Middle Class Arose in America in 1950’s Due to Poor Oversight, Bureaucratic Errors
Somebody was asleep at the switch for a decade in this country. While they snoozed, the unsupervised
peasants built homes, sent their children to college, saved for retirement, made great music, and enjoyed a
decent standard of living. This bizarre accident had few historical antecedents.
By the 60’s that somebody was back on the job, spoiling the homegrown music with imported jingles that
glamorized the pharmaceutical industry. The family was attacked and the standard of living chipped away.
Thankfully after decades of mopping up this mess we are finally returning to historically normal conditions.
The fifties are a great example of what can happen when you forget to actively combat the peasantry.
Paste this code into your site to promote this story!
- AdamAdamR's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 533 reads
****
The middle class, and upper class for that matter, are under attack. This squeeze play can be seen in the further polarization of society, at these rapid rates.
Add in a bad economy, you will see it sooner, as governments go broke and slash budgets due to lack of revenues. Add in poverty, crime will settle in.
The middle class, and upper class for that matter, is just a carrot that keeps moving - dangling out there for others to try and keep up with that carrot.
The carrot keeps moving. You realize this right?
There is money and wealth in the taxpayer, the middle class, poor class, and interest payments made in good faith. Plus there are bailouts. But when they take that wealth, be property, 401k, or future debt payments, there is power. I think that accounts for the all out heist we have been seeing for some time - the outright criminal behavior, with no arrests to date.
Despite FDR's atrocious economic policies and overt fascism, his administration did one good thing: they demanded gold for all arms sales to the allies, both before and after the US entered WWII. As a result, the US accumulated a huge percentage of the world's gold supply, temporarily propping up the failing US dollar. This had as much to do with prosperity in the 1950's as anything. Also, Eisenhower had an extremely pro-free market Treasury Sec.
Of course, instead of taking advantage of this 2nd chance for our currency, we immediately began inflating again, this time even more so since we were now the world reserve currency. Within 20 years, we had completely squandered any gain from the artificial boost the dollar got from the gold.
Really, if it weren't for the WWII gold thing, we would have collapsed far sooner than we have.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
What good is Freedom of the Press
If The Press will not Press for Freedom!
what good is a middle class, why a class system at all?
do not comment if you are not of my caste! huh?
Middle Class is just as Groupthink as any other term that belies the Individuals and tries to assign traits and even personality to a group, there is no middle class because there are no groups.
>>"Middle Class is just as Groupthink as any other term that belies the Individuals and tries to assign traits and even personality to a group, there is no middle class because there are no groups."
I think Middle Class is just a state of mind. It's a shorthand way of saying "I'm not rich, but I'm doing OK", which could be true of someone earning $20,000 a year or $200,000. In polls they often ask people whether they would describe themselves as "middle class"-- but I don't think many people get asked whether they are "upper class", or "lower class". The euphemism for "lower class" seems to be "working class" although"working class" implies that you are working and many people who don't consider themselves to be up to a middle class standard of living are actually unemployed. I think "unemployed" is another category, but a lot of "upper class" people who are living very well off their investments are unemployed.
I pay attention to statistics about the middle class because I think it is interesting to know how many Americans feel like they are doing OK at any given time. If the middle class (as defined above) is shrinking, and that the number of Americans who are struggling to get by is growing, that's a sign that something is wrong-- and that maybe government policies are to blame. Without this kind of information, the government is better able to convince us that everything is going just fine.
Another possible scenario would be that the middle class stays the same size, poverty is shrinking, and formerly middle class people are getting a lot richer, so that the "upper class" is growing. That wouldn't worry me at all, as long as there is no government interference in the economy, and the rich aren't being subsidized by the government. But I think a lot of people would complain about there being so many more rich people, regardless of how they got their wealth. I don't understand this hostility toward rich people (excepting rich people who used government force to get their money), and I don't get why anyone would be keen to punish the "upper class" by raising their taxes.
Or maybe that WOULDN'T happen in a society of individualists (to paraphrase Monty Python: "We are all individualists"). Maybe if people just minded their own business and lived their own lives as best they could, if everyone felt like there was nothing standing between them and a good life, there would be no class resentment. I see your point, Uncle Rahn, but we're not there yet. Not until we have a true free market system in America.
I agree with you about identity politics and groupthink. According to natural law, no one has any special claim to "social justice" or government assistance or even sympathy by virtue of being part of any group. Solidarity with your group usually means that you are prepared to use the force of government to promote the interests of that group. Forget about individuals. It seems like identity politics is the way to get ahead within the system we have now. Lobby groups and special interests. Gangs, in other words, forcing everyone else to give them stuff. Of course that's not how it should be. The rights of the individual should be protected above all. On a social level, no one should feel compelled or encouraged to think a certain way or act a certain way because that is how the group they "belong to" is supposed to think and act. Americans should all be equal before the law regardless of gender, race and whatever else, and IMHO every person should think for himself and stop basing his identity on being a member of a group.
There's basically 2 type of upperclass and 2 types of working class:
There's a difference between being wealthy and being rich. The rich are those who can do anything they want when they want. They live in decadence. They usually are not satisfied unless they have every dollar that they can possibly have because they know that there is going to be a time when the well dries up and that they're going to die and can't take any of the riches with them.
The wealthy, however, worked for their wealth and made good decisions in their investments and live comfortably but not decadently.
The middle class is between wealthy and poor. They are part of the working class because they usually have a commitment to their job and are bound by the responsibility of their bills. The poor are part of the working class as well, yet struggle greatly just to survive and/or get to the middle class level.
The rich and wealthy are often ignorant of the plight of the middle class and poor because they don't understand the suffering involved when you want to make a decent living but can't because of the amount of exploitation and oppression that the rich impart on the working class. That's what the original poster is speaking about.
But the rich, in general, also want to get rid of the wealthy as well...and they will lie, cheat, extort, enslave, and destroy until the 'competition' is under their thumbs. To say otherwise is simply ignorant and negligent. What has happened to the US these last several years have proved it.
I'm hungry. I wonder if I should have a sandwich. Hey, is that a crack in the wall?
Just thought I'd share some thoughts with you guys ;-)
think the web is about immediate and instant exchange --- closer to a conversation than a revised presentation ----------
What kind of ideas are you looking for?
historically normal conditions I mean that the concept of a middle class is a recent development -- that throughout much of history the extremes of rich and poor have been the prominent camps
This is a blog entry -- a form that I associate with unpolished ideas, just thinking out loud really
P.S. - What is the Prime Time?
There have been varying degrees of a 'middle class' throughout American history, as well as Roman history. So it's not entirely a new phenomenon.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
that is correct
Of course it's correct. Everything I say is correct.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
That seems to be a reasonable clarification of your "out loud" thinking. So as a NEO member to BTM and blogs/forums/social networks, maybe you can explain the intended distinction between these virtual "places". I seem to read a lot of "thinking out loud", irrespective of where I travel in the blogosphere.
Just looking for cogent ideas ready for discussion and growth. Prime time (lower case) in my earlier post is a euphemism for something ready for public disclosure and discussion. It could be an idea, an opinion, a product, a service, etc., etc. Booking agent?? Not so much!
AdamAdamR,
Please don't misconstrue my inquiry. While I think I detect your affectionate attachment to the "Fifties" and your satirical, perhaps even cynical, view of modern life in the US, I fail to grasp any cogent ideas you are attempting to share.
By saying "we are finally returning to historically normal conditions" do you mean "that somebody" has successfully retrieved full grasp on the reins of statist power? And which "somebody" are you hinting at - since there are many camps of scoundrels and rogues ready to serve the monied elite. And let us not forget the proclivity of the "peasantry" to gleefully attend every circus passing through their towns; bypassing with all expediency, of course, the steps to city hall.
I'd really like to hear more specifics on your ideas here, if indeed they are well formed and ready for prime time:)
"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." H. L. Mencken