1976 and 2000, and they believe it could account for the failure of the poverty rate to fall, despite growth in government-based poverty relief. As Piketty stresses, inheritance has been a force for growing inequality since World War II.16 Indeed, some "idle rich" at the top of the income ladder are living off inherited wealth, spending their days drawing unearned incomes from their families' past investments. The OECD estimates that 14.8 percent of young Americans ages 15 to 24 are not actively involved in education, employment or training (nicknamed NEETS).17 One can assume that many of these young people are living off of their well-to-do parents. However, the NEETS cohort constitutes a relatively small portion of the population.
Income Mobility. People who press their concerns over growing income inequality argue as if the "fifths" or "tenths" of the stratified income structure are static; that is, they assume that people in the different income divisions remain in those divisions through time. But this is not the case. Income distribution is actually very fluid. People move all the time among different income brackets, which are themselves moving targets. The thresholds for the different brackets constantly move up and down (mainly up) as incomes change.
Consider the real upper income limits for the five quintiles and top 5 percent of households for 2012. [See Figure II.] The data confirms that the upper income limit moved very little (less than 4 percent) between 1980 and 2012. It took 44 percent more real income to reach the top 5 percent in 2012 than in 1980; but also note that households can move to the top 5 percent with less than $200,000 in household income, which may come as a surprise to many. These statistics suggest that the "rich" includes Americans with far less lavish income - especially in areas of the country with high living costs - than one might suspect, given all the media attention to billionaires.
Note also, in 2012, two single people with $20,000 in income each could jump two income brackets (fifths) by marrying and combining their income - and will likely have a greater rise in welfare than their $40,000 combined income suggests - because of the scale economies of sharing a living space and expenses. Similarly, a married couple with a combined income of $30,000 is in the middle of the second fifth, but if they divorce and split their income evenly, they push the average and the top limit of the bottom fifth's income downward. This movement feeds the notion that the welfare of people in the bottom fifth has been undermined by some economic "scourge" - say, the capitalistic economic system - when their divorce is likely the fault of personal and social forces.
Similarly, the flow of illegal, low-income immigrants from low-income countries, such as Mexico and points beyond, has been a force holding (and pressing) down the income of households in the bottom half of the income distribution, especially the bottom fifth. The growth in drug addiction and the large numbers of high school dropouts have also impaired the ability of low-income Americans to move up the income ladder, although the fall in the dropout rate in recent years has very likely improved the welfare of people in the lower fifths.
Inequality in Public Education. Importantly, the poor's economic opportunities have likely been held in check by the sad performances of public schools in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. Poorly performing schools and parents rarely provide students with the general skills they need for employment, which in turn narrows the potential diversity of investments the poor can include in their portfolios. Recent research shows that the poor also face challenges in decision making, with ill-informed and outright bad personal decisions inhibiting their climb up the income ladder. Because the poor face stressful economic problems that come with low-income, if not subsistence-level, living - finding transportation to work and covering incoming bills, for example - they have fewer neuronal resources available to make calculated decisions about investment, personal care and even child care. Thus, even the limitations of the human brain can impose a check on making good economic decisions.
Indeed, many poor people remain poor over time, trapped by their circumstances and personal and family decisions. However, many people also move up and out of the bottom fifth. How far they move up the ladder depends on their work, personal and investment decisions, and good fortune. Others will move up the income ladder briefly, only to fall back down after a downturn in the economy, or a work or medical crisis.
In short, many people who were in lower income brackets decades ago have stayed put, but many others have moved up the income ladder. It must be strongly emphasized that their new and higher incomes do not improve the measured income of the lower income brackets they leave behind; rather, they raise the income levels of the higher income brackets they join.
Many graduate students, for example, are considered "poor" by official income standards. But after they matriculate and begin to establish research and academic careers, their incomes will rise, and they will add to the measured success of their future income brackets, not to the brackets where they currently subsist.
The fantastic economic success of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of highly successful Americans - Morgan Freeman and Oprah Winfrey, for example, are renowned black actors who grew up in the South near the poverty threshold - does not improve the average incomes of the lower income brackets they left behind. Rather, their success is reflected in the average income of the top income bracket they entered (after years of hard work, dedication and a substantial measure of risk taking).
Intergenerational Upward Mobility. Upward mobility toward the American Dream remains a very real goal for many Americans. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that, based on absolute mobility - that is, the extent to which children are likely to earn more than their parents - the United States remains highly mobile:
- Of all U.S. adults, 67 percent have higher incomes than their parents, and 83 percent of adults born into the lowest income bracket exceed their parents' income as adults.18
- About 40 percent of people in the lowest fifth of income earners in 1986 moved to a higher income bracket by 1996, and roughly half of the people in the lowest income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income bracket by 2005.19
- Of the estimated 65,000-plus North Americans with $30 million or more in net worth, about 49,000 are self-made.
- Only 14 percent obtained their riches through inheritance alone.
- The rest (86 percent) parlayed their inheritance into greater net worth in old-fashioned ways: hard work and smart investments, with a measure of luck at work.20
A recent study shows that mobility up and down the income ladder has remained largely unchanged over time. For example:
- In both the 1970s and 1980s, 8 percent of children born in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rose to the top fifth.
- About 20 percent of children born in the middle fifth of the income distribution later rose to the top fifth.
Taken together with previous studies on income mobility, intergenerational mobility over the last half-century has remained about the same; thus, upward mobility has continued apace.21
In another study, researchers found:
- Over a 44-year period, 12 percent of 25- to 60-year-olds moved into the top 1 percent for at least one year.
- Thirty-nine percent spent at least one year in the top 5 percent; over half spent at least one year in the top 10 percent; and nearly three-fourths spent at least a year in the top fifth.
- Only 0.6 percent of Americans spent 10 consecutive years in the top 1 percent.22
The fact that some Americans do move up the income ladder suggests something that the income inequality debate often overlooks: that there are probably many other Americans who had opportunities to improve their incomes - by completing a college degree, for example - but chose not to take them. Moreover, some Americans, such as artists and entertainers, have chosen to live in the bottom fifth because they are committed to a lifestyle that happens to afford little economic success, but they anticipate increases in income in future years.
Thus, an investigation into the 2013 Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans found:
- More than two-thirds (68 percent) of the billionaires were "self-made," which means they built their fortunes on their own, without the help of inheritance.23
- About one in every 10 fortunes on the Forbes 400 list was created by an immigrant.24
- The Internal Revenue Service determined that between 1992 and 2009, only 2 percent of the people on the Forbes 400 list were on it for 10 or more consecutive years.25
Success Can Increase Inequality. Of course, an untold number of the 12 million undocumented aliens whose numbers have increased dramatically over the past two decades improved their own economic lot when they jumped the fences or swam to shore, managed to evade the border patrols and found work in this country. But many also contributed to the perceived lack of improvement of people at the bottom of the country's income distribution because they took jobs paying less than average wages, even among poor Americans.
To reiterate, while both the top income and average real income of the lowest fifth of workers can creep up with time, there will always be an upper limit to the income of the four lower fifths in any designated time frame. But for the top income group, there is no upper income limit; thus, the average income of the top group can rise without limit and at a faster pace than the bounded incomes of the lower income groups.
That the income of the "rich" has risen relative to the "poor" can be chalked up to a measure of statistical inequality that is bound to occur when income earners and wealth holders are put into brackets for no higher purpose than statistical convenience. Pundits rarely recognize that the success rate of people at the bottom of the income distribution can increase the growth in inequality, leading to an incorrect deduction that "only the rich are getting richer" in the country. This misimpression can be expected when the substantial movement of income earners up (and down) the income ladder is never juxtaposed in policy discussions with how people in the different income groups are faring economically. And one should not overlook the fact that the appearance of income inequality has been exaggerated by the substantial growth in (and publicity around) the incomes of successful professional athletes and entertainers, as well as corporate executives, many of whom started out with modest means.
Success Is Not a Zero Sum Game. Moreover, the debate over income inequality is often conducted, to one degree or another, with the presumption that national income is a "zero sum game" for all, meaning there is some fixed or barely growing income that must be divided by people in the different income brackets. If the rich gain income (or get rich faster than the poor), the poor lose. That is, the national "income pie" can only be cut in so many ways, and the bigger one slice of the pie, the smaller the others must be. The inequality critics often fail to realize that the size of the pie can increase with both the rich and the poor getting bigger slices, though the rich's slice may grow faster than the poor's slice. In addition, few people concerned with inequality acknowledge that the absolute and/or relative gains of the rich can give rise to economic gains for all, including the poor. Thus, they begin with a blatantly false basis for policy discussions.
The late Steve Jobs - a multibillionaire by his death in 2011 - greatly increased his income and wealth by developing innovative products now used all over the world: the iMac, Mac Air, iPod, iPhone, PowerBook, iPad and more, along with the iTunes and app "stores" that offer a half-million applications for the devices just mentioned. He also stimulated competitors to produce cheaper copycats. Now, 81 percent of Americans living below the poverty-income level have cell phones, often loaded with apps, music and books that enrich their lives in ways not counted by their measured incomes. The overwhelming majority also have appliances in their homes, from big-screen televisions to dishwashers that were outside the reach of the middle-income American little more than a half-century ago. Similarly, Bill Gates became the richest man on the planet by the early 1990s, but he also created a company that provides billions of dollars of value to people all over the world and all the way down the income ladder. Certainly, some rich Americans obtained their wealth through crimes, shady dealings and politics, but the hard data show that the vast majority of rich people have continued to make their way to the top of the income distribution by perfectly legitimate means, with a combination of work, risk taking and a measure of good fortune thrown in. Another source of their good fortune is easily overlooked: being born in the United States. Americans do not have to earn gigantic incomes to be "1 percenters." A mere $346,000 in combined household income in 2013 makes for a nice standard of living, albeit not allowing for multiple homes and yachts (especially for residents of high-cost of living areas).
Differences in the Diversity of Investment Portfolios of the "Poor" and "Rich"
An analysis of portfolio investment over time reveals another unheralded reason the "rich" have become richer absolutely and relative to the "poor." Because the "rich" are rich, they necessarily have a substantial amount of wealth to invest (from past performance, luck, station in life and/or inheritance). The top 1 percent of households hold over a third of the country's total wealth, while the bottom two quintiles hold a fraction of that wealth.26 The wealth of the rich enables them to develop and maintain highly diversified portfolios of investments, including stocks, bonds, derivatives, insurance, precious metals, degrees, multiple homes and other real estate holdings. They have the financial means to acquire new businesses and social networks, to explore new and untried ventures. They have acquired the skills - and maybe bravado - to negotiate trades and establish investment strategies.
Portfolio Diversity Problems Facing the "Poor." By contrast, the poor's potential "portfolios" are necessarily limited to narrowly focused, work-related skills and family connections, which are more frequently single-parent and dysfunctional than in wealthy families.27 The "portfolio" of a low-income household may include little more than a car, furniture and a small home. And even home ownership, in certain markets, can reduce the poor's liquidity and mobility. Single parents and the elderly poor often face impaired abilities and incentives to build diversified investment portfolios.
When the poor actually do take the financial step of making, say, a single investment in a stock or business, they take on the enormous risk that comes with exposure to the uncertainty of concentrated investments. While a collection of investments might turn a profit, even the smartest fund managers and venture capitalists cannot identify which single investment, or small percentage of investments, will cover the losses on all the others. With the poor's constricted ability to invest, they are far more likely to lose on a limited array of investments (as the law of large numbers teaches), which compounds their reasons for "playing it safe" with investments that have value in use, such as homes and household furnishings.
A new study in the journal Science found that the poor are also much more likely to focus on short-term investment strategies while ignoring long-term consequences. The researchers found across various experiments that being in a state of poverty itself can foster perpetually poor financial decisions; those decisions are not necessarily made from a lack of knowledge or skills (although many poor lack those attributes).28
When the poor (and others in the lower part of income distribution) acquire few and narrowly defined workplace skills, they leave themselves open to labor market risks. Any job-specific skills they acquire with their own unpaid time and limited funds can easily and rapidly lose value both in economic downturns and in times of rapid technological improvements in products and production processes. The economic value of a low-income worker's specific work-related skills can erode relatively rapidly in the face of competitive national and global labor markets. The market risks inherent in the development of narrowly defined skills can cause poor people to shy away from acquiring new skills. Instead, they rely on general skills transferable to many job markets, as is the case for servers and clerks. When job-specific skills are required for work, the poor rely on their employers for training, with the employers' training costs cutting into their workers' compensation.
Note, however, that opportunities for investment diversification have grown for everyone on the income ladder. Investors at every income level no longer have to invest in a single or a few stocks. For the past several decades, all income earners could increase their equity diversification by buying into stock funds through a 401(k) or an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) (Vanguard 500, Fidelity Spartan 500 and so forth) or buying SPDRs (Standard and Poor's Depository Receipts, or exchange-traded funds) and Diamonds (which are shares in trusts), with each share covering the S&P 500 or the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. These new investment options for those on the lower and middle ranks of the income ladder may have also decreased (albeit in a minor way) the desire (or need) to move up the income ladder. However, because the country's progressive income tax does not tax many poor people at the federal or state level, the rich have a greater tax incentive to take advantage of job-related plans for retirement investments.
Of course, many rich people today rose above their initially low incomes by concentrating their investments in a single business venture - a novel restaurant concept, an innovative software application, a brand new search engine or even a well-located retail business - good ideas that paid off. Other entrepreneurs of yesteryear gambled on narrowly defined business portfolios only to fail in large numbers. These many cases of failure have tended to hold in check, if not pull down, the incomes of low-income groups.
The Diversity Portfolio Advantages of the Rich. The ability of the rich to safely diversify their portfolios allows them to take on riskier investments without incurring the hazards associated with the far less diverse portfolios of lower income individuals. Christopher Carroll, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, found that the rich hold a much higher proportion of risky assets than the rest of the population. They are also much more likely to conduct entrepreneurial activities and to hold much of their wealth in their own ventures.29 Again, this is partially the case because risk-taking, low-income entrepreneurs who throw the dice and win will move to the ranks of the rich.
Moreover, because of their wealth and diversified portfolios, the rich can acquire loans at privileged interest rates not available to people in lower income brackets, which enables them to further expand their investments and lower the risk they endure from any given collection of business ventures. This "easy credit" allows for a shifting of investment risk and enables the rich to take on even more risky investments.
Unsurprisingly, in 2007 the Federal Reserve Board reported to Congress that individuals in high-income census tracts carry significantly higher credit scores than those in low-income census tracts.30 Much has been made of the "cycle of poverty," but something needs to be said for the "cycle of richness." Many low-income workers strive to break the poverty chain and climb the income ladder, but they must work especially hard to overcome their initial disadvantages.
Pundits have often missed the fact that risky investments generally carry higher rewards, which is necessary if people are going to assume the greater chances of failure and absorb the economic losses that go with failures. Again, because investors cannot identify the success or failure of an investment beforehand, they mitigate that risk by developing an array of investments - which lower-wealth people cannot fully emulate.
With their higher incomes and diversified investments, the rich can grow their incomes, on balance, at a pace unavailable to the poor. The rich can also join with other rich people, pooling their wealth with the intent of increasing the array of new ventures in which they spread their stakes. New ventures carry inherent risks, but also opportunities for high rewards on those few projects that do succeed. Indeed, coalitions of rich people - such as California's Orange Tech Coast Angels - pool their competence for choosing winning ventures, decreasing the likelihood of failures in the process and increasing the diversity of their portfolios while they take on more risky (and potentially more lucrative) investments.
Members of investment consortiums might experience any number of failed investments, but they can absorb those losses with the profits on their "winners." As higher returns increase their wealth, the rich can continue to diversify their portfolios and assume even higher risks on a wider range of investments with higher payoffs which, in turn, make for relatively higher growth in incomes. Thus, wealth can generate even more wealth, although the process rarely escalates by itself, without attention and work.
The diversification advantages of the rich allow them to do more with their money: develop new ideas and create new products and improvements in established products, start new businesses, hire more workers and take more risks. And that advantage can lead to economic gains for people farther down the income ladder, as new jobs are created or individuals are able to move up within emerging and growing companies (with many of those gains coming in quality improvements not captured in income statistics). Moreover, the diversification advantages of being rich add to the incentive people down the income ladder have to move up. No one should surmise that portfolio diversity makes the rich safe for all times. The history of entrepreneurship is full of rich Americans who, due to economic downturns or consistently bad investment decisions, lost everything. The economic history of the Great Depression and Great Recession is full of case studies about investors losing everything - and joining the ranks of the poor. Consider the fate of the Lehman Brothers, Solyndra or Word Perfect.
The Role of Federal Reserve Monetary Policy
Growth in stock market prices, which can obviously influence wealth and income distributions over time, is affected by myriad economic forces, not the least of which are companies' current economic financial statements (tied to current economic conditions, which can only be read imperfectly) and expected future growth in market share and profits. But pundits often fail to appreciate the direct and indirect ties between the Federal Reserve's monetary policy and stock prices and, hence, the effect of that policy on the distribution of wealth and income.
When the Great Recession emerged with force in 2007, the Federal Reserve turned on its money machine, pushing down interest rates drastically with the expectation of stimulating the economy. The extent of the stimulus' effect on overall economic activity due to the Fed's easy money policy remains in dispute, but it clearly achieved its goal of lowering interest rates. One-year treasury bills carried an interest rate of 5.78 percent in 2000, 1.63 percent in 2008 and 0.13 percent in 2013. Other market interest rates for longer-term bonds followed a similar downward path, but at higher levels to accommodate the higher risks of the longer-term investments.
The drop in interest rates negatively affected many low-income people who relied on their small amount of interest income earned from bank savings accounts. However, interest rates affect inversely the present discounted values of businesses' expected income streams: the lower the interest rate used to discount expected future profit streams, the greater the present value of those streams, and vice versa. Also, lower interests rates can stimulate the economy, which can drive up businesses' expected future income streams. Both forces - the elevated expected future profit streams and the greater present discounted value of those streams, attributable to Fed easy money policy - will drive up current stock prices.
The Fed's and the federal government's coordinated anti-recession policy solutions after 2007 were multi-tiered: massive purchases of banks' mortgage-backed securities, corporate bailouts and financing of "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects. These policies padded the pockets of firms deemed "too big to fail," first abating the fall of their stock prices, then adding upward pressure on their stock prices. These companies profited at the expense of other firms and consumers who were not privileged to receive federal largess. Many firms found credit harder to obtain because of the drain on loanable funds from a series of federal budget deficits that reached above $1 trillion a year.
As a consequence of the anti-recession monetary and fiscal policies, the wealth of rich people has escalated over the last several years as the Dow-Jones Industrial Average, an index of share prices for 30 large corporations, traveled from its recession depth of 6,547 in 2008 to almost 16,600 at the start of May 2014, a two-and-a-half-fold increase (and already 17 percent above its 2013 high of 14,165).31 The greater wealth of the rich has certainly increased their spending power relative to those who had not developed stock portfolios before the run-up in stock prices. In addition, the stock-market surge has also boosted the market value of executives' compensation packages, which have been heavily weighted with stock options and stock grants since the 1990s. A significant number of top corporations' CEOs have realized compensation packages in the millions and tens of millions of dollars in recent years (with some thanks to the federal government's corporate bailouts and the Fed's easy money policy that drove up stock prices).
The resulting rebound in housing prices, attributable in good measure to Fed policy, also disproportionately benefited the rich (and other households in the upper half of the income and wealth distribution) because they own a larger share of the country's housing stock (especially high-priced homes). The rebound in housing prices has enabled the rich to add even greater diversity to their portfolios.
This line of argument suggests that at least some of the relative economic growth of the rich in recent years has resulted directly from the Fed's long-lasting easy money policy and the federal government's fiscal policies. Many advocates of redistributing income toward the poor have avidly supported these monetary and fiscal stimulus policies, perhaps without realizing how they would differentially benefit well-off Americans, leading to demands for government to counter the growth in inequality.
What Is the Solution?
Some of those who view wealth or income inequality as a problem in and of itself think the solution is to tax away the "excess" of the rich and give it to the government, presumably to be redistributed to the poor. But would doing so actually help the poor, or hurt them?
Tax the Rich More? Thomas Piketty ends his book Capital by arguing that his proposed global progressive wealth tax could only improve economic efficiency and national income. It would have no disincentive effect on the exorbitantly wealthy, he says, because they cannot now spend the vast amounts of wealth they have. Moreover, he argues a wealth tax would have a positive incentive on lazy investors who are content to receive low rates of return, say 1 percent to 2 percent a year. His tax would cause those investors to seek more profitable deployment of their investments, just to cover the added wealth tax. If wealthy investors are as unconcerned with taxes on their wealth as Piketty suggests, we have to wonder why he favors a global wealth tax. Obviously, he is concerned that even wealthy investors can be expected to move their wealth from high-tax countries to lower (or no-) tax countries. Fortunately, his proposal is a policy nonstarter, given how difficult it is for countries to coordinate their tax policies.
Both Robert Schiller and Thomas Piketty assume their proposed wealth taxes would only have financial effects, namely to reduce the financial wealth of the truly wealthy and thus reduce inequality of wealth. Maybe so. But they do not consider the fact that such taxes can retard, albeit marginally, the accumulation of wealth - and thereby real capital assets in production - into the future, especially when risky investments are involved. Such a retardation in the accumulation of capital can have negative consequences for people down the income ladder who depend on capital accumulation for growth in the number of income-producing jobs. In addition, when financial wealth is transferred from the wealthy to the government under wealth-tax schemes, the government claims real resources that might be used less productively than they would have been had they remained with the wealthy and remained invested in real businesses.
Raise the Poor? Few would dispute that some people at the bottom of the income distribution need improved economic opportunities, and the more the better. Policymakers should begin with three major strategies:
- First, reform the dysfunctional educational systems in low-income neighborhoods. Improved educational opportunities for low-income Americans will allow them to achieve greater diversity in their job opportunities, which can lead to greater diversification in their wealth portfolios.
- Secondly, reform those public policies, including family and welfare policies, which set up disincentives for advancements among the least advantaged.
- Finally, release the energies of charitable groups to help the least fortunate in our midst.
Admittedly, these are widely recognized strategies that are more easily outlined than made operational, given political dynamics.
Consider the Moral Dimension? Many inequality commentators often appeal to "morality" as a foundation for their concern about the fabulous incomes and wealth of the few, as if they all achieved their economic positions through nefarious means. Certainly, some unknown number have cheated the system - Bernie Madoff, the infamous financial Ponzi-scheme swindler of the 2010s, is the poster child for ill-gotten fortunes. But another moral issue lies embedded in the debate over whether to modify inequality through taxes and regulations: When wealthy people become rich by playing by the rules, is it moral or fair to take their wealth when they achieved their considerable fortune legitimately? In the process of achieving their fortunes, they took considerable risks of losing everything and, at the same time, benefited many others down the income ladder. Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey, for example, took enormous risks and slaved away for many unpaid hours as they built the business foundations of their eventual substantial fortunes.
Is it moral to take away the wealth of such people after they have earned it, after they have played the game fairly? Would it be considered fair to take the grade points of hard working students at the end of a course to boost the grades of students who were not so diligent in their studies? Granted, many truly wealthy people had a measure of luck along their trek to the top of the income and wealth scales, but luck can come to people who operate in uncertain worlds and who work hard at practically everything they do.
Morality is hardly the exclusive province of the redistributionists, who seem to have little interest in how the truly wealthy achieved their wealth.
We have focused on the problems poor people face in elevating, absolutely and relatively, their incomes vis-à-vis the rich. Obviously, many poor people make it on their own and move up the income ladder, in spite of the odds against their income and wealth improvement. Poor people are not doomed to stay in poverty. If all poor people were forever trapped by their bad economic and social circumstances, many low-income individuals today would not be far richer than the middle class at the start of the 20th century. The poor today enjoy amenities that were only available to the very rich in 1959 (when the Census started defining the poverty threshold). The majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, cell phones and other modern comforts.32
Economic improvement can be tougher for the poor than for the rich, due to the poor's socioeconomic circumstances. That is no big revelation, admittedly. A number of studies have shown that considerable upward mobility remains a reality in the United States, even from the bottom of the income ladder.
We have stressed two modest points not widely recognized in the debate over income and wealth inequality. First, when low-income Americans become richer, their gains are not added to the income and wealth of their initial income and wealth stratum. Rather, their economic gains are treated as gains to the higher income and wealth groups they reach.
Second, Americans who make their way up the income and wealth ladders have an unheralded, undeniable economic advantage - the power of diversification, which can allow for higher rates of return on risky investments. This advantage of rich and other well-off Americans, in and of itself, in no way undercuts the welfare of the poor (except in cases of theft and government favoritism). On the contrary, the welfare of the poor can be enhanced by the greater variety of risky ventures undertaken by the well-to-do. We should therefore ignore calls by Robert Shiller and other progressive economists for an "inequality tax," which would only serve as a disincentive to those trying to move up the income ladder, reducing overall income and wealth.33
In discussions of the "rich versus the poor," we need to face the fact that the people who succeeded without being born into wealth have sometimes benefited from a measure of luck in their choice of specific investments (no matter how narrow their portfolios). Other people become and remain rich because they have revealed a level of business and professional sagacity that the poor, who are left behind, do not have. Otherwise, many poor people would not be as poor as they are.
One must also acknowledge that some people have deliberately chosen to work and live their lives in occupations and locations of the country where their earning opportunities are restricted, but where their "non-money" opportunities more than make up for their lost incomes. Literally millions of artists, actors and high- and low-tech entrepreneurs often live close to subsistence because they are determined to live their life passions. Undergraduate and graduate students choose a low-income existence while they gain the education that will further their future growth. Many would-be CEOs deliberately jump off corporate treadmills in order to enjoy more peaceful and satisfying lives, even when they end up living in cabins in the wilderness. And still others measure their lives by how many waves they've caught on a daily basis, not the size of their paychecks. Nevertheless, their numbers add to the apparent inequality gap, even as they enjoy the low-income life courses they choose to follow. Indeed, an unknown number of poor people have the business sagacity to get ahead economically as rapidly as their counterparts in the upper ranges of the income distribution, but choose not to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to note that many poor people are hardly poor by choice. Any number of people in the bottom of the income distribution simply do not have (with the same frequency) the ability to diversify their skills and investments as those in the upper income levels. Ultimately though, many poor people are able to improve their situations in life and move up the income ladder. As they move upward, they can, through product and service development, contribute to the real incomes (that which is measured in dollars and that which cannot be measured because it comes in an ephemeral form, "surplus value") of their former cohorts down the income ladder, and even at the bottom. Nonetheless, their upward movement on the ladder adds to the officially measured growth in the income and wealth gaps between the "rich" and the "poor."
- Barack Obama, "Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility," White House, December 4, 2013. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility.
- Robert J. Schiller, "Better Insurance Against Inequality," New York Times, April 12, 2014. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/business/better-insurance-against-inequality.html?_r=0; See also Paul Krugman, "Why Inequality Matters," New York Times, December 15, 2013. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/opinion/krugman-why-inequality-matters.html.
- Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2014).
- Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007,"Congressional Budget Office, October 2011. Available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf.
- Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, page 24, Figure 1.1.
- John R. Goodman, "Myths about Inequality," Health Policy Blog, January 15, 2014. Available at http://healthblog.ncpa.org/myths-about-inequality/.
- 7. Robert E. Grady, "Obama's Misguided Obsession with Inequality," Wall Street Journal, December 22, 2013. Available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303773704579269990020773098,.
- Scott Winship, "Poor and Middle Class Incomes Have Increased Significantly," Economic Policies for the 21st Century, November 13, 2013. Available at http://www.economics21.org/commentary/poor-and-middle-class-incomes-have-increased-significantly.
- Joseph R. Meisenheimer, "Real Compensation, 1979 to 2003: Analysis from Several Data Sources," Monthly Labor Review, May 2005, pages 3-22. Available at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf.
- 10. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising (OECD Publishing, 2011). Available at http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf; See also Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, pages 316-17, Figures 9.2 and 9.3.
- 11. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century; Paul Krugman, "Why Inequality Matters;" Robert Schiller, "Better Insurance Against Inequality."
- 12. Luisa Kroll, "Inside the 2013 Forbes 400: Facts and Figures on America's Richest," Forbes, September 16, 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/09/16/inside-the-2013-forbes-400-facts-and-figures-on-americas-richest/. A recent New York Times article lays out the growth in the "supersalaries" of top executives, which are bound to boost the income gains of the economic elites relative to line workers. The reporter cites Thomas Piketty, who shows that "two-thirds of the increase in American income inequality over the last four decades can be attributed to a steep rise in wages among the highest income earners in society." See Peter Eavis, "Executive Pay: Invasion of the Supersalaries," New York Times, April 12, 2014. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/business/executive-pay-invasion-of-the-supersalaries.html?_r=0.
- 13. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, "You Are What You Spend," New York Times, February 10, 2008. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?_r=0.
- 14. Alan Reynolds, "Commentary: Work Matters," Commentary, Cato Institute, September 2006. Available at http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/work-matters. See also David R. Henderson, "Economic Inequality: Facts, Theory and Significance," National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Report No. 312, June 2008. Available at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st312.
- 15. Ari Fleischer, "How to Fight Income Inequality: Get Married," Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2013. Available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579296752404877612?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304325004579296752404877612.html.
- 16. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Chapter 11.
- 17. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators (OECD Publishing, 2013). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en.
- 18. Leila Bengali and Mary Daly, "FRBSF Economic Letter: U.S. Economic Mobility: The Dream and the Data," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, March 4, 2013. Available at http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/us-economic-mobility-dream-data/.
- 19. U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005," November 13, 2007. Available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf; See also "Is There Income Mobility in America?" LearnLiberty.org, December 20, 2012. Available at http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/is-there-income-mobility-in-america.
- 20. Liz Moyer, "Teaching Your Kids to Be Rich," Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2014. Available at http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303754404579310540024048118-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMTExNDEyWj.
- 21. David Leonhardt, "Upward Mobility Has Not Declined, Study Says," New York Times, January 22, 2014. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/upward-mobility-has-not-declined-study-says.html.
- 22. Mark R. Rank, "From Rags to Riches to Rags," New York Times, April 18, 2014. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html?_r=0.
- 23. Kathryn Dill, "By Their Bootstraps: Billionaires Who Started From Scratch," Forbes, September 28, 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2013/09/18/by-their-bootstraps-billionaires-who-started-from-scratch/.
- 24. Andrea Navarro, "American Dreams: Foreign-Born Members Of The Forbes 400," Forbes, September 18, 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/andreanavarro/2013/09/18/american-dreams-foreign-born-members-of-the-forbes-400/.
- 25. Mark R. Rank, "From Rags to Riches to Rags."
- 26. Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze - an Update to 2007," Levy Economics Institute, Working Paper No. 589, March 2010. Available at http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf.
- 27. Frank Levy, "Distribution of Income," David R. Henderson, ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd edition (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, 2008). Available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/DistributionofIncome.html.
- 28. Anuj K. Shah, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir, "Some Consequences of Having Too Little," Science, November 2, 2012, Vol. 338, No. 6107, pages 682-685.
- 29. Christopher D. Carroll, "Portfolios of the Rich," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2000. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w7826.pdf.
- 30. "Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the Availability and Affordability of Credit," Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2007. Available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/creditscore/creditscore.pdf.
- 31. See the chart for the Dow Jones Industrial Index for 1900 to the present on StockChart.com at http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html.
- 32. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, "Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What Is Poverty in the United States Today?" Heritage Foundation, July 19, 2011. Available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty.
- 33. Robert J. Shiller, "Better Insurance Against Inequality," New York Times, April 12, 2014. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/business/better-insurance-against-inequality.html.


text:
Few brands have the same clout in the kids market as Ben 10. Repeatedly recognised as the most popular boys' franchise in the world, the series has ensnared and enchanted millions of young fans around the globe.
Central to its appeal is the titular hero, Ben, an adventurous boy with the power to take on different alien shapes and powers through his Ultimatrix gadget. Through this ability, Ben is able to protect Earth from the malicious extra-terrestrial forces that threaten it.
While these antics have been brought to life in a video game before, Namco Bandai has prepared something a little different for Ben 10 fans this Christmas. Ben 10: Galactic Racing is more focused on fun and competition as players compete to be the best racer in the universe.
The single-player mode even has a brand new storyline based on the Emmy award-winning Cartoon Network series, which pits Ben against foes old and new.
There are dozens of familiar characters to choose from, including long-running baddie Vilgax, villain-turned-ally Kevin 11, and a brand new alien creature called Fasttrack.
Holding true to the themes of the show, gamers can race as a variety of human and alien characters, each with their own unique abilities. Ben himself, naturally, can transform into alien creatures, while his friends and enemies carry a variety of weapons and a super-charged Ultimate move that can turn the tide of any race.
Examples include the ability to fire kart-spinning diamonds, shockwaves that knock other racers off course, telekinetic powers that throw rivals into the air and webs that stop opponents in their tracks.
Only players who have mastered these powers will be able to secure victory on the selection of more than 25 space-themed tracks, including some more extreme courses where the terrain shifts throughout the race.
And as you could expect with this type of game, there are plenty of multiplayer modes to enjoy. Ben 10 fans can take on up to three of their friends to truly see who is the greatest alien racer.
Given the ever-growing popularity of Ben 10, retailers can expect to see strong sales from Galactic Racing in the run-up to Christmas.
Galactic marketing
As usual, Namco Bandai is collaborating with Cartoon Network to target Ben 10 fans directly. The game will be advertised around the cartoon series, in the Official Ben 10 Magazine and on the official website, as well as in specialist gaming publications and online.
School star
Namco Bandai has worked closely with Rapport Group to create a range of science lesson plans, which help teachers introduce their students to astronomy and our own solar system through the characters and locations of Ben 10: Galactic Racing.


text:
|[Home Page] [This Week] [Classifieds] [Legals] [Obituaries] [Newsstands] [Subscriptions] [Advertising] [Deadlines] [About Us] [FAQ] [Archives] [Community Links] [Contact Us]
New Scotland Archives The Altamont Enterprise, May 21, 2009
Conservative endorsements cross party lines
By Saranac Hale Spencer
NEW SCOTLAND Conservative party endorsements in town have not fallen along party lines this year.
The party, which has 174 members in New Scotland according to the Albany County Board of Elections, is endorsing Tom Dolin, the incumbent Democrat, for supervisor and Doug LaGrange, an incumbent Republican, and Charles Voss, a Republican who serves on the planning board, for the two town board seats up for election this November.
"At this point, I'm debating that issue," Voss said when asked if was planning to run for election this year. He made a run in the last election and lost to a slate of Democratic incumbents.
"Doug and I are certainly mulling it over," he said. Earlier this month, both LaGrange, a farmer, and Dolin, a retired lawyer, said that they hadn't yet committed to running.
Voss, a professional planner, said when he ran two years ago that it's important for people to use their expertise to better the community. "The town is relatively simplistic in its types of land-use codes and protections we have," he said in a 2007 election interview, and advocated working on planning in New Scotland.
"The land-use issue in New Scotland is foremost in everyone's mind in this election," he said yesterday, meaning that the issues he campaigned on two years ago are now dominant at many town meetings after a Cazenovia-based developer made public plans to develop the old Bender melon farm, in the town's commercial district at the corner of routes 85 and 85A, with a Target-anchored shopping center.


text:
Top 10 cities in the Indian real estate market - NDTv
Thu, May 07, 2015, 10:54 PM
The real estate market depends on so many factors and the major one is how they build the stock and how well they deliver it. This hard truth is captured in the insightful PropEquity report on top 10 cities in the Indian real estate market. In this episode of Realty Debate, we bring you which Indian city tops the list on resilience to the present market downturn and promises to lead the way for real estate growth in India. Watch the real estate chances in India . . . .


text:
I taught Biology, AP Biology and Environmental Science for two years at a private school in Louisville, Kentucky. I taught Marine Biology at a public school in St.Petersburg, Florida. I have Biology, Chemistry and Earth Science at a public school in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I am currently teaching AP Biology and Principles of the Biomedical Sciences (a Project Lead the Way course)
I believe that my teaching style is a mixture between progressivism and social reconstructionism, both of which come under the larger philosophical umbrella of contemporary educational philosophies. My class is a hands-on discovery process where participation is a must. My students utilize various forms of technology to explore basic concepts and to explore various science career paths. I am currently teaching Biology, Chemistry and Earth Science to 9-12 grade students in a high needs urban high school. This year to help address our low proficiency and high drop out rates, I am implementing AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) strategies in my classroom. I am teaching my students to utilize Cornell Notes as well the Interactive Notebook. AVID targets students in the academic middle - B, C, and even D students - who have the desire to go to college and the willingness to work hard. With the guidance of caring teachers, the AVID strategies may help these students become the first member of their family to attend college. I also have a class website, where students can access powerpoint slides, assignments, quizzes & tests, and even post comments or questions.
Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society for Education March 2007- Nancy Howard Faculty Merit Award recipient May 2007- Donors Choose Award Recipient January 2010
Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida -B.S. Marine Science. Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky-Master of Arts in Teaching
I love the outdoors and when given the chance, you'll find me hiking, skiing, snowshoeing, fly fishing, scuba diving or sailing. I also love to meet other teachers and explore their teaching practices
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, Higher Education, Adult Education, Homeschool
English Language Arts, Vocabulary, Specialty, Math, Science, Anatomy, Basic Principles, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Environment, Social Studies - History, World History, Arts & Music, Special Education, Biology, Chemistry, Education, For All Subject Areas, Study Skills, General Science, Physical Science, Asian Studies, Holidays/Seasonal, Back to School, Christmas/ Chanukah/ Kwanzaa, Autumn, Halloween, Winter, The New Year, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter, Spring, Earth Day, For All Subjects, Summer


text:
Prabhas changes his decision - ABN
Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 08:38 PM
Prabhas had given two and half years of his life to Baahubali keeping faith on Rajamouli and accordingly the movie is creating record collections across the country. Meanwhile, the expectations and curiosity has raised about Baahubali- 2. Baahubali - 2 will be commencing its shoot from September and there are murmurs floating that Prabhas, who earlier thought of not doing another film till Baahubali 2, has changed his decision. Watch the details . . .


text:
PRZOOM - /newswire/ -
Hsinchu, Taiwan, 2009/11/19 - For consumer electronics market, Befact Technologies furthermore launches cost competitive and high quality embedded SPD Modules in November.
For consumer electronics market, Befact Technologies furthermore launches cost competitive and high quality embedded SPD Modules in November, 2009. SPD series modules support two output voltages 5.1V (SPD-50) and 12V (SPD-12). SPD-12 can deliver up to 12W output power, maximum DC/DC converting efficiency is 89 @ full load. SPD-50 can deliver up to 12W output power, maximum DC/DC converting efficiency is 85 @ full load. The operation temperature is from -15°C to 55°C.
SPD modules are compliant with IEEE 802.3af power classification, its isolated and thin type module. They support PSE Alternative A and Alternative B connections. SPD modules are much more "slim" than embedded TPD series modules 60mm (L) x 16.9mm (W) X16mm (H), wide range application, low cost version but high DC/DC converting efficient. SPD modules are pin to pin compatible with TPD modules, SPD modules are more convenient to fit in difference products and applications that the space is concerned condition.
SPD modules are low cost but high reliability, specially, in safety protection mechanism. SPD modules build multi-layer ceramic capacitor (MLCC) only, long life time operation and high stability, decrease the risk of PoE application in both of higher temperature and lower temperature. For safety protection mechanism, SPD modules equip many protections to prevent PD modules damage to make PoE application more easy and safe.
SPD features as followed
IEEE802.3af compliant.
Low cost.
Support PoE applications in both of Fast / Gigabit Ethernet environments.
Support wide input voltage range- 37Vdc to 55Vdc.
Thermal cut off.
Short circuit protection.
Over current protection.
High DC/DC converting efficiency.
Less external component ¡V one output decoupling capacitor.
Isolation level 1.5KVrms.
Enhanced surge protection.
Internal build in 2 channel bridge rectifiers support end-point and mid-span mode.
Internal build in Thermal Pad better heat dissipation.
Agency / Source: Befact Technologies
Availability: All Regions (Including Int'l)
Traffic Booster: [/] Quick PRZOOM - Press & Newswire Visibility Checker
Distribution / Indexing: [+]


text:
- Why Colby?
- Request Information
- College Profile
- Scholars Programs
- Student Perspectives
- Alumni Success
- For Counselors
- Contact Admissions
The Dean of Faculty determines who is a faculty member at Colby College. A computer account will be created for a faculty member provided they are either in a "hired" status, or are on the Colby payroll under a current contract.
A faculty member's computer account will be closed upon termination of their contract, unless they are emeritus or prior arrangements are made with the Dean of Faculty. The Dean of Faculty may temporarily extend the lifetime of an account to aid a faculty member's transition to another institution, or to aid students still collaborating with that person. If the spouse or children of the faculty member also have accounts under the "other" classification, these accounts will also be closed at the termination of the contract.
Faculty members on unpaid leave who remain associated with the College may keep their computer account, with the approval of the Dean of Faculty. An example would be a faculty member serving in a political appointment within government.
ITS will attempt to accommodate seasonal faculty who teach on a year-to-year basis by holding their accounts open. Year-to-year status is sometimes difficult for ITS to determine; arrangements for keeping an account open should be requested of ITS via the Dean of Faculty.
Faculty emeriti may keep their computer accounts, but may not have access to administrative computers. Faculty emeriti accounts are reclassified to status "retired".


text:
D.C. Coston: Dickinson State president: DSU took strong action
DICKINSON, N.D. — The Forum News Service story, "Debate over higher ed measure focuses on risk to accreditation," and the coverage of the Greater North Dakota Chamber forum created anguish in the Dickinson State University community (Page A6, Aug. 14).
The story accurately portrayed what was said during the chamber's forum. However, the comments made by House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, ripped the scab off old wounds, particularly his remarks regarding a beloved member of the campus community. I wish to correct and add items not included in the leader's comments.
First, DSU never ducked any issues but took them on squarely and methodically. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate. DSU has taken significant actions that have been reported widely, including on our website and at legislative hearings — most of which Carlson attended.
Among the actions DSU has taken are:
- Corrected enrollment numbers in the North Dakota University System database, in the U.S. Department of Education database, and in reports to the Higher Learning Commission, which accredits colleges and universities in the central United States.
DSU has established policies and procedures with checks and balances to assure reporting is accurate.
- Now almost 100 years old, DSU is proud that every degree posted on a transcript has been earned. Following the audit, the university removed nearly 400 unearned degrees. However, true to this institution's commitment to respect the dignity of every person, our staff worked one-on-one with the affected students to prescribe the coursework necessary to earn a degree in one of our approved curricula.
Many students chose to continue working toward degrees. The "diploma mill" label coined by an enterprising reporter in 2011 is not accurate.
- I was asked by the State Board of Higher Education to become DSU's acting president in August 2011. During that first semester, I worked to learn about the institution and to understand what had occurred.
Between mid-December 2011 and August 2012, the people in 28 of the 45 leadership positions at DSU changed. These changes occurred in most areas of the institution, including the Office of the President, Enrollment Services and Communications, Finance and Administration, Academic Affairs, and Student Development.
- Because of the issues at DSU prior to August 2011, the Higher Learning Commission in July 2012 placed DSU's accreditation in the status of "on notice," which is the mildest sanction the HLC uses. DSU remained accredited during this entire time.
In April 2013, the HLC sent a team to review DSU's efforts to address past issues. The team recommended the HLC Board remove the "on notice" status, noting the institution had effectively handled all of the issues raised. In a parallel recommendation to the HLC Board, the HLC staff also recommended removal from "on notice" with the comment: "Throughout the Notice period, Dickinson State University has remained highly transparent, proactive, responsive and extremely engaged with the Commission. The institution's efforts demonstrate an extraordinary commitment to accreditation and, as such are to be commended."
The HLC Board of Trustees removed DSU from "on notice" on Oct. 31, 2013. These materials have been posted on the DSU website for almost a year and are publicly available.
Today, DSU is filled with a spirit of optimism. There is an infectious collegiality among students, faculty and staff. This leads to an unspoken, yet palpable, bond of respect for one another and a commitment to holding ourselves to the highest expectations.
The community, our alumni and friends, and the residents of North Dakota can remain confident we will continue to steward and uphold DSU's tradition of excellence in education and service to the region.
Coston is president of Dickinson State University. He is former vice president for agriculture and extension at North Dakota State University.


text:
McCullouch, Earl
From Astro-Databank
Revision as of 14:26, 10 August 2010 by (talk) (Imported from Astrodatabank)
|Earl McCullouch
|born on
|10 January 1946 at 04:00 (= 04:00 AM )
|Clarksville TX, USA, 33n36, 95w03
|CST h6w (is standard time)
|Data source
|Astrology data
|19°35' 13°55 Asc. 01°57'
American pro athlete, professional football player and a track and field champion. A college football player, he was drafted into the National Football League by the Detroit Lions in 1968. He was traded to the New Orleans Saints in 1974, his last year of pro football. McCullouch at 5'11" may have been a little small for a football player but he had great speed and agility. In July 1967 he had set a world record for the 110-meter hurdle
- Work : Prize 1967 (Set track and field record)
- Work : New Career 1968 (National Football League)
- Work : Retired 1974 (From pro football)
Source Notes
Steinbrecher Collection: Gauquelin Book of American Charts
- Vocation : Sports : Football
- Vocation : Sports : Track and Field
- Notable : Awards : Sports Championship


text:
STARmeterSEE RANK
Down 16 this week
Tim Post
Tim Post was born in 1963 in Canada. He is an actor, known for Enemy (2013), Dawn of the Dead (2004) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). See full bio »
Born:in Canada
More at IMDbPro » Contact Info: View agent


text:
An impudent exclamation similar to in your face: They screamed "booyah" at the other team
An excited exclamation of extreme pleasure, approval, etc: He said "booyah!" when I told him I made tacos for dinner
Tagged: b
Read Also:
- Booze
any alcoholic beverage; whiskey. a drinking bout or spree. to drink alcohol, especially to excess: He continued to booze until his health finally gave out. booze it up, to drink heavily and persistently. Contemporary Examples Does the World Have a Drinking Problem? David Sessions February 17, 2011 My Week At An Austrian Fat Camp Owen […]
- Booze-artist
booze artist
- Booze-cruise
noun (Brit, informal) a day trip to a foreign country, esp from England across the English Channel to France, for the purposes of buying cheap alcohol, cigarettes, etc noun Usage Note
- Booze-hag
noun (NZ, slang) a girl or woman who drinks to excess


text:
Organic Merchants – NON-GMO Organic Popcorn
There's nothing better than good old-fashioned popcorn to make for a perfect movie, baseball game or midnight snack. While most corn products are genetically modified, Organic Merchants lets you enjoy a healthier popcorn without all of the GMOs and chemicals found in traditional popcorn. Additionally, if you're gluten-free or looking into healthier eating alternatives, Organic Merchants popcorn provides a natural, certified organic, kosher choice that's packaged in an eco-friendly, resealable bag.
Organic Merchants Co. is a family owned, vertically-integrated importer, packager and direct to consumer retailer of premium natural and organic products. We pride ourselves on selecting the finest quality raw materials that are NON-GMO and gluten free. We use eco-friendly packaging that helps our brand resonate with health-conscious consumers who also appreciate value and quality and are happy to shop online. By cutting out the middlemen, we bring the highest quality products directly to consumers at a great value. For more information, visitwww.organicmerchants.com.
We're confident in our abilities to produce and package our products in a timely manner, however, if we do not reach our funding goal, this could impact the timing of order fulfillment. In order to avoid these obstacles, we've made sure to set realistic shipping dates so that we're more likely to get them to your doorstep in time! We are committed to delivering Organic Merchants popcorn to you by December, 2016, however, there is always a risk of delays. Luckily, we are the actual packager of our products, giving us the advantage of cutting out the middleman and minimizing risk.
Since all purchases are made directly through Organic Merchants, all packing is done in-house, and warehousing is company owned, this makes it possible to offer high quality organic products at such a low cost.


text:
Talk about a woman scorned! Christie Brinkley is holding on to the "love nest" her cheating husband Peter Cook used for his marriage-busting affair to keep him from getting any money from the sale!
Christie, 53, is unloading other real estate as part of her $60 million-plus divorce. She's asking $8 million for a four-bedroom, two-bath oceanfront home in Water Mill, N.Y.
However, the $7 million unoccupied six-bedroom Greek Revival mansion in North Haven, N.Y., where Peter held trysts with his teenage lover, is remaining part of her real estate portfolio – even though Peter wants her to sell it.
"She's holding onto the 'love nest' for the time being," disclosed an insider.
"While they go through the divorce, she's not letting Peter forget about what happened there – it's a remote property on four acres that he used to conduct his illicit affair."
The couple, who tied the knot in 1996, has two children – and at least three other homes.
After learning he was having an affair with his then teenage assistant Diana Bianchi, Christie ditched her 47-year-old husband. Peter, an architect, had designs on Bianchi when she was 17. They met while she was working as a clerk in a toy store. He hired her as his office assistant, and a yearlong affair followed when she was 18.
Confided the insider: "Christie's not giving up the 'love nest' until she's good and ready."


text:
The Horn Group ID (which stands for Interactive Design) has added mobile application development to its list of service offerings. It has also begun targeting sectors outside of technology and digital media, with clients in the consumer and healthcare areas. To help lead the group, David Fausel will join the firm on October 4. For the last six years, Fausel has worked at kirschenbaum bond senecal + partners managing campaigns for Panasonic, Diageo, and other clients.
Get Adweek's Digital & Technology Daily Newsletter in your Inbox
Today's top news for digital marketers


text:
(Science: medicine) a disease of the eyes, in consequence of which a person can see clearly or without pain only by daylight or a strong artificial light; day sight.
Some writers (as Quain) use the word in the opposite sense, i. E, day blindness. See nyctalopia.
Origin: NL, fr. Gr, the opposite of; day _ of . See nyctalopia.
Please contribute to this project, if you have more information about this term feel free to edit this page.


text:
This is such an important part of our history and should be preserved for generations to come, so if you are a World War II veteran or a family member of one,and you would like to have your story included, please contact Dr. Hewlett.
William J. Alsup
contributed by Dr. Gloria Hewlett
William J. Alsup, son of Mr. and Mrs. Dave Alsup, of Kopperl, Texas graduated from Kopperl High School in 1938. That summer he went to Fort Worth and found a job cutting reinforcement and windmill rods with Texas Steel. After a short time he was laid off. The reason given to employees was that the Japanese were no longer buying scrap metal from the United States. Alsup then decided to join the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) sometimes known as Roosevelt's Tree Army.
Alsup enlisted in the CCC for six months and was sent to Carlsbad, New Mexico where he was classified as a laborer. The work crews cleared trails, built firebreaks and built railings on the walk down to the caverns. The men were given sack lunches each day and were required to eat the contents. Alsup remembers the food being good and wholesome. During this tour of duty Alsup was given his first ambulance ride when he was taken to Fort Bliss in EL Paso Texas for hernia repair.
While stationed in Carlsbad Alsup had the pleasure of meeting Jim White the discoverer of Carlsbad Caverns. Alsup witnessed several important improvements to the Carlsbad Caverns. They were installation of an elevator, indirect lighting and metal rails along the cavern walls for security purposes.
Alsup's pay was $30.00 a month. He sent $22.00 home to his parents and kept $8.00 for spending money. He remembers supplementing his income by rolling dice with his buddies. These buddies were Bosque County natives Leonard Cottle (who was later killed in a train accident moving U.S. Army troops.), Cliff Gardener and Wendell Bynum of Kopperl.
Alsup's second hitch in the CCC was spent at
the Grand Canyon, Arizona. When
enrolled he was described as being 20 years old, and by occupation a grocery clerk. He had gray eyes, brown hair and a ruddy complexion. He stood 5 ft. 9 in. tall and his color was white. He was discharged from this enlistment on March 4, 1941 and was drafted within days into the U.S. Army.
At Grand Canyon Alsup was promoted to 1st Sgt. and paid $45.00. During this time he had several duties. He was in charge of conditioning, a canteen steward and a senior leader. As a Senior Leader he was in charge of administrative details for 250 "homesick" men. These men stood inspection every morning and were assigned to work crews that walked or rode into the Grand Canyon. Those walking cleared trails as they went. Alsup states the men spent their leisure time going to the movies, meeting local young women, taking tours of the surrounding area and trips to Flagstaff. Alsup has noting but praise for the CCC program. He felt that the experience made a man out of boys, taught them how to get along with their fellow man and held them responsible for their actions. The CCC experience taught men a trade and that was a wonderful opportunity.
I wanted to include a little more history on
the early towns of Bosque County this week starting with Valley Mills,
the first homesteads of Ewell Everett and Lowry Scrutchfield first show
up in the 1850's. Searsville, The Old Rock Church on Hog Creek and Valley
Mills were the first settlements in that area. Dr. E. P. Booth and Mr.
A. H. Stegall, both of Waco, built a combination flour, grist, and saw
mill on land purchased from James Sadler.
The mill was located on the north side of the Bosque River in 1867.
With the mill bringing a large amount of people into the new town, the first Post Office was established on April 19, 1867 and Moses Isenhower became the first Postmaster. It didn't take long for the town to grow to include the general merchandise store of C. L. McGee, E. A. Mc Neill's blacksmith shop, Henry Saddler's grocery store, Bill Nichols shoe shop and the drug store of Dr. E. P. Booth and to the east of Valley Mills cattle herds began traveling north on the Chisolm Trail.
Cranfills Gap was named for George Eaton Cranfill who arrived in Texas from Illinois in the 1850's and for the "Gap" between the two mountains located about a half mile from the present townsite.
Riled and Bud Ford established the first store in 1882 and were joined soon after by Dr. Whitlock and a Blacksmith shop owned by A.A. Anderson. Ras Cranfill opened a store with a saloon in 1884, G. O. Bronstad and Morris Weil established the first general store in 1887 and in 1891 A. G. Grimland opened the first law practice in the community.
The Old Rock Church was erected four miles west of Cranfills Gap in 1886. Native limestone, dug from the mountainside two miles west of Meridian, was used for the construction of the Church.
The Cranfills Gap Telephone Company was incorporated in 1906 and served about 300 customers. J. W. Butler of Clifton, secured a charter for the First Guaranty Bank of Cranfills Gap, now known as First Security State Bank, in 1910. In the early days since roads were almost non-existent, freight was transported by a six mule team and wagon form Clifton.
Originally called Hollis Prairie, and consisting of a school and a church set in a farming community, Lane's Chapel was located a few miles northeast of Mosheim. In 1876 the first one-room log cabin school house was built. The school was moved in 1905 to a four acre site donated by Elzie Lane. A new brick building was built in 1915 consisting of two rooms to replace the old frame school.
In 1878 the first community church was built by John R. Lane and sons, the land was donated by Joshua McCuiston. Once the church was completed the name of the settlement was changed to Lane's Chapel in honor of the Lanes. Adjoining the church are a cemetery and tabernacle. In 1930 the church was replaced by a smaller building.
Walnut Springs News
Mrs. P. M. Crow is visiting in Terell this week.
Mrs. John Caraway attended the Waco Carnival this week.
Mrs. L. K. Johnson is visiting relatives at Chalk Mountain this week.
Mrs. James Day returned home Friday from a visit to her parents near
Princeton, Texas.
Iredell News
Mrs. Eldridge of Walnut Springs is visiting her parents here.
J. C. Lane of Iredell is selling seven pounds of best roasted coffee for $1
Mrs. Hays left for Alexander after a weeks stay with her daughter Mrs. C.C. Corley.
H. A. Turner has knocked the bottom out in groceries if you don't believe it just come and see.
Mr. Surcy's little boy of Spring Creek was bitten by a snake last Friday, from the effects of which he died Saturday evening. We extend heartfelt sympathies to the bereaved parents.
Willow Springs News
Last Saturday C. C. Williams was thrown from his buggy, striking the wheel and seriously injuring his leg and ankle.
Clifton News
Mrs. J. M. Brooks was right sick the first of the week.
Mrs P. Olson has been very sick for several days past.
Mrs. Nettie Anderson of Norse was in Clifton visiting friends.
Mrs/ H. C. Mills, of McGregor, mother of Mrs. T. P. Isbell spent a pleasant week in the city.
J. H. Jenson was in the city Thursday, he had in his possession the skin of a large gray wolf, from tip to tip the hide was about seven feet long.
This old newspaper and many more from Bosque
County dating back to the late 1800's are available for research at the
Bosque County Collection in Meridian. Don't forget that the Bosque County
Collection is now open on Saturdays for research . You'll be amazed at
the vast collection of Bosque County history preserved there. For information
and a look at some of the wonderful research items available visit their
website at
Here's my reminder to everyone, talk with your relatives, remember to take the time to record you family history and memories, someday, somewhere some descendant will surely thank you for not letting the past slip away.
If you are researching your Bosque County families online be sure to visit Bosque Co. TXGenWeb site at http://www.rootsweb.com/~txbosqu2/ you'll find a wonderful collection of information provided by other researchers, it's quite possible you might just find other researchers there researching your same family lines. This column will also be available weekly at this site.
If you would like to submit a story or query
about your Bosque County family, as well as information on reunions, to
this column please mail them to:
LaDawn Garland c/o The Bosque County News
P.O. Box 343
Meridian, TX 76665
fax to (254) 435-6335
or email me at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Personalised Absinthe Vintage Hip Flask
The ultimate symbol of that care-free and bohemian time, the Great Binge, is Absinthe. Referred to as the Green Fairy, for good reason, this dangerous tipple was a favourite of Parisians at the turn of the century, and still holds popular today.
This beautiful hip flask, which is printed with an elegant matte black finish, harks back to these vintage times and draws upon the beautiful designs and classic typography that struck a chord with the era.
You can personalise this fantastic design with any name up to 15 characters long, and make it the perfect keepsake and treasured gift for any birthday, Father's Day, or anniversary.
- Name (15 Characters Max.)
Dimensions: 11 x 10 x 2cm
Please note:
- This item will be personalised exactly as you have written so please double check spelling, punctuation and use of capital letters.
- Personalised products can only be returned if they are faulty.
- Do not include accents and special symbols as some of our processes will not allow this.
- Due to the font type used please do not use all capitals in your personalised message, or the personalisation will be very difficult to read.
- 2.0cm x 10.0cm x 11.0cm
Personalised Absinthe Vintage Hip Flask Customer Reviews
Related products in Personalised Hip Flasks
Frequently Asked Questions
Do you have an un-answered question about this product? Simply ask us a question and we'll do our best to help.


text:
A Teaching Adventure
Vanish for a month or so from the online publishing world and some people might take notice. A few emails trickle in: "where'd you go?", "what's going on?". 10 years of publishing something at least every week if not several times a week, brings some degree of expectation.
On the other hand, like so many things in life, it is great to break a tradition, strike up in a new direction, or simply defy expectations.… Read Full Text