America 1950 vs. America 2012

[John F Kennedy III]

America 1950 vs. America 2012

The Economic Collapse
Monday, February 27, 2012

Would you rather live in the America of 1950 or the America of 2012? Has the United States changed for the better over the last 62 years? Many fondly remember the 1950s and the 1960s as the “golden age” of America.

http://www.themoralliberal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/american-flag1.jpg

We emerged from World War II as the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. During that time period, just about anyone that wanted to get a job could find a job and the U.S. middle class expanded rapidly. Back in 1950, America was still considered to be a “land of opportunity” and the economy was growing like crazy. There was less crime, there was less divorce, the American people had much less debt and the world seemed a whole lot less crazy. Most of the rest of the world deeply admired us and wanted to be more like us. Of course there were a lot of things that were not great about America back in 1950, and there are many things that many of us dearly love that we would have to give up in order to go back and live during that time. For example, there was no Internet back in 1950. Instead of being able to go online and read the articles that you want to read, your news would have been almost entirely controlled by the big media companies of the day. So there are definitely some advantages that we have today that they did not have back in 1950. But not all of the changes have been for the better. America is in a constant state of change, and many are deeply concerned about where all of these changes are taking us.

There has never been any society in the history of the world that has been perfect. America was flawed in 1950 just as America is flawed today.

But that doesn’t mean that we should not reflect on how much things have changed over the past 62 years.

So which version of America would you rather live in?

America 1950 vs. America 2012 – you make the call….

In 1950, a gallon of gasoline cost about 27 cents.

In 2012, a gallon of gasoline costs $3.69.

In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.

In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.

In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men were employed.

In 2012, less than 65 percent of all men are employed.

In 1950, the average duration of unemployment was about 12 weeks.

In 2012, the average duration of unemployment is about 40 weeks.

In 1950, the average family spent about 22% of its income on housing.

In 2012, the average family spends about 43% of its income on housing.

In 1950, gum chewing and talking in class were some of the major disciplinary problems in our schools.

In 2012, many of our public schools have been equipped with metal detectors because violence has become so bad.

In 1950, mothers decided what their children would eat for lunch.

In 2012, lunches are inspected by government control freaks to make sure that they contain the “correct foods” in many areas of the country. For example, one 4-year-old girl recently had her lunch confiscated by a “lunch monitor” because it did not meet USDA guidelines….


A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita.

In 2012, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita.

In 1950, redistribution of wealth was considered to be something that “the communists” did.

In 2012, the U.S. government redistributes more wealth than anyone else in the world.

In 1950, about 13 million Americans had manufacturing jobs.

In 2012, less than 12 million Americans have manufacturing jobs even though our population has more than doubled since 1950.

In 1950, the entire U.S. military was mobilized to protect the borders of South Korea.

In 2012, the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada are wide open and now there are 1.4 million gang members living inside the United States.

In 1950, there were about 2 million people living in Detroit and it was one of the greatest cities on earth.

In 2012, there are about 700,000 people living in Detroit and it has become a symbol of what is wrong with the U.S. economy.

In 1950, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was slightly over the 200 mark.

In 2012, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is threatening to soar over the 13,000 mark.

In 1950, corporate taxes accounted for about 30 percent of all federal revenue.

In 2012, corporate taxes will account for less than 7 percent of all federal revenue.

In 1950, the median age at first marriage was about 22 for men and about 20 for women.

In 2012, the median age at first marriage is about 28 for men and about 26 for women.

In 1950, many Americans dressed up in suits and dresses before getting on an airplane.

In 2012, security goons look at the exposed forms of our women and our children before they are allowed to get on to an airplane.

In 1950, each retiree’s Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers.

In 2012, each retiree’s Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers.

In 1950, many Americans regularly left their cars and the front doors of their homes unlocked.

In 2012, many Americans live with steel bars on their windows and gun sales are at record highs.

In 1950, the American people had a great love for the U.S. Constitution.

In 2012, if you are “reverent of individual liberty“, you may get labeled as a potential terrorist by the U.S. government.

In 1950, the United States loaned more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.

In 2012, the United States owes more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.

In 1950, the U.S. national debt was about 257 billion dollars.

In 2012, the U.S. national debt is 59 times larger. It is currently sitting at a grand total of $15,435,694,556,033.29. Surely our children and our grandchildren will thank us for that.

One of the only things that is constant in life is change.

Whether we like it or not, America is going to continue to change.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, about 70 percent of all American adults were married.

Today, only about 50 percent of all American adults are married.

We are more independent, less religious, more addicted to entertainment and more doped up on prescription drugs than Americans used to be.

We have a higher standard of living than Americans in 1950 did, but we are also drowning in an ocean of debt unlike anything the world has ever seen.

For a lot more on how the U.S. economy is doing in 2012, just check out this list of interesting facts.

So is America 2012 a better version than America 1950 was?

Have we made progress since then or are we going backwards?


Hyperlinks in original article:
http://www.infowars.com/america-1950-vs-america-2012/

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/assets/edillus/camp01_3202_01.jpg

Now, everybody in an airport tends to look like this guy:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Lebowskilimo.jpg

[Blueskies]

I hate stuff like this.

1950s America was not a utopia. I could write a laundry list of problems. The problems of 2012 are obvious.

The world changes. You can't go back to the past. Let's work on making 2020 far greater than both 1950 and 2012.

[RiseAgainst]

I hate stuff like this.

1950s America was not a utopia. I could write a laundry list of problems. The problems of 2012 are obvious.

The world changes. You can't go back to the past. Let's work on making 2020 far greater than both 1950 and 2012.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0mH8G6xEQIs/Tw5Pdm5TupI/AAAAAAAAIWc/wo-WIGKvQyY/s1600/midnight-in-paris.jpg

[BuddyRey]

I'd gladly take the music, film, and fashion of 1950, but I'd still take modern-day American crises. Polio, Communism, and nuclear annihilation were way scarier (and more realistic) threats than "the tur'rists."

The scariest thing we got going today is our own government.

[outspoken]

It all depends on your relative perspective. I'd rather be a minority in 2012 than 1950. Most today cannot begin to relate to the kind of oppressive rascism that existed decades ago. We are moving towards freedom in some respects and slavery in other respects; ironic to say the least. Our founder foresaw most if not all the social problems that exist today and gave us a form of govt most able to combat the most vile aspects of human nature. We still managed to screw it up and fail to learn from the mistakes of history that have lead to great travesty and suffering.

[NewRightLibertarian]

It all depends on your relative perspective. I'd rather be a minority in 2012 than 1950. Most today cannot begin to relate to the kind of oppressive rascism that existed decades ago. We are moving towards freedom in some respects and slavery in other respects; ironic to say the least. Our founder foresaw most if not all the social problems that exist today and gave us a form of govt most able to combat the most vile aspects of human nature. We still managed to screw it up and fail to learn from the mistakes of history that have lead to great travesty and suffering.

Back then blacks didn't have rights, now none of us do. I'd still take 1950 because at least the economy wasn't in the shitter back then

[Shane Harris]

even the poor today are better off than the high middle class of 1950. capitalism has improved millions of lives to spite the government. imagine if we had a truly free market

[Shane Harris]

Back then blacks didn't have rights, now none of us do. I'd still take 1950 because at least the economy wasn't in the shitter back then

I get your point but its pretty ignorant to try to equate what we are going through today to what blacks went through in the Jim Crow years. Our current situation has extreme consequences and potential but we live far safer and better lives than blacks did 60 years ago. Ask any black man if he would rather be living in 1950. Just saying.

[otherone]

[SIZE=3]

In 1950, redistribution of wealth was considered to be something that “the communists” did.

In 2012, the U.S. government redistributes more wealth than anyone else in the world.


IIRC, the top tax rate in 1950 was 65%.

[donnay]

In the 1950's people weren't so materialistic, shallow and superficial consumers like we see today.

[Anti Federalist]

I get your point but its pretty ignorant to try to equate what we are going through today to what blacks went through in the Jim Crow years. Our current situation has extreme consequences and potential but we live far safer and better lives than blacks did 60 years ago. Ask any black man if he would rather be living in 1950. Just saying.

You know, I have done that.

The answer to whether they would have lived in New Orleans in 1950 or 2010 might surprise you.

Crime, unemployment, and the deliberate collapse of the family within the black community has been devastating.

Was just reading last week about a woman in New Orleans that lost every one of her six sons to murder.

Things are not good at all, in spite of some surface improvements.

What was done to the black community was a beta test, it's now being rolled out for everybody.

[Shane Harris]

You know, I have done that.

The answer to whether they would have lived in New Orleans in 1950 or 2010 might surprise you.

Crime, unemployment, and the deliberate collapse of the family within the black community has been devastating.

Was just reading last week about a woman in New Orleans that lost every one of her six sons to murder.

Things are not good at all, in spite of some surface improvements.

What was done to the black community was a beta test, it's now being rolled out for everybody.

fair enough

[onlyrp]

America 1950 vs. America 2012 – you make the call….

In 1950, a gallon of gasoline cost about 27 cents.
In 2012, a gallon of gasoline costs $3.69.

In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.
In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.


Completely pointless without the context of wages.



In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men were employed.
In 2012, less than 65 percent of all men are employed.


I contest how the employment is measured and compared. And I contest why employment is a measurement of wealth. Last time I checked, people were complaining we worked too much compared to 1950s.



In 1950, the average duration of unemployment was about 12 weeks.
In 2012, the average duration of unemployment is about 40 weeks.

Again, how is this measured?



In 1950, the average family spent about 22% of its income on housing.
In 2012, the average family spends about 43% of its income on housing.


I'd love to see a source for this.



In 1950, gum chewing and talking in class were some of the major disciplinary problems in our schools.
In 2012, many of our public schools have been equipped with metal detectors because violence has become so bad.


Wait, so it was better than we had less freedom, more obedient children in a classroom in 1950s?



In 1950, mothers decided what their children would eat for lunch.
In 2012, lunches are inspected by government control freaks to make sure that they contain the “correct foods” in many areas of the country. For example, one 4-year-old girl recently had her lunch confiscated by a “lunch monitor” because it did not meet USDA guidelines….


How about complaining how LITTLE people have moved away from public schools?



A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita.

In 2012, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita.


Thanks for leaving out an IMPORTANT FACT, WE DESTROYED EUROPE & JAPAN WITH THE WAR. We can still be #1 again if we made use of our nuclear arsenal, but I don't see anybody looking forward to it.



In 1950, redistribution of wealth was considered to be something that “the communists” did.
In 2012, the U.S. government redistributes more wealth than anyone else in the world.


How is "anyone else" defined? Obviously no one person could beat the US government, and given our population, no communist country can beat us given our wealth available to distribute. Maybe in 1950 we still had a rather higher and better record of distributing wealth, but this is completely left out.



In 1950, about 13 million Americans had manufacturing jobs.
In 2012, less than 12 million Americans have manufacturing jobs even though our population has more than doubled since 1950.


Again, why is employment a measure of success and wealth? Why is retirement, unemployment, social welfare, ability to live without working not an aspired value?



In 1950, the entire U.S. military was mobilized to protect the borders of South Korea.
In 2012, the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada are wide open and now there are 1.4 million gang members living inside the United States.


Is somebody praising intervention in 1950??? And advocating to militarize our borders?



In 1950, there were about 2 million people living in Detroit and it was one of the greatest cities on earth.
In 2012, there are about 700,000 people living in Detroit and it has become a symbol of what is wrong with the U.S. economy.


Detroit was the greatest city because it produced the world's best technology commodity : CARS.
Today, it's called Silicone Valley, Hollywood, and NYC.



In 1950, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was slightly over the 200 mark.
In 2012, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is threatening to soar over the 13,000 mark.


Here's my ignorance, what does that mean?



In 1950, corporate taxes accounted for about 30 percent of all federal revenue.
In 2012, corporate taxes will account for less than 7 percent of all federal revenue.

YAY , somebody wants more corporate taxes.



In 1950, the median age at first marriage was about 22 for men and about 20 for women.
In 2012, the median age at first marriage is about 28 for men and about 26 for women.


So Mormons are the role model.



In 1950, many Americans dressed up in suits and dresses before getting on an airplane.
In 2012, security goons look at the exposed forms of our women and our children before they are allowed to get on to an airplane.


If the technology were not invented for either the explosives or detection systems, we wouldn't have them. So according to this guy, it's better when we didn't have technology.



In 1950, each retiree’s Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers.
In 2012, each retiree’s Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers.


What does that mean? Is it better to have more people paying one's benefits? I thought we were just complaining that redistro of wealth is bad.



In 1950 many Americans regularly left their cars and the front doors of their homes unlocked.
In 2012, many Americans live with steel bars on their windows and gun sales are at record highs.


How many is "many"? I bet this guy doesn't want to tell you what areas have steel bars vs. what kind of cities still leave doors unlocked.



In 1950, the American people had a great love for the U.S. Constitution.
In 2012, if you are “reverent of individual liberty“, you may get labeled as a potential terrorist by the U.S. government.


Yes, that's why the civil rights movement and act wasn't in place.



In 1950, the United States loaned more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.
In 2012, the United States owes more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.


That's a fair point.



In 1950, the U.S. national debt was about 257 billion dollars.
In 2012, the U.S. national debt is 59 times larger. It is currently sitting at a grand total of $15,435,694,556,033.29. Surely our children and our grandchildren will thank us for that.


That's a good point, but it's not a bad thing if you never have to pay it back.

[onlyrp]

In the 1950's people weren't so materialistic, shallow and superficial consumers like we see today.

Because materialistic goods were not as abundant and cheap, therefore by sheer measure of material and monetary wealth, 2012 wins hands down.

[onlyrp]

I get your point but its pretty ignorant to try to equate what we are going through today to what blacks went through in the Jim Crow years. Our current situation has extreme consequences and potential but we live far safer and better lives than blacks did 60 years ago. Ask any black man if he would rather be living in 1950. Just saying.

It's beyond insulting to say we are living worse than blacks in 1950. Indeed, ignorant, probably intentionally. I don't care if you don't care about blacks (because I don't), but I wouldn't ever say they had it better than we do today.

[Anti Federalist]

Because materialistic goods were not as abundant and cheap, therefore by sheer measure of material and monetary wealth, 2012 wins hands down.

Cheap consumer goods only exist because of a flood of cheap imports from a communist prison state.

[Anti Federalist]

It's beyond insulting to say we are living worse than blacks in 1950. Indeed, ignorant, probably intentionally. I don't care if you don't care about blacks (because I don't), but I wouldn't ever say they had it better than we do today.

I'm not sure he was.

I'm pretty sure he was saying that conditions have improved.

[onlyrp]

I hate stuff like this.

1950s America was not a utopia. I could write a laundry list of problems. The problems of 2012 are obvious.

The world changes. You can't go back to the past. Let's work on making 2020 far greater than both 1950 and 2012.

You can live like the past, just none are willing. And if you choose to live the 1950s lifestyle, you'd save LOTS of money.

[onlyrp]

Cheap consumer goods only exist because of a flood of cheap imports from a communist prison state.

It's not my concern what China does to their workers, you are free to pay them more if you like. I'm not complaining about cheaper goods.

[Anti Federalist]

It's not my concern what China does to their workers, you are free to pay them more if you like. I'm not complaining about cheaper goods.

I realize that, that there are some folks that would gladly pay 10 percent less for an i-whatever if it was made with pressed fetal grindings instead of plastic.

I still maintain that funding communist prison state that had our economy handed to them on a silver platter after killing roughly 60 million people, is a bad idea.

[Anti Federalist]

It's beyond insulting to say we are living worse than blacks in 1950. Indeed, ignorant, probably intentionally. I don't care if you don't care about blacks (because I don't), but I wouldn't ever say they had it better than we do today.

Josh_LA

I see we meet again.

[No Free Beer]

I realize that, that there are some folks that would gladly pay 10 percent less for an i-whatever if it was made with pressed fetal grindings instead of plastic.

I still maintain that funding communist prison state that had our economy handed to them on a silver platter after killing roughly 60 million people, is a bad idea.

This is a similar debate that you, Bing, and I were having on another thread. There are people on the forums who have read some things on Rothbard and think they can only afford to look at economics through consumerism. When it fact, that is not realistic. A lot of the cheap products comes into our country, destroys our companies because that country's government subsidizes its good TO flood our market. People are okay with that, but against sanctions on Iran. HYPOCRISY!

Anyway, I would rather live in America during the 50s than this shit.

[Anti Federalist]

This is a similar debate that you, Bing, and I were having on another thread. There are people on the forums who have read some things on Rothbard and think they can only afford to look at economics through consumerism. When it fact, that is not realistic. A lot of the cheap products comes into our country, destroys our companies because that country's government subsidizes its good TO flood our market. People are okay with that, but against sanctions on Iran. HYPOCRISY!

Anyway, I would rather live in America during the 50s than this shit.

Yes, I have been down that road a number of times.

I know some staunch free trade/open border folks here that I consider to be some of the best and brightest advocates of liberty and freedom out there, but we just totally disagree on this issue.

[No Free Beer]

Yes, I have been down that road a number of times.

I know some staunch free trade/open border folks here that I consider to be some of the best and brightest advocates of liberty and freedom out there, but we just totally disagree on this issue.

I agree.

[Zippyjuan]

1950's was a scary time. Fear of nuclear anilation. Look up Duck and Cover. The Cold War in full swing. Scarier to more people than the terrorise threat.

Inflation was more of a problem- passing nine percent in 1951 which would be the highest rate of inflation until 1974- and we were not actually the fastest growing economy at the time- Japan for one was doing better.

Manufacturing ceased to be the largest employer in the country by 1956. Huge corporate conglomerates emerged. Source for some of this: http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/post_war.htm

[donnay]

It's not my concern what China does to their workers, you are free to pay them more if you like. I'm not complaining about cheaper goods.

You better concern yourself with the way China does to their workers--cause we're next! Inhumane conditions will circle the globe if we do not stand up now!!


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-093A920B000005DC-735_634x453.jpg
The parents of these youngsters work in the factory while their children are tied to a workshop window to keep them safe

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267794/Tethered-safe-Chinese-workers-forced-tie-youngsters-work-afford-child-care.html#ixzz1neMqOwfT

[donnay]

1950's was a scary time. Fear of nuclear anilation. Look up Duck and Cover. The Cold War in full swing. Scarier to more people than the terrorise threat.

As if duck and cover was going to do anything to help you should a nuclear war ensue. :rolleyes:

The propaganda has just gotten much more sophisticated in 60 years. FEAR does work to keep people in line.

[AuH20]

America 1950 in a runaway. We're on the cusp of a literal breakdown of our decaying civilization in 2012.

[Tim Calhoun]

1950's was a scary time. Fear of nuclear anilation. Look up Duck and Cover. The Cold War in full swing. Scarier to more people than the terrorise threat.



If you really can't see that the cold war was nothing more than fearmongering and propaganda you're obviously lacking in critical thinking skills. The same people who imposed communism on the Russians are the ones who control US foreign policy.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I get your point but its pretty ignorant to try to equate what we are going through today to what blacks went through in the Jim Crow years. Our current situation has extreme consequences and potential but we live far safer and better lives than blacks did 60 years ago. Ask any black man if he would rather be living in 1950. Just saying.

What we're going through right now is worse. Having no rights at all living under total tyranny is worse than forced segregation, the 'bread and circus' just puts a happy face on it.



It's beyond insulting to say we are living worse than blacks in 1950. Indeed, ignorant, probably intentionally. I don't care if you don't care about blacks (because I don't), but I wouldn't ever say they had it better than we do today.

Since rights are no more and the economy is in the shitter, right now is worse than 1950 when part of the population had rights and the economy was better. I never said it was an ideal time for blacks to live in, but neither is right now.

[onlyrp]

What we're going through right now is worse. Having no rights at all living under total tyranny is worse than forced segregation, the 'bread and circus' just puts a happy face on it.

Since rights are no more and the economy is in the shitter, right now is worse than 1950 when part of the population had rights and the economy was better. I never said it was an ideal time for blacks to live in, but neither is right now.

Really? What kind of tyranny and lack of rights are you talking about? What could minorities do in 1950 we can't do today?

[onlyrp]

Josh_LA

I see we meet again.

??

[onlyrp]

You better concern yourself with the way China does to their workers--cause we're next! Inhumane conditions will circle the globe if we do not stand up now!!


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/21/article-0-093A920B000005DC-735_634x453.jpg
The parents of these youngsters work in the factory while their children are tied to a workshop window to keep them safe

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267794/Tethered-safe-Chinese-workers-forced-tie-youngsters-work-afford-child-care.html#ixzz1neMqOwfT

what exactly do you propose we as American consumers do about it?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Really? What kind of tyranny and lack of rights are you talking about? What could minorities do in 1950 we can't do today?

Do you have your head buried in the sand? Are you not familiar with the NDAA?

[onlyrp]

Do you have your head buried in the sand? Are you not familiar with the NDAA?

How about before the NDAA? So in 2011, you'd say we're better than 1950?

I want specifics. Not "this law says this" before something actually happened.

[donnay]

what exactly do you propose we as American consumers do about it?

Stop consuming Chinese made products! I am outraged by the inhumane conditions that these people have to work in to supply our country with the bobble-head trinkets they do not need.

[onlyrp]

Stop consuming Chinese made products! I am outraged by the inhumane conditions that these people have to work in to supply our country with the bobble-head trinkets they do not need.

If we stopped consuming their products they'd have better working conditions?

[NewRightLibertarian]

How about before the NDAA? So in 2011, you'd say we're better than 1950?

I want specifics. Not "this law says this" before something actually happened.

I'm not saying either time is necessarily ideal to live in. But living in a lockdown police state practically under martial law with a busted economy makes present day worse than 1950 where the economy was strong and more people had rights. There were probably many communities where blacks were treated fairly back then. Now everyone is treated like a peon and a slave. That's why I'd take 1950. Blacks are still suffering harsh injustices against them nowadays via the war on drugs BTW

[onlyrp]

I'm not saying either time is necessarily ideal to live in.


I understand, but you specifically said now is worse than how minorities had it in 1950. So I'd like some details of why.



But living in a lockdown police state practically under martial law with a busted economy makes present day worse than 1950 where the economy was strong and more people had rights.

I'm not asking about the people who had rights in 1950, I'm asking about the people who didn't have rights in 1950. Or do you concede that?
Are we actually under lockdown police state ?



There were probably many communities where blacks were treated fairly back then. Now everyone is treated like a peon and a slave. That's why I'd take 1950. Blacks are still suffering harsh injustices against them nowadays via the war on drugs BTW

Seriously, I felt like I read 3 different messages.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I understand, but you specifically said now is worse than how minorities had it in 1950. So I'd like some details of why.

That's not what I said, you are either putting words in my mouth or have reading comprehension problems.


I'm not asking about the people who had rights in 1950, I'm asking about the people who didn't have rights in 1950. Or do you concede that?
Are we actually under lockdown police state ?

I have repeatedly stated that blacks did not have rights back then. Can you read? And yes, I do believe we are living under a lockdown police state. They just put a happy face on it and give the peons bread and circus while they engage in tyranny.

[tttppp]

The comparison of today to 1950 is a very good point. We have vastly superior technology to 1950 but our standard of living has not really increased. If we were really a capitalist country, we would be able to save significantly more money per 40 hour work weeks than we did in 1950. Thats just common sense. Competition is suppose to decrease costs to a minimum and increase results to a maximum. Do to excessive regulation and government involvement, most industries actually have higher costs and poor service compared to 1950. So the profits an average person can save today is actually comparable to 1950. Both in 1950 and today, if you go to college and get a good job you still most likely are not going to have any savings after you get a home, car, food, and clothing. Both in 1950 and today, you pretty much just get the basics and very little else.

[onlyrp]

That's not what I said, you are either putting words in my mouth or have reading comprehension problems.

I have repeatedly stated that blacks did not have rights back then. Can you read? And yes, I do believe we are living under a lockdown police state. They just put a happy face on it and give the peons bread and circus while they engage in tyranny.

This is what you actually said.

What we're going through right now is worse. Having no rights at all living under total tyranny is worse than forced segregation, the 'bread and circus' just puts a happy face on it.

I'll ask you again, are blacks today better off than in 1950?

[NewRightLibertarian]

This is what you actually said.

What we're going through right now is worse. Having no rights at all living under total tyranny is worse than forced segregation, the 'bread and circus' just puts a happy face on it.

I'll ask you again, are blacks today better off than in 1950?

Nope, they still don't have any rights and are being victimized by the system.

[onlyrp]

The comparison of today to 1950 is a very good point. We have vastly superior technology to 1950 but our standard of living has not really increased.


Wrong, it has. You don't need to work blue collar jobs to make ends meet, but you can.



If we were really a capitalist country, we would be able to save significantly more money per 40 hour work weeks than we did in 1950.


We are. Not if you choose to keep up with the Joneses though.



Thats just common sense. Competition is suppose to decrease costs to a minimum and increase results to a maximum.


Yep, but some choose to spend it away.



Do to excessive regulation and government involvement, most industries actually have higher costs and poor service compared to 1950.


Or some would say, that means higher wages and higher standard of living for workers.



So the profits an average person can save today is actually comparable to 1950.


Details please.



Both in 1950 and today, if you go to college and get a good job you still most likely are not going to have any savings after you get a home, car, food, and clothing. Both in 1950 and today, you pretty much just get the basics and very little else.

Except today you can have a higher standard of living WITHOUT going to college, compared to 1950.
If by "good job" you mean one that pays a million dollars a year, and "a home" you mean a house that costs a million dollars, then yeah. I've gotten you to admit its YOU who chooses not to work because you're not motivated after being able to only save $10,000, this is not the same as "not having any savings". Also, today you get 1950 basics, and lot more for a lot less.

[onlyrp]

Nope, they still don't have any rights and are being victimized by the system.

I was right, I don't know what rights you're talking about.

[tttppp]

This is what you actually said.

What we're going through right now is worse. Having no rights at all living under total tyranny is worse than forced segregation, the 'bread and circus' just puts a happy face on it.

I'll ask you again, are blacks today better off than in 1950?

I actually think minorities and women have it much better today at the expense of men and white people. Many companies today hire women and minorities simply to be politically correct. When it comes time to discipline a woman or minority, they are too scared to do it. Instead they demand the white men to pick up the slack for them. I'm not being racist or sexist, this is actually how it works in the workplace today. At least thats my experience.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I was right, I don't know what rights you're talking about.

Yeah, because you have your head in the sand as to the condition of the country you're living in right now. You have the right to eat fast food, accumulate debt and watch the idiot box, but you're not afforded a trial should the government deem it necessary. Not to mention the endless list of government abuses that are inflicted upon the American people, much moreso than in 1950. Perhaps you should become more informed before commenting in the future.

[onlyrp]

I actually think minorities and women have it much better today at the expense of men and white people. Many companies today hire women and minorities simply to be politically correct. When it comes time to discipline a woman or minority, they are too scared to do it. Instead they demand the white men to pick up the slack for them. I'm not being racist or sexist, this is actually how it works in the workplace today. At least thats my experience.

that may be true. In which case, it'd still be accurate to say life isn't uniformly worse for everybody. I can see that people who are racist or sexist or otherwise anti-equality say that today life is worse for them, but unless that's your view, you'd have to acknowledge life is better for minorities today.

[onlyrp]

Yeah, because you have your head in the sand as to the condition of the country you're living in right now. You have the right to eat fast food, accumulate debt and watch the idiot box, but you're not afforded a trial should the government deem it necessary. Not to mention the endless list of government abuses that are inflicted upon the American people, much moreso than in 1950. Perhaps you should become more informed before commenting in the future.

Hasn't affected me. So you keep telling me I got my head in the sand and don't tell me what specifically you're talking about, I won't be missing 1950 anytime soon.

[tttppp]

Wrong, it has. You don't need to work blue collar jobs to make ends meet, but you can.



We are. Not if you choose to keep up with the Joneses though.



Yep, but some choose to spend it away.



Or some would say, that means higher wages and higher standard of living for workers.



Details please.



Except today you can have a higher standard of living WITHOUT going to college, compared to 1950.
If by "good job" you mean one that pays a million dollars a year, and "a home" you mean a house that costs a million dollars, then yeah. I've gotten you to admit its YOU who chooses not to work because you're not motivated after being able to only save $10,000, this is not the same as "not having any savings". Also, today you get 1950 basics, and lot more for a lot less.

I think you're the only one on RPF who believes the U.S. is a capitalist country. Put up a poll. I'll bet the majority believes this country is a communist or fascist system.

Saving $10,000 a year for a good job, is not a lot of money in today's standards.

[tttppp]

that may be true. In which case, it'd still be accurate to say life isn't uniformly worse.

I never even said it was worse at all. I just said its not better. In a capitalist country we would have been better off today than 1950 significantly. There wouldn't even be a comparison.

[onlyrp]

I think you're the only one on RPF who believes the U.S. is a capitalist country. Put up a poll. I'll bet the majority believes this country is a communist or fascist system.

Saving $10,000 a year for a good job, is not a lot of money in today's standards.

Aha, you went from saying "no savings" to "saving $10,000 isn't enough". How many times do I have to catch you contradicting facts and then changing the subject?

[onlyrp]

I never even said it was worse at all. I just said its not better. In a capitalist country we would have been better off today than 1950 significantly. There wouldn't even be a comparison.

Not better or not significantly better? I just wanna make sure I don't put words in your mouth.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Hasn't affected me. So you keep telling me I got my head in the sand and don't tell me what specifically you're talking about, I won't be missing 1950 anytime soon.

FYI, You are the moral equivalent of the people in Germany who didn't mind the persecutions that were occurring during Hitler's reign of terror because they weren't being targeted - a real coward.

[onlyrp]

FYI, You are the moral equivalent of the people in Germany who didn't mind the persecutions that were occurring during Hitler's reign of terror because they weren't being targeted.

try again if you were looking to guilt me into sharing your conspiracy theories and flash mob anger. you seem to know everything that's wrong with this country, but I bet you can't tell me what country is better to live in (and if you can, I bet you can't tell me why you didn't move there)

[NewRightLibertarian]

try again if you were looking to guilt me into sharing your conspiracy theories and flash mob anger. you seem to know everything that's wrong with this country, but I bet you can't tell me what country is better to live in (and if you can, I bet you can't tell me why you didn't move there)

The police state is global, they are hellbent on making the whole world a prison. Cowards like you are effective in enabling the tyranny to spread.

[onlyrp]

The police state is global, they are hellbent on making the whole world a prison. Cowards like you are effective in enabling the tyranny to spread.

LOL. enjoy. I can see why people don't take some Ron Paul fans seriously, they start by complaining what's wrong with this country, when you ask them what country is better, they don't have an answer. Some go one step and say "this is global", so unless the whole world is under THEIR control, rest assured they'll always find something to complain about.

[tttppp]

Aha, you went from saying "no savings" to "saving $10,000 isn't enough". How many times do I have to catch you contradicting facts and then changing the subject?

I never said you get NOTHING besides the basics. If I did I misspoke. I said you get NOT MUCH MORE THAN the basics. In the case of saving $10,000 it might as well be saving nothing.

[onlyrp]

I never said you get NOTHING besides the basics....... saving $10,000 it might as well be saving nothing.

you wanna learn to be specific the first time so you don't have to keep correcting me, changing what you say and defending yourself?

This is what you actually said.
Both in 1950 and today, if you go to college and get a good job you still most likely are not going to have any savings after you get a home, car, food, and clothing.

If you think $10,000 might as well be nothing, GIVE IT TO ME, GIVE IT TO EVERY PERSON ON THIS BOARD. Earn that in a day for me.

Sorry, but there's a big difference between $1, $10, $100, and $10,000.
I can say I'll give everybody in this thread $100. I can say I'll give everybody who posted in the last hour on this forum $10. I can probably say I can give everybody who is active on this forum this month $1. But I dare you say you can give ONE PERSON $10,000, try saying that before saying "it might as well be nothing".

$10,000 is what it cost for me to own 2 cars over the course of 10 years = "Might as well be nothing".
Ask any homeless person if he'd buy a shelter for $10,000. Or how many days he'd be able to eat on that "might as well be nothing".

[NewRightLibertarian]

LOL. enjoy. I can see why people don't take some Ron Paul fans seriously,

Yeah, you see that everytime you look in a mirror.


they start by complaining what's wrong with this country, when you ask them what country is better, they don't have an answer. Some go one step and say "this is global", so unless the whole world is under THEIR control, rest assured they'll always find something to complain about.

I can barely make any sense of your moronic ramblings. Not only are you a coward but an imbecile as well.

[SL89]

It's not my concern what China does to their workers, you are free to pay them more if you like. I'm not complaining about cheaper goods.
REALLY? Lol. I don't want you near me when it all goes south. That is more racist than anything I have seen on these boards. ( oh, if it doesn't effect me personally I'll do what I will, no matter what the cost to those less fortunate) *facepalm

[onlyrp]

Yeah, you see that everytime you look in a mirror.

I can barely make any sense of your moronic ramblings. Not only are you a coward but an imbecile as well.

Namecalling will get you far.

[onlyrp]

REALLY? Lol. I don't want you near me when it all goes south. That is more racist than anything I have seen on these boards. ( oh, if it doesn't effect me personally I'll do what I will, no matter what the cost to those less fortunate) *facepalm

it has nothing to do with race, it's just selfishness. Well, if you want to judge me, you're free to lend a hand to those who need you, you just might keep things from going south.

[SL89]

it has nothing to do with race, it's just selfishness. Well, if you want to judge me, you're free to lend a hand to those who need you, you just might keep things from going south.

Lol. I am poor by all means. I grow my own food and take care of those around me despite everything. I NEVER buy, slave labor products. NEVER. So stfu. You are not going to get away with convincing me that slave labor is a product of the free market. It's a matter of choice. And in a truly free market, this would be a mute issue.

[onlyrp]

Lol. I am poor by all means. I grow my own food and take care of those around me despite everything. I NEVER buy, slave labor products. NEVER. So stfu. You are not going to get away with convincing me that slave labor is a product of the free market. It's a matter of choice. And in a truly free market, this would be a mute issue.

Calm down man. It's definitely a matter of choice, which is why I believe it's a product of the (pretty much free internationally) market. Yes, I understand you are poor, so your choices are limited. You've just shown that you have a choice to not buy slave labor products, and I exercise my choice to buy whatever I find best, so it IS pretty much a moot point.

[SL89]

Calm down man. It's definitely a matter of choice, which is why I believe it's a product of the (pretty much free internationally) market. Yes, I understand you are poor, so your choices are limited. You've just shown that you have a choice to not buy slave labor products, and I exercise my choice to buy whatever I find best, so it IS pretty much a moot point.

So you have more money than me... And you still choose to buy from a market source that exploits children. Good for you. Maybe if I did the same I would have more money to spend in this dead economy. hmmm. No thanks.



PS, I doubt very much that you have more than me anyway.


I am all for free markets. If the FEDS would get off of our backs, we could compete. But, that does not negate the responsibility of the citizen to support his neighbor. This is an uphill fight. I don't know about you but, I'll take the high ground. It is worth it to pay 20% more for goods produced by my neighbors. Certainly when the so called cheap goods are produced by children. And that is the kicker. If they could produce a quality item without exploiting children then this whole conversation would be different. Working 16+ hours a day for pennies so your ass can sit here blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Sound like a typical politician to me.

[onlyrp]

So you have more money than me... And you still choose to buy from a market source that exploits children. Good for you. Maybe if I did the same I would have more money to spend in this dead economy. hmmm. No thanks.

PS, I doubt very much that you have more than me anyway.

I'm not rich, I'm just cheap.

[SL89]

I'm not rich, I'm just cheap.

So am I. I can feed my family of 6 on less than 100 bucks a week. Check out my "food storage porn" thread if you are so inclined. I have been un-employed with no government handouts since June. I still won't buy anything made from the sweat of a kid that has less than I.

[SL89]

It is still WRONG to knowingly, buy goods born out of a sweatshop. I don't think you can argue that point.

[SL89]

I have shut off my internet. I was gone from this great site for a few months because I had to shut it off out of principle. Lived off of my preps and still am doing ok. You cannot convince me that buying cheap Walmart merchandise is healthy for this economy. No way. In a true free market, this would be a non-issue.

[onlyrp]

So am I. I can feed my family of 6 on less than 100 bucks a week. Check out my "food storage porn" thread if you are so inclined. I have been un-employed with no government handouts since June. I still won't buy anything made from the sweat of a kid that has less than I.

I believe you and I admire that. I really do, it flies right in the face of people who claim
1. I make $100,000 and people who make $20,000 live better
2. I make $50,000, or "a good job" and I still "just have the basics"
3. Life in 1950 was better

[onlyrp]

I have shut off my internet. I was gone from this great site for a few months because I had to shut it off out of principle. Lived off of my preps and still am doing ok. You cannot convince me that buying cheap Walmart merchandise is healthy for this economy. No way. In a true free market, this would be a non-issue.

I don't understand that last part. What of our market is un-free, that makes this an "issue"?

[NewRightLibertarian]

I don't understand that last part. What of our market is un-free, that makes this an "issue"?

Central banking, all the regulatory agencies that are in Washington D.C., income taxes, corporate welfare, etc. You're either completely ignorant or a bad troll IMO

[onlyrp]

Central banking, all the regulatory agencies that are in Washington D.C., income taxes, corporate welfare, etc. You're either completely ignorant or a bad troll IMO

what exactly does that have to do with sweatshop labor? You have a person who feeds 6 people on $100 per week, saying he can choose to not buy sweatshop products, so what is the issue?

[SL89]

The issue is.... Your kind is a plague. As in ( I'll buy the cheapest goods no matter the cost) If their companies were held to a fraction of what is demanded of ours. This conversation would be a mute point.(again) I will be the first to say, that sometimes a foreign good is the best to buy. Just not on the backs of children. And I am quite sure that we could compete globally without the feds.
OK. I get your points. And you get mine. The free market has responsibilities tied to it. It is called humanity. You cannot in good conscience sit on a high horse and disregard where your goods are coming from. You are part of the problem when you feed this beast.

[onlyrp]

The issue is.... Your kind is a plague. As in ( I'll buy the cheapest goods no matter the cost) If their companies were held to a fraction of what is demanded of ours. This conversation would be a mute point.(again) I will be the first to say, that sometimes a foreign good is the best to buy. Just not on the backs of children. And I am quite sure that we could compete globally without the feds.
OK. I get your points. And you get mine. The free market has responsibilities tied to it. It is called humanity. You cannot in good conscience sit on a high horse and disregard where your goods are coming from. You are part of the problem when you feed this beast.
Again, what does the feds have to do with being unable to compete globally? We're perfectly able to do everything the Chinese do as far as labor, we're just unwilling to do it cheap like they do. There's nothing illegal about working for cheap, other than wage limits, which I am for abolishing. If we're complaining that cost of living is high because wages are set at a minimum, then logically, cost of living would decrease if there was no minimum wage. And therefore, there would be nothing stopping Americans from working for Chinese wages or illegal Mexican wages (there already isn't much). Either way, how is this an "issue"? You manage to choose not to buy their products, unless you want to take away other people's choices, there is no issue, nobody is forcing you to buy anything.

[SL89]

Sorrry, bud. When 7 year old kids are forced into labor to feed American appetites something is wrong. I am all for kicking the minimum wage per se. But, kids? c'mon now. I made 52k one year at 12 per hour. Add the hours. WAY over 3k. But, not kids, not forced labor. If this is what we have come to than we have failed as a society. And when you buy a product from forced labor, you are no better than the pigs that hold the whip.

[3kgt]

Just out of curiosity why are you burning through your preps now? Why not continue to enjoy a few of the luxury illusions while they're still around?

[SL89]

And the feds have a lot to do with this. They forced companies to move away. Some foreign companies are here for certain reasons. i.e. Toyota and BMW. While Ford went to Mexico. The feds need to get out of the business cycle. Period. But, that does not negate the citizen's responsibility. Don't tell me or any other person that you need to buy cheap because it is cheap. NOT on the backs of child labor. It was federal interference that caused our manufacturing base to leave. You are an absolute idiot to think we can survive as a consumer based market. The math will never add up.
China has been under totalitarian rule for as long as history has been written. Don't you think for a minute that our negligence is making anything better. Nothing good comes from it. If you buy from them, you make everything worse.

[SL89]

Just out of curiosity why are you burning through your preps now? Why not continue to enjoy a few of the luxury illusions while they're still around?

Yes sir. I relied on my preps for six months. They saved my ass. All I had to buy was eggs and cheese. Why did you call them illusions? They were all I had...

[onlyrp]

And the feds have a lot to do with this. They forced companies to move away. Some foreign companies are here for certain reasons. i.e. Toyota and BMW. While Ford went to Mexico. The feds need to get out of the business cycle. Period. But, that does not negate the citizen's responsibility. Don't tell me or any other person that you need to buy cheap because it is cheap. NOT on the backs of child labor. It was federal interference that caused our manufacturing base to leave. You are an absolute idiot to think we can survive as a consumer based market. The math will never add up.
China has been under totalitarian rule for as long as history has been written. Don't you think for a minute that our negligence is making anything better. Nothing good comes from it. If you buy from them, you make everything worse.

no, feds didn't force companies to move, lazy and spoiled Americans did. Nobody was forcing Americans to live above their means or demand higher wages, THEY were. Glad we agree citizens are responsible too. I can buy cheap because I can, make it illegal if you can, but until then I'll buy it, thanks. If we don't buy Chinese goods they'll be better off?

[IDefendThePlatform]

In 1950, the average family spent about 22% of its income on housing.
In 2012, the average family spends about 43% of its income on housing.

I'll say the top 2 reasons for this re-alignment have been 1)the home mortgage interest tax deduction and 2)the government redirecting wealth to building interstates/expanding the suburbs through taxes. This is in spite of smaller family sizes.

[onlyrp]

I'll say the top 2 reasons for this re-alignment have been 1)the home mortgage interest tax deduction and 2)the government redirecting wealth to building interstates/expanding the suburbs through taxes. This is in spite of smaller family sizes.

I'd still love to see a source for that, and the rest of the story, what did the average family spend 78% on, and today's family spend 57% on?

[3kgt]

I meant you know, illusions of luxury. High speed internet, TV, shit you can buy every day at the store ice cream etc. I buy canned food every week too but I don't touch it at all.

Don't get me wrong I checked out your food thread and I think its fucking awesome. Reminded me that I need toilet paper LOL

[2young2vote]

In the 1950s you could slap together a cooler and screw it onto your bicycle. Then you could go to baseball games and sell your frozen treats to people. Now you would be a criminal.

I just had a look at Hong Kong in google streetview and you would be amazed at the number of shops in the middle of the big city. There are thousands of them. Little 10'x30' shops that sell practically everything it looks like. And it doesn't even look scummy. I now understand why they are always at the top of those economic freedom indexes.

[flightlesskiwi]

hey, yall... i found this in a zerohedge thread, and, well, i think it's pretty lulzworthy and fits in this thread:


You've got US citizened.

The piece information is easy to find and/or well known.

A US citizen urges someone to provide some data, link or evidence to prove the statement...

You've been US citizened.

Mere statement of power.

Are facts only opinions that US citizens want to be facts.

US Citizened, FTW!!!

[tttppp]

you wanna learn to be specific the first time so you don't have to keep correcting me, changing what you say and defending yourself?

This is what you actually said.
Both in 1950 and today, if you go to college and get a good job you still most likely are not going to have any savings after you get a home, car, food, and clothing.

If you think $10,000 might as well be nothing, GIVE IT TO ME, GIVE IT TO EVERY PERSON ON THIS BOARD. Earn that in a day for me.

Sorry, but there's a big difference between $1, $10, $100, and $10,000.
I can say I'll give everybody in this thread $100. I can say I'll give everybody who posted in the last hour on this forum $10. I can probably say I can give everybody who is active on this forum this month $1. But I dare you say you can give ONE PERSON $10,000, try saying that before saying "it might as well be nothing".

$10,000 is what it cost for me to own 2 cars over the course of 10 years = "Might as well be nothing".
Ask any homeless person if he'd buy a shelter for $10,000. Or how many days he'd be able to eat on that "might as well be nothing".

Saving $10,000 a year is not much if you had to pay $100,000 to go to college, and are most likely in significant amounts of debt. Again, saving $10,000 is not much for a SUCCESSFUL person. Its fine for someone with no education and is living on the streets. But $10,000 for a successful person is not much.

[onlyrp]

In the 1950s you could slap together a cooler and screw it onto your bicycle. Then you could go to baseball games and sell your frozen treats to people. Now you would be a criminal.

I just had a look at Hong Kong in google streetview and you would be amazed at the number of shops in the middle of the big city. There are thousands of them. Little 10'x30' shops that sell practically everything it looks like. And it doesn't even look scummy. I now understand why they are always at the top of those economic freedom indexes.

Vending isn't automatically a crime, anybody who has been to a rally or game knows this. We've all seen scalpers and cotton candy carts.

Ironic, you have any idea how many street cams, public and private, from dashboard to store walls there are in Hong Kong or Taiwan? Do you know what else about Hong Kong and Taiwan? They don't welcome immigrants to become citizens, they are completely anti-drug. Taiwan still has death penalty (so does Singapore) So if you "understand" why they are wealthy, consider what they don't have : freedom to drive drunk, freedom to sell drugs, freedom of a house with a yard, freedom from being filmed, freedom to own a gun, right to jury trial. Don't compare apples to oranges, seriously. Anybody who says "war on drugs never works" or "banning guns will only give outlaws guns" better explain why it works perfectly in these 3 little islands.

[Feeding the Abscess]

We have the internet today.

Just the internet alone is such an expansion of freedom that almost anything else is irrelevant.

Aside from the fact that poor people today are materially better off than middle class folk sixty years ago.

Technology and progress are the goods. The ideal is to move forward with the positive advancements we have made, and remove the negative (growth of the state).

[onlyrp]

Saving $10,000 a year is not much if you had to pay $100,000 to go to college, and are most likely in significant amounts of debt. Again, saving $10,000 is not much for a SUCCESSFUL person. Its fine for someone with no education and is living on the streets. But $10,000 for a successful person is not much.

So what did you just admit? A successful person by your definition demands more and gets to complain more.

[onlyrp]

We have the internet today.

Just the internet alone is such an expansion of freedom that almost anything else is irrelevant.

Aside from the fact that poor people today are materially better off than middle class folk sixty years ago.

Technology and progress are the goods. The ideal is to move forward with the positive advancements we have made, and remove the negative (growth of the state).

Seriously. Internet can't replace food and shelter, but has put so many labor jobs out of business that it's, like you said, almost irrelevant what freedoms you lose (if any). Sadly, people want to tell you some laws are "outdated" would never tell you our Constitution is.

[tttppp]

So what did you just admit? A successful person by your definition demands more and gets to complain more.

You obviously do not understand capitalism. You either haven't taken a basic economics class or failed it miserably.

[ZenBowman]

O LAWD! This post has appeared here as well?

Sounds like it was written by an old dude who just hates change.

And yeah, tax rates were higher in the 50s.

The only difference is that in the 1950s the government and megacorporations could lie to your face and you'd have no way of knowing they were lying. Now, they cannot hide it anymore.

[donnay]

what exactly do you propose we as American consumers do about it?

If we boycott these inhumane practices and expose it, then many companies that leave here to go to China for this cheap inhumane labor practices would not make the billions like they do. Then maybe many other companies will think twice about exploiting the Chinese people in this way too.

[onlyrp]

You obviously do not understand capitalism. You either haven't taken a basic economics class or failed it miserably.

Quite the opposite, I know capitalism and use it. I'm not the one who's unemployed and complaining about my debt, I'm also not the one who lives with his parents and then says $10,000 is as good as nothing (but then I corrected you, like I usually do when you speak nonsense). I don't define success the way you do, perhaps you might use the actual definition capitalism uses, that's fine with me.

[tttppp]

Quite the opposite, I know capitalism and use it. I'm not the one who's unemployed and complaining about my debt, I'm also not the one who lives with his parents and then says $10,000 is as good as nothing (but then I corrected you, like I usually do when you speak nonsense). I don't define success the way you do, perhaps you might use the actual definition capitalism uses, that's fine with me.

If you think saving $10,000 is a success then you obviously don't believe in capitalism. You are more in favor of communism or fascism. This is what system we live in, and its the system you keep supporting.

[onlyrp]

If you think saving $10,000 is a success then you obviously don't believe in capitalism. You are more in favor of communism or fascism. This is what system we live in, and its the system you keep supporting.

I never said $10,000 is a succcess, I said it's a hell lot better than "might as well be nothing", especially if you get it every year. And I am not aware of capitalism defined by a dollar amount. You can keep calling me names about what system I support, although I am more OK about it than you are, doesn't mean I "support" it or support communism and fascism.

[onlyrp]

for the record, the source for the claim that "in 1950, only 22% of household income is spent on housing, vs today, 43%."
http://www.beatingbroke.com/1950-vs-today-have-our-changed-spending-habits-improved-our-lives/
What did it actually say?
Why? Since 1950, the average house size has doubled, now standing around 2,200-2,400 square feet. In 1950, it was common for houses to have one bathroom, for kids to share bedrooms, and for closets to be rather small (and since people had less ‘stuff’ the small closets seemed ample at the time). Now, houses have more bathrooms than bedrooms and walk-in closets that are the size of many smaller bedrooms in a 1950’s house! Many families of today could not imagine raising a family in the house their parents grew up in. But the truth is, millions of families lived in those houses and survived!

So if the size of houses double, population more than doubles, is it any surprise that percentage of your income spent on housing doubles? (this is assuming the claim is true, and nominal, without inflation)

[tttppp]

I never said $10,000 is a succcess, I said it's a hell lot better than "might as well be nothing", especially if you get it every year. And I am not aware of capitalism defined by a dollar amount. You can keep calling me names about what system I support, although I am more OK about it than you are, doesn't mean I "support" it or support communism and fascism.

$10,000 does not buy you a whole lot of freedom. This is the difference between our form of capitalism and pure communism. You would think there would be more of a difference. If our economy was truly capitalist and we only netted $10,000, I feel like we've been scammed. If thats the case, I really don't see much of a difference between capitalism and communism.

[onlyrp]

$10,000 does not buy you a whole lot of freedom. This is the difference between our form of capitalism and pure communism. You would think there would be more of a difference. If our economy was truly capitalist and we only netted $10,000, I feel like we've been scammed. If thats the case, I really don't see much of a difference between capitalism and communism.

You already admitted what you cant deny, that it's quite useful for people who don't have student debt. For a person without a home, it's a good 3 years of $10 meals, or a car to be used for shelter. For me, it's 2 vehicles for 10 years, that's $20,000 I saved against you. I've already shown you the difference between capitalism and communism, you admitted no communist country does better than the US, and you admit you look at communism only in theory. So that's the difference, capitalism, no matter how bad, beats communism in reality, you also admitted you can't find me ONE COUNTRY you're willing to move to despite hating this one so much. I don't care about your stupid subjective complaint that $10,000 "doesn't buy you a lot of freedom", it's more than nothing and i've already shown what it CAN buy, you are free to live with your parents and stay unemployed if that makes you feel better, but don't try to equate capitalism with "I get to net $100,000 each year just because I am successful in school".

I don't care what you call the system we live in, I know it and use it quite well. You can keep complaining about it though, keep telling yourself that you're owed a better job or cheaper housing or you can't be free if you're living with your parents. Ever consider that your profession and skill isn't valued in a market where people can choose? Want to tell me what the government has done to stop you from selling yourself to consumer? (You can't, but you can sure tell me you're not willing to sell low, because capitalism in your mind means big money, not adopt to the needs of buyers)

[tttppp]

You already admitted what you cant deny, that it's quite useful for people who don't have student debt. For a person without a home, it's a good 3 years of $10 meals, or a car to be used for shelter. For me, it's 2 vehicles for 10 years, that's $20,000 I saved against you. I've already shown you the difference between capitalism and communism, you admitted no communist country does better than the US, and you admit you look at communism only in theory. So that's the difference, capitalism, no matter how bad, beats communism in reality, you also admitted you can't find me ONE COUNTRY you're willing to move to despite hating this one so much. I don't care about your stupid subjective complaint that $10,000 "doesn't buy you a lot of freedom", it's more than nothing and i've already shown what it CAN buy, you are free to live with your parents and stay unemployed if that makes you feel better, but don't try to equate capitalism with "I get to net $100,000 each year just because I am successful in school".

I don't care what you call the system we live in, I know it and use it quite well. You can keep complaining about it though, keep telling yourself that you're owed a better job or cheaper housing or you can't be free if you're living with your parents. Ever consider that your profession and skill isn't valued in a market where people can choose? Want to tell me what the government has done to stop you from selling yourself to consumer? (You can't, but you can sure tell me you're not willing to sell low, because capitalism in your mind means big money, not adopt to the needs of buyers)

At the rate China is going, they are going to be vastly superior to the U.S. pretty soon. Thats one country that is better than the U.S. ...and they are considered "communist".

[onlyrp]

At the rate China is going, they are going to be vastly superior to the U.S. pretty soon. Thats one country that is better than the U.S. ...and they are considered "communist".

Soon, not now, when they do, you are free to move there. Again, I don't care what you call China, or any country, I just wanted a feel of what you view as an acceptable or ideal living space. BTW, why is China successful? Because wages are low, so it goes against your wishes to have either higher wage, or less work for more. Although they may balance it out with lower cost of living (which is not where you'll choose to live, since you already live in a relatively expensive and dense area today)

[tttppp]

Soon, not now, when they do, you are free to move there. Again, I don't care what you call China, or any country, I just wanted a feel of what you view as an acceptable or ideal living space. BTW, why is China successful? Because wages are low, so it goes against your wishes to have either higher wage, or less work for more. Although they may balance it out with lower cost of living (which is not where you'll choose to live, since you already live in a relatively expensive and dense area today)

Its only a matter of time for wages and working conditions to go up in China. Thats why I said they WILL be better than the U.S. Its debatable which is better now. But at the rate things are going, China will get a lot better, and the U.S. will get worse.

[Zippyjuan]

Per capita they have a very long ways to go to match the US. In terms of what people own and rights they enjoy they also have a long ways to go to match the US.

[anaconda]

In 1950, you could buy a first-class stamp for just 3 cents.
In 2012, a first-class stamp will cost you 45 cents.


To be fair and balanced, the nominal wage has also increased dramatically. This is always omitted in these types of arguments.

[onlyrp]

Its only a matter of time for wages and working conditions to go up in China. Thats why I said they WILL be better than the U.S. Its debatable which is better now. But at the rate things are going, China will get a lot better, and the U.S. will get worse.

If working conditions improve and wages increase, how will China continue to be successful? They'll lose the only edge they have against US workers, making there no incentives for hiring foreigners. China will become the US you hate today. And if US "gets worse" and if by that you mean we'll have lower wages or less regulations on working conditions, it'll mean US takes the turn to take jobs again. So, I'm totally lost on what you mean by US "will get worse". If you're talking strictly GDP, that too will not go one direction indefinitely.

[onlyrp]

To be fair and balanced, the nominal wage has also increased dramatically. This is always omitted in these types of arguments.

What a surprise that conspiracy theorists and anti-bankers cherry pick their facts. Do they consider : there's more millionaires today? How about computers being higher efficiency? Is the fact people don't need to leave home for the same amount of goods and services a bad thing (or do they completely forget of it)? Did they notice we have eye corrective surgery today which frees people from glasses and contact lenses? (Try that with herbal supplements). Do they even consider that the fact people today can eat themselves to sickness and death is a GOOD THING, because it shows how abundant foods and sugars are, whereas people had to work and fight to survive in the past (while they criticize people who are aware of overpopulation).

[tttppp]

If working conditions improve and wages increase, how will China continue to be successful? They'll lose the only edge they have against US workers, making there no incentives for hiring foreigners. China will become the US you hate today. And if US "gets worse" and if by that you mean we'll have lower wages or less regulations on working conditions, it'll mean US takes the turn to take jobs again. So, I'm totally lost on what you mean by US "will get worse". If you're talking strictly GDP, that too will not go one direction indefinitely.

The U.S. will not lower regulations. 99% of the time, when there is a downturn in the economy, they place tons of bs regulations then say they solved the problem. If you think the U.S. will lower regulations, you are really lost.

China doesn't need low wages to be successful. They have far less regulation and government involvement, as long as they continue that they will be successful.

[onlyrp]

Per capita they have a very long ways to go to match the US. In terms of what people own and rights they enjoy they also have a long ways to go to match the US.

Not according to these guys


Since rights are no more and the economy is in the shitter, right now is worse than 1950 when part of the population had rights and the economy was better. I never said it was an ideal time for blacks to live in, but neither is right now.

or tttppp : "We might as well be communist" "We are communist today" "Only you think we're under capitalism"

[onlyrp]

The U.S. will not lower regulations. 99% of the time, when there is a downturn in the economy, they place tons of bs regulations then say they solved the problem. If you think the U.S. will lower regulations, you are really lost.

China doesn't need low wages to be successful. They have far less regulation and government involvement, as long as they continue that they will be successful.

So how is US going to "get worse"? by more regulations? And how is China getting better? By more regulations? Are you telling me working conditions and wages will improve without higher and stricter government regulations?

Wrong, the only reason China is in business today is their lack of regulations, whether on work conditions, environment, or wages. You are correct that they currently have less intervention, at least in industries where they take up foreigner's labor. They cannot "continue" this path if wages increase, because that is counter to efficiency and competitiveness.

[John F Kennedy III]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPDBGtr5asM&feature=player_detailpage

[tttppp]

Not according to these guys


or tttppp : "We might as well be communist" "We are communist today" "Only you think we're under capitalism"

What is the point of this post?

[tttppp]

So how is US going to "get worse"? by more regulations? And how is China getting better? By more regulations? Are you telling me working conditions and wages will improve without higher and stricter government regulations?

Wrong, the only reason China is in business today is their lack of regulations, whether on work conditions, environment, or wages. You are correct that they currently have less intervention, at least in industries where they take up foreigner's labor. They cannot "continue" this path if wages increase, because that is counter to efficiency and competitiveness.

Less regulation equals higher competition equal higher wages and better working conditions. They don't need regulation to do that. Once wages increase, instead of just being a manufacturing economy, they will be a consumer economy.

The U.S. will get worse by higher regulation, as I explained, like the U.S. always does.

[anaconda]

What a surprise that conspiracy theorists and anti-bankers cherry pick their facts. Do they consider : there's more millionaires today? How about computers being higher efficiency? Is the fact people don't need to leave home for the same amount of goods and services a bad thing (or do they completely forget of it)? Did they notice we have eye corrective surgery today which frees people from glasses and contact lenses? (Try that with herbal supplements). Do they even consider that the fact people today can eat themselves to sickness and death is a GOOD THING, because it shows how abundant foods and sugars are, whereas people had to work and fight to survive in the past (while they criticize people who are aware of overpopulation).

I'm not suggesting that the central bank isn't a total ripoff tool for the elites (I too am a conspiracy theorist), but the analysis is a bit more complex than "the dollar has lost 98% of it's value!" One of the problems is that the real wage for skilled vs. unskilled labor previously rose together. But more recently the two wages began to diverge and the skilled labor became better off in the U.S. and the unskilled workers got worse off.

[onlyrp]

What is the point of this post?

That you don't know what you're talking about, and barely make your complaint based on selective facts, which is why it's so easy for me to correct you and get you to admit either what you don't know, or what you ignore.

[onlyrp]

I'm not suggesting that the central bank isn't a total ripoff tool for the elites (I too am a conspiracy theorist), but the analysis is a bit more complex than "the dollar has lost 98% of it's value!" One of the problems is that the real wage for skilled vs. unskilled labor previously rose together. But more recently the two wages began to diverge and the skilled labor became better off in the U.S. and the unskilled workers got worse off.

Skill labor wages increase, unskilled decrease, that's GOOD for capitalism, right?

Also, I agree it's definitely more complicated that "OMFG! The dollar is only worth 2 cents today!" Just for knowing that, I would not generalize you along with the others who either gather soundbytes or have no impulse control.

[Stupified]

I had to respond to a few of these great points.



In 1950, gum chewing and talking in class were some of the major disciplinary problems in our schools.

In 2012, many of our public schools have been equipped with metal detectors because violence has become so bad.

Hey, give us a break. At least back in the 50s, (white) schools didn't have to worry about black children being disruptive.



In 1950, about 13 million Americans had manufacturing jobs.

In 2012, less than 12 million Americans have manufacturing jobs even though our population has more than doubled since 1950.

...because of technological progression. What are we, the Vatican from the 1500s?



In 1950, the entire U.S. military was mobilized to protect the borders of South Korea.

In 2012, the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada are wide open and now there are 1.4 million gang members living inside the United States.


Okay, Gingrich.




In 1950, corporate taxes accounted for about 30 percent of all federal revenue.

In 2012, corporate taxes will account for less than 7 percent of all federal revenue.


Yeah, let's tax our corporations even further.



In 1950, many Americans regularly left their cars and the front doors of their homes unlocked.

In 2012, many Americans live with steel bars on their windows and gun sales are at record highs.


Many Americans also had bricks thrown through their house and car windows because they were the wrong skin color.





In 1950, the American people had a great love for the U.S. Constitution.

In 2012, if you are “reverent of individual liberty“, you may get labeled as a potential terrorist by the U.S. government.


In 1950, we had the government blacklisting and imprisoning American citizens for subscribing to a different political philosophy. Or, you know, just making a movie that good ol' Joe didn't approve of.




In 1950, the median age at first marriage was about 22 for men and about 20 for women.

In 2012, the median age at first marriage is about 28 for men and about 26 for women.


So people are being more responsible and waiting to get their finances in good order before marrying now? And this is somehow a bad thing?




In 1950, many Americans dressed up in suits and dresses before getting on an airplane.

In 2012, security goons look at the exposed forms of our women and our children before they are allowed to get on to an airplane.


I can't believe the author of the list just added goddamn fashion to the argument.

[onlyrp]

Less regulation equals higher competition equal higher wages and better working conditions.


Less regulation means high competition, agreed. How how can higher wages and better working conditions mean high competition?
Am I missing something that makes higher wages and better working conditions "lower cost"? If they are "higher cost", they're going to be lower competition, lower appeal, and most likely due to higher regulation. (Employers have no reason or incentive to improve work conditions or pay more, unless they were forced to).



They don't need regulation to do that. Once wages increase, instead of just being a manufacturing economy, they will be a consumer economy.


Who is the manufacturer by then? Who is going to be the new China? Who lets them consume if there isn't a replacement sweatshop country?



The U.S. will get worse by higher regulation, as I explained, like the U.S. always does.
If so, then at least it'll mean we'll consume less (if consumption is a good thing, you can't say we're bad now, is consumption is a bad thing, it'll be better later, make up your mind already)

[Anti Federalist]

The only difference is that in the 1950s the government and megacorporations could lie to your face and you'd have no way of knowing they were lying. Now, they cannot hide it anymore.

Yeah, and boy howdy, did that shut them down and put a stop to the lying and corruption.

/s/

[onlyrp]

I had to respond to a few of these great points.


I can't believe the author of the list just added goddamn fashion to the argument.

basically exactly what I said, LOL. Glad I'm not completely nuts.

[tttppp]

That you don't know what you're talking about, and barely make your complaint based on selective facts, which is why it's so easy for me to correct you and get you to admit either what you don't know, or what you ignore.

You don't know what you are talking about. You clearly don't know how this country works. You obviously don't support Ron Paul. You are clearly in favor of the establishment. Enjoy voting for Romney.

[tttppp]

Less regulation means high competition, agreed. How how can higher wages and better working conditions mean high competition?
Am I missing something that makes higher wages and better working conditions "lower cost"? If they are "higher cost", they're going to be lower competition, lower appeal, and most likely due to higher regulation. (Employers have no reason or incentive to improve work conditions or pay more, unless they were forced to).



Who is the manufacturer by then? Who is going to be the new China? Who lets them consume if there isn't a replacement sweatshop country?


If so, then at least it'll mean we'll consume less (if consumption is a good thing, you can't say we're bad now, is consumption is a bad thing, it'll be better later, make up your mind already)

Companies have to compete for labor too. Higher competition creates higher wages and better working conditions. They didn't teach you that in economics?

[Stupified]

basically exactly what I said, LOL. Glad I'm not completely nuts.

Well the list sounds like a piece of neocon propaganda (seriously, that SK military intervention one, what the hell). I'm surprised to see so many here agreeing with it.

[onlyrp]

Companies have to compete for labor too. Higher competition creates higher wages and better working conditions. They didn't teach you that in economics?

So now we're talking about two different things, looking for workers vs looking for buyers. Which is going to be funny if it ever happens to China, because they have no shortage of poor people to replace their own sweatshop workers.

[onlyrp]

Well the list sounds like a piece of neocon propaganda (seriously, that SK military intervention one, what the hell). I'm surprised to see so many here agreeing with it.

I bet most didn't even read it and just jump for joy when they hear the numbers that relate to economy. One thing you can ALWAYS count on being ignored when people say "the past was better" whether in 1950, 1900 or 1800, are race, technology, immigration and gay rights. In general, people who think the past was better will always conveniently leave out that minorities were worse off, and technology has decreased the value of labor (either that, or they think it's a bad thing for labor to be devalued, making them communists, materialists and labor theorists of value).

This is why you NEVER EVER hear anarchists aspire to live like Amish. Or anybody telling you a fact : Amish living conditions have been largely immune to the growth of technology, consumer culture, and government regulations.

Occasionally you'll hear free market libertarians use Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan as models for their capitalist ideal. Forgetting their zero tolerance to drugs and culture acceptance of death penalty.

[Stupified]

Hey, but at least in 1950 we had AYN goddamn RAND, the champion of capitalism.

[anaconda]

Skill labor wages increase, unskilled decrease, that's GOOD for capitalism, right?


I'm not enough of an economist to answer that. But I would like to know why, in the 1950's, that the real wages for both skilled and unskilled labor were simultaneously increasing (I am talking about the real wage here, not the nominal wage). I suspect this has to do with the rate of productivity increases vs. GDP growth (a fierce increasing demand for all types of labor?), and also perhaps offshore outsourcing. Whether it's good for capitalism I suppose has something to do with the economic success of said system, however you want to evaluate it and what your personal judgements are. I would want to look at the social welfare of producers, consumers, and labor. Also per capita GDP, growth, and full employment concerns. Maybe toss in the existence and survivability of civil liberties when evaluating an economic system, too. I do wonder a bit when politicians like Rick Santorum talk about bringing manufacturing jobs to the U.S. I wonder if we should, as a country, be trying to evolve ourselves into higher and higher productivity levels, and leave the manufacturing to the third world countries. Manufacturing was good for England in the 19th century and good for the U.S. in the first half of the 20th. But, as you may be alluding to, the time to move on has come, and is manifested in the plummeting real wage for relatively unskilled labor. Soldering a circuit board was a good skill in the U.S. in 1972, but not in 2012. Electronics technology programs in the community colleges have all closed down and the work is done by the Chinese. Why does Rick Santorum want to bring crummy jobs back to America? Hint: He doesn't. He just wants the votes from the people that are in this unfortunate demographic. Maybe Santorum also wants to bring back more steam locomotive jobs as well? I think that the U.S. should be forging ahead with more evolutions in science and technology from a research and development perspective. Biomedical. Information processing. Energy alternatives. etc.

[onlyrp]

I'm not enough of an economist to answer that. But I would like to know why, in the 1950's, that the real wages for both skilled and unskilled labor were simultaneously increasing (I am talking about the real wage here, not the nominal wage). I suspect this has to do with the rate of productivity increases vs. GDP growth (a fierce increasing demand for all types of labor?), and also perhaps offshore outsourcing. Whether it's good for capitalism I suppose has something to do with the economic success of said system, however you want to evaluate it and what your personal judgements are. I would want to look at the social welfare of producers, consumers, and labor. Also per capita GDP, growth, and full employment concerns. Maybe toss in the existence and survivability of civil liberties when evaluating an economic system, too.

It's probably a moral question as to whether we should reward skill, or whether a good economy would/should take care of people the ones without skill. Overall I think it's fallacious to think that a good economy or free economy would have anything OTHER than freedom of choice and rewarding those which are in most demand of the market. The rest of your post I can agree, that it's a little more complicated than just numbers, details matter. I tried digging about the claim that in 1950 households only spent 22% on housing vs 43% today, and turns out, the source itself admits, houses on average double in size. Meaning, even nominally, cost per sq ft hasn't really increased if it's mere doubling (22% vs 43% isn't simply doubling, but close).

[anaconda]

Overall I think it's fallacious to think that a good economy or free economy would have anything OTHER than freedom of choice and rewarding those which are in most demand of the market. The rest of your post I can agree

I don't see anything in my post that suggested anything different. What is it that made you think I was advocating something other than freedom of choice and free markets? Just curious. I probably was ambiguous or misspoke somewhere. From what I understand the greatest amount of consumer and producer surplus occur in completely free markets. Which probably don't exist for a variety of reasons, such as imperfect information. But the freer the market, the greater the per capita social welfare.

[Revolution9]

I'm not rich, I'm just cheap.

You probably are cheap. I just can't see you as being frugal which is a different headspace than yours definitively.

Rev9

[onlyrp]

You probably are cheap. I just can't see you as being frugal which is a different headspace than yours definitively.

Rev9

I was willing to be called cheap, even if it's inaccurate. The difference between cheap and frugal, is that frugal is saving to conserve, to spend somewhere else which one believes is better, or to prolong the ability to spend. Whereas cheap is simply saving for no reason, whenever possible, with little goal or purpose.

[onlyrp]

I don't see anything in my post that suggested anything different. What is it that made you think I was advocating something other than freedom of choice and free markets? Just curious. I probably was ambiguous or misspoke somewhere. From what I understand the greatest amount of consumer and producer surplus occur in completely free markets. Which probably don't exist for a variety of reasons, such as imperfect information. But the freer the market, the greater the per capita social welfare.

Chill, I totally wasn't saying you were disagreeing with me. Sorry if I came off that way. Although I don't think freer market means greater per capita social welfare (unless you measured welfare by choices, not by dollars).

[Revolution9]

I believe you and I admire that. I really do, it flies right in the face of people who claim
1. I make $100,000 and people who make $20,000 live better
2. I make $50,000, or "a good job" and I still "just have the basics"
3. Life in 1950 was better

Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

[onlyrp]

Life ain't all about money pal.


Amen, but the people I quoted sure sound like they disagree.



Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available.


work still is readily available, just not as the price most are willing to take it.



Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel.


maybe the lack of seatbelt laws had to do with the fact cars were only accessible to people who were above well to do, and they naturally took responsibility to preserve their wealth and lives. I bet if you didn't require private jet planes to wear seat belts, they'd still wear them automatically, but if private jet planes were sold and owned by every other American, I think you can expect there be a mandatory law about it.



You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

[Danke]

Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

And it only looks like we are headed for worse.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh hell yeah, that.

I'd rather be poor and free if it came right down to it.

Economic prosperity comes from freedom, not the other way around.

Plenty of places around the world are economically prosperous while remaining relatively unfree.

And we are heading the same way.


Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9

[otherone]

Oh hell yeah, that.

I'd rather be poor and free if it came right down to it.



As we don't actually have Property Rights, none of us are 'really' wealthy unless the State allows it.

[onlyrp]

Oh hell yeah, that.

I'd rather be poor and free if it came right down to it.

Economic prosperity comes from freedom, not the other way around.

Plenty of places around the world are economically prosperous while remaining relatively unfree.

And we are heading the same way.

I ask this question in all sincerity. What do you mean by economic prosperity? is it GDP, work to leisure time ratio? quality of life? employment? personal space? And can you give an example of a free country that is without economic prosperity?

[Zippyjuan]

The unemployed have tons of leisure time. They just don't have any money to spend on doing anything with the time. Having robots and labor saving devices was supposed to free us to have fun and persue other things- unfortunately it meant that fewer workers were needed.

Freedom is a state of mind.

[onlyrp]

The unemployed have tons of leisure time. They just don't have any money to spend on doing anything with the time. Having robots and labor saving devices was supposed to free us to have fun and persue other things- unfortunately it meant that fewer workers were needed.

Freedom is a state of mind.

are you saying freedom is subjective? Why is it "unfortunate" that fewer workers are needed?

[Zippyjuan]

Because now they can't find work.

Yes, I guess I am saying that freedom is subjective. You lose freedom when you allow others to get you to do things you don't want to do. You can be in a prison but free in your thoughts. Your captor cannot control your mind unless you allow them to. You may not have the physical freedom to move around but that does not mean you cannot be free. There are different kinds of freedom and to me the ultimate freedom is the freedom of your own spirit. Emotional and mental freedom. There are many different ways to look at freedom. Nobody can get to do whatever they want to whenever they want so seeking that as true freedom will take you nowhere. If your mind is free you can enjoy that any time and any place.

Just one perspective.

[SL89]

Life ain't all about money pal. Andy Griffith as cop surely beats the goonsquads rife in todays theatre of the absurd. Schools did what they were set up to do....teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Work was readily available. Houses cost 5K USD. You were not forced to wear your seatbelt or suffer the indignity of some brute interfering with your travel. You could clock some loudmouth in the jaw and not go to jail for it. Your kid could play with a gun without a goddamned conniption fit by authoritarian anal retentives. You could walk out of the hospital with your child and not get arrested. Kids could write on their desks without getting handcuffed. If you burped in class you were not arrested. Little girls could kiss little boys on the cheek ad it was cute and not a cause for some jaundice asswipe to call the police about a possible sexual assault. I could go on and on pal. Get your head out of mammon's butt for a second or two and smell what it is like without the continual effluvience of money worship clouding your humanity.

Rev9


Amen brother and welcome back. We all missed you over the silly ban.
To onlyrp. Sorry I was gone for a few, while we were debating. I'll just say this. You can try and justify buying from child labor all you want, claiming free market ideals. I'll just say that we do not have a free market and you know it. Life, Liberty and the pursuit..... remember that?? When a kid is forced into slavery, that ideal is mute, and when you openly support it through your words and actions, and openly proclaim you will buy from anyone, no matter the source, you lose. Because my friend you lose the founding principles of humanity. Just because you are inherently free in your mind and therefore can make purchasing decisions based on the way things are now; does not mean you can feed the monster, that is child labor, without serious repercussions. Not only will you lose in the long run, we ALL lose. The American consumer, industry and most importantly, the child.

respectfully Shawn.

[Zippyjuan]

The U.S. will not lower regulations. 99% of the time, when there is a downturn in the economy, they place tons of bs regulations then say they solved the problem. If you think the U.S. will lower regulations, you are really lost.

China doesn't need low wages to be successful. They have far less regulation and government involvement, as long as they continue that they will be successful.

I would rather be here than in China. You can get sick simply going for a swim in one third of it. Air pollution is also a significant problem. That is one side effect of no regulations.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/

90 percent of wastewater produced in underdeveloped countries is discharged untreated into local waters
80 of China‚ major rivers are so degraded that they no longer support aquatic life
90 percent of all groundwater systems under major cities in China are contaminated
75 percent of India‚ rivers and lakes are so polluted that they should not be used for drinking or bathing


And if you think we are communist you should try visiting Russia where things are so bad life expectancies are declining and the population is going down.

Sure some things were better in the 1950's. We have had better times in some ways in our past, in other ways things are much better today. We have certainly had worse times in our past as well.

[onlyrp]

Because now they can't find work.


I think the problem here isn't they can't find work, it's the assumption that only work can feed a person or that replaced labor doesn't benefit ex-workers. If replacing workers is absolutely bad, then technology is absolutely bad and laborous jobs is always good. But that's absurd, not a strawman for you, just saying nobody subscribes to that. It's more accurate to say replacing labor is ONLY a bad thing when the savings and efficiency doesn't pass on to the replaced. Unemployment is not bad, not unless a person doesn't have welfare and free food. That's why "unemployed" tells you nothing about a person's lifestyle, until you know his age, where he lives, what he's allowed to collect as social benefits.

I might be willing to say poverty is always bad and always worth avoiding, but I wouldn't say unemployment equates to poverty.




Yes, I guess I am saying that freedom is subjective. You lose freedom when you allow others to get you to do things you don't want to do. You can be in a prison but free in your thoughts. Your captor cannot control your mind unless you allow them to. You may not have the physical freedom to move around but that does not mean you cannot be free. There are different kinds of freedom and to me the ultimate freedom is the freedom of your own spirit. Emotional and mental freedom. There are many different ways to look at freedom. Nobody can get to do whatever they want to whenever they want so seeking that as true freedom will take you nowhere. If your mind is free you can enjoy that any time and any place.

Just one perspective.

I can see that.

[onlyrp]

Sure some things were better in the 1950's. We have had better times in some ways in our past, in other ways things are much better today. We have certainly had worse times in our past as well.

Is rate of employment and number of jobs, or lack of inflation the only things that were better in 1950?

[Zippyjuan]

Our standard of living is a lot higher. In 1950 few in the neighborhood would have had a television. Now most houses have multiple ones. Choices for goods in the market place.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html

In 1950 some 35 percent of dwellings lacked full indoor plumbing. Many families still did not have telephones or cars. And of course very few people had televisions. A modern American family at the 12th percentile (that is, right at the poverty line) surely has a flushing toilet, a working shower, and a telephone with direct-dial long-distance service; probably has a color television; and may well even have a car. Take into account improvements in the quality of many other products, and it does not seem at all absurd to say that the material standard of living of that poverty-level family in 1996 is as good as or better than that of the median family in 1950.

What do we mean by this? We mean that if you could choose between the two material standards of living, other things being the same, you might well prefer the 12th percentile standard of 1996 to the 50th percentile standard of 1950. But does that mean that most people were poor in 1950? No--because man does not live by bread, cars, televisions, or even plumbing alone.


Imagine that a mad scientist went back to 1950 and offered to transport the median family to the wondrous world of the 1990s, and to place them at, say, the 25th percentile level. The 25th percentile of 1996 is a clear material improvement over the median of 1950. Would they accept his offer? Almost surely not--because in 1950 they were middle class, while in 1996 they would be poor, even if they lived better in material terms. People don't just care about their absolute material level--they care about their level compared with others'.

[Revolution9]

Is rate of employment and number of jobs, or lack of inflation the only things that were better in 1950?

Much much easier to become a small businessman. That is why more jobs were available. Now there is cubicle jobs, paper shuffling jobs and service jobs for the most part, all feeding the corporate giants. The 50's business landscape was much more diverse with more competition.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Our standard of living is a lot higher. In 1950 few in the neighborhood would have had a television. Now most houses have multiple ones. Choices for goods in the market place.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html

My standard of living was raised when I threw the goddamned TV in the dumpster when Jim MacNeil was softballing Cheney on The McNeil Lehrer Report. Quite a satisfyingly smashing act. Try it. It is quite liberating and your lifestyle will be enhanced if for no other reason than you now get to choose the time and place of your programming..

Rev9

[heavenlyboy34]

Much much easier to become a small businessman. That is why more jobs were available. Now there is cubicle jobs, paper shuffling jobs and service jobs for the most part, all feeding the corporate giants. The 50's business landscape was much more diverse with more competition.

Rev9
Fewer barriers to entry back then, too IIRC. Nobody ever got their lemonade stand shut down back then.

[anaconda]

Chill, I totally wasn't saying you were disagreeing with me. Sorry if I came off that way. Although I don't think freer market means greater per capita social welfare (unless you measured welfare by choices, not by dollars).

No worries. I just wanted to clarify if I misspoke or misled.

Free markets provide the largest amount of producer & consumer surplus. Government intervention reduces these and no one benefits. It is called "social deadweight loss." It's usually introduced in beginning microeconomics. Producer surplus is the difference between the market price of a good and what the producer would otherwise be willing to sell it for. So, if I examine my costs of production and decide I am willing to sell my product for no less than $120, but find that the free market has determined an equilibrium price of $150, then I experience $30 of "producer surplus." Similarly, "consumer surplus" is the difference between what what I am willing to pay for a product and it's actual, market-determined price. So, if I'm willing to pay 79 cents for a Snickers bar but find that it only costs 50 cents, I experience 29 cents of "consumer surplus." Things like price supports and quotas by the government mess this up and reduce some amount this consumer & producer surplus. And it vanishes into thin air-the loss is no ones' gain. It's a great argument for free markets. If I recall, it's a monetary measure. Number of units X price I believe.

[tttppp]

I would rather be here than in China. You can get sick simply going for a swim in one third of it. Air pollution is also a significant problem. That is one side effect of no regulations.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/


And if you think we are communist you should try visiting Russia where things are so bad life expectancies are declining and the population is going down.

Sure some things were better in the 1950's. We have had better times in some ways in our past, in other ways things are much better today. We have certainly had worse times in our past as well.

China has Chinese traditional medicine. They can easily clean out the effects of pollution on your body.

We are not completely communist yet, but we are getting there. Every time the economy goes down, they add new bs regulations, and they almost never remove old ones. As long as we continue this process, we'll get to where Russia is.

[onlyrp]

Much much easier to become a small businessman. That is why more jobs were available. Now there is cubicle jobs, paper shuffling jobs and service jobs for the most part, all feeding the corporate giants. The 50's business landscape was much more diverse with more competition.

Rev9

What it easier to become a small businessman? Was it easier to get business loans? Or was there a higher demand for labor than today?
You seem to conveniently lump all "jobs" together when you want a big number, and downplay it when you want a small one.
Is "more jobs" necessarily better? Yes, today there's more white collar jobs, meaning more jobs which require less labor, how is that a bad thing?
What diversity is lost from today compared to 1950? You lose some jobs which are replaced by technology, that's typically related to computers and internet, which could be TV sales, electronics repair, printing, newspaper delivery, book publishing, editing, film production, advertising, long distance phone service, customer service for all the above, auto repair....these jobs didn't completely go away, they're just less, and with less labor, more efficiency.

[onlyrp]

China has Chinese traditional medicine. They can easily clean out the effects of pollution on your body.

We are not completely communist yet, but we are getting there. Every time the economy goes down, they add new bs regulations, and they almost never remove old ones. As long as we continue this process, we'll get to where Russia is.

Can Chinese herbal medicine cure myopia? No, western medicine has surgery for that, how much cheaper is it today compared to 1990, was it even possible in 1950?

[onlyrp]

No worries. I just wanted to clarify if I misspoke or misled.

So, if I examine my costs of production and decide I am willing to sell my product for no less than $120, but find that the free market has determined an equilibrium price of $150, then I experience $30 of "producer surplus."


So producer surplus is a profit that rewards the producer, and can be created by reducing production and supply, or increasing demand.



Similarly, "consumer surplus" is the difference between what what I am willing to pay for a product and it's actual, market-determined price. So, if I'm willing to pay 79 cents for a Snickers bar but find that it only costs 50 cents, I experience 29 cents of "consumer surplus."


Don't we just call that a "rip off"? Or is your point, the consumer will "save" because he's discovered that he's overpaying?



Things like price supports and quotas by the government mess this up and reduce some amount this consumer & producer surplus. And it vanishes into thin air-the loss is no ones' gain. It's a great argument for free markets. If I recall, it's a monetary measure. Number of units X price I believe.

When you say "government intervention reduces these surpluses and nobody benefits" aren't you assuming that wealth and surpluses can only be measured by dollars?
For example, does it matter if a society as cashless because it's computerized, cashless because they barter, or full of cash everywhere because they've printed too much money? It shouldn't, because each person needs roughly the same amount of food and water per day consistently, regardless of how much dollars it'll cost him. But if you measured social welfare by dollars, then a hyperinflated economy would give the illusion of wealth. Is a person who has a car worth $10,000 poor compared to a person who has no car but $10,000 in cash?

This is why I am making the point, that free market and capitalism at best ensures people have maximum choices, but has no expectation people will be house rich, cash poor or a fat savings account.

[Anti Federalist]

Our standard of living is a lot higher. In 1950 few in the neighborhood would have had a television. Now most houses have multiple ones. Choices for goods in the market place.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html

I don't know that you're doing your point much good quoting Krugman, but I will agree with this:


People don't just care about their absolute material level--they care about their level compared with others'.

There is wisdom there, and the core of why, in spite of all this material prosperity, people are still unhappy, ill at ease, and on prescription happy pills by the millions.

An endless rat race to acquire more and more.

[seraphson]

even the poor today are better off than the high middle class of 1950. capitalism has improved millions of lives to spite the government. imagine if we had a truly free market

My thoughts exactly. Imagine our nation as it was before the Fed Reserve but with all the modern advances of today's technology. Amazing it would be.

[onlyrp]

I don't know that you're doing your point much good quoting Krugman, but I will agree with this:



There is wisdom there, and the core of why, in spite of all this material prosperity, people are still unhappy, ill at ease, and on prescription happy pills by the millions.

An endless rat race to acquire more and more.

I agree, which is why life is ONLY worse today compared to 1950 if we compared how hard it is to keep up with the Joneses, or frankly socialism, equality would be the best definition of material level wealth.

[onlyrp]

My thoughts exactly. Imagine our nation as it was before the Fed Reserve but with all the modern advances of today's technology. Amazing it would be.

That's the problem, it probably couldn't happen. Do you consider how wasteful and unprofitable scientific research is? What profit or quality of life did we gain by going to the moon or Mars (or staging that we did)? What incentive would there have been to go to the moon or Mars, or do you admit it's a complete waste of money, unless you consider that an exploration for relocation if we destroy our living space?

[Zippyjuan]

A perfect world is an illusion- never has and never will happen. The "good old days" sometimes seem that way becaue over time we have forgotten some of the other problems which were also going on. And "better times" are often only recognized as such after the fact. Economically, the 1980's were actually a pretty darn good time for most people.

[tttppp]

Can Chinese herbal medicine cure myopia? No, western medicine has surgery for that, how much cheaper is it today compared to 1990, was it even possible in 1950?

What is myopia? I can't say whether chinese traditional medicine is unless I know what it is.

[onlyrp]

What is myopia? I can't say whether chinese traditional medicine is unless I know what it is.

The official term for "shortsightness" the common reason people wear glasses.

[tttppp]

The official term for "shortsightness" the common reason people wear glasses.

Yeah chinese traditional medicine can fix that. It can correct eye problems just like it can correct problems with the rest of your body.

[onlyrp]

Yeah chinese traditional medicine can fix that. It can correct eye problems just like it can correct problems with the rest of your body.

source and evidence please. So no Chinese should ever have to wear glasses for myopia, according to you?