White people...

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

At no point since 1950 have things gotten as bad as they were prior to 1950.

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can watch the following video and disregard the race baiting to see how your statement is just flat out false. I picked this one because its short but there are several longer more comprehensive videos to be watched on the matter with less racial scapegoating.

Detroit then and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0AHO-IWws

Yea because Detroit got shuttered by the destruction of certain sectors of American manufacturing, the entire US economy is worse now than in 1920. Good God man, look at the big picture. How about we compare San Jose then and now?

[Nihilist_santa]

Detroit also adopted liberal policies and had democrat leaders. If you look into it the issue its more than just manufacturing leaving. Its the political direction the city took and its policies. The great thing about the US is each state can act as a laboratory and we can watch this without infecting the rest of the country with its failed policies.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We were a second-rate backwater through the early 1900's, hardly even matching Great Britain and absolutely not the top of the world.

you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.

For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.

Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty

Originally Posted by Lune

I mean you're basically advocating for people like Andrew Carnegie to wield considerable power and influence again. That's basically what free market capitalism is. The people with the capital wield the economic power (and the political power too unless specific protections are in place, as we're seeing now).

Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Detroit also adopted liberal policies and had democrat leaders. If you look into it the issue its more than just manufacturing leaving. Its the political direction the city took and its policies. The great thing about the US is each state can act as a laboratory and we can watch this without infecting the rest of the country with its failed policies.

Silicon valley and Seattle WA also adopted liberal policies, are both became booming centers of industry while Detroit sank. Obviously it's bigger than policy, and more due to industrial trends. Both Seattle and S.F dealt more in advanced manufacturing that wasn't hit as hard. You claim it's not because of manufacturing leaving, but I just don't see good reasoning there. Red states all over the US have fared awfully, except Texas, which might as well be member of OPEC.

[Priceline]

thought this thread was about the punch line to all of Dave Chappelle's jokes.. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Silicon valley and Seattle WA also adopted liberal policies, are both became booming centers of industry while Detroit sank. Obviously it's bigger than policy, and more due to industrial trends. Both Seattle and S.F dealt more in advanced manufacturing that wasn't hit as hard. You claim it's not because of manufacturing leaving, but I just don't see good reasoning there. Red states all over the US have fared awfully, except Texas, which might as well be member of OPEC.

Newsflash they haven't stopped making automobiles they just moved to right to work states in the south and Mexico. They were driven there by the economic climate of Detroit and its relationship to the unions (corruption, cronyism, etc all of the things you blame for the failings of other leftist systems that haven't actualized the dream)

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.

For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.

Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty



Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.

So failing to deny that things haven't gotten as bad yet as they were before FDR, your argument is basically "Yea, we're getting there, things will get worse". Not sure how I can refute your fantasies for the future but yea, I guess we'll see.

The wealthy having political influence is independent of capitalism and socialism and has more to do with our culture and the protections we put in place institutionally to prevent it. I don't think it's a function of capitalism or socialism per se. Economic power being in the hands of those with capital, on the other hand, is the fundamental basis of capitalism. The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth. It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor. That is why the decline in labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Newsflash they haven't stopped making automobiles they just moved to right to work states in the south and Mexico. They were driven there by the economic climate of Detroit and its relationship to the unions (corruption, cronyism, etc all of the things you blame for the failings of other leftist systems that haven't actualized the dream)

This is a map of right-to-work states. What do you notice about them?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are all the shittiest, poorest states! Let's, as a nation, become more like the deep South!

Unions are responsible for nearly all the nice perks you enjoy today, like sick days, vacation, health and safety regulations, worker's compensation, benefits, etc, all these nice things that are slowly being eroded because of people like you defending the Bossman. Public sector unions obviously have problems. Some unions are corrupt. Unions, as a concept, are necessary.

[Raev]

I am simply saying that America was rising from 1775 -> 1930 or so so based on free markets and individual liberty. Progressives started to fuck things up at around 1900 and by 1930 the trajectory of the United States was flat. By 1970 it was downwards. The fact that people at the peak 1930-1960ish thought that social programs were a good idea is actually an indictment of those programs. I don't see why you are having trouble understanding this argument.

Originally Posted by Lune

The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth.

And yet, you can't create 14 trillion for yourself out of thin area. You can't buy off politicians to override food safety regulations. This position is pure textbook. Reality says government is always owned by and for the wealthy.

Originally Posted by Lune

It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor.

I mean, do you not understand basic supply and demand? Even the Marxist propaganda centers we call colleges today teach microeconomics.