|
|
 Originally Posted by !Luck
Would we still be this rich if we had all of the above 100 years ago?
-!luck
Probably, I don't know. Some stuff, like education, wasn't really that important back then. That was a long time ago, and I don't know any details of what the economy was like. It's also mostly irrelevant as things like fiat currency and large corporations kinda weren't really standard
We're dealing with record level productivity squeezes. The productivity squeeze is why we have a sultan class riding on the back of high poverty rates, why the US doesn't have nearly as strong of middle class as other modern nations, and growth in wealth has been shown to happen despite this bad policy, not because of it
As an example, economics is really just accounting. There's some economic specific stuff, but it's just accounting on social level WRT goods and services and stuff. According to that accounting, universal health care is much cheaper and more effective than the US model. So, um, that means that our wealth and quality of living would go up with this "social welfare" program that people are brainwashed to hate. It's the same with most other social programs. Hell, other modern countries end up exporting a bunch of their talent that they paid for, and yet they STILL massively outperform US.
Wealth inequality is incredibly expensive for a society, wealth equality is incredibly frugal and valuable. The only reason most US citizens think otherwise is because we don't expect the media to be lying to us as profusely as they do
|
Reply With Quote