Would you agree with this statement?

Discussion in 'Bullion Investing' started by JCB1983, Apr 22, 2012.

  1. jjack

    jjack Captain Obvious

    It shows household income grew rapidly from 1950 to 1970 so as a result people where more affluent in 1970 not that economy was better in 1970 compared to 1950.

    It is household income so yes it should include two income family IIRC the great increase two income families happened in last 2 decades.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. mrbrklyn

    mrbrklyn New Member

    Listen up ... there is NO WAY people were more affluent in 1975 rather than 1955

    This is really not debatable. They had alternate day gas lines

    Ruben
     
  4. jjack

    jjack Captain Obvious

    Household income has nothing to do with cost of living.

    Added: Not sure what you are trying to say but my point is the average income has stagnated since 1970s. As to whether or not people where richer in 1975 compared to 1955 that is debatable since you have to take into account cost of living, definition of rich and so on. Which is whole another topic.
     
  5. Gold is pegged to the dollar. So if the fed continues to inflate the dollar, the dollar devalues.... people panic... gold goes up. That is about as simple as I can make it.
     
  6. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 Treasure Hunter

    One of the founding father's, I don't recall who, said that "commerce respects no flag." It is unreasonable to expect corporations to care about the USA. They are soul-less creatures who will lay waste to the land to enrich themselves. It is the function of government to level the playing field and protect citizens from being pillaged by them. Now, nobody in these days of globalization and free trade wants to hear that, but no American worker should have to compete on a wage and benefit basis with slave labor wages. In a more sane era of our history, wage equalization tariffs were used to ensure that the US had the most prosperous population on the planet. Now, with every branch of government bought and paid for by corporate interests, expect things to get worse. In my opinion, anyone who defends the present economic system is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
     
  7. mrbrklyn

    mrbrklyn New Member

    No - that is the Marriage and Divorce system that you describe. The economy isn't a system at all. This section is like comp.os.microsoft.advocacy
     
  8. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Jason, as to your original question, I do not see the decline of the middle class tying into increasing PM prices. I do see a correlation between excess consumption in this country and the decline of the dollar.

    I see the excess consumption in demanding fresh produce year round requiring grapes to be flwon in from Chile in January, "Mcmansions", luxury SUV's, (I own one for full disclosure), and basically lack of savings and a "want it all today" attitude in the US. Nearly every time I watch a reality show like pawn stars the person selling some cherished family heirloom wants to money to "go to Cancun", "have extra gambling money", etc. I have never heard one state they wanted the money to pay down their mortgage, invest in a couple of bonds, or a productive use.

    That is the great drain on this nation, overconsumption, and as a result of this nationally will depress our currency value for the foreseeable future. Us on this board, basically by definition, are hard money people. We wish the dollar held its worth more, and are interested in ideas like buying PM today for future appreciation. I will tell you that this simply is not the common attitude today for most Americans. Most spend every cent, and then some, every week, and if they ever have an extra $100 will go out and "treat" themselves. We are the tiny minority that sees value in spending that money on a couple of ounces of silver to save for the future.

    Just my opinion.
     
  9. JCB1983

    JCB1983 Learning

    I am a product of over consumption. I've often left lights on, gone on gambling sprees, and purchased an abundance of cheaply made Chinese goods. Although I have not taken significant action towards anti consumerism, I do believe I have become more aware of it. Apparently we as in Americans have been pegged at a marginal propensity to consume of 2/3. In lamens terms for every dollar we make we tend to spend 66 cents and save 33/4 cents. It seems as though we as in America have been blessed by a wealth of natural resources. These natural resources as well as the fundamental beliefs layed out by our founding fathers have given us the ability to relax and take it easy.

    Will capitalism ever be viewed as a bad thing? What do you think of protectionism? Will we make an attempt to enact protectionism or continue to roll with our deck of cards in China? How about a world currency?

    When I think about these things I get a headache, and it makes me think about socialism and the former U.S.S.R.


    (I'm not trying to kick up any dust here, I'm just curious).
     
  10. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 Treasure Hunter

    Well, there is free market capitalism, crony capitalism, global capitalism, limited capitalism, monopoly capitalism, corporate capitalism, colonial capitalism, and others. At least some of them are already considered bad, and may taint the word. There will never be protectionism as long as the globalist corporations, politicians, and central banks make the choice. Most forms of protectionism seem to fail over time except for tariffs. But tariffs have a bad name because of Smoot Hawley, so they won't be coming back soon -- not because they don't work for citizens, but because they don't work for multinational corporations. Regarding world currency, if they can't make the Euro work, will a global currency be better? I would expect to see the end of paper and coin first, with all transactions going electronic.

    All of this is only my opinion.
     
  11. JCB1983

    JCB1983 Learning

    So basically protectionism is a cop out? Wishful thinking by those who are not calling the shots? Since corporations seem to have so much weight in washington why would we tighten our grip on immigration laws? Wouldn't we readily invite cheaper labor? (no offense intended). Also if we cannot protect ourselves from the effects of globalization than what exactly is the function of our government? Is there a way to turn globalization into a sustainable positive for our economy?

    Cloud you asked me for my opinion on what I would do if given infinate resources to help the economy. I am interested in hearing what you (and others) would do. By no means am I putting you on the spot, but I am very curious.

    Which direction would be good for America, and for the world in that matter?
     
  12. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 Treasure Hunter

    The function of government is to increase the power of government. Globalization can be turned around, but only if massive numbers of people wake up and demand it. I don't see that happening. I think things could have been turned around at any time up until about 10 years ago, but now it seems to be too late.

    If I had unlimited resources? I started to make a list, but my list might get me on others, so I'll have to decline that one. ;)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page