• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A graphic appreciation of America's postwar economic evolution

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The European evolution of post-war economic fundamentals of states/countries evolved in significantly different patterns from that of the US. It began its change radically with the demise of the Soviet Union.

The US assumed that Communism was the main threat to its democracy (and that invasion was possible). The Europeans did not believe that such a threat existed. There was a "wall" put up (that is still partially in place to be seen in Berlin), which has been demolished. But the eventual inutility of such a device did not, finally, prevent the Soviet Union from coming apart and dieing.

So, with consummate-confidence, Europe simply waited for the Red Threat to implode. Which has happened, and the European Union recuperated the vestiges - that is, those eastern-countries that opted to become members.

Europe and the US are kindred-spirits. A great, great many immigrants came from Europe in the 19th century to create the basic foundation of the country. That tie was knotted further in WW2. But they remain VERY, VERY different socio-economic entities today.

Uncle Sam has kept his original bent for freedom-of-both-thought-and-action and the "individual rewards" thereto. By which it has kept and augmented its basic National Economic Unfairness. (Whazzat?)


It looks like this from here:
fig2.png


The inequality is Uncle Sam's major-problem forbidding "national fairness" ...
 
Last edited:
A little more recent and a bit more info:


Put your mouse arrow in the field of the top graph to get more detail.

Go to top box "Economic Research" and select Survey of Consumer Finances for loads more data. The available exhibits in this thing have enough to keep y'all quite busy. And excellent source.
 
Last edited:
Why is this a problem?

Well, that says it all really.
You can't fix a problem when a large chunk of people don't see that a problem exists.

Just as a start, if the available money was distributed more fairly you'd have fewer people struggling to make ends meet and would be able to actually save in case of emergencies. I suppose that is unimportant though.
 
Well, that says it all really.
You can't fix a problem when a large chunk of people don't see that a problem exists.

Just as a start, if the available money was distributed more fairly you'd have fewer people struggling to make ends meet and would be able to actually save in case of emergencies. I suppose that is unimportant though.

There is also the question of democracy. With very few rich, we run the risk of becoming an oligarchy, if we aren't already.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis
 
Why is this a problem?


Because many people in our society keep getting less and less while fewer get far beyond what they need or can use. The obvious social Darwinism of those that don't see such a problem prefer those that cannot survive the waters be eaten by the sharks, rather than reach out and pull them from the water aboard the boat.
 
Because many people in our society keep getting less and less while fewer get far beyond what they need or can use. The obvious social Darwinism of those that don't see such a problem prefer those that cannot survive the waters be eaten by the sharks, rather than reach out and pull them from the water aboard the boat.
There's nothing in that chart that indicates anyone is getting less. You're being duped.
 
Because many people in our society keep getting less and less while fewer get far beyond what they need or can use. The obvious social Darwinism of those that don't see such a problem prefer those that cannot survive the waters be eaten by the sharks, rather than reach out and pull them from the water aboard the boat.

Look, what has happened is simple and should be perfectly obvious. "We as a nation have been living beyond our means"! ¨Period!

Something fundamental happened in the early 1990s when work started migrating from the US to China and Central-southern America. That something is changing our lifestyle - and many people will suffer the consequences of lower incomes and higher costs.

And they are NOT IN THE LEAST prepared for the lowering of the "standard of living". But significant changes are necessary in the US.
 
Look, what has happened is simple and should be perfectly obvious. "We as a nation have been living beyond our means"! ¨Period!

Something fundamental happened in the early 1990s when work started migrating from the US to China and Central-southern America. That something is changing our lifestyle - and many people will suffer the consequences of lower incomes and higher costs.

And they are NOT IN THE LEAST prepared for the lowering of the "standard of living". But significant changes are necessary in the US.
Whose incomes do you think are "lower?"
 
Look, what has happened is simple and should be perfectly obvious. "We as a nation have been living beyond our means"! ¨Period!

Something fundamental happened in the early 1990s when work started migrating from the US to China and Central-southern America. That something is changing our lifestyle - and many people will suffer the consequences of lower incomes and higher costs.

And they are NOT IN THE LEAST prepared for the lowering of the "standard of living". But significant changes are necessary in the US.


"...living beyond our means"? So, the solution is that workers should lower their standard of living rather than be paid a living wage? Or?

We've been globalizing for over 2,000 yrs when trade routes were opened btx China and Europe, through all places in-between, creating cultural, political, and religious interactions between these regions, and more, impacting not just lifestyle, but civilization itself. What else should have been done in the 1990s than what happened?
 
"...living beyond our means"? So, the solution is that workers should lower their standard of living rather than be paid a living wage? Or?

Without the cost benefits of migrating so many manufacturing operations overseas, that's exactly what would happen.
 
Yes, it does ...

ColaDelPanPetrogrado1917.jpg
My image spoke to a time where the masses rose against the unqualified elite. Not sure what your image tries to portray, you could get that shot at any food bank in America tomorrow.
 
Nah, we don't need unions.
 
Nah, we don't need unions.

One word reply to insanity: Bollocks !

Do away with business-in-general and maybe you'd have a leg to stand on - but that aint-gonna-happin ... !
 
What else should have been done in the 1990s than what happened?

There are only two principal economies of a similar nature - the US and the EU. (In terms of number of customers and economic trading-values.)

If both were to align themselves on a common scheme for international-trade, a lot of the bumps-in-the-road might disappear.

And the Big Dual Economy (US&EU) could then negotiate internationally for a common set of exportation-rules. Which is now a shamble of import-taxation costs that simply increase product/services cost-to-customers and thus diminish potential volume ...

Moveover, International-Trade is not just cars and TVs and wheat. It is also "services"! "And the value is a least as large as "product volumes" if not more ... !
 
One word reply to insanity: Bollocks !

Do away with business-in-general and maybe you'd have a leg to stand on - but that aint-gonna-happin ... !
The successful effort of the rich to convince many lower and middle income workers that they are much better off without unions and that the real problem is people who are more poor than they are is quite an accomplishment.
 
There's nothing in that chart that indicates anyone is getting less. You're being duped.


The bottom quintile and bottom 50% are getting less a share of wealth and income distribution over time than before:

"Between the mid-1970s and 2000, high-income households experienced rapid real income growth relative to middle- and low-income households, but incomes grew on average for all quintiles. Between 2000 and 2010—a period that includes two economic recessions—average incomes fell in all quintiles of the distribution, and overall income inequality declined modestly. As the economy recovered over the 2010 to 2019 period, average incomes increased for each quintile, but the timing and pace of recovery varied. The top quintile was the first to have positive growth and the quickest to return to its pre-recession average income level. As a result, income inequality grew markedly over this period."

(See 3rd para of Key Findings section after Table of Contents):

Also see Fig. 2

Our system of wealth distribution inequitable. That is fact. Just because lower incomes are higher than before does not make it equitable when they get further and further apart from the upper incomes. You're duping yourself if not trying to dupe others.
 
The bottom quintile and bottom 50% are getting less a share of wealth and income distribution over time than before:

"Between the mid-1970s and 2000, high-income households experienced rapid real income growth relative to middle- and low-income households, but incomes grew on average for all quintiles. Between 2000 and 2010—a period that includes two economic recessions—average incomes fell in all quintiles of the distribution, and overall income inequality declined modestly. As the economy recovered over the 2010 to 2019 period, average incomes increased for each quintile, but the timing and pace of recovery varied. The top quintile was the first to have positive growth and the quickest to return to its pre-recession average income level. As a result, income inequality grew markedly over this period."

(See 3rd para of Key Findings section after Table of Contents):

Also see Fig. 2

Our system of wealth distribution inequitable. That is fact. Just because lower incomes are higher than before does not make it equitable when they get further and further apart from the upper incomes. You're duping yourself if not trying to dupe others.
Less of a share may not be less if the whole has increased. The lot of you seem to think there is a static level of wealth in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Well, that says it all really.
You can't fix a problem when a large chunk of people don't see that a problem exists.

Just as a start, if the available money was distributed more fairly you'd have fewer people struggling to make ends meet and would be able to actually save in case of emergencies. I suppose that is unimportant though.

How do you know those people the money is distributed to won't simply blow it at the track?
 
How do you know those people the money is distributed to won't simply blow it at the track?

Why do you think they would?
 
Back
Top Bottom