Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RightatNYU How is the salaries for workers remaining stagnant? The average household income over the past 20 years rose dramatically. Whether you look at the mean or the median, it has risen between 12 and 40%. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html |
These figures, do they account for inflation? And the 'average' household income could be affected by extremely high salaries, plenty of which existed. In 1990, the worker salary to CEO slary ratio was 1:90, in 2000 it was 1:425. Relative to their employers, workers' salaries have not increased in the least. But, yes, as for those figures, you have to account for inflation, which rises steadily, and also the outliers if you're measuring an average, since CEO's salaries grew throughout the 90's. The median is much more accurate as far as actual workers' salary growth, and these numbers (this is the rise by 12%, I assume) haven't increased much beyond the inflation rate over the decade.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NYU Actually, the reasons for the Great Depression are far more complex than the ones you mention.
During the 1920's, the Fed increased the money supply by 60%, allowing massive speculation, contributing to a national devaluation.
The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, although it was passed after the initial crash, prevented a quick recovery. "In 1988, the Council of Economic Advisors proclaimed that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was 'probably one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever signed in the United States.' "
The economic conditions now are nothing like they were then, and if you're planning on waiting for the next Great Depression, you'll have a while longer to wait.
While capitalism has the faults inherent to every natural business cycle, it is a lasting and successful system, as opposed to any other alternative. |
Also, we cannot forget the massive success of business throughout the twenties, as a result of the much coveted laissez-faire policies. This in itself lead to mass speculation in the market. It would not be entirely inaccurate to say that the crash of '29 was a direct result of laissez-faire economic policy throughout the decade. I agree that economic conditions are different today, as we see a new form of capitalism emerging: transnational or global capitalism. The danger, of couse, of this is the very little regulation involved in international trade and labor, making cheap labor easily attainable for nearly every large corporation, thus endangering US workers and placing cheap laborers under a system of slave labor. Now, whether capitalism is superior to every other economic system, I very much doubt that. I have often cited that the good living standards we enjoy in the USA are largely thanks to government regulation such as the New Deal, and that countries with laissez-faire plocies today, such as China, more and more, and Argentina, have very poor labor conditions. To think that capitalism can sustain itself without government regulation is quite dangerous, and devoid of any knowledge of history. But is capitalism the best that man can possibly do? I highly doubt it. Democratic socialism has never really been seriously attempted. It would involve the people actually democratically owning their own economy, rather than very few fortunate individuals, as is what we see with capitalism. Perhaps you should open your mind a bit and look into other possibilities, as the global anti-capitalist movement has given new hope to anti-capitalists everywhere and has shown the ills of capitalism as well as the promise of some alternative systems. Socialism is how, I believe, we must begin to overcome capitalism.