DescentBB

......against each other. A new poll shows that America is even more politically polarized than ever. No more compromise from the looks of it. We're too far apart and to entrenched in our ideologies to even agree to disagree. Maybe we DO need to create 2 new countries out of the single one we have. We certainly aren't going to get anything constructive done anymore with this undercurrent of animosity towards each others political views.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/ ... an-public/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ver-since/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... n-america/

And just who was promoting class warfare with the rich having too much and disparity between the races? Small wonder we are polarized.

Yes pointing out quantifiable record-high inequalities in income and continuing racial issues is totally an attempt to divide the country.

Top Gun wrote:Yes pointing out quantifiable record-high inequalities in income and continuing racial issues is totally an attempt to divide the country.

You are implying disparity in income is inherently unjust and that an unbiased explanation of the cause of those inequalities was used without misrepresenting the facts to rally support from gullible people looking for a scapegoat.

I'd say you were wrong on both counts.

Disparity in income at its highest level of the past century, if not the entire history of the nation, is certainly unjust. Or are you suggesting that the death of the "American Dream" is somehow a good thing?

Top Gun wrote:Disparity in income at its highest level of the past century, if not the entire history of the nation, is certainly unjust. Or are you suggesting that the death of the "American Dream" is somehow a good thing?

The American dream never guaranteed protection from income disparity. A lot of the dream has that possibility fueling it, inversely.
Disparity resulting because of you excelling in your field....innovation....out producing your competitors...etc. reaping great rewards.

A guy who was stuck cleaning government toilets with no chance to move up isn't moving from some dictatorship to America because the scenery is better while he cleans toilets. He wants to get his piece of the prize. Competition, free markets, etc.. It has 'disparity' as a main component.

Injustice is a separate issue.

You and I both know that the haves aren't getting more because of excelling in their field, and that the have-nots are looking at historically-high barriers to social mobility. We've gone from a time 50 years ago when CEOs were making 30 or 40 times what an entry-level employee does, to today, when they're making several hundred times that amount.

But all of this off-topic banter is absolutely proving the point of that poll. Instead of acknowledging that there's a problem and posing suggestions as to how to fix it, you're attacking the person who dares to suggest that said problem exists in the first place. How's that for compromise?

I'm 'attacking you' ?!?

Funny, I thought I was merely sharing my perspective in a conversation. I think you must be hallucinating.

The point you missed, while dodging artillery apparently, is that the dream isn't dead nor is the system that allows people to win and lose responsible for the polarization the poll suggests is hardening.

I think your predilection to deliver such a partisan drama queen reaction is a truer symptom of what constitutes that poll result than my merely offering my thought on the character of the American Dream.
You 'needed' me to be a foe regardless of the actual content of my comment.

...I wasn't referring to myself with that comment. Did you really not pick up on the implication?

Top Gun wrote:...I wasn't referring to myself with that comment. Did you really not pick up on the implication?

I didn't fail to pick up you characterized income disparity in America as a result/symptom of the supposed death of the American dream.

And I didn't fail to pick up on your initial assertion that people engaged in class warfare that Woody complained about are innocent, implying they were just telling it like it is, when that is hardly the truth.

So I offered a different viewpoint.

And you took that as an attack, if not on you then some demagogue you felt compelled to protect.
So the analysis of your reaction and likely motive stands firm.

We had the best economic growth in this country under the new big middle class that formed right after WWII. The tax rate was high and still people thrived, even the wealthy. How's it going to end up when most of the wealth is in the hands of a few today? How's that going to fuel a growing economy when the vast masses have little money to spend in the first place? They certainly aren't going to fuel it. The market can't keep drawing blood from a turnip. At some point, the money base is no longer there and the upside down pyramid topples.

What I'd like to know is why did this political divide begin widening during the 1970's? A backlash from conservatives after the 1960's cultural revolution? Nixon's Southern Strategy and the Civil Rights Movement? LBJ's big liberal policies? The Vietnam War?

tunnelcat wrote:...

What I'd like to know is why did this political divide begin widening during the 1970's? A backlash from conservatives after the 1960's cultural revolution? Nixon's Southern Strategy and the Civil Rights Movement? LBJ's big liberal policies? The Vietnam War?

CNN. 1980.

And all the things that go in to maintaining a 24 hour news cycle. Shaping an audience to join one of the teams and show up to support them.

**********

As to economy post WWII, look at all the industry we had here...all the rebuilding and retooling to go from bombs and bullets to cars and lawnmowers and other commerce that went into that era. During the war we didn't make non essential civilian stuff. By the end of the war mama needed new dresses and kitchen appliances, etc.
The transition was great.
Lots of work, lots of expansion, lots of innovation and no one was in a hurry to save a few dollars buying stuff from foreigners.

Will Robinson wrote:Lots of work, lots of expansion, lots of innovation and no one was in a hurry to save a few dollars buying stuff from foreigners.

Yes, that generation was truly blessed. I think what we are seeing now is capitalism's end game. In a fully globalized world we need a new economic model, one that will be much different than anything we (or anyone else) has seen.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Lots of work, lots of expansion, lots of innovation and no one was in a hurry to save a few dollars buying stuff from foreigners.

Yes, that generation was truly blessed. I think what we are seeing now is capitalism's end game. In a fully globalized world we need a new economic model, one that will be much different than anything we (or anyone else) has seen.

In a world where sovereign nations get to decide their own ethics and morality their economics will undoubtably collide, cause problems. To put an end to that you would have to cause morality and ethics to come under a singular authority.

We are a long way from that and since capitalism is the stuff power and fortunes are made you will have to fight some serious wars to declare it over.

Will Robinson wrote:In a world where sovereign nations get to decide their own ethics and morality their economics will undoubtably collide, cause problems. To put an end to that you would have to cause morality and ethics to come under a singular authority.

We are a long way from that and since capitalism is the stuff power and fortunes are made you will have to fight some serious wars to declare it over.

I give it about 100 years, maybe less. Morality is already starting to become globally homogeneous and wars are no longer profitable.

The people taking Iraq right now are more than a step or two ethically and morally in the opposite direction from the west. They are part of a larger group that is taking over a lot of territory now and will fight to grow beyond their acquired territory.

If left to their own devices, as it appears the western world is want to do, 100 years will not see their nations anything close to the kind of place that tolerates the kind of harmonious system you are dreaming of.
The only kind of 'globalism' they will consider is a grand Caliphate.

And they are profiting from their war effort.

The US and other western nations may not be profiting but if you look at a map of global hot spots you will see there is still profit for the victors as well as the outsiders who supply the weapons to them.

The two biggest nations to recently make a change economically are Russia and China. They both have moved to embrace capitalism. 100 years from now China will be hitting their stride as capitalists. And those Islamofacists will likely be warring and profiting and spreading across the African continent.

I think your projections for the end of capitalism are barely believable as a movie plot let alone reality.

Capitalism is the antithesis to dictatorships, radical Islamic theocracy, socialism and communism, etc primarily because of personal property rights that those other systems outlaw. Any new model would need to embrace personal property protection and that practically guarantees capitalism will ensue from within.

100 years tops. I think most people underestimate the future due to their cynicism. The world will be astoundingly different in a couple generations, greater than the difference between pre-Babylonian culture and today. Some of us might live long enough to glimpse the end of the beginning (it has already started).

Can you cite any examples of nations abandoning capitalism with success?
I dont understand what you are basing your projections on.

Capitalism isn’t going anywhere in the next 100 years, but more likely a very regulated version. (you know all in the name of those bogus concepts…fairness and equality)

Unfortunately it will probably have little affect on the distribution of wealth, anybody that seen that episode of Through the Wormhole “Is Poverty Genetic” knows what I mean.

Any new system someone invents will simply be a re-branded, freshly painted version of capitalism.

Will Robinson wrote:Can you cite any examples of nations abandoning capitalism with success?
I dont understand what you are basing your projections on.

Nah, we aren't there yet. The new system will require us to forget about -isms like capitalism and communism because nothing we have today will be adequate to solve our problems of tomorrow. So my projection is based off our history of resourcefulness. I guess the we could just use the same systems we have today for a few hundred more years, but that really depends on which major events happen first. Still, there in an inevitability to our future socioeconomic structure and it seems like sooner would be better than later.

Well….I’m all ears…

USA is a country fearless idiots who believe that war exists only in the movies on the TV screen or in other countries. U.S. is now actively provokes Russia for military intervention to , protect the civilian population in Ukraine, which just killed, and they are forced to flee to Russia just for the sake of geopolitical and economic interests of the United States. Despite the fact that Russia is ready for a WW3, I would be very reluctant to rethink attitudes to some American politicians, it would be necessary to sacrifice hundreds of millions of human lives. Do Americans see no war experience of other countries, that they wanted to experience it for yourself?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Can you cite any examples of nations abandoning capitalism with success?
I dont understand what you are basing your projections on.

Nah, we aren't there yet. The new system will require us to forget about -isms like capitalism and communism because nothing we have today will be adequate to solve our problems of tomorrow. So my projection is based off our history of resourcefulness. I guess the we could just use the same systems we have today for a few hundred more years, but that really depends on which major events happen first. Still, there in an inevitability to our future socioeconomic structure and it seems like sooner would be better than later.

We aren't even thinking about the earth's limited resources and a burgeoning population growth that will eventually consume what resources the earth has left. How will Capitalism deal with that little issue when the whole system is based on winner take all? There's going to be a whole lot of pissed off losers to deal with in the future and it won't be pleasant for the majority of the planet's population.

Will Robinson wrote: As to economy post WWII, look at all the industry we had here...all the rebuilding and retooling to go from bombs and bullets to cars and lawnmowers and other commerce that went into that era. During the war we didn't make non essential civilian stuff. By the end of the war mama needed new dresses and kitchen appliances, etc.
The transition was great.
Lots of work, lots of expansion, lots of innovation and no one was in a hurry to save a few dollars buying stuff from foreigners.

every last bit of that, including the 'huge middle class' that TC referred to earlier was COMPLETELY due to tax policy. I've been saying it here since I arrived, and will continue. The policy forced the economy into long-term planning, the rates created a ceiling for short-term income.

I agree, by the way, with the assessment of the role of the 24 hour news cycle that Woody put forth.