Will Rogers was wise to stick to vaudeville because he knew nothing of economic history. Pity he's not still around to explain how British prosperity mushroomed during the 19th century when capitalism was rife and free international markets were upheld by the Royal Navy.
Rogers wasn't trying to explain prosperity alone, but rather it's distribution. So, a flourishing economy with an impoverished lower class would do little to refute him. It does a lot to shw your own sense of values, however.
The problem with that 19th century British "prosperity" was that it was prosperous only for the upper class. But then the upper class (like the 1% in this country) is all the conservatives really care about. Unregulated capitalism has never worked for everyone, and never will.
Oh good loed, British prosperity in the 19th century as an example of "unfettered capitalism upheld by the Royal Navy." Hahaha. Same Navy that was stopping our ships at sea and impressing sailors off of them because thay had already pillaged their own countryside and run out of poor buggers to drag off and imprison on their ships to raise and lower the sails, while feeding them garbage and keeping them drunk to prevent mutiny.I recall when Reagan introduced the "trickle down theory" of economics, where you pour money in at the top 1% and they trickle the money down to the lower classes. I thought at the time that he was rather optimistic, and wondered, "what happens if they just keep the money?" I guess we found out.
No, Ted, it was *relative* prosperity for most. Itinerant agricultural workers who suffered enormously (as in starving!) every time the climate *cooled*, as it did during the first few years of the 19th c. were now able to earn a regular wage which is why they flocked to the cities and the factories.And, Jayhawk, that would also be the Royal Navy who put a stop to slavery!
You call it a "regular wage", but I call it a poverty wage. They may not have been starving back on the farm, but they weren't moving up in society either (like to the middle class). They worked long hours under dangerous conditions for a very meager wage. But I understand your pride in that era of unregulated capitalism, since your Republican Party would like nothing better than to take us back to that era.
"And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard–that is, the fact that you don’t like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items."No, no, not my words but those of Paul Krugman in 1977. Their wisdom is only equalled by their rarity coming from him! Written for an article in Slate entitled - and please be seated before you read further - "In praise of cheap labour"!Heavens to Betsy - Paul Krugman - say it ain't so!http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.single.html(Ted, off topic, is there any chance you could have a rolling list of recent comments on your side bar which would allow one to keep track more easily?)
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.