10 Disturbing Facts About Our Economy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did we sustain it?

It lasted a few decades until the systematic erosion of the unions, coupled with deregulation, turned our economy into a ####### shoot.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Eisenhower was a commie.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You think the growth of the Middle Class was largely an illusion, unsustainable?

To a certain degree, but not because the future was mortgaged (1950s debt was generally stable and actually decreased as a ratio to GDP).

1950s America had a huge advantage over the rest of the developed world given that most of the world was rebuilding.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Sousuke

[james&olya 1,121]

The 1950's were created by mortgaging the future. There is no future left to mortgage.

That was a one trick pony. The pony died. Old people killed it.

Clueless!

[james&olya 1,121]

Way to not get it. Government needs to live within it's means, whether it is a command economy, or a free market. Just don't spend more money than you take in revenues.

I have no problem with that. I voted twice for the last president who did that. His name was Clinton. A democrat!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To a certain degree, but not because the future was mortgaged (1950s debt was generally stable and actually decreased as a ratio to GDP).

1950s America had a huge advantage over the rest of the developed world given that most of the world was rebuilding.

True, but then other developed nations quickly followed and also enjoyed long-lasting economic prosperity anchored by a strong Middle Class.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

1950s America had a huge advantage over the rest of the developed world given that most of the world was rebuilding.

Temporary at best. US manufacturing was left with pre-WWII equipment, much of which converted from wartime use, while Europe and Japan were getting modern equipment paid for largely by the US.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So the question is - to everyone here: Can we have a prosperous economy founded on a strong Middle Class and would it be sustainable? Why or why not?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It lasted a few decades until the systematic erosion of the unions, coupled with deregulation, turned our economy into a ####### shoot.

I know. It seems as though the fact that we failed to sustain it equates for some to the model being unsustainable.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So the question is - to everyone here: Can we have a prosperous economy founded on a strong Middle Class and would it be sustainable? Why or why not?

We could if we wanted to. We'd just have to break the fascination and apparent satisfaction too many in this country have with picking up the crumbs falling off the rich man's table.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We could if we wanted to. We'd just have to break the fascination and apparent satisfaction too many in this country have with picking up the crumbs falling off the rich man's table.

There's another factor to this - that developed nations and the rise of Middle Class society came off the backs of Third World Labor, since modern economies are largely dependent on consumerism. I don't think that means that the only way to build a Middle Class is to have readily available, cheap consumer goods, but there are some who make that argument.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Lincolns mullet

[Ban Hammer 13,569]

A quote by Tomas Sowell, " why is it considered being greedy for a person to keep what they earned, but it is not greedy for those who have earned nothing to take what others have earned?

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/

because it's a smokescreen by some to mask what the real problem is in this country - out of control spending - and the rich are scapegoats for a gullible public.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

because it's a smokescreen by some to mask what the real problem is in this country - out of control spending - and the rich are scapegoats for a gullible public.

Spending (which is roughly 2-3% above average) is actually slightly less of a problem than the lack of revenue (which is roughly 3-4% below average). That's what some don't want to acknowledge - even after losing the election.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,569]

Spending (which is roughly 2-3% above average) is actually slightly less of a problem than the lack of revenue (which is roughly 3-4% below average). That's what some don't want to acknowledge - even after losing the election.

when revenue decreases, so does spending. at least, that's what prudent people do.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

when revenue decreases, so does spending. at least, that's what prudent people do.

Prudent people tend to do both really, attempt to raise revenue while cutting spending. To be honest I think I almost want the Fiscal Cliff to occur...its better than any compromise we'll get.