[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Unless we have another massive economic depression, followed by another World War which decimates much of Europe's ability to produce goods--we're really unlikely to ever get back to 50s growth. The world has become much smaller, with far more big players on the stage.

The 50s were unique because much of the rest of the developed world had just been beaten down by a massive military conflict. The US fought that battle on foreign soil, which left America able to fulfill the needs of other countries. That isn't the case now.

The growth didn't stop in the 50's though, it slowed down significantly after Reagen declared war on middle class workers decades later and has been on a steady decline ever since. There are still countries that need rebuilding and imported products, and countries like Canada had the same luxury of being away from the war but didn't have the same boom the states had. The Soviet Union gobbled up a big chunk of war torn europe, and they weren't buying American. The states kept upping their military spending and dumping money into other conflicts like the war in Vietnam, and the Cold War wasn't cheap either. The reason they were able to afford these things then while still maintaining growth was because of an entirely different taxation system and higher wages for workers which increased consumerism and grew their own economy.

I'm not saying they can certainly achieve that same level again, but they can get closer to that if the people are willing to fight for the necessary changes. After the 80's the rich began to pay less and less in taxes, the workers saw their wages stagnate(relative to inflation and growth among the wealthy), and America's infrastructure began crumbling due to reduced tax revenue, then corporations began outsourcing to more labour cost friendly foreign countries to increae profits while telling workers here it was their fault, putting more strain on the tax revenue pool while at the same time creating the perfect manipulative scare tactic to use in their effort to continue to receive more and more tax cuts. It will take a massive effort to get people to understand what has really happened in that country, but perhaps trump and his staff made up of billionaires might be the perfect catalyst. They aren't there to help anybody but themselves, as time goes on more and more people will hopefully begin to recognize this.

Oh no, Hillary promised change--increased equality among the sexes, increased access to education, moving forward with clean energy, etc. The problem is that Trump voters did not want progressive change. They wanted change that would turn things back to the way they were 50-75 years ago. They want to go back to a bygone era where coal miners were 9th grade high school dropouts making 80K a year with a comfortable retirement plan. They want to go back to manufacturing jobs where their kids can get zero education and still make a living. They want to go back to time when women had dinner on the table for them by 6pm, when gay people stayed int the closet, when everyone they saw in their neighborhood or on their television was white.

These voters were largely afraid of cultural change, and a woman president is a great big sign of cultural change.

I posted a link to this in the politics thread, but it bears a repost:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nxiety/525771/

Clinton's change wasn't drastic enough was my point, another reason why I believe Sanders would have fairies better against trump.

We can argue up and down and left and right about what Clinton did wrong, but the basic narrative is that a bunch of rural white people are freaking out that this country isn't as white and Christian and traditional as in the "good old days" and they freaked out, and Trump's rhetoric fed right into it.

Yeah that played a big part in it as well.