- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I don't really think you can compare our economy to the one we had 150 years ago by any means at all.
Why is this important?
I don't really think you can compare our economy to the one we had 150 years ago by any means at all.
With charity they would. We didn't have a mass of starving people in the 1800s, yet there were no wage controls.
But it was much more free about 150 years ago.
We didn't have a mass of starving people in the 1800s, yet there were no wage controls.
My problem is too much government interferrance in the private sector.
hang on, i will save some the effort ...Ever since Reagan drastically cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, the rich have been getting richer at an astronomical pace. Check out this interesting article that documents the growing disparity between the top1% of the population and the remaining 99%....
Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap - Yahoo! News
With charity they would. We didn't have a mass of starving people in the 1800s, yet there were no wage controls.
But it was much more free about 150 years ago.
I don't think it's "too much government interference" as much as it is improper government interference. There is a necessity for proper oversight and regulation, but I think as we stand today we are completely ass backwards on it. We regulate where we shouldn't and don't regulate where we should. And this causes a lot of problems in the end. Heck, the financial collapse was caused by improper government regulation.
tell me how that's remotely possible today.
hang on, i will save some the effort ...
'why do you hate the rich'??...if you worked harder, you could be rich to!'......your not rich because of your poor choices or you don't work hard enough!'.....
hang on, i will save some the effort ...
'why do you hate the rich'??...if you worked harder, you could be rich to!'......your not rich because of your poor choices or you don't work hard enough!'.....
people also grew their own food in the 1800's, pissed outside and lived in homes built by their own hands. tell me how that's remotely possible today.
may have not worked harder, perhaps he worked smarterObama didn't work hard to get to where he's at?
people also grew their own food in the 1800's, pissed outside and lived in homes built by their own hands. tell me how that's remotely possible today.
...Why is that important?
I'm not sure we want to return to that world. And I doubt we could if we wanted to.
More yes, and I'm not sure it was better. Read Workers on the Edge. We almost went socalist because conditions were so bad. And if you want to torture yourself, read progress and poverty. Largely the freemarket, with no regulations, poses problems. That's why we have very little of that left in the world today.
The trick, if there is one, is finding balance.
I'm pointing out that wage controls and social safety nets are not necessary.
Remember the great depression? I believe baptist ministers begged for government help because they couldn't handle the charity load. However, even without that great crisis, it really is better to be poor today then it was then. That's improvement.
I'm only talking about the rules of that time, not the prosperity of that time. Obviously we are much better off now, but rules did not make us that way. If that was true then the Romans would have been as prosperous as we are now.
Conditions were so bad? We were growing at a tremendous pace and again there is no evidence of mass starvation. Private charity worked. The business cycle back then and other problems were not caused by the free market. Look at state banks which caused the business cycle and other interventions that caused problems even back then.
"improper", "too much", six of one, half dozen of another.
Improvement because of economic growth not because of new rules and regulations!
Also, remember who brought on the great depression: the central bank, not the free market. And it lasted so long because of government interventions.
Not sure they don't go together. And I really don't want to open the disagreement about the causes of the great depression. Let's save that for another thread if we can.
I think the rules are part of the better prosperity.
Mass starvation is a high hurdle, but there was evidence of some rough to bad conditions. It wasn't better than today.
I'm pointing out that wage controls and social safety nets are not necessary.
To have a substandard living?