What Socialists think the 1950's were like
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (66)
sorted by:
More like we imported half of Mexico and exported all of our industry by free trade and overregulation.
Plus obscenely out of control government overspending. Overly expanding the "necessity" for business-run colleges and universities. Bank fuckery left and right. Everything shifting over to public companies and corporations instead of privately owned/run companies. Out of control medical/health industries. Out of control insurance industries.
Funny, because the middle class only died in the 90s after Clinton really ramped up the welfare state on behalf of blacks. Turns out you can't raise the floor without lowering the ceiling.
It's cute how they try to lie to me about things I personally lived through.
I heard complaints about Clinton’s welfare reform because it took away some stuff. I remember that time my dad watching tv and a woman was complaining and asking “who is gonna take care of my kids”. My dad shouted “you”
The notion of outsourcing childcare to strangers is so twisted and disgusting. I find it absolutely horrifying that it has become so commonplace.
Parents today treat their children like accessories, and it shows in their bare-minimum parenting.
It shows more in the shit heels we have for White youth today.
You're talking about the welfare cliff I suspect. I also meant things like subprime loans and suing Microsoft ostensibly for packaging a browser with their OS but in reality for giving Jesse Jackson the finger.
Clinton was every bit as bad as the proceeding D's when it came to turning the justice department into an enforcement agency of leftist policy.
And that's not even mentioning his disastrous economic policies.
That’s true. Who would’ve thought giving out loans that people couldn’t afford would have negative repercussions
For decades I've been torn as to whether that was deliberate on the part of the enemy or merely stupidity. In my experience leftists simultaneously have a bottomless capacity for both malice and idiocy so it's a toss up. Leaning towards malice.
If you can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter if there's a difference. It's all enemy behavior.
The idiocy is the useful idiots parroting the propaganda. The malice comes from the top. It is both, but the effects are deliberate.
My dad stopped watching the news when he got tired of shouting at the TV. And that was decades ago before I had an inkling of how bad things really were.
The only reason the 1950s even saw economic recovery was because the Cripple King FDR died and so did his income caps and 90% tax rates.
I’ve seen this argument of “the wealthy were taxed at 80%” that they push. Also I’d say in the 50s personal responsibility was higher. But so many people today think that taxing rich person will turn us into a utopia
They have no concept of a finite resource. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Reminds me of the Sowell quote the first law of economics is scarcity and the first law of politics is to ignore the first law of economics
That's a good quote and a better reason to hate politicians.
Well the full quote is “the first law of economics is scarcity, there is never enough of any material to satisfy all who need it, and the first law of politics is to ignore the first law of economics”. Or at least something close to that. His book Basic Economics is really good
Of course they don't. The rejection of the reality of subtractive economics is one of the foundational principles of leftism.
Which is ironic because money actually is an infinite resource for the US government, at least until somebody figures out how to hurt very expensive carriers with very cheap AliExpress drones in a way that can't be covered up.
This is only since the discarding of the idea of a backed currency. Removing the gold standard turned the dollar from a representative token for metal into a piece of paper with imaginary value.
Not like the federal government needs taxes now that it has an infinite money machine.
And trying to explain inflation is pointless
These same people probably don't understand the (legal) differences between a private company and a corporation, or how differently tax laws apply. They just bunch any kind of success into the same damn echelon, and then assume the system is broken because of "capitalism".
Granted, I suppose sometimes Rinos have given a little too much credence to cutting corporate taxes while continuing to tax the hell out of private companies. At the very least they also try to advocate for cutting down on government spending, unlike leftists.
Corporate taxes are why dividends are dogshit; an investor can easily be triple-taxed on payout depending on how the company is structured. It's why nearly every company today does share buybacks and chase "number go up" at the expense of slow-but-steady profits.
Corporations came up with benefits such as health insurance because it was illegal to pay a CEO over the income cap FDR set up.
I do tax witholding and I still had to write a gigantic check.
Thanks. I assumed it was something like that.
Isn't a big part of this also that women were not as significant a part of the workplace, so pricing was geared towards an assumption of single-income homes?
Very much so.
Price follows supply and demand, but "price" isn't "money", it's "exchange of value". And the value of "money" halved when they doubled the number of people earning the same amount of "money". It didn't show right away, the invisible hand moves slowly, but it did adapt to that new market.
All that stated, per the OP, I could own a house, a car, and have a kid start saving for a local post-secondary-education, on one income. It isn't hard to do. Just don't buy a fucking mansion, don't live in or near a city like a Lefty lunatic, use your appliances carefully and until they truly break down, don't ever do any drugs like alcohol or tobacco or the harder ones, and buy a car with super-long-term lifespan in mind.
Not only that, but men weren't competing with women for jobs -- a class of people who can afford to work for less because they're not expected to provide for a family.
Back then, the US used to make things in factories. Women would rather stay home than break her fingers assembling a car.
Learning that the US isn't capable of making any significant amount of basic medicine during the pandemic was crazy.
It's why I have no faith in AI and the hysterical claims it's going to usher in a "Second Industrial Revolution."
The US had a good run, staving off inflation by sending our manufacturing base to third-worlders and selling Treasury bonds to them instead of trading anything of real value. But those chickens are now coming home to roost.
Socialists would consider the family pictured to be "The Rich".
They consider them the enemy and want them all dead. That's all there is to it.
Sure things are worse now, but by all accounts I've heard first hand it points to a lot of things they wouldn't do today. Houses were tiny and the children shared small rooms. Women cooked almost every meal and tended the house. Some made clothes for the kids. Eating out was rare and expensive. It wasn't stop at Starbucks daily for breakfast, eat out at lunch, and doorfash dinner while watching TV on one of six paid streaming services. The wife got up and cooked breakfast and made coffee, packed lunch for the husband, and cooked dinner. You watched on the one TV whatever was on the three free channels, or did something else.
I always hear a lot about this dead dream, but very little about modem people willing to live that life.
Children shared rooms but they also used rooms as bedrooms instead of "hang out here all day on my computer/phone" rooms. Its a lot easier to share a room when all you use it for is mostly sleeping and storage, and spend your awake time playing outside or in the more social family rooms.
And women did all of those things because they literally had nothing else to do all day, and needed to earn their keep while staving off the insanity boredom can bring to anyone.
Almost all the things you listed are solutions people take to problems that didn't used to exist. No modern people are willing to live it because they literally can't for the most part and in order to do so they'd have to work 4x as hard for no reason other than to chase some "dream" rather than it being the natural state of things and easy to achieve.
Also the overlap between Starbucks and 6 Streaming subs as well as "dreams of the Leave it to Beaver life" is probably pretty small, so why would you even suspect one to want the other.
So basically: technology was a mistake.
Nah, having raised a few children I can say the problem isn't the technology entirely, its that we exist in a low trust society where there isn't enough for them to do that isn't stay inside and get addicted to technology.
You can't just say "go play" and let them wander until the sun goes down in almost any area of the country that has more people than corn. Especially as, you don't have a mom at every home to keep track of them and have a community wide vigilance system whereever they might end up.
So basically, niggers ruined everything outside the home and feminists ruined everything inside it.
This makes me want to burn the whole world to ash.
Why? That just let's them have one Final W over you. They get to once again take something you love and ruin it until you are forced to lose it forever, while getting to enjoy the hedonistic pleasures it can provide until its broken.
That's literally everything they could want.
eating out was more expensive. but it was real food. hell, you can barely buy real food in the supermarket today, unlike in the 50s.
houses were smaller, but they were built with far, far better materials. The wood was better. everyone had oak hardwoods. the entire house wasn't filled with plastic synthetics that would immediately burst into flames. have you seen 1950s vs. 2000s burn-rate test videos? not to mention the outgassing and microplastic residues in your air.
families had 1 car but you could take the bus or subway and not get stabbed by a nog or meximutt. hell, kids used the public buses, used their bikes all over town, and they weren't getting their heads football kicked into curbs.
The ratio between salary and cost of housing was definitely more favorable back then, but I don't believe that was because of taxing the rich.
hmm, now I'm curious, what did the tax brackets look like in the 1950s?
no wonder they cut taxes, the rich people were probably doing everything they could to avoid the tax man entirely. Some money from rich people is more than no money at all.
This is true, and, the middle class would have died a lot faster if we hadn't cut corporate taxes.
We were running taxes at a level that could only be sustained as long as Europe and Asia were literally on fire.
"no one has EVER had a house"
Real homeownership has never been tried!
So is the 1950's a social democratic utopia, or a misogynistic hellscape where it was totes normal and socially acceptable for men to beat their wives?
Repeal the 19th and raise the voting age to 25.
I'll do you one better - return to land ownership based voting rights, remove corporate ability to own land, remove non-citizens and non-residents of the state ability to own land. This will deny china, blackrock and gates and restore the constitutional republic.
An even better system is a starship troopers' style earned citizenship through dangerous service, but that can only succesfully be implemented after a total collapse. Though realistically, any major reform of the federal government requires a total collapse because our government is unsalvageably corrupted.
Agreed.
Hey! Cool it with the antisemitism.
The 50's were far less idyllic than you'd expect. And the ethnic homogeneity alone is minimally relevant to its relative prosperity. I also don't think you are correct as to the motivations, however I do think you are broadly correct about the causes.
One of the principle reasons why everything seems to be more expensive nowadays is because over roughly the past century, the government has successfully been able to convince the general populace that they should be permitted to brazenly steal more and more from them (or otherwise browbeat the general populace into accepting this). Meanwhile the government does less and less actually useful stuff, instead focusing more and more of their resources on limiting freedoms (or in other words, amassing their own power).
Meanwhile socialist mental deficients will harp on endlessly about how it's all "capilatizuum"'s fault, and how we need more government theft to fix it all. The fact that modern western civilization tolerates and in some cases even respects these abject lobotomites instead of treating them with the same level of contempt and pity afforded to flat Earthers is something I will never understand. And that's to say nothing about the ones that actually know that what they're saying doesn't make sense, and are just in it to gain personal power for themselves. As a further random tangent, the fact that Nazism is somehow considered to be some massively different thing to socialism is one of the greatest political misconceptions of the modern age. And is consequentially one of the greatest failures in education in the modern age.
Then how come so many ethnically homogenous societies do so well? And how can you say there's no correlation?
How can you 'acchtually' and not mention money printers and fiat currency going brrr? That's where the real theft is occurring. Tax is terrible, government bullying it terrible, but money printers et al is where the real monetary damage is coming from. Even putting aside gold-backed currency and coins with actual silver in them, the value of money back in the 50's was, what, like fifteen times more?
There are many similarities, but also some stark differences; they are far from identical. And, if anything, I'd flip that, and say it's amazing that socialism isn't thought of as evil like fascism is. That's the real issue. They've already covered 'fascism bad.' Unless I miss your point on this.
They used nazism as a scapegoat to pin all the evils of leftism in general. "The commies fought the nazis so they were good guys".
Meanwhile blatantly suppressing every commie genocide and pushing the idea that far left socialists were right wing simply because they fought against commies. Conveniently ignoring the Holodomor, the fact that soviets and nazis were allied at the beginning of WW2. And that the real majority of what was later twisted into the modern perception of the holocaust was not in the camps, but was the combined soviet and nazi butchery of civilians (not just jews) across eastern europe.
Pretty sure that's a good thing.