The 1700 and 1800's - The Era of Misery

That still doesn't make you a mavin on American history. You certainly didn't know a thing about Penicillin or when "Antibiotics" began. [Really we have to thank Mrs. Fleming for her refrigeration habits, leaving food there to mold. {joke}]

 

How much of that growth came at a huge cost in human terms?

In the working conditions of the late 1800's, more people died than in WW2 in less time. certain trades had very short life spans, clock makers might live to 45 before dying of toxic poisoning from mercury vapors.

And relative GDP is not the best indicator. Who cares what the GDP is if you're life expectancy is 27 and you live in misery?

 

Oh yes.. They used Sulphur powder before antibiotics.. and they were relatively new even in 1951 and not widely available in the private sector. You could get a bad batch of penicillin and die.. Two engineers did... my father survived.

Are you young and a recent immigrant?

 

I agree that they had it harder back then, but that is only because they had inferior technology and medicine, but I don't see why their relatively inferior technology and medical science should translate into some kind of generalized political or cultural inferiority. One does not follow from the other.

And I agree that GDP is very limited in what it can tell you about the average person's life, but it does tell you some useful information about a given population, namely, how large their economic output is and how fast it's growing or decaying. An analogy to biology would be viewing the total energy consumption of a certain animal population. It doesn't tell you much in the way of specifics, but it allows you to view systems in terms of their composite or aggregate phenomena. The long-term growth we see in our real GDP is exponential, which is typical of biological systems. Certainly, the long-term trend could radically depart from its historical trajectory, but for everyday economics, it seems safe to assume that the long-term growth rate of our real economy is a function of fixed market forces, and that political intervention into the economy can only hope achieve short-term deviations from this market trend at the expense of future growth.

 

A correction please, It's Sulpha (sulfonamide) powders and pills. Sulfur is an element on the periodic Table.
Young? Bred and born in the USA. My grandfather served in US military in WWI, my father served in the Army WWII, and I enlisted in the military just prior to Vietnam and spent two tours there. Yes, my family can be considered new comers to America. We've only been here over 100 years. If you consider 77yrs. young, then yes I'm young.

 

Please note Sulfur is the 16th element on the Periodic Table of Elements. Are you referring to Sulfa (Sulfadiazine)?
LMAO, No, unless you consider my family has been in America more than 100 yrs., recently arrived. Young? I'm blushing with the compliment. I hope you consider 77 yrs. young.

 

And the next year 1954 the Salk Polio vaccine was being Beta tested. I got my first Polio shot in 1954.
Later in my military carrier I inoculated thousands for DPT, Smallpox, Typhoid, Typhus, Yellow Fever, Tetanus and Polio, including the various Flu viruses going around.

 

I would suggest to you that it went well beyond inferior technology, but a systemic vacuum where humans have respect for the sanctity of human life. Have you ever read any biographies of the baron kings of the day? Sealing up a mine after 100 or men have been trapped in a coal mine because its too expensive to dig them out is not a fault of inferior technology, but inferior humanity.

Spend a day at the library and check out some books, biographies that tell the history as a secondary plot where you get the unvarnished truth and learn how your railroads, and ours, were really built.

And for the record, malaria and insect borne diseases were rampant, draining swamps had nothing to do with the decline. That came as a result of Teddy Roosevelt becoming the "accidental president" [the ironies in his history are magnificent - he was shot too! McKinley died because they couldn't find the bullet when Tesla's X-Ray machine, financed in part by Roosevelt was in the next building etc.] having led a charge in Cuba during the Spanish American war. He learned of a doctor there who was using netting to keep mosquitoes away. So when he set out to finish what the French could not do, build the Panama canal, he sent his good friend, Walter Reed to Cuba to check it out. OldWalt became the first [I believe] surgeon general and malaria was tackled.

 

You have it all wrong. No one is criticizing them for doing what they did. We are criticizing you for wanting to live like them when the rest of us have evolved. They were at the forefront of technology, innovation, economics, science, medicine, math, etc, etc back then just like we are now. It's just some of us understand the present while the rest of you still are living in the past.

 

Another point on Switzerland, aside from being highly culturally homogeneous, they are also relatively fiscally conservative.

 

18th and 19th centuries were better than 16th and 17th , this is progress.

What you describe here is that in the Americas situation was the same as in Europe .
My family used to be ship owners ( top 5% of the country) but this didn't saved several of my ancestors who died of common cold ( or executed for piracy but this is another story) .

Democracy in ancient Greece would scare modern people to death , it is much more beneficial to study democracies of Switzerland (as mentioned) , Genoa , Novgorod , Venice and Florence since they reflect this "noble republic" thing we are living today .

 

All I'm talking about is the size and scope of the federal government during that time period. You seem to think if we go back to that level of federal government, we'll all be riding around in horse-drawn carriages or something. I have no idea what goes through your head most of the time.

 

The size and scope of our current government was not possible back then. And I have no doubt you have no clue what goes through my head. You defend a 19th century economic policy. There are probably lots of things going through your head that most normal people can't imagine.

 

The latter half of the 19th century saw the greatest increase in prosperity and living standards in the history of the human race.

Something I've also noticed is that they denounce the 1920s as the decade of inequality and the such, yet the top marginal tax rate was 93%.

 

Yea, people were able to buy food, clothes, and heat their homes. I guess we should go back to the 19th century.

 

Nor was it needed for their strong economic growth and cultural advancement.

Because the "policy" was an unprecedented success at growing the economy.

There is nothing "normal" about your viewpoints, I can assure you. Right now, you seem to be arguing that returning to the economic system of the 18th century would somehow result in everyone driving around in horse-drawn carriages. I'm dying to here your explanation for that one.

 

We're only allowed to go back to the past when you like something from the past, like central banking or FIAT money, otherwise, it's just old and stupid.

 

This is what you've become? Embarrassing.

 

Yes, it was not needed. Just like a strong centralized government is not needed in Nigeria.

You have already been proven wrong with this. Our standard of living has grown much more in the 20th century than the 19th century. That's why we use our policies and don't go back to the 1800's.

It's as normal as it gets. It's used throughout the entire world of developed countries.

And yes, going back to the economic system of the 18th century would result in us driving around in horse-drawn carriages. That is exactly why it evolved from then so people didn't have to do that.

 

Of course they were less technologically advanced than we are. It was over a hundred years ago. That's not the point - we're discussing the increase in prosperity and living standards, not the absolute level. Before the enlightenment period most were losing half their kids and dying at 35. 200 years later people were still working long hours, but at least they had some chance.

Our living standards developed in spite of the state, not because of it. Excepting major wars, Federal spending didn't remain above 5% of GDP until FDR.



After the massive spike at WWII, notice that most of the years saw real wages stagnate (1970s+). Surely all this government should have had some benefit?

 

The data seems to contradict your opinion.

 

I'd just like to add that economic prosperity is a pleasing side effect of such policy, but it's not the reason why we advocate it. You know how pacifists operate under the principle "do no harm", leftists under the principle "don't infringe the freedom of speech", etc? I operate under the principle "when you initiate force against another, you invite retaliatory force upon yourself".

That's the reason why I suppose liberal economic policy, not because I believe it leads to desirable consequences.

[hr][/hr]

Like the pacifists, I'm not trying to force this into your face. It's a personal axiom. Where I have the choice, I'll initiate no force. If you ask me to give my preferences of those in power, I'll order them to the degree that they refrain from the initiation of force.

 

Yeah the private market has certainly been improving people' lives. But to use modern advances and civil rights gains to compare periods of time is chronological snobbery. I have always wanted to use that term, and now, I have.

 

Force is the only realistic way to have a civilized society.

 

True enough, my mistake.

War is the only realistic way to have peace.