I imagine I’ll be voting for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They tend to lean more toward my way to thinking with the economy and our social system. Additionally, I’m a former business owner and relate more to Mitt Romney. But with that said, it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama wins the election. Regardless of who comes out on top, change will be coming to America that is outside of governments control - or anyone else’s in office for that matter.
Our old social blue system is breaking down, where large unions used to dominate work places, and politics also. Obama is a big government politician, an old Chicago politician some say. His way of running government used to be common. In todays internet/ automated world, the old blue model not longer works as it used to. It is a product of a by-gone era. That isn’t a bad thing. Our future remains bright I believe - just that there will be change.
Additionally, to add, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to pass on debts to younger generations.
Overall, thought this a nice historical article about our changing economic and political landscape in America and the west.
“Reader Mailbag: Taking History Seriously”
blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/22/reader-mailbag-taking-history-seriously/
Interesting, though short, article. Thanks for it.
Frankly, while I agree with the central feature of the article; that the immediate post WWII conditions do not obtain anymore and we cannot return to them, I further agree that this is not to say despair is in order.
For whatever it’s worth, I might be so bold as to add the following:
-Contrary to popular belief, the old “middle class” has not lost membership due to declining fortunes, but to rising fortunes. More simply joined what we (depending on defninition) would call the “upper class”.
-In the immediate postwar economic world, wages were good, but only relative to what people had to spend money on and to the previous period. While there are some exceptions due to technolical changes (cars, for instance are far more complicated now) prices are not higher relative to what people earn. It may be noted that, adjusted for inflation, gasoline has always cost somewhere between $2.00 and $4.00/gallon. Food is cheaper, relatively speaking, as is clothing. Housing is actually cheaper relative to peoples’ ability to pay for them. When I was a kid, a 1500 s.f. house was a big house. Sure, it cost only about $15,000, but $600/month was a high wage too.
-What people really didn’t have a lot of in the immediate postwar period was wealth. They didn’t have a whole lot of debt compared to now, but neither did most people have any wealth to speak of.
-One thing that has changed adversely, in my opinion, is the vast array of consumer things people can now buy. Back in the “good old days”, there was a house, a car (almost always just one per family) a washer and dryer, a radio and a record player. That was about it for almost everybody. And, of course, people throw potential wealth at all the new things now, and don’t end up with a whole lot.
-But even so, a lot of people can acquire wealth, and do; wealth people did not have back in the day, even relatively speaking. I spoke to a man today who is buying some land for farming and ranching. He works at a machinery dealer. He’s a salesman. He’s also an auctioneer. Because he sometimes auctions houses, he also has a realtor’s license. I’m not sure how much land he owns, but I have personally seen him buy about 300 acres in the last two years. That land is probably worth no less than $800 or $900 thousand, and I know he has more land than that, in addition to serious machinery and a lot of cattle. He does have debts, but they’re manageable for him. I know a lot of people like him. He’s a “middle class person” who has, in terms of wealth, become an “upper class person”, though he sure doesn’t look it. So, while his wage at the machinery lot is far from princely, he doesn’t need a union card or a master’s degree or even a bachelor’s degree, because he has found the combination needed to acquire wealth; wealth that magnifies the fruits of his labor.
What’s the deal with those kinds of people? Well, they tend to work a lot. They tend to be fairly smart, though “knowledgeable” might be closer to it. And they live below their means, often significantly so. Most people didn’t live below their means in the immediate post war period, and it would have been a spare existence if they had. Give up the radio, the car, what? And what were their opportunities? The local savings bank that paid rates then no higher than now?
There are all forms of “wealth”. Education is one, but only one. But one only has to look around and see that of all the changes since WWII, perhaps one of the most dramatic is that we have become a “wealth society” more than I think people realize.
But I think a lot of people are not sufficiently knowledgeable to take advantage of that, nor do they have sufficient belief in it or respect for it to live below their means or to resolve that the only debt they will voluntarily undertake is to acquire wealth.
(continued)
:newidea: :doh2: We should keep asking Lapey.