Look at this data about marijuana use, at the end of the 1960s decade, it was almost nothing.
Posted on 06/15/2015 12:22:04 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Middle class people “do their own thing” far too much.
When you only have the ruling class elite and a dependency class, the society is easier to control.
I don’t think the USA could produce 18 million bbl/day even if every oil field possible was tapped.
“-—they created all the music and activism.”
—
And most of us born before 1946 were raising families and watching our country be torn apart.
.
What is this idiot talking about-natural resource depletion?
energy shortages?
In the next twenty years we will probably find more gas and oil. If the environmental wackos left them alone, we would have more hydro dams then we have now.
Others on FR know more about this than I, but I understand safer more efficient nuclear power plants will also be coming on-line.
Didn't I say just last week on the thread SHOULD WE RETIRE RETIREMENT? thread that hoarding the jobs would be next?
We don’t begrudge these people – our teachers and professors, our older friends, our parents and other relatives – comfort in their gray years. The way Americans, in the days before social security and other protections, lost their footings in old age was simply inhumane. But why couldn’t the prosperity be spread so that those born in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and after can enjoy the same stability and wealth?
Uh-oh... 401(k) confiscation, anyone?
-PJ
The problem isn’t just a crippling recession and an economic “recovery” that has mostly gone to the richest one percent, but the larger shifting of wealth from the middle to the very top that’s taken place since the late ‘70s.
That sort of "shift" turns out to be impossible to measure inasmuch as the definitions of "wealthy", "very top", and "1%" turn out to mean whatever the author of the moment intends them to mean for the purposes of narrative. And it neglects one major shift in spending that contrasts this present government budget from the ones of 50 - 200 years ago. It neglects the economic costs of social welfare spending, where the transfer of money is from the productive middle class to the less productive welfare classes. This is fairly well-defined to have occurred since the onset of the Great Society programs in the 60's. How much did that take out of the economy? Try an estimated $22 Trillion. It's a pretty big hole - the entire GDP of the U.S. was $3 trillion in 1960 (measured in 2005 dollars). This has been like that since the Boomers left short pants in the 60's. It doesn't appear to have made it over the author's intellectual radar horizon.
we’ll nod to the usual suspects: Globalization, technology, and the depletion of natural resources (especially energy) meant that the postwar boom would not last forever.
The author is welcome to nod anywhere he likes but that doesn't make it true. Technology in particular has been a net generator of wealth, not a drain, and I'd love to know what natural resources (especially energy) the author considers "depleted" - oil, whose production is at a record high? Nuclear power, whose production has been curtailed by political obstruction? Coal, whose industry has been deliberately targeted by the sitting administration? Hydroelectric, the target of a deliberate turn-back on the part of the environmental movement? Nor are we short of a mighty wind of hot air so long as Salon is being published. What depletion?
This is particularly silly stuff for any economist to propose, contrary to the facts and blissfully neglectful of the ravages of progressive social policies. Wait, did I say "economist"?
Scott Timberg is a... longtime arts reporter in Los Angeles...
Oh. An arts reporter. We're getting economic analysis from an arts reporter.
...He's the author of the new book, "Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class."
So...what exactly is the author's view of this indispensible "creative class"? Let's check Amazon. Wait for it...
A persistent economic recession, social shifts, and technological change have combined to put our artists—from graphic designers to indie-rock musicians, from architects to booksellers—out of work.
Ah - that would be the very bulwark of productivity within the middle class, wouldn't it? Well, not exactly. Nor is it obvious that redistributive programs benefiting them would help the economy much, if at all. A nice article overall if one enjoys fairy tales.
So.... saying that population stats have an economic impact is forbodden now also.... K
“the Reagan Revolution was pulling the rug out from under the middle class.”
Another stupid article from Salon. The Reagan years were the best years for America and the middle class. The years from 1983 until 2007 was the longest period of prosperity in history and an era when the middle class prospered. The changes Reagan introduced were what made America and the middle class prosperous.
Not only did Marx hate the middle class and want them dead, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and all the other Stalinist wannabe dictators actually made them dead, just as El Commandante Obola, Moochelle, and the Witch want to.
I’m not sure if that is a good idea. If you’re versed in American history, remember how the Smoot-Hawley Tariff—passed at the start of the Great Depression—made this economic depression much worse than needed?
The post WWII “middle class” was nothing more than an over-privileged, over-paid invention of socialist maneuvering — starting with Roosevelt (who built upon on the damage done by the earlier “progressive” movement) before the war and continuing with EVERY president after that except Reagan.
It was never sustainable to have SO MANY people getting so much more than their economic contribution justified. Artificially high union wages, mixed with social programs funded with sky-high taxes and massive government borrowing created a Potemkin village kind of prosperity that was never going to last.
Meanwhile, while the rich not nominally “richer,” more and more of the nation’s GDP was pushed downward to fund a “right” to home ownership, and all kinds of consumer goodies (today’s version of bread and circuses) to keep people happy. It worked for a while, but it all came crashing down. And the “rich people” of today could not do anything about it if they wanted to.
John D. Rockefeller’s assets alone equaled almost 2% of GDP. If translated into today’s dollars, he would have been worth $340 billion. Andrew Carnegie would have been worth about $300 billion and Cornelius Vanderbilt just under $200 billion. Compare that to the “super-rich” Bill Gates, who is worth less than $80 billion.
The fortunes amassed before the progressive/socialist damage were vast enough to deploy capital — and do so in the capable hands of businessmen who had almost no “well meaning” regulations or restrictions to deal with. Today, we look to government printing presses for the really big money — and with predictable results.
I look forward to the time when we can once again have a legitimate, sustainable and smaller middle class — such as we had when this country was experiencing its greatest economic boom ever and great visionaries were amassing fantastic fortunes.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/pelosi-celebrates-loss-full-time-jobs/
“....In light of widespread criticism, including from traditionally Democrat labor unions, that ObamaCare will necessarily result in the loss of full-time jobs, Pelosi tried desperately to put a positive spin on things.
She sat down for an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN, during which the host brought up the issue by sharing critical comments made by union boss James Hoffa Jr.
“That’s pretty tough from a loyal Democratic constituency,” Crowley added, prompting Pelosi to suggest that the government can find common ground with union leaders.
The 73-year-old former House Speaker then indicated that a work force dominated by part-timers is a good thing for employees, indicating ObamaCare will give workers more free time.
“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is a liberation,” she contended, adding that the monstrous law will give citizens “the freedom to pursue [their] happiness.”
The multi-millionaire politician apparently believes that the rest of the nation lives as lavishly as those in her elitist circle of influence. Cutting an employee’s hours in half, she suggests, has no impact aside from the instant creation of superfluous free time.
In reality, of course, millions of Americans are going to suffer financially from the implementation of ObamaCare. The pain has already begun for many whose employers have slashed hours in advance of upcoming mandates. In many cases, these workers will be forced to work multiple part-time jobs, thus giving them decidedly less time during which they can “pursue happiness.”
Working class citizens are worried about putting food on the table, not picking up a new hobby.
Considering the refusal of legislators like Pelosi to enroll in the healthcare system they passed, one questions the authenticity of her statements. At this point, though, she is far too committed to the cause to turn back.
You paid into it. Then Congress spent it on other stuff. Remember the government “surplus” in 1996?
The system operates and will operate on a deficit. The shortfall now requires .gov to sell a T-bill to pay you and everyone else. They could reduce benefits, but that’s unlikely until the wheels fall off and everything crashes.
Did you speak out when Al Gore mis-spoke about the Government lockbox?
Go ahead and eat cake.
Any energy shortages we experience will be directly and solely attributable to leftist gov’t policy.
Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, note that the Smoot-Hawley Act only had a contributory effect on the entire U.S. economy.
-- wiki
Look at this data about marijuana use, at the end of the 1960s decade, it was almost nothing.
No, what happened in the 1990’s was the arrival of the public Internet and all the economic opportunity it created. Yes, much of it failed but it did in the end create the modern technology powerhouses like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and several others.
I grew up in a one income household at that time. It was a 1000 square foot house, I shared a 10x12 room with my brother right up through high school.
We had one (used) car for the family, one TV set, and one phone.
Vacations were one week at a small tourist cabin on a lake in Wisconsin, every summer.
Now - I am not trying to tell anyone how "tough" my life was. In fact, we always had food on the table, good clothes to wear to school and church, and never felt "poor" in any way.
My point is that most families today who want to live on one income, and are willing to live the same lifestyle that young families did in the '50s, could probably do it.
But if they think that a separate suite for every child, two new cars and a boat in the driveway, and two weeks at Disney every year are the bare minimum of subsistence, they ain't gonna make it through any rough patches.
Have they no editors there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.