"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:41:59 -0400, Secular Humanist
wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:58:47 -0700, jps wrote:

Sheesh, thought they had all those folks in Red states too.

Not as many and not as rich

Is it because blue states are just more packed with more natural and
business resources or is it that blue citizens have made 'em that
way?

Interesting question.
It has to be pointed out that the greatest income disparity is in
the
biggest cities so there is not going to be one answer.
Another interesting thing is the two richest Americans (Gates and
Buffett) do not live in a big city.

Gates' house is near Seattle.
Buffet lives outside of Omaha.

You expect them to live in the inner city?


'Near' and 'in' are two entirely different things.

Seattle and Omaha are not really big cities in the DC/NYC/Chicago
sense.

So, I guess Bloomberg isn't rich. Seems to me that you enjoy
cherry-picking
your facts.



Talk about cherry picking. You had to get down to number 23 to find a
billionaire who lives in one of the cities I mentioned according to
Forbes. There are three Waltons in Little Rock who have more money
than Bloomburg. More than half don't even live in the US.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/...ires_Rank.html

So, suddenly the cities you mention are the important ones? Hardly. I guess
Silicon Valley isn't important because it isn't a city. And, there are
plenty of other places like that.

Keep fishing!



You are out of your mind