Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]Sure, Dave, global utilitarianism,”the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, is where we are headed.
[/quote]

You say that in jest, but the fact remains that overall standards of living are rising quite rapidly in the developing world – which is most of the world on a total population basis. It’s just rising, to a certain extent, at the expense of the middle class in the developed world, which is a pretty small minority of the world’s population. I think what really bothers you is that while all of this is going on wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the world’s top 1%, a group that’s becoming farther removed from either of the other two groups. But this doesn’t change the fact in my first sentence.[/quote]

With the gargantuan mosaic of global statistics, one could see many pictures, depending on how you tilt your head and squint our eyes.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

Brian,you can’t frown upon the unsustainable, irrational american financial practices and cheer for the emerging developing nations, when one was needed to fuel the other. Essentially, to be consistent, you have for cheer both. Of course, we call the aggregate american behavior “rational self-interest”[/quote]

I don’t agree Arraya.

Before Reaganomics, the conventional economic wisdom was that as rich countries mature economically, we would save and lend money to poor countries so that they can develop. We would then own the assets and collect interest.

However, it turned out that poor countries are lending us money so that we can buy their stuff. We are now deep in debt from buying useless junk, and they own our assets.

Our money is all tied up in McMansions which sit idle and don’t produce anything. Even worse, these McMansions require constant maintenance and care. We are already tapped out; so who will maintain our houses when we are old, obese and handicapped?

That’s why I believe that our only way out is to increase immigration/population. Mark my words. 30 years from now, foreign born Americans will comprise a much larger share of population.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

Brian,you can’t frown upon the unsustainable, irrational american financial practices and cheer for the emerging developing nations, when one was needed to fuel the other. Essentially, to be consistent, you have for cheer both. Of course, we call the aggregate american behavior “rational self-interest”[/quote]

I don’t agree Arraya.

Before Reaganomics, the conventional economic wisdom was that as rich countries mature economically, we would save and lend money to poor countries so that they can develop. We would then own the assets and collect interest.

However, it turned out that poor countries are lending us money so that we can buy their stuff. We are now deep in debt from buying useless junk, and they own our assets.

Our money is all tied up in McMansions which sit idle and don’t produce anything. Even worse, these McMansions require constant maintenance and care. We are already tapped out; so who will maintain our houses when we are old, obese and handicapped?

That’s why I believe that our only way out is to increase immigration/population. Mark my words. 30 years from now, foreign born Americans will comprise a much larger share of population.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

Brian,you can’t frown upon the unsustainable, irrational american financial practices and cheer for the emerging developing nations, when one was needed to fuel the other. Essentially, to be consistent, you have for cheer both. Of course, we call the aggregate american behavior “rational self-interest”[/quote]

I don’t agree Arraya.

Before Reaganomics, the conventional economic wisdom was that as rich countries mature economically, we would save and lend money to poor countries so that they can develop. We would then own the assets and collect interest.

However, it turned out that poor countries are lending us money so that we can buy their stuff. We are now deep in debt from buying useless junk, and they own our assets.

Our money is all tied up in McMansions which sit idle and don’t produce anything. Even worse, these McMansions require constant maintenance and care. We are already tapped out; so who will maintain our houses when we are old, obese and handicapped?

That’s why I believe that our only way out is to increase immigration/population. Mark my words. 30 years from now, foreign born Americans will comprise a much larger share of population.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

Brian,you can’t frown upon the unsustainable, irrational american financial practices and cheer for the emerging developing nations, when one was needed to fuel the other. Essentially, to be consistent, you have for cheer both. Of course, we call the aggregate american behavior “rational self-interest”[/quote]

I don’t agree Arraya.

Before Reaganomics, the conventional economic wisdom was that as rich countries mature economically, we would save and lend money to poor countries so that they can develop. We would then own the assets and collect interest.

However, it turned out that poor countries are lending us money so that we can buy their stuff. We are now deep in debt from buying useless junk, and they own our assets.

Our money is all tied up in McMansions which sit idle and don’t produce anything. Even worse, these McMansions require constant maintenance and care. We are already tapped out; so who will maintain our houses when we are old, obese and handicapped?

That’s why I believe that our only way out is to increase immigration/population. Mark my words. 30 years from now, foreign born Americans will comprise a much larger share of population.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]

Brian,you can’t frown upon the unsustainable, irrational american financial practices and cheer for the emerging developing nations, when one was needed to fuel the other. Essentially, to be consistent, you have for cheer both. Of course, we call the aggregate american behavior “rational self-interest”[/quote]

I don’t agree Arraya.

Before Reaganomics, the conventional economic wisdom was that as rich countries mature economically, we would save and lend money to poor countries so that they can develop. We would then own the assets and collect interest.

However, it turned out that poor countries are lending us money so that we can buy their stuff. We are now deep in debt from buying useless junk, and they own our assets.

Our money is all tied up in McMansions which sit idle and don’t produce anything. Even worse, these McMansions require constant maintenance and care. We are already tapped out; so who will maintain our houses when we are old, obese and handicapped?

That’s why I believe that our only way out is to increase immigration/population. Mark my words. 30 years from now, foreign born Americans will comprise a much larger share of population.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]Sure, Dave, global utilitarianism,”the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, is where we are headed.
[/quote]

You say that in jest, but the fact remains that overall standards of living are rising quite rapidly in the developing world – which is most of the world on a total population basis. It’s just rising, to a certain extent, at the expense of the middle class in the developed world, which is a pretty small minority of the world’s population. I think what really bothers you is that while all of this is going on wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the world’s top 1%, a group that’s becoming farther removed from either of the other two groups. But this doesn’t change the fact in my first sentence.[/quote]

With the gargantuan mosaic of global statistics, one could see many pictures, depending on how you tilt your head and squint our eyes.[/quote]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]Sure, Dave, global utilitarianism,”the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, is where we are headed.
[/quote]

You say that in jest, but the fact remains that overall standards of living are rising quite rapidly in the developing world – which is most of the world on a total population basis. It’s just rising, to a certain extent, at the expense of the middle class in the developed world, which is a pretty small minority of the world’s population. I think what really bothers you is that while all of this is going on wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the world’s top 1%, a group that’s becoming farther removed from either of the other two groups. But this doesn’t change the fact in my first sentence.[/quote]

With the gargantuan mosaic of global statistics, one could see many pictures, depending on how you tilt your head and squint our eyes.[/quote]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]Sure, Dave, global utilitarianism,”the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, is where we are headed.
[/quote]

You say that in jest, but the fact remains that overall standards of living are rising quite rapidly in the developing world – which is most of the world on a total population basis. It’s just rising, to a certain extent, at the expense of the middle class in the developed world, which is a pretty small minority of the world’s population. I think what really bothers you is that while all of this is going on wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the world’s top 1%, a group that’s becoming farther removed from either of the other two groups. But this doesn’t change the fact in my first sentence.[/quote]

With the gargantuan mosaic of global statistics, one could see many pictures, depending on how you tilt your head and squint our eyes.[/quote]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]Sure, Dave, global utilitarianism,”the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, is where we are headed.
[/quote]

You say that in jest, but the fact remains that overall standards of living are rising quite rapidly in the developing world – which is most of the world on a total population basis. It’s just rising, to a certain extent, at the expense of the middle class in the developed world, which is a pretty small minority of the world’s population. I think what really bothers you is that while all of this is going on wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the world’s top 1%, a group that’s becoming farther removed from either of the other two groups. But this doesn’t change the fact in my first sentence.[/quote]

With the gargantuan mosaic of global statistics, one could see many pictures, depending on how you tilt your head and squint our eyes.[/quote]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]Sure, Dave, global utilitarianism,”the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, is where we are headed.
[/quote]

You say that in jest, but the fact remains that overall standards of living are rising quite rapidly in the developing world – which is most of the world on a total population basis. It’s just rising, to a certain extent, at the expense of the middle class in the developed world, which is a pretty small minority of the world’s population. I think what really bothers you is that while all of this is going on wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of the world’s top 1%, a group that’s becoming farther removed from either of the other two groups. But this doesn’t change the fact in my first sentence.[/quote]

With the gargantuan mosaic of global statistics, one could see many pictures, depending on how you tilt your head and squint our eyes.[/quote]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.

[blahblahblah]

Americans love to pretend to care about poor people in other countries while being openly hostile towards poor people in their own country. Poor people in other countries need help via globalization to be “lifted up”. Poor people in our own country are poor because they are stupid, lazy, have made bad decisions, or have joined unions. For the very tiny minority of poor people here in the USA that aren’t stupid or lazy and haven’t made bad decisions or joined a union, well, being poor here in the USA is the price that must be paid so that poor people in other countries can be made less poor via the magic of globalization. Someday the rising tide will lift their boat as well. Perhaps when they are 95.

[blahblahblah]

Americans love to pretend to care about poor people in other countries while being openly hostile towards poor people in their own country. Poor people in other countries need help via globalization to be “lifted up”. Poor people in our own country are poor because they are stupid, lazy, have made bad decisions, or have joined unions. For the very tiny minority of poor people here in the USA that aren’t stupid or lazy and haven’t made bad decisions or joined a union, well, being poor here in the USA is the price that must be paid so that poor people in other countries can be made less poor via the magic of globalization. Someday the rising tide will lift their boat as well. Perhaps when they are 95.

[blahblahblah]

Americans love to pretend to care about poor people in other countries while being openly hostile towards poor people in their own country. Poor people in other countries need help via globalization to be “lifted up”. Poor people in our own country are poor because they are stupid, lazy, have made bad decisions, or have joined unions. For the very tiny minority of poor people here in the USA that aren’t stupid or lazy and haven’t made bad decisions or joined a union, well, being poor here in the USA is the price that must be paid so that poor people in other countries can be made less poor via the magic of globalization. Someday the rising tide will lift their boat as well. Perhaps when they are 95.

[blahblahblah]

Americans love to pretend to care about poor people in other countries while being openly hostile towards poor people in their own country. Poor people in other countries need help via globalization to be “lifted up”. Poor people in our own country are poor because they are stupid, lazy, have made bad decisions, or have joined unions. For the very tiny minority of poor people here in the USA that aren’t stupid or lazy and haven’t made bad decisions or joined a union, well, being poor here in the USA is the price that must be paid so that poor people in other countries can be made less poor via the magic of globalization. Someday the rising tide will lift their boat as well. Perhaps when they are 95.

[Author]

Posts