The 1700 and 1800's - The Era of Misery

Lefterism in a nut shell.

My favorite is a few posts back when you talk about all the quality of life improvements made by the free market that was done without force. Back when you used to believe in people not forcing them to work to pay for your ruling class and failed social programming.

 

You forgot to ask what the population was like. Then ask how mich of GDP is going to government and away from the people. Also, something about an industrial revolution increased productivity of people as did electricity etc... Apples and oranges. Get a graph from the civil war and after for best results. Half of his time line was the dark ages for America. Before the Republican Party.

 

I'm no economist. My position is not based on economics. His data contradicted what I said, I have no evidence to the contrary, so I conceded the point. What you say seems likely, but how can I be sure you're not just picking and choosing years advantageous to your argument?

Additionally, I think the Martin van Burens and John Tylers of the pre-civil war era were the best you ever got. They largely respected the limits of their constitutional authority. The civil war saw a massive expanse in Federal power that was never reduced. In light of your assertion that the post-civil war period saw greatest prosperity, maybe this serves his argument that coercion and state interference = prosperity?

Your reply would be appreciated.

 

I am, just like he did. Just pointing out how the stats can be manipulated.

There is nothing free market about slavery. The south grew faster once it ended. The Guilded Age is the closest we came to a free market economy, and the growth in that period after the war and ending with us as the world power in the early 1900s is the period I would point to if making a free market vs/ big government market argument.

 

"Force is the only realistic way to have a civilized society."

Taxcutter says:
If the Third Reich and USSR (force to the max) were civilized, I'll take barbarism, thank you.

 

I don't think that is true.. The South was an economic backwater... an Albatross until the end of Jim Crow.

 

Grew then too. But it did grow faster after the civil war them before it. Took some time to recover first but then began growing in earnest around 1890. But yes, we both agree that is wasnt until republicans took over in the south that they became the new destination for industry and money began fleeing the north and other former republican strongholds like Detroit that were recently captured by the leftists and their union cronies. Since then the north has stagnated while the south has risen. Southern debt is finally dropping and budgets are being balanced and now Leftist towns are going bankrupt and amassing big debts and levying big taxes. Which is driving them here to Florida. The fastest growing state in the union.

Whenever in history there is a city or state on the decline or stagnant democrats are running the place, or their policies are directly to blame and you can't think of one example otherwise.

 

Have you ignored the waves of migration out of the South?

 

When the democrats ran it? Not at all. Have you ignored the waves coming into the south now that is under republican control?

 

The 1800's was known as the Gilded Age because people lived very (*)(*)(*)(*)ty lives covered by a thin layer of gold (economic boom for the rich).

 

I am speaking of the waves that left the south circa 1900- 1925.. and again between 1950 and 1965.

 

You do know, I'm sure, 'Jim Crow' was as prevalent in the North ( almost the entire country ) as it was in the South? It may even be said it was more prevalent in the North during the lead up to the War of Northern Aggression. Exactly why do you think a portion of those making up the original ( socialist, oops ) Republican Party were 'Free Soilers'?

I am no Democrat and usually vote Republican simply because I am far from believing in what the DIMS have become over the years.

'Tis certainly not because I am enamored with PUBS.

I would also presume you are familiar with a little thing called Reconstruction that raped, pillaged, and plundered the wealth of the South, requiring almost a 100 years to recover from.

 

I haven't mentioned the Civil war.. I was speaking of the period from 1900 thru 1970.

 

A small percentage were able to do that, yes.

 

Excuse me! The thread title deals with the 1700s and 1800s. My bad.

 

If you read my post, you would know I was speaking of the migrations from the South to the North.

 

What's your point?

Actually, the data proves that our real economy grew faster in the pre-fed era than in the post-fed era.

Why do you keep pretending that GDP per capita is an accurate metric for determining "standard of living"? It's just a simple ratio of GDP to population. It doesn't even tell you how the GDP is distributed across the population. Plus, I'm trying to look at the macroeconomy, so GDP is a good metric for measuring its growth over time.

Because you want the economy to grow slower?

This is one of the stupidest things you've ever said. Apparently, in your mind, without the federal government, all our technological advancements and discoveries - cars, computers, nuclear energy, etc. - will just magically disappear and we'll all be forced to ride around in horse-drawn carriages. This is the kind of illogical, bizarre thinking that no rational person could understand.

 

Mindless thuggery.

 

Absolutely correct. Might makes right- the story of progressivism, liberalism, collectivism, socialism, communism, and statism.

'We know what is best for you and you WILL comply else The Wrath will be heaped upon your heads.'

 

Come on. Learn that it is NOT income inequality that matters, it is how poor the poor are.

Income inequality only matters to people who live their lives in resent.

That is why it is the LIBERALS who huff about income inequality.

 

Singling that part out-


Come on. Learn that it is NOT income inequality that matters, it is how absolutely poor the poor are.

Income inequality only matters to people who live their lives in resent.

That is why it is the LIBERALS who huff about income inequality.

Take a wealthy liberal- they may (or may not) squawk about income inequality, but if they really thought it was wrong, they'd give away their money. The fact is, they DON'T (actually) care about income inequality, because they don't feel resent about it (they CAN'T feel resent about this, since they are part of the rich, not the poor).

 

Speaking of modern results, let's look at Ben Bernanke's results:

Average GDP per capita growth since 2006: 0.29% per year[1]

As compared to Nigeria's results:

Average GDP per capita growth since 2006: 6.8% per year[2]

Bernanke, the hero of the Keynesian & MMT extremists, beaten by Nigeria.

[1] - http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/tableview.aspx#
[2] - http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/tableview.aspx

 

How else would you compare them? That's like saying you can't compare the benefits of our system to the benefits of the British system that came before the Revolution.

Beyond that, even if we're limiting the discussion to only economic policy, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the private market hasn't improved our lives. Many of the technological advances we have come from the private sector.

However, the point of contention is how much regulation is needed to preserve things like labor rights.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a fan of Bernanke either, but Nigeria's growth has primarily come from oil, not specifically from an economic policy structure. Similar levels of growth have come from oil producing nations with nationalized oil.

 

Actually, their non-oil sector has seen good growth, too.

And the reason why both their oil and non-oil sectors are growing so much is because of slow but steady deregulation and privatization of key industries.

 

It wasnt all of the 1800s and it is called that because of all the prosperity.