U.S. Standard of Living Has Fallen More Than 50%

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by theroostercrowsatnite

Correct.

So far as I know, textbook communism has never managed to exist for any length of time outside a family environment. Considering how often it has been tried, one might wonder if it can exist in textbook fashion on a national level.

TheRedneck

IMO - - the problem with pure communism is every one needs to agree.

2 people rarely agree. If its forced at a national level - - is it truly communism?

reply to post by Annee


Is it that everyone would have to agree, or is that everyone would have to agree to go with the majority? Either way, That's were it all falls down.

The Great Society (aka Socialism) in action! Ain't it grand?

second line

Originally posted by TheRedneck
We do not live under a capitalistic society... not any more. We did, but since 1970 that has been slowly giving way to a perverted mix of capitalism, corporatism, and socialism that is completely unworkable. Your figures point that out very well, but your allusion to the root cause being an economic system we are not under but was under before the problem is laughable.

This is not true as capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Corporatism is simply capitalists incorporating, it is still capitalism. Capitalism has no rules, has no ideology, you can't say what it is, or what it isn't, other than the private ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. It has nothing to do with what is going on with the economy right now. You confuse socialism with liberalism. A liberal government is not socialism. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

You are simply trying to argue reality with the mainstreams misunderstanding of those terms.

Whereas capitalism's faults can be well-handled with a mix of socialistic programs, too much or too little socialism spoils the entire system. Anti-trust legislation is one of those socialistic controls needed to make capitalism work, but we no longer enforce such. Entitlement programs are one of the methods of socialism that tends to cause capitalism to run awry, but we continue to embrace it, and indeed scream for more.

What do you mean socialist controls? Those are not socialists controls, as once again socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, not what the government does to regulate the economy.

Please...if you want to decry any economic system, use a country that actually exists under that system as your example. Maybe the USSR, which actually practiced communism, could teach us a few lessons on what we need to do... oh, wait, they did. They showed us how to destroy ability, productivity, standards of living, equality, and eventually the country itself.

USSR never existed under a socialist economy. The USSR is not an example of socialism, nor communism.
Most of their industry was state owned, which is nationalism, and they had some private ownership which again is capitalism. They had no worker ownership on any scale larger than the US.

Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.

en.wikipedia.org...

Think about it: if the economy peaked in 1970, why not go back to doing what we did before 1970?

We can't. Capitalists don't care about the 1970's, they only care about making profit. The only way we can create a solid unwavering economy is with worker ownership, a needs based economy, as apposed to a profit based economy. That is socialism, not despot dictators in third world countries propped up by first world capitalists. That would not being going back, but going forward. You can't go back.

I can remember quite well over 30 years ago, my father's paycheck provided just fine for our family. My mother was even able to put money back for Christmas, birthdays, trips, etc.

I can remember starting out with my own family in the mid 80s. The struggle then was to learn how to shop smartly, and not over extend yourself. We did just fine on my paycheck alone back then too.

For me it seemed that as the yeas progressed, the cost of living kept increasing, but the paycheck did not, or not sufficiently enough to meet the rising costs of living.

What was the main thing that broke us each and every time?

Gas.

As gas prices kept going up higher and higher, so did a lot of the goods we bought, especially food. Power bills kept going up too, and even though we kept doing everything thing we could to save on our power bill, it just kept rising over time.

It's stayed pretty consistent for us: gas rises, food prices rise, then we start having problems paying our bills.

Here is what cracks me up:

You were paying $2.50 a gallon for gas (I know this price is different for everyone depending on where you live in both the world and the US, but just bare with me for a moment). Gas prices spike, soon in a mater of months you are paying over $3,15 ti $3,20 a gallon. You're screaming about it.
At the same time, prices of food and goods go up. Oh, because it cost more to transport them, etc, etc, you get told.
Finally, the gas price begins to drop....$3.05.....$2.95.......then levels off at around $2.75 to $2.85.

And we suddenly are happy.

Why? You're now paying more than you were several months before still. But see, you are happy that you're not paying as much as before......
Oh, and those food prices? Notice how they didn't drop, or if they did, it was only by a few cents.

Then the cycle begins again. Gas was up to about $3,85 to $3.95 around here just a month ago. It's dropped back down to $3.62 to $3,65 now. And everyone that I know is suddenly happy again.....



I've noticed this cycle with the gas prices for decades now. But what really blows my mind is how happy everyone is if the price of gas after it spikes goes down by 20 cents or so. Yet the food is still up there....

I know the answer is to get off being dependent on oil. But that's not going to happen over night. And living 14 miles from the city, we're dependent on our car (which we own), and we're not moving any time too soon since we also own the land and house it sits on.
Moving closer would just put us back to square one. Buying a new car that is either more efficient or a hybrid does the same thing: incurs a very large debt that we can't afford.

So anyways, I blame Gas. I can remember when a 20 filled my tank. now I'm lucky if it fills it to a 1/4 with that.

Originally posted by surewhynot
Fact: for countries to consume more other countries have to consume less. It is a enivetable truth that eventually those countries that consume less will increase their consumption rate forcing the standred of living in wealthier countries to fall.

Well that only happens because one of the necessities of capitalism is to keep resources artificially scarce in order to maintain profits.

We are seeing it on the large scale now we have a global economy. We used to see towns fail because capitalists moved their manufacturing to another town. Now we are seeing the same thing with nations.

The 'business cycle' of capitalism...

"But industry, under the influence of property, does not proceed with such regularity. As soon as a demand begins to be felt, the factories fill up, and everybody goes to work. Then business is lively. Under the rule of property, the flowers of industry are woven into none but funeral wreaths. The labourer digs his own grave. . . [the capitalist] tries to continue production by lessening expenses. Then comes the lowering of wages; the introduction of machinery; the employment of women and children. The decreased cost creates a larger market [but] the productive power tends to more than ever outstrip consumption. To-day the factory is closed. Tomorrow the people starve in the streets. In consequence of the cessation of business and the extreme cheapness of merchandise, frightened creditors hasten to withdraw their funds [and] Production is suspended, and labour comes to a standstill." P-J Proudhon, What is Property, pp. 191-192

That was written in the 1840's, and it is still relevant now. A healthy economy is not a long term situation under capitalism. America is now on the down-side of the business cycle, China, and others, are on the upside.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Leftist

 

I can't take anyone serious that spells America: Amerikkka.

It's very childish and also .. pithy.

I can't stand pedantic people that critisise others for the way they spell things.

It's part of the youth culture these days to change spellings, you'd know this if you had teenage children. Perhaps the person posting is only a teenie, and if not who cares, bigger issues in this world. Get a life dude.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Gas, petrol, is a good example of capitalist control and artificial scarcity of resources.

The reason they invaded Iraq was not to take their oil, but to keep it in the ground.

That way they can keep it's supply low, which keeps prices high. It also keeps the Middle East from becoming more financially powerful. Whoever is at the top of the economic pyramid is who is in control of governments, and have use of state systems such as military.

Interesting to say the least. I see it, prices going up everywhere at what seems like astronomical rates. Personally I'm much better off now. And I suppose it is very American of me to wonder how much more better off I would be if the economy was better and things (like food and fuel) cost what they did only 5 or 10 years ago. . .

We'll be back. . . .

reply to post by TheRedneck

textbook communism has never managed to exist for any length of time outside a family environment.

And the same is true of the "free market" concept. A "free market" is not a market system. The rules of supply and demand are suspending by corrupt business activities without a governing oversight body to police the system.

This is our biggest problem currently.

reply to post by poet1b


Free-market is a market system.

The confusion comes from people calling capitalism free-market, which it isn't except for the owners of capital.

Capitalism is not a free-market system simply because labour is exploited. In a free-market system the cost of labour would be under the control of the worker providing that labour, as that is the workers 'capital'. But under capitalism labour cost is controlled by capitalists. In a true free-market the workers would receive the full fruits of their labour, not a 'wage'. So, only a worker controlled economy could be truly free-market.

reply to post by ANOK


Markets are subject to the law of supply and demand, free markets suspend the law of supply and demand, placing control of the system completely into the hands of the most wealthy capitalists through oligarchies and monopolies. It is fascism, where the same people who control industry also control the government.

Like Communism, "Free Market" economics looks good on paper but the end results are the opposite of what was intended.

reply to post by detachedindividual


I agree. Money is like manure. If you spread it around, it helps things grow. But if you pile it up, it burns the vegetation and stinks to high heaven.

I usually agree with your threads, not this time.

I don't believe this at all. Money wise, people might not have as much, but material wise I disagree. it seems like everyone and their momma has a touchscreen smart phone right now. Sorry, but not many people had cell phones in 2000, now EVERYONE who wants one has it, and MANY have touchscreen smartphones.
Cell phones are just one example.

reply to post by poet1b

There is little doubt that a lack of oversight has led us into this mess, but I would even hazard to say improper oversight as well. One of the enumerated responsibilities of the US government is to "ensure the general welfare". This is accomplished by laws which prohibit fraud, restrict excessive market influence, and encourage competition. Our laws did this before the 1970s; today they do the opposite. Pharmaceutical companies regularly peddle their poisons at admittedly elevated prices, despite poor testing and lack of real oversight, while advertising 'compliance' with practically non-existent FDA regulations. Our tax structure enables the larger companies to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes while forcing smaller companies to pay exorbitant taxes to reduce competition. Entitlements run wild to keep the people placated in their misery, rife with conditional requirements that prevent those needing the help from moving back up the economic ladder to again become active members of the economy. Monopolies are allowed to flourish, even encouraged, while their major positive economic prospect - jobs - are allowed to be diverted to other nations.

Blaming capitalism for this nation's ills is akin to placing a car in a car crusher and crushing it into a cube of metal, then wanting to close Ford Motor Company because their cars are obviously inferior and don't run.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ANOK

You are simply trying to argue reality with the mainstreams misunderstanding of those terms.

And you are trying to redefine terms to support your position.

Sorry, but I don't debate moving targets.

TheRedneck

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Having discovered who some of the people are who edit Wiki, I wouldn't trust that site if my life depended on it. Not sure whether I would trust the world bank site either. I would tend to agree that overall worldwide poverty rates have declined, probably related to what has been occurring in China and India, specifically. But you have to admit that there has occurred,simultaneously, a greater concentration of wealth to the already wealthy. And it seems to be at the expense of the middle-classes. Or do you not agree? Also, what is the difference between the value of a dollar then and the value of a dollar now?

reply to post by JanAmosComenius


I just don't understand how anyone can continue to be partisan about this stuff. From where I have been sitting during my life, there are economic and legal systems that have been put in place that have been, and still are, maintained by both parties - and they do not exist to maintain a working democratic-capitalistic (properly regulated) society. Nothing has changed in 30 years except the refinement and strengthening of these policies. Our government, in my opinion, is not representative of the people. They are representative of the corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Oh well, my two cents.

Originally posted by Germanicus
Its gotten so bad that American's are actually leaving America to chase the 'American Dream'.

This would have been unthinkable only a short time ago.

I feel sorry for the ones that cannot escape the doom that is America.

www.nytimes.com...

ya I am from America, live here, and even love my country...but I am trying to convince the girlfriend to move to New Zealand haha...New Zealand only lets you migrate if you either have a degree...money to invest in their business...a job trade that you are experienced in that you are going to do there or you marry one of them...that country is recruiting the best human beings...my prediction is that New Zealand will someday be the best place to live if it isn't already!

Yep. America pissed away her riches. A nation blessed with an untold amount of natural resources, gobbled up into profit now controlled by a handful of people.

Thats because wealth is finite The planet is finite.There is no going back.