Where did the "Economist" come up with these statistics?

[bluestateguy]

I'm not saying the magazine is wrong, I'd just like to know where those numbers cam from. The number of millionaires and billionaires is so tiny that the sub-sample would be too small to show up in an exit poll.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3400772

First, the party is increasingly dominated by people who have no yearning for growth: public-sector workers; academics and trustafarians who both live off inherited endowments; environmentalists who want to regulate SUVs and urban sprawl; and billionaires who are too rich to aspire to anything. (One of the best statistics of the campaign is that people worth $1m-10m supported Mr Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured Mr Kerry 59-41%.)

more

[Warpy]

1. Hard to say

Most of the truly rich have seen diminishing returns, even though the numbers have escalated beyond belief. The reasons for this are the declining worth of the dollar (down more than 40%) and inflation in the luxury goods market. In other words, their numbers look great, but their buying power hasn't done that well.

Those that spend much time overseas have also seen this country's reputation fall right into the toilet. They've had to be much more circumspect, and that has to hurt.

Most of them also realize that bankrupting the country in order to kill off elderly peasants wasn't such a great idea. The second statistic looks right on the money (don't send me to the punalty box).

Assets between $1 million to $10 million are no longer considered wealth. That range covers middle class to lower upper class. Sometimes the most selfish people are the ones with just a tad more to lose than the rest of us.

The truly wealthy have been hit hard by GOP fiscal stupidity, and most of them must realize it by now.

[papau]

2. The Economist review of the US has long been warmed over GOP claims - I don't

believe that either John Micklethwait - who was the editor of the column and who is now the editor of the whole magazine, or Adrian Wooldridge who actually wrote most of the "Lexington" column (a small percentage being directly written by Micklethwait) have a clue as to the actual source of those statistics - if there is a source beyond a Rove assertion.

[sweetheart]

3. The economist can be so full of shit

"For the moment, the American right is better at talking about the future than the left. It is better at exuding optimism. And it is better at addressing the aspirations of an aspirational people."

These assholes campaigned for bush and helped them with the war crimes by being a sycophantic media to say the least.
For a magazine that balked a berlusconi to have given such a blowjob to bush's criminal repukes, really defies
journalistic independence. Its sad that the editors of the economnist don't even bother with their hipocrisy or
apologize for helping to dupe the public in to this mess. The editors did indeed show how bad their intelligence
is about the US and the republicans, that they are so incredibly decieved they look like real assholes in retrospect.

The economist is *owned*.