patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

DIckensian World that never existed except in his novels:

These photos are from the early 20th Century. But Reality wants you to believe their forebears from 20 years prior, working in similar conditions, were MORE literate and MORE numerate than similarly aged children living today... because Socialism and Public Schools.

"Absolute Rubbish, laddy!"

Where did I say kids working in coal mines were more literate and more numerate? You are lying to cover up your own lack of literacy and numeracy.

Kids working in coal mines were a tiny fraction of children living at that time. Your inability to grasp that concept is showing your idiocy.

Is your idiocy the result of bad American public school education or bad Russian public school education?

The Dickensian World did not exist outside his novels because in the real world the rapidly developing economy under capitalism not only lifted the children from back-breaking farm labor that they had been doing for thousands of years to timed industrial labor (already an improvement), but also having living standards progressed so fast that within a few decades child labor became so unnecessary that it was outlawed!

In the Dickensian World, there was not the even starker reality of back-breaking farm labor that had been the norm for poor children for thousands of years in the absence of industrialization; he assumed all children just played in the fields previously like some kind of aristocrats. That was simply nonsensical. The children were working in the factories and mines because that was their ticket out of back-breaking dirty labor and starvation! (to not so back-breaking but dirty labor, minus the starvation)

It's the same nonsense agitated by the lefty imbeciles who had never known how hard life was in the 3rd world: yes, the sweat shop laborers make much less than what we make in the West, yet it was much higher pay and much more reliable income than what they had before the sweatshops arrived.

Strategist says

Slavery, child labor, exploitation were all rampant at some point. Many third world countries are not much different even today.

Thunder, we don't have all that today. We have extremely strict laws, where employers can easily sued and fined for even the slightest misstep.

When I was in college in the 80's, I remember arguing with a communist professor. He claimed there is mass exploitation in the US. My response was "where?" "I would like to work for that company, just to sue them"

He also claimed "people are starving" My response "Where, all I see is fat people on diet"

Better working conditions and higher standards of living are here thanks to the high productivity delivered by capitalistic free market.

The most effective tool against exploitation is not suing but the opportunity to work for someone else who offers better work conditions. Litigiousness and "easily sued and fined" would only lead to mass unemployment, as we can see now. There is no short cut displacing free-market negotiations. LOL.

I'm afraid, "Thunderlips" theory of using government law suits and regulations to set things right, at its core, is essentially the same as your communist professor who believed government setting production quotas would make the economy prosperous.

The reality is that, nobody knows exactly how much of each goods is to be produced, and nobody knows exactly what "the ultimate safe and healthy working environment" is; only through a dynamic feed back negotiation process between buyers and sellers, between employers and employees can such terms be determined. Many goods and services of the future is unknown to us today, waiting to be discovered (just like iPhone was a decade ago); likewise, many cushy and comfortable work environment is unknown to us today, waiting to be discovered by future employers and employees. Any standard set by government would be obsolete, just like the Lada cars allocated by soviet government to its most valuable employees. The capitalistic free market can reward even the average line worker with cars better than the Lada.

(edit: my bad, I initially didn't recognize the post was from Strategist, nor Thunderlips)

thunderlips11 says

LOL. Do you worship numbers and graphs because "it is written"? Of course "British living standard" would not include 50x as many people making 1/100 the per-person income half a world away on a different continent.

Then, argh, good lord, then relative comparisons of living standards between a handful of European Empires that only measure their home country population, and a handful of independent states in Europe and South America, with most of the world a colony of the Empires is USELESS!

Thank god you finally get it, only took me several posts.

But if I recall from previous posts on this board, many of which had nothing to do with me, changing the subject and pretending not to understand others' points is your MO.

You still have the concept wrong. "Western European living standard" means those living in Western Europe, regardless whether their government controlled India or not, regardless whether their government is controlled by the US or not. "Indian living standard" means those living on the Indian sub-continent, regardless whether they have one country or 50 countries, one colony or 50 colonies "owned" by someone else. The people were there regardless what the alleged political jurisdictions.

Political independence or not didn't seem to have much bearing on whether a 3rd world society prospered. Living standards by and large declined in the third world in the 50's, 60's and 70's, after they gained independence and embraced socialism. Yet, relatively free-market reforms in recent decades saw their living standards improve massively.

Reality says

Where did I say kids working in coal mines were more literate and more numerate? You are lying to cover up your own lack of literacy and numeracy.

Reality says

In any case, American literacy rate was very high in the 19th century. Have you seen some of the middle school tests from 19th century? Those are college level maths by today's standards.

Those two sentences together say: I believe literacy was very high, and by using the example of a middle school test I have seen, I believe the quality of it was very high.

Reality says

I'm afraid, "Thunderlips" theory of using government law suits and regulations to set things right, at its core, is essentially the same as your communist professor who believed government setting production quotas would make the economy prosperous.

What's the alternative to lawsuits and regulations?

It must be the Will of a Leader. Why Hayek loved Pinochet so much. The vaunted Neoliberal Dictator who can prevent the cancer-ridden family from suing for externalized Pollution Damage by Decree, lest lawsuits, regulations or anything else require the benefactor to eat at least some of the cost of their externalizing.

You can't possibly think that there could be no conflicts within a market; since most commercial law grew up out of conflicting interpretations of contracts, to say nothing of Market Failures.

Reality says

"Western European living standard" means those living in Western Europe, regardless whether their government controlled India or not, regardless whether their government is controlled by the US or not. "Indian living standard" means those living on the Indian sub-continent, regardless whether they have one country or 50 countries, one colony or 50 colonies "owned" by someone else. The people were there regardless what the alleged political jurisdictions.

You said
Reality says

On the contrary. Western Europe and North America had even higher relative standard of living compared to the rest of the world before they embraced socialism in the mid-20th century.

I responded that that isn't very useful, since much of the world was a colony, and Empires generally compared each other's Home Country standards to each other. The whole relative debate, where of course by expanding the supply of relative comparisons will always change the analysis that had fewer comparison points.

Numbers please, facts, charts, data.
Reality says

The children were working in the factories and mines because that was their ticket out of back-breaking dirty labor and starvation! (to not so back-breaking but dirty labor, minus the starvation)

And yet, by fiat, the government, nagged to death by ornery middle class religious women, against the protests of reactionaries like yourself, banned them. And wouldn't cha know? Wages went up when they could only employ hardy males for the job and no more children. Who then used their higher wages to keep their kids out of regular employment and in school.

Child Labor did NOT disappear by charity of the Capitalist or market forces, but by government decree driven by Social Pressure - Democracy.

Again, let's see some Numbers, Charts, etc. and not an appeal to unspecified "Volumes" of 19th Century data.

thunderlips11 says

Where did I say kids working in coal mines were more literate and more numerate? You are lying to cover up your own lack of literacy and numeracy.

Reality says

In any case, American literacy rate was very high in the 19th century. Have you seen some of the middle school tests from 19th century? Those are college level maths by today's standards.

Those two sentences together say: I believe literacy was very high, and by using the example of a middle school test I have seen, I believe the quality of it was very high.

So where did I say kids working in coal mines were more literate and numerate? You were outright lying.

Or you were simply stupid . . . proof positive of the poor public school education you had, either in the US or in Russia.

thunderlips11 says

I'm afraid, "Thunderlips" theory of using government law suits and regulations to set things right, at its core, is essentially the same as your communist professor who believed government setting production quotas would make the economy prosperous.

What's the alternative to lawsuits and regulations?

Already pointed out in my previous post: other employers willing to offer better pay and better working conditions. Government regulations usually get in the way of new employers offering better.

It must be the Will of a Leader.

LOL. Isn't government regulation fundamentally the will of the leader? Isn't that what Saint FDR was about?

Why Hayek loved Pinochet so much. The vaunted Neoliberal Dictator who can prevent the cancer-ridden family from suing for externalized Pollution Damage by Decree, lest lawsuits, regulations or anything else require the benefactor to eat at least some of the cost of their externalizing.

You don't seem to understand what the word "benefactor" means. In any case, Hayek's support for Pinochet was simply a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. You are out of your mind if you think Allende's policies would lead to anything other than worse fascism, a la those of North Korea, soviet Russia and pre-reform communist China.

You can't possibly think that there could be no conflicts within a market; since most commercial law grew up out of conflicting interpretations of contracts, to say nothing of Market Failures.

Market is a (price) discovery process. People make mistakes. It's silly to think people would stop making mistakes as soon as they put on the robes of government officials. Market process is the place where other people can refuse to go along with incumbent mistakes. Government coercion is the process where the cost of mistakes are externalized to innocent bystanders who are forced to go along with incumbent mistakes.

thunderlips11 says

"Western European living standard" means those living in Western Europe, regardless whether their government controlled India or not, regardless whether their government is controlled by the US or not. "Indian living standard" means those living on the Indian sub-continent, regardless whether they have one country or 50 countries, one colony or 50 colonies "owned" by someone else. The people were there regardless what the alleged political jurisdictions.

You said

Reality says

On the contrary. Western Europe and North America had even higher relative standard of living compared to the rest of the world before they embraced socialism in the mid-20th century.

I responded that that isn't very useful, since much of the world was a colony, and Empires generally compared each other's Home Country standards to each other. The whole relative debate, where of course by expanding the supply of relative comparisons will always change the analysis that had fewer comparison points.

What "Empires" are you talking about? The economic data is about the people living in same geographical area over time in longitudinal studies, e.g.: UK (not British Empire), France (not French Empire).

I see where you got it wrong: in you head, you are thinking wealth/economics in terms of the pre-Adam Smithian model: mutual looting. LOL. No, the European "empires" did not get rich from looting, but from division-of-labor/specialization enabled by trade. England and Flander coast had higher income than the rest of Europe before British Empire. History proved that French Empire and German Empire (and eventually even British Empire itself) were big money losers overall and brought down European standards of living.

Empire through military coercion / looting was simply an inefficient way of conducting specialization.

thunderlips11 says

The children were working in the factories and mines because that was their ticket out of back-breaking dirty labor and starvation! (to not so back-breaking but dirty labor, minus the starvation)

And yet, by fiat, the government, nagged to death by ornery middle class religious women, against the protests of reactionaries like yourself, banned them. And wouldn't cha know? Wages went up when they could only employ hardy males for the job and no more children. Who then used their higher wages to keep their kids out of regular employment and in school.

You are very wrong. Child labor utilization was declining rapidly before it was outlawed. Productivity gains enabled both shorter work hours and the obsolescence of child labor.

Child Labor did NOT disappear by charity of the Capitalist or market forces, but by government decree driven by Social Pressure - Democracy.

You are deluding yourself, as usual. Did we see the sudden unemployment of tens of millions of children? How was such a large suddenly unemployed population fed and housed? No such sudden change happened. The fazing out of child labor was not by abrupt government decree, but already in gradual and then rapid decline due to market forces, prior to government outlawing.

Reality says

Empire through military coercion / looting was simply an inefficient way of conducting specialization.

In today's world it is even more inefficient. You create wealth through trade, not invasion.
I remember arguing with a friend of mine who claimed the only reason we invaded Iraq was to steal their oil.
I did tell him that was impossible, because it was cheaper to buy the oil then to steal it. I never saw any free oil.

Reality says

You are very wrong. Child labor utilization was declining rapidly before it was outlawed. Productivity gains enabled both shorter work hours and the obsolescence of child labor.

Child Labor was estimated at 1.5M in 1890 and expanded to over 2M in 1910.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hine-photos/

76 Million People according to the 1900 United States Census. The National Labor Committee, a study group formed by the Congress, estimated that more than 2M children were working in Industry in the first decade of the 1900s. According to page 56-57 of this Census Abstract, about 33% of the US population was under 15 years old in 1910.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf

Now bear with me, we're going to do some math.

76*.33M. Rounded to 25M. 2M Estimated Kids in Industrial Labor * 100 / 25M Kids under 15 = 8%

Somewhere around 8% of all US Kids under 15 were involved in Industrial Wage Labor, 1 in 12.

Again, you make assertions without reference to any evidence.

Nice debate....Thunder and Reality.
Good arguments from both sides.

Reality says

You don't seem to understand what the word "benefactor" means. In any case, Hayek's support for Pinochet was simply a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. You are out of your mind if you think Allende's policies would lead to anything other than worse fascism, a la those of North Korea, soviet Russia and pre-reform communist China.

Mmm. That should have been "Beneficiary". I was probably thinking of all those legendary Capitalists who funded universal schooling in the pre-public education era.

Nor was it the lesser of Two Evils. Hayek campaigned all over the world for years championing Pinochet. Hayek always maintained that a Dictatorship was necessary sometimes to preserve "Liberty".

Reality says

The fazing out of child labor was not by abrupt government decree, but already in gradual and then rapid decline due to market forces, prior to government outlawing.

Bonk!
https://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

It wouldn't be until the reign of the vile misanthrope dictator freedom hater FDR, that Child Labor would finally be banned after numerous attempts, each one defeated by the common sense pleas (and lobbyist money) of the Industrialists across the Nation.

Besides, US History aside, widespread Child Labor continues to this day, even in countries with a huge number of adult male unemployed workers with access to modern machinery, processes and technology. But it's simply cheaper to abuse the children.

Reality says

What "Empires" are you talking about? The economic data is about the people living in same geographical area over time in longitudinal studies, e.g.: UK (not British Empire), France (not French Empire).

Exactly MY point.

Do you understand now that if you increase the numbers things being compared in a relative survey, it changes the outcome?

Reality says

Empire through military coercion / looting was simply an inefficient way of conducting specialization.

Which explains why Spain, France, and UK had to have most of their colonies pulled from their dead hands, in many cases after WW2 when they were broke.

It takes commodities to manufacture, not just machines and labor.

Strategist says

Nice debate....Thunder and Reality.

Good arguments from both sides.

Reality is taking us to school, but some of us don't realize that class is in session.

Lips is well read, but not so much on economic literacy.

BTW the only reason the US went to war with Iraq was to keep the military industrial complex busy, which is the only reason they are trying to color Iran as the bogeyman du jour.

Remember:

Wilson knowingly started WW1

The US bombed 66 Japanese cities, with napalm, killing 1 million Japanese civilians.

After that the Japanese offered a surrender on the one condition that the emperor not be tried for war crimes, Truman elected to drop the A bombs in order to get an unconditional surrender.

The Gulf of Tonkin was almost a complete lie. In McNamara's book.

There were no WMDs

These sociopaths have been creating war for 100 years. My motto is things are caused they don't "happen".

thunderlips11 says

Child Labor was estimated at 1.5M in 1890 and expanded to over 2M in 1910.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hine-photos/

LOL, you call that citation? Paper written by one self-promoting government bureaucrat (under "education" section no less), big round numbers with no foot note on how those numbers are arrived at.

Let's also not forget, the late 19th century to early 20th century saw a rapid transition of agricultural population to industrial workers in the US. Before that change-over, over 80% of US population were farmers. Now it's less than 2%. Even if the 1.5M to 2M number were true, child labor percentage of total labor (i.e. child labor utilization rate) could still be declining.

Somewhere around 8% of all US Kids under 15 were involved in Industrial Wage Labor, 1 in 12.

That's assuming the 2M number was correctly deduced. Compare that to nearly 100% of children in pre-industrial society having to participate in back-breaking dirty farm work without the benefit of being paid by the hours, and without guaranteed food.

Reality says

LOL, you call that citation? Paper written by one self-promoting government bureaucrat (under "education" section no less), big round numbers with no foot note on how those numbers are arrived at.

Bwahahahaha. The guy who has put up 0 - NADA - NILCH - NOTHING - in terms of data for his argument criticizes one of many I've put up.

"Go look up (unspecified) volumes (I don't have a year, title, ISBN, Screen Shot, or reference for)." doesn't count.

Reality says

That's assuming the 2M number was correctly deduced. Compare that to nearly 100% of children in pre-industrial society having to participate in back-breaking dirty farm work without the benefit of being paid by the hours, and without guaranteed food.

We're not comparing pre-industrial era. We're comparing Laissez Faire Capitalism to Evil Socialist Government Regulation well into the Industrial Era.

thunderlips11 says

Nor was it the lesser of Two Evils. Hayek campaigned all over the world for years championing Pinochet. Hayek always maintained that a Dictatorship was necessary sometimes to preserve "Liberty".

It was a choice between Pinochet v. Allende in the revolutionary 1970's. Pinochet through his later market reforms and even resignation clearly proved to be the lesser evil compared to the Chavez-like character that Allende was (to put it lightly).

Hayek's position on occasional need for forceful government policies to prevent even more abusive government is not fundamentally different from the American founding fathers' view of government as a necessary evil. It's an evil, but a necessary one to prevent even worse ones.

Reality says

It was a choice between Pinochet v. Allende in the revolutionary 1970's. Pinochet through his later market reforms and even resignation clearly proved to be the lesser evil compared to the Chavez-like character that Allende was (to put it lightly).

Nope. Chile took off after Pinochet had been removed. This has been done by others on this board before, and clearly demonstrated with facts and figures.

Allende was elected. Pinochet took over by the Gun. So much for the non-aggression principle! "It's not force when we use it to subvert the will of the public!"

Reality says

Hayek's position on occasional need for forceful government policies to prevent even more abusive government is not fundamentally different from the American founding fathers' view of government as a necessary evil. It's an evil, but a necessary one to prevent even worse ones.

Hayek is only in favor of dictators that preserve capital accumulation at the expense of those who produce added value.

Pinochet's Economic Miracle, debunked with actual data, not just assertion:
http://patrick.net/?p=1281606&c=1204959#comment-1204959

von Mises preferred Fascism to possible Social Democracy/New Deal type Capitalism

thunderlips11 says

The fazing out of child labor was not by abrupt government decree, but already in gradual and then rapid decline due to market forces, prior to government outlawing.

Bonk!

https://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html

It wouldn't be until the reign of the vile misanthrope dictator freedom hater FDR, that Child Labor would finally be banned after numerous attempts, each one defeated by the common sense pleas (and lobbyist money) of the Industrialists across the Nation.

Now you see why your previously cited liar of a self-promoting government bureaucrat chose to use 1910 number as cut-off, instead of 1930's numbers just before your Saint FDR outlawed child labor. Like I said, child labor was in first gradual then rapid decline before the government banned it.

Think about it, if there had been tens of millions of child labor in practice (i.e. making being a child laborer the norm for being a child), there wouldn't be the political will to ban it in a democracy; nor would the government be able to provide for the tens of millions of people who suddenly find themselves jobless as a result of the ban.

thunderlips11 says

Besides, US History aside, widespread Child Labor continues to this day, even in countries with a huge number of adult male unemployed workers with access to modern machinery, processes and technology. But it's simply cheaper to abuse the children.

Most of those countries have laws on the books against child labor anyway. Goes to show you government law making is ineffectual, contrary to God's MO: "let there be light." Economics on the ground is what ultimate decides what people do, not government command. Otherwise, there wouldn't be illegal drugs. LOL!

thunderlips11 says

What "Empires" are you talking about? The economic data is about the people living in same geographical area over time in longitudinal studies, e.g.: UK (not British Empire), France (not French Empire).

Exactly MY point.

Do you understand now that if you increase the numbers things being compared in a relative survey, it changes the outcome?

What numbers are you talking about? I was not talking about rankings, but relative income in multiples. An Englishman making 10x the income of the average someone living in South Asia is still making 10x the average income in South Asia even if the latter splits into 5 countries: India, Pakistan, Bengledash, Burma and Sri Lanka.

Your point is pointless, as usual.

thunderlips11 says

LOL, you call that citation? Paper written by one self-promoting government bureaucrat (under "education" section no less), big round numbers with no foot note on how those numbers are arrived at.

Bwahahahaha. The guy who has put up 0 - NADA - NILCH - NOTHING - in terms of data for his argument criticizes one of many I've put up.

"Go look up (unspecified) volumes (I don't have a year, title, ISBN, Screen Shot, or reference for)." doesn't count.

The reasons I do not wish to give you a single citation are as following:

1. You can easily google the topic and numbers yourself;

2. There are several methodologies arriving at different numbers; I have seen different sources that put forth numbers that span an order of magnitude; it would be irresponsible of me to cite one or two of them and claim that to be "the number."

3. That is the nature of numbers in economics. It's not a precise science. Yet, through those distributions, one is able to glean what general pattern of events took place.

thunderlips11 says

It was a choice between Pinochet v. Allende in the revolutionary 1970's. Pinochet through his later market reforms and even resignation clearly proved to be the lesser evil compared to the Chavez-like character that Allende was (to put it lightly).

Nope. Chile took off after Pinochet had been removed. This has been done by others on this board before, and clearly demonstrated with facts and figures.

LOL, I guess you missed the rebuttal. You are out of your mind if you think Chile would have become the most stable and successful economy/society in south America without Pinochet.

Allende was elected. Pinochet took over by the Gun. So much for the non-aggression principle! "It's not force when we use it to subvert the will of the public!"

Allende was not elected to be a dictator. When he was about to get his Enabling Act passed, Allende tapped Pinochet for military support; Pinochet turned on him. Hitler was elected, but the world would have been a better place if some German officer had overthrown him in the 1930's when he and his buddies passed government edicts to enable National Socialism in Germany.

thunderlips11 says

Hayek's position on occasional need for forceful government policies to prevent even more abusive government is not fundamentally different from the American founding fathers' view of government as a necessary evil. It's an evil, but a necessary one to prevent even worse ones.

Hayek is only in favor of dictators that preserve capital accumulation at the expense of those who produce added value.

Hayek understood that:

1. Value is subjective;

2. Producers can only get a "fair value" when it can negotiate and choose among multiple potential buyers; that also covers labor as producer;

3. Those who want to build a monopoly in the name of "the people" will kill any chance of any producer getting a "fair value."

4. Most socialists are unwitting self-enslavers; ie. useful tools and fellow-travellers for the most evil scum Stalinist monopolists.

Reality says

1. You can easily google the topic and numbers yourself;

2. There are several methodologies arriving at different numbers; I have seen different sources that put forth numbers that span an order of magnitude; it would be irresponsible of me to cite one or two of them and claim that to be "the number."

3. That is the nature of numbers in economics. It's not a precise science. Yet, through those distributions, one is able to glean what general pattern of events took place.

1. If it's so easy for me, then it's easy for you. You're either lazy, or you are using manipulated numbers from some "Politically Incorrect Guide" Book and can't get to a scanner, nor wish to reveal the source as being "Von Mises Newsletter, Sep 1999, Volume 666, Issue 1313" lest we laugh at you.

2. If they're all in same ballpark, that will do. Don't hold back for us on that point.

3. blah blah blah. Word Salad.

thunderlips11 says

von Mises preferred Fascism to possible Social Democracy/New Deal type Capitalism

You are showing your full color as a lying scammer. Here is the full quote from Mises:

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error ."

Mises was very precise in his assessment, not only on Engelbert Dollfuss' fascist policies (the original subject of his comment above), but also on Hitler's and FDR's fascism.

Reality says

What numbers are you talking about? I was not talking about rankings, but relative income in multiples. An Englishman making 10x the income of the average someone living in South Asia is still making 10x the average income in South Asia even if the latter splits into 5 countries: India, Pakistan, Bengledash, Burma and Sri Lanka.

How much did the difference increase between 1945 and 1980 when Britain was firmly Social Democrat?

Yeah, von Mises preferred Fascism to Social Democracy/New Deal type Capitalism, which I said just prior to the picture!

Reality, you are the most dishonest and cowardly poster on this entire board.

When called, you throw up smoke screens with 3 bullshit excuses why you can't put up some data. You argue about back when there were only 50-60 Countries in the UN, Western Europe was relatively all powerful. When challenged as to why that was bullcrap, given that in mid-Century the full process of grudging de-colonization began, you went off on this tangent and tried to make a big fog over it.

It's not my job to do your homework for you.

thunderlips11 says

What numbers are you talking about? I was not talking about rankings, but relative income in multiples. An Englishman making 10x the income of the average someone living in South Asia is still making 10x the average income in South Asia even if the latter splits into 5 countries: India, Pakistan, Bengledash, Burma and Sri Lanka.

How much did the difference increase between 1945 and 1980 when Britain was firmly Social Democrat?

It decreased. Britain was one of the major laggards in Western Europe during that time. West Germany accounted for most of the economic growth in Europe in those decades.

Reality says

It decreased. Britain was one of the major laggards in Western Europe during that time. West Germany accounted for most of the economic growth in Europe in those decades.

Wrong!

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/23545/seventies-were-great-dont-believe-myth-thatcherism

And West Germany doesn't help your case, because West Germany is the very model of Social Democracy - and Germany still is today!

thunderlips11 says

Yeah, von Mises preferred Fascism to Social Democracy/New Deal type Capitalism, which I said just prior to the picture!

FDR's New Deal was not capitalism, but fascism: the forceful combination of the government and the corporations. Social Democracy is just about as socialist as National Socialism. By the recent anti-immigrant leaning of many socialists, including yourself, IMHO your real heart's desire is National Socialism anyway.

Reality, you are the most dishonest and cowardly poster on this entire board.

When called, you throw up smoke screens with 3 bullshit excuses why you can't put up some data.

It's not my job to do your homework for you.

Not at all smoke screens. The subject is quite complex, and not easily summarized in a graph or one number. You can easily pull up multiple thesis papers using different methodologies on the topic just by googling. I'm sure even you are capable of doing google, despite your poor education.

Reality says

Not at all smoke screens. The subject is quite complex, and not easily summarized in a graph or one number. You can easily pull up multiple thesis papers using different methodologies on the topic just by googling. I'm sure even you are capable of doing google, despite your poor education.

Man, your excuses for refusing to back up your assertions with data is incredible, you're like a Creationist with how you play word games to get out of the "Ain't got nuthin'" trap you're in.

Highly educated people would never dare to make assertions like you do without putting up evidence in support of their claims.

I'm against immigrants for the same reason I'm against child labor: to make sure assholes don't overload the labor supply and put people in misery.

Brave Sir Reality Ran Away
He Ran Away
Took a passing shot in retreat to hide his evidence slim
Blubbered about somebody else finding his data for him
And Ran Away.

thunderlips11 says

It decreased. Britain was one of the major laggards in Western Europe during that time. West Germany accounted for most of the economic growth in Europe in those decades.

Wrong!

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/23545/seventies-were-great-dont-believe-myth-thatcherism

So you cite a blow-hard counter-factual writer, then expand on it with more fantasy. Even that cited moron only dared to say UK economy was already recovering starting in 1978 after acknowledging 27% inflation in 1975. Whereas, you want to base on his writing to argue that UK economy was doing great from 1945 to 1980! Do you not realize 1978 to 1980 only accounted for about 5% of 1945-1980? Not to mention his ridiculous argument that UK standards of living improved 6+% in 1978 was almost entirely due to inflation deflator adjustment after oil price came down, not any actual improvement in income. Myriads of disasters from the 3+ decades of socialist government were still waiting to be solved.

And West Germany doesn't help your case, because West Germany is the very model of Social Democracy - and Germany still is today!

LOL. You may want to read up on Ludwig Erhard and his German Economic Miracle. What he did was the prototype free-market reform in the post-WWII era, later to be copied to great success in places like Korea, Taiwan, Chile, China, and more recently India.

thunderlips11 says

Man, your excuses for refusing to back up your assertions with data is incredible, you're like a Creationist with how you play word games to get out of the "Ain't got nuthin'" trap you're in.

Highly educated people would never dare to make assertions like you do without putting up evidence in support of their claims.

Instead of giving you one biased nonsensical source like you did, I told you to google on the subject on your own, so you can see multiple thesis papers on the subject showing different numbers but congruent enough with each other to give you a more thorough picture.

I suppose, your concept of "highly educated" means Elementary School and Junior High teaching method where the teacher gives you all the reading material.

I'm against immigrants for the same reason I'm against child labor: to make sure assholes don't overload the labor supply and put people in misery.

So, are you against women entering work force too? LOL. Labor unions are against immigrants and all laborers willing to work less than themselves (i.e. raising minimum wage) for exact the same reason: keeping other people in misery.

thunderlips11 says

1. You can easily google the topic and numbers yourself;

2. There are several methodologies arriving at different numbers; I have seen different sources that put forth numbers that span an order of magnitude; it would be irresponsible of me to cite one or two of them and claim that to be "the number."

3. That is the nature of numbers in economics. It's not a precise science. Yet, through those distributions, one is able to glean what general pattern of events took place.

1. If it's so easy for me, then it's easy for you. You're either lazy, or you are using manipulated numbers from some "Politically Incorrect Guide" Book and can't get to a scanner, nor wish to reveal the source as being "Von Mises Newsletter, Sep 1999, Volume 666, Issue 1313" lest we laugh at you.

2. If they're all in same ballpark, that will do. Don't hold back for us on that point.

3. blah blah blah. Word Salad.

If you actually googled, you'd know by now the thesis papers are quite complex and not easily summarized. No they have nothing to do with what you mentioned above.

Reality says

Instead of giving you one biased nonsensical source like you did, I told you to google on the subject on your own, so you can see multiple thesis papers on the subject showing different numbers but congruent enough with each other to give you a more thorough picture.

Reality says

If you actually googled, you'd know by now the thesis papers are quite complex and not easily summarized. No they have nothing to do with what you mentioned above.

I'm not doing your homework for you.

When you consistently refuse to put up data that you say is so prevalent, one can only conclude your are arguing by assertion.

"My supporting data over the place, easy to get, yet it's too hard for me to make it say what I want it to say, so I'm not putting anything up."