Why most Americans aren’t seeing any recovery

The sky is the limit! Between Earth and deep space there are no limitations to a 'person's' individual potential. Those who espouse 'class limitations' are just making excuses for non-performance. People of every color and economic situation living in any areas of the USA find success every single day...if some can achieve their potential then all can achieve their potential. The root is defining the difference between those who succeed and those who fail? And to use 'class limitation' IMO is nothing but an excuse for those who fail.

This statement; When the US possesses the infrastructure to produce more food than we can possibly use, leaving not a single American hungry, creating jobs and business opportunities, and there are economic export opportunities, it is IMO inexcusable for the US not to pursue and grow farming...I agree that US agricultural subsidies have run amok! is not inconsistent. Subsidies have run amok because they are in place for the wrong reasons and are politically and economically driven and serve no purpose for overall farming. The trend in the USA today is fewer farms, more imports, less local products, massive transportation requirements...I'm simply saying the US better reverse this trend...

- - - Updated - - -

Outsourcing has little to do with the state of the economy. Outsourcing can effect domestic jobs but most businesses utilizing outsourcing are doing just fine...

 

Then where is the social mobility? The class limitation is just a matter of fact as immobility is the empirical outcome.

Compared to most other countries, a lower % finds success. That isn't consistent with individualism.

Its just an objective reference to the social immobility that exists in the US. We can't play pretend!

It is inconsistent, for the reasons I provided. The general protectionism in the US/EU has ensured land abundant countries (and developing countries in general) have suffered at the expense of US/EU farmer

That is a demand issue (e.g. "buy local" campaigns as a means to stress food quality). Personally I don't give a toss. I'd always buy the cheapest (except on steak gut-fest Friday)

 

Show me where it's a 'natural outcome'.

 

As I understand it, Trump has failed many times. The difference between Trump and the rest of us is that the bankers are in too deep with him not to bail him out. So the obvious secret to success in this country is to leverage everything to the max, go bankrupt, and get a bailout.

 

Are you being serious? All mature economies have experienced deindustrialisation. You have to show that what you're talking about stand out (e.g. the right wing idiots that supported Thatcherism which collapsed the manufacturing sector through stupidity)

 

There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between Thatcher and Reagan. Killing off industry because they didn't like unions and high wages was stunningly stupid. And suicidal.

 

Thatcherism was more 'revolutionary' (if that is the right word). It actually had some similarities with the Autonomist Anarchist position that globalisation reflected the power of the unions (as a means to negate worker power). Indeed, whilst crucifying the unions (and ironically the most productive British industry), the right wing cretins actively pursued wage reductions through in-work benefits. "Let's compete with low wages in the developing world" sums up the cretinous nature of the right wing folly

 

Social mobility lies with each person. You, me, and those we talk about here, everything we have achieved or not in our lives, are rooted in the decisions that each of us makes...if we don't like our lives then we must make better or different decisions. If we can't or refuse to make different decisions then no matter how others wish to label us (class limited) it is all meaningless and political. If you don't have a solution to your class limitation then it's hard to imagine it's a big issue.

I can find empirical evidence that shows people with only one arm don't make good swimmers and will swim in circles. If 10% of these swimmers live in poverty, do they have a 'class limitation' when it comes to swimming? I'm going to guess your honest answer would be 'no'. If 50% of these swimmers attach an outrigger, or rudder, or obtain a prosthetic replacement arm, or take any action whatsoever to allow them to be good swimmers, why don't the other 50% do the same? 100% of them all have similar options yet some choose options which allow them to advance while others choose options to remain the same or even regress...you think it's because of 'class limitations'...I do not...

 

With all respect, a decent 30% of America's present population would have been born in impoverished Third World countries if not for all the immigration in the last 30 years. In other words, from one perspective, many of these poor people were not in the USA in 1980, so I am not sure how revealing a before and after comparison actually is.

 

Social mobility, if it was up to each individual, would be necessarily extensive. It isn't in the US ( and you simple ignore that reality). The US is about lying to its people and condemning the majority to class ridden oblivion. People like you allow that, so feel shame

 

I didn't get past the first line of your feminist propaganda.

ALL single mothers are poor?

We know you CANNOT document that, it is patently untrue and a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I believe Cher, with a $120 million a year income is a single mother.....

I guess when you're a feminist that is poor.

 

What are the counterfactuals?

 

Muster yourself a counter-argument if you can. That would be splendid

 

You don't understand the term counterfactual. What would have happened had the left, and not Thatcher, won the election? And, why?

 

No, I'm simply asking you to present an argument. If you can't manage it, just say so

 

More "Reiverism" deflection.

You made a statement, back it up.

 

Happy for you to attack it. Happy for you to provide an argument. Good luck!

 

I'm simply asking you to present an argument. If you can't manage it, just say so

 

A immature effort! Can you challenge the validity of my statement? [Of course we both know you can't, explaining this silly routine that you've had to muster]

So you don't try to hide, here it is again:

Thatcherism was more 'revolutionary' (if that is the right word). It actually had some similarities with the Autonomist Anarchist position that globalisation reflected the power of the unions (as a means to negate worker power). Indeed, whilst crucifying the unions (and ironically the most productive British industry), the right wing cretins actively pursued wage reductions through in-work benefits. "Let's compete with low wages in the developing world" sums up the cretinous nature of the right wing folly

 

You refuse to defend your statement, and try to divert attention by calling me immature.

Then provide that validity.

You made the statement, defend it.

 

In addition to crops not adding a lot of new jobs, there are other issues to consider. It is unsustainable. Countries are starting to fight back against GMO's which are a key part of our productivity in that area. In addition, the provable phosphorus mines have a limited supply--your grandchildren might very well live in a world without chemical fertilizers as a result which are kind of a big deal in large-scale farming. Even if that all were not true, there is the added problem that the US is draining aquifers faster than they are replenishing themselves. The mid-west might very well run out of cheap ground water about the same time the world runs out of phosphorus.

On the plus side, I have read that it is expected that China will be investing a trillion dollars in the US before the end of the decade, a lot of it in manufacturing. While the Chinese government is starting to focus primarily on low yield secure things like bonds and otherwise focus on developing its internal markets, private wealth that is growing exponentially in China favors investment here.

 

I think the "general improvements" in our society or economy should be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering that they aren't really improvements as much as they are activity stimulated by QE (quantitve easing) debt infusions into the economy. We are really headed backwards, but it appears we are headed forward...or at least improving.

I think the overall focus on the poor as the only people being negatively effected is a bit of a misdirection and leads to that kind of back and forth debate about the poor being responsible for themselves, poor habits sort of thing. That should be evident by the fact or nation is threatening to shut down over financial issues and, definitely, it's not just because of poor peoples plight.

 

The cost and performance of tech, automobiles, healthy (organic) food, etc. has fallen ("new" prices remained fixed, despite inflation, with improving performance). That has allowed the poor to improve their life (how many have a car, a cell phone, a microwave, and air conditioning?).

The stock market has been improving, which has little impact on the general public. Prices for fuel, education, and medical care (despite Obummercare), which effect the general public have increased.

This type debate is a good side show. Conservatives play on Joe averages having to work their a$$ off, so the "poor" can rip off the system. The left play on Joe averages distrust of corporate executives.

Both are great talking points, and both play on the melting pot that is the US has little of the sense of community that has provided better acceptance of socialism in Europe.

I had a conversation with a guy from Norway put it pretty clearly. He said, we (Norwegians) trust our government. Look at the problems in Spain, it is because they don't trust their government. Our (the Norwegians) problem is immigrants. I reminded him, immigrants come from countries where they don't trust their government (light bulb lit).

The real question is do you trust our government? You may trust the left, or the right (or, like me, neither side - I only trust a government just big enough to prevent corruption, and too small to generate corruption).

Has the left really helped the poor? Has the right really shrunk government?

 

As I said, you can't attack it can you? Everything I said was accurate. Did they attack unionisation? Did they use in-work benefits to try and further reduce wages to 'compete'? Did that create a low skill equilibrium? Yep to all three!

 

Because bailouts for the wealthiest don't do much if the wealthiest are merely concentrating wealth.

There is no reason to believe that philosophy may not also hold true, for any Institution of money based markets and market participants "voting" with their dollar in any political-economy. Why short change the private sector through anything less than full employment (of resources)?