DiogenesLamp: "Population doubled?
Should that not have doubled the economy?
Does not 150% represent a reduction from what should have been a 200% gain in economic activity due to a doubling of the population?
Worse still, economic activity is synergistic, and doubling of the population should have resulted in economic improvement even greater than 200%."
Sorry, I didn't intend to confuse you with, ahem, advanced mathematics, so let me explain it in simple terms:
- If something (i.e., population) grows from 100 to 150, that is a 50% increase.
- If it grows from 100 to 200 that is a 100% increase = doubled.
- If it grows from 100 to 250 that is a 150% increase.
- If it grows from 100 to 300 that is a 200% increase = tripled, etc.
The population doubled (100% increase) and average real wages grew by 50%.
For comparison, from 1945 to 1970 (the post-war boom) the US population grew about 50% while both US GDP and real wages doubled.
Then from 1970 to today, again US population grew about 50% and again GDP doubled, but real wages remained flat, at best.
Now someone might argue that since 1970 average working American lives have vastly improved due to 1) technology, 2) more women working to increase household income and 3) rising asset values especially homes and 401Ks.
We might also add more generous welfare for the poor.
But wages, adjusted for inflation, remained flat (at best) for nearly 50 years.
Today that seems to be changing.
The "Gilded Age" compares well to the best economic periods in American history.
DiogenesLamp: "So where did that missing money go?
How much went into the pockets of the Train Barons?
The Steel Barons?
The Oil Barons?
The Finance Barons?
And Washington DC bureaucrat pockets?"
Missing money?
That's leftist socialist Democrat talk, FRiend.
The fact is there is no quantifiable evidence that "corruption" (however you define it) was greater or less at any one historical period than any other.
Consider today's wealthiest billionaires -- over half made their money from technology (i.e., Bill Gates), about a third first inherited their wealth, though like the Walton's of Walmart they also grew it spectacularly, and many of the rest made their money in investments (i.e., Buffet, Bloomberg).
Now consider that some of these people have even been accused of "crimes" which were totally unimaginable 30 years ago, and which even today are not fully codified.
Does that make them more corrupt than the generations before them, or does it simply mean the economy changed faster than our laws?
Obviously the latter, just as in the Gilded Age 130 years ago.