New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Things are going very well.

Arkady

President
If you get your news mainly from a conservative outlet like Fox News, you may be convinced that the nation and the world are going to hell in a handbasket. Even if you get your news mainly from a less partisan for-profit corporate outlet like CNN, that may be your impression, since the very nature of the news business means there's more profit to be had in covering sudden, exciting stories, which tend to be negative, than slower, big-picture trends, which tend to be positive. The slower trends are proving much more consequential, but that doesn't make them more entertaining, so the shareholders are better served with a negative focus. Yet, if you take a step back, it's clear things are going unusually well in both the nation and the world.

Start with the US. Real GDP per capita has never been higher, in the whole history of our nation. The gap between the current era and prior eras is enormous:

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year

Take a look and you'll see that even after controlling for inflation and population growth, we're about 15% richer than we were at the peak of the Clinton years, about 48% richer than when Reagan left office, one and a quarter times as rich as at the end of the wondrous Kennedy/Johnson era, and well over three times as rich as in the mid-1950s.

Unfortunately, most of that gain has gone to the very rich, so when it comes to median incomes, there's been mostly stagnation during the Bush/Obama years. But, even there, the big-picture is one of improvement. Median real family incomes today are higher than at any point in our nation's history prior to 1998. Again, the improvements are substantial in the big picture. Even after accounting for inflation, the median family earns about 8% more than at the peak of the Reagan years, 29% more than at the end of the Kennedy/Johnson era, and about twice as much as in the mid-1950s. That's all the more impressive when you take into account how much family size has fallen in that time.

The picture is less impressive when it comes to poverty, since we hit an all-time low way back in 1973. But, still, poverty rates today are lower than at any point since the mid-1960s. As recently as the Eisenhower years, the poverty rate was 22.2%, compared to 14.8% today. And the improvement has been vastly greater for blacks -- with a poverty rate of 55.1% in the late Eisenhower era, compared to 26.0% today.

There is a long list of indicators of social and economic well-being that are currently as good as they've ever been in our history: the longest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest teen pregnancy rate, the lowest high school drop-out rate, the highest rate of higher education, etc. And there are others that aren't quite at all-time record points, but are tantalizingly close. For example, the murder rate today is 4.5/100k, which is lower than at any point in the last 59 years. Another half-point of decline will take us to the all-time low.

The employment situation is also decent in historical context. Currently, despite the Boomers moving into retirement, a larger share of our population is employed than at any point in US history prior to 1978. Right now, there are 597 jobs for every 1000 adults in the US, compared to 580 or less, per 1000, in the 1940s through 1960s. We got spoiled by very high participation rates from the late 1970s through late 1990s, but when you compare to US history generally, rather than to that one brief period with an enormous demographic bulge in its peak working years, we're doing very well.

It's not just in the US that things are doing better, either. Globally, life expectancies are soaring. People in the nation with the lowest life expectancy today (Sierra Leone) are outliving those from the nation with the highest life expectancy in 1800 (Belgium) by ten years. Even relative to 1950, most poor countries today have people who outlive most rich countries from then (for example, a German of 1950 had about the same life expectancy of someone from Rwanda today, and an American of 1950 lived about as long as someone from Pakistan today):


Real world GDP per capita is rising even faster globally than it has been in the US.

https://www.ourworldindata.org/roser/graphs/GDPperCapita_byCountry_Since1_Maddison/GDPperCapita_byCountry_Since1_Maddison.html
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Diseases that used to kill millions just a few years back are now virtually extinct and some of the biggest killers, like Malaria, are heading consistently and rapidly downward. Literacy is soaring. And, despite big news about small conflicts in places like Syria, we probably are living through the most peaceful era in human history:

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en

There has been a gigantic decline in deaths by war. Here's an excellent discussion of the trends:


When you look at various other measures of global health and well-being, like infant mortality, mean height, mean IQ, literacy rates, etc., there's never been a time in history when human beings were doing as well as today. We would literally tower over our ancestors.

That's not to suggest that everything's on the upswing. When it comes to climate change, the news is ugly. 2014 was the hottest year on record, only to be exceeded by 2015, which may well be exceeded by 2016. The last 15 years have all been among the 16 warmest years on record. But, even there, there's some hope. Per capita carbon emissions have been plunging in advanced nations and the cost of PV generation is creeping very close to the cost of coal -- a little policy nudge might be all it takes to halt the carbon push on climate with minimal economic fallout.
 

Arkady

President
If you get your news mainly from a conservative outlet like Fox News, you may be convinced that the nation and the world are going to hell in a handbasket. Even if you get your news mainly from a less partisan for-profit corporate outlet like CNN, that may be your impression, since the very nature of the news business means there's more profit to be had in covering sudden, exciting stories, which tend to be negative, than slower, big-picture trends, which tend to be positive. The slower trends are proving much more consequential, but that doesn't make them more entertaining, so the shareholders are better served with a negative focus. Yet, if you take a step back, it's clear things are going unusually well in both the nation and the world.

Start with the US. Real GDP per capita has never been higher, in the whole history of our nation. The gap between the current era and prior eras is enormous:

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year

Take a look and you'll see that even after controlling for inflation and population growth, we're about 15% richer than we were at the peak of the Clinton years, about 48% richer than when Reagan left office, one and a quarter times as rich as at the end of the wondrous Kennedy/Johnson era, and well over three times as rich as in the mid-1950s.

Unfortunately, most of that gain has gone to the very rich, so when it comes to median incomes, there's been mostly stagnation during the Bush/Obama years. But, even there, the big-picture is one of improvement. Median real family incomes today are higher than at any point in our nation's history prior to 1998. Again, the improvements are substantial in the big picture. Even after accounting for inflation, the median family earns about 8% more than at the peak of the Reagan years, 29% more than at the end of the Kennedy/Johnson era, and about twice as much as in the mid-1950s. That's all the more impressive when you take into account how much family size has fallen in that time.

The picture is less impressive when it comes to poverty, since we hit an all-time low way back in 1973. But, still, poverty rates today are lower than at any point since the mid-1960s. As recently as the Eisenhower years, the poverty rate was 22.2%, compared to 14.8% today. And the improvement has been vastly greater for blacks -- with a poverty rate of 55.1% in the late Eisenhower era, compared to 26.0% today.

There is a long list of indicators of social and economic well-being that are currently as good as they've ever been in our history: the longest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest teen pregnancy rate, the lowest high school drop-out rate, the highest rate of higher education, etc. And there are others that aren't quite at all-time record points, but are tantalizingly close. For example, the murder rate today is 4.5/100k, which is lower than at any point in the last 59 years. Another half-point of decline will take us to the all-time low.

The employment situation is also decent in historical context. Currently, despite the Boomers moving into retirement, a larger share of our population is employed than at any point in US history prior to 1978. Right now, there are 597 jobs for every 1000 adults in the US, compared to 580 or less, per 1000, in the 1940s through 1960s. We got spoiled by very high participation rates from the late 1970s through late 1990s, but when you compare to US history generally, rather than to that one brief period with an enormous demographic bulge in its peak working years, we're doing very well.

It's not just in the US that things are doing better, either. Globally, life expectancies are soaring. People in the nation with the lowest life expectancy today (Sierra Leone) are outliving those from the nation with the highest life expectancy in 1800 (Belgium) by ten years. Even relative to 1950, most poor countries today have people who outlive most rich countries from then (for example, a German of 1950 had about the same life expectancy of someone from Rwanda today, and an American of 1950 lived about as long as someone from Pakistan today):


Real world GDP per capita is rising even faster globally than it has been in the US.

https://www.ourworldindata.org/roser/graphs/GDPperCapita_byCountry_Since1_Maddison/GDPperCapita_byCountry_Since1_Maddison.html
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Diseases that used to kill millions just a few years back are now virtually extinct and some of the biggest killers, like Malaria, are heading consistently and rapidly downward. Literacy is soaring. And, despite big news about small conflicts in places like Syria, we probably are living through the most peaceful era in human history:

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en

There has been a gigantic decline in deaths by war. Here's an excellent discussion of the trends:


When you look at various other measures of global health and well-being, like infant mortality, mean height, mean IQ, literacy rates, etc., there's never been a time in history when human beings were doing as well as today. We would literally tower over our ancestors.

That's not to suggest that everything's on the upswing. When it comes to climate change, the news is ugly. 2014 was the hottest year on record, only to be exceeded by 2015, which may well be exceeded by 2016. The last 15 years have all been among the 16 warmest years on record. But, even there, there's some hope. Per capita carbon emissions have been plunging in advanced nations and the cost of PV generation is creeping very close to the cost of coal -- a little policy nudge might be all it takes to halt the carbon push on climate with minimal economic fallout.
Odd, I got a response from Barbella, and then it vanished before I could reply. No loss, though-- it wasn't substantive.

Do people have thoughts on the substantive materials? Do you think I'm overlooking major ways in which things are getting worse? Or do you admit things are getting better, but still think it's a big deal they aren't getting better faster? What do you think of the political implications of so many people being convinced things are getting worse when, in fact, they're getting better? Do you think the media pessimism is strategic, or simply a result of the market forces, as I've suggested? Is there some way we can give the broader public a clearer view of how things are actually going?
 

Lukey

Senator
Hahahaha! If everything was going so well, we wouldn't need your propaganda effort here to try and convince us that we are better off than we feel!!!
 

Jen

Senator
If you get your news mainly from a conservative outlet like Fox News, you may be convinced that the nation and the world are going to hell in a handbasket. Even if you get your news mainly from a less partisan for-profit corporate outlet like CNN, that may be your impression, since the very nature of the news business means there's more profit to be had in covering sudden, exciting stories, which tend to be negative, than slower, big-picture trends, which tend to be positive. The slower trends are proving much more consequential, but that doesn't make them more entertaining, so the shareholders are better served with a negative focus. Yet, if you take a step back, it's clear things are going unusually well in both the nation and the world.

Start with the US. Real GDP per capita has never been higher, in the whole history of our nation. The gap between the current era and prior eras is enormous:

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year

Take a look and you'll see that even after controlling for inflation and population growth, we're about 15% richer than we were at the peak of the Clinton years, about 48% richer than when Reagan left office, one and a quarter times as rich as at the end of the wondrous Kennedy/Johnson era, and well over three times as rich as in the mid-1950s.

Unfortunately, most of that gain has gone to the very rich, so when it comes to median incomes, there's been mostly stagnation during the Bush/Obama years. But, even there, the big-picture is one of improvement. Median real family incomes today are higher than at any point in our nation's history prior to 1998. Again, the improvements are substantial in the big picture. Even after accounting for inflation, the median family earns about 8% more than at the peak of the Reagan years, 29% more than at the end of the Kennedy/Johnson era, and about twice as much as in the mid-1950s. That's all the more impressive when you take into account how much family size has fallen in that time.

The picture is less impressive when it comes to poverty, since we hit an all-time low way back in 1973. But, still, poverty rates today are lower than at any point since the mid-1960s. As recently as the Eisenhower years, the poverty rate was 22.2%, compared to 14.8% today. And the improvement has been vastly greater for blacks -- with a poverty rate of 55.1% in the late Eisenhower era, compared to 26.0% today.

There is a long list of indicators of social and economic well-being that are currently as good as they've ever been in our history: the longest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest teen pregnancy rate, the lowest high school drop-out rate, the highest rate of higher education, etc. And there are others that aren't quite at all-time record points, but are tantalizingly close. For example, the murder rate today is 4.5/100k, which is lower than at any point in the last 59 years. Another half-point of decline will take us to the all-time low.

The employment situation is also decent in historical context. Currently, despite the Boomers moving into retirement, a larger share of our population is employed than at any point in US history prior to 1978. Right now, there are 597 jobs for every 1000 adults in the US, compared to 580 or less, per 1000, in the 1940s through 1960s. We got spoiled by very high participation rates from the late 1970s through late 1990s, but when you compare to US history generally, rather than to that one brief period with an enormous demographic bulge in its peak working years, we're doing very well.

It's not just in the US that things are doing better, either. Globally, life expectancies are soaring. People in the nation with the lowest life expectancy today (Sierra Leone) are outliving those from the nation with the highest life expectancy in 1800 (Belgium) by ten years. Even relative to 1950, most poor countries today have people who outlive most rich countries from then (for example, a German of 1950 had about the same life expectancy of someone from Rwanda today, and an American of 1950 lived about as long as someone from Pakistan today):


Real world GDP per capita is rising even faster globally than it has been in the US.

https://www.ourworldindata.org/roser/graphs/GDPperCapita_byCountry_Since1_Maddison/GDPperCapita_byCountry_Since1_Maddison.html
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Diseases that used to kill millions just a few years back are now virtually extinct and some of the biggest killers, like Malaria, are heading consistently and rapidly downward. Literacy is soaring. And, despite big news about small conflicts in places like Syria, we probably are living through the most peaceful era in human history:

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en

There has been a gigantic decline in deaths by war. Here's an excellent discussion of the trends:


When you look at various other measures of global health and well-being, like infant mortality, mean height, mean IQ, literacy rates, etc., there's never been a time in history when human beings were doing as well as today. We would literally tower over our ancestors.

That's not to suggest that everything's on the upswing. When it comes to climate change, the news is ugly. 2014 was the hottest year on record, only to be exceeded by 2015, which may well be exceeded by 2016. The last 15 years have all been among the 16 warmest years on record. But, even there, there's some hope. Per capita carbon emissions have been plunging in advanced nations and the cost of PV generation is creeping very close to the cost of coal -- a little policy nudge might be all it takes to halt the carbon push on climate with minimal economic fallout.
So nice for you to believe the cooked books you've been fed.
Charts....... prove everything, don't they.
 
W

Wolfert Webber

Guest
Odd, I got a response from Barbella, and then it vanished before I could reply. No loss, though-- it wasn't substantive.

Do people have thoughts on the substantive materials? Do you think I'm overlooking major ways in which things are getting worse? Or do you admit things are getting better, but still think it's a big deal they aren't getting better faster? What do you think of the political implications of so many people being convinced things are getting worse when, in fact, they're getting better? Do you think the media pessimism is strategic, or simply a result of the market forces, as I've suggested? Is there some way we can give the broader public a clearer view of how things are actually going?
If everything is going so well, why is Hillary compelled to offer debt free college, huge job programs, "justice for the oppressed" etc?
 

Arkady

President
So nice for you to believe the cooked books you've been fed.
Charts....... prove everything, don't they.
Note that the "books," in this case, have been compiled by a very wide assortment of different people, governments, and organizations, over the course of decades (and in some cases, centuries). If it comforts you to think that those tens of thousands of people in dozens of countries, each with wildly different incentives, are all involved in some vast, shadowy conspiracy to cook the books, over vast stretches of time, then go ahead and wallow in that theory. Out here in the real world, though, that looks loony as hell.
 
Last edited:

Arkady

President
If everything is going so well, why is Hillary compelled to offer debt free college, huge job programs, "justice for the oppressed" etc?
She's not compelled to. But just because things are going well, that doesn't mean they can't be made better. The huge improvements we've seen over the decades aren't inevitable. They're the result of changes in policy, among other things. For example, why did the poverty rate for blacks drop by more than half since the Eisenhower years? In that time we had major policies designed to address black poverty, including the Civil Rights Act, and federally mandated desegregation. One can, of course, think that we should not just sit back and hope black poverty rates continue to decline to white parody without any further policy improvements. But, obviously, the mere fact someone advocates for policy changes does not in any way negate the fact there's been such improvement.
 

Arkady

President
Hahahaha! If everything was going so well, we wouldn't need your propaganda effort here to try and convince us that we are better off than we feel!!!
There's constant propaganda to convince people things are going worse, so if the optimists unilaterally disarm, what do you think the impact will be? I understand it makes you uncomfortable to see that things are going better, and so you'd like to silence those who point it out, but the facts are what they are, and if you understand your alternate reality is so fragile that it's threatened by anyone pointing to the facts, perhaps that should tell you something.
 

Arkady

President
Isn't that what it always is? An effort to make you believe things are better than they actually are?
I'm pointing to real-world facts. That's an effort to make you believe things are exactly as good as they are. You'll notice I'm not arguing that the stats here are skewed and that things are actually better than they are. For example, I'm not saying "Real GDP Per Capita has actually risen much more in the US than indicated by the stats, because the government systematically undercounts the value of intellectual property, which is an increasingly important factor in GDP." I could do that, if I wanted. But my intention here isn't to convince people things are better than they are. It's simply to educate people about how things actually are.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
And, despite big news about small conflicts in places like Syria, we probably are living through the most peaceful era in human history:
This is why your post is a joke. Syrian government has killed over 400k people and has single handily sparked the biggest refugee crisis that Europe has seen since the close of WWII.

It is not a small conflict, the Russians are now operating in Iran using Iranian bases to bomb rebels that we are more then likely training. This Administration through its sheer incompetence has allowed Russia to become a major power broker in the Middle East for the first time since the 1970's.

On top of all that this President had signed a deal with the Iranians that guarantees that will have nuclear weapons and to make matters worse.....payed them a ransom for hostages.

China is freely building fake islands to push territorial rights, Russia will more then likely make a major push to take the rest of the Ukraine and perhaps even threaten a few former Satellites that are now apart of NATO.

All because our current President has been a international laughing stock since his "red line" in Syria.
 
W

Wolfert Webber

Guest
She's not compelled to. But just because things are going well, that doesn't mean they can't be made better. The huge improvements we've seen over the decades aren't inevitable. They're the result of changes in policy, among other things. For example, why did the poverty rate for blacks drop by more than half since the Eisenhower years? In that time we had major policies designed to address black poverty, including the Civil Rights Act, and federally mandated desegregation. One can, of course, think that we should not just sit back and hope black poverty rates continue to decline to white parody without any further policy improvements. But, obviously, the mere fact someone advocates for policy changes does not in any way negate the fact there's been such improvement.
The huge improvements went to the 1%.

The rest, left out.
 

Arkady

President
This is why your post is a joke. Syrian government has killed over 400k people and has single handily sparked the biggest refugee crisis that Europe has seen since the close of WWII.

Yes. Depending on which count you use, about 400,000 Syrians have been killed over the course of about a five-year civil war. How does that compare with death tolls in prior wars? WWII lasted about the same length of time and had somewhere in the ballpark of 60 million deaths. If the Syrian Civil War continues at the same pace for another 750 years or so, it'll be equivalent. In the 90s, there were between 800,000 and 2 million Rwandans killed in about four months. In the 80s, the Iran/Iraq War killed around a million. Somewhere between 800,000 and 3.8 million were killed in the Vietnam wars. 1.2 million were killed in just three years in North Korea. Between 2.5 and 5.4 million were killed in the second Congo War, between 1998 and 2003. The Chinese Civil War and the Russian Revolution EACH killed somewhere in the range of 8 million.

The Syrian civil war and refugee crisis is terrible, but in the context of historical global wars, it's a minor conflict with a small humanitarian fallout.

China is freely building fake islands to push territorial rights, Russia will more then likely make a major push to take the rest of the Ukraine and perhaps even threaten a few former Satellites that are now apart of NATO.

All because our current President has been a international laughing stock since his "red line" in Syria.
Right wingers have such weirdly short memories. Do you recall Russia's invasion of Georgia? Do you remember who was president? Are you aware that China's operations in the Spratly islands, to extend territorial claims, date back many decades and heated up in the Bush years, not under Obama?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/09/how-the-bush-administration-should-handle-china
http://paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com/2008/01/china-continues-to-fortify-claims-in.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JB22Ad02.html
http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-islands-history-timeline.htm
 

Arkady

President
The huge improvements went to the 1%.

The rest, left out.
Larger improvements went to the rich than to others, but read my posts and you'll see that there have been significant improvements at the median level, as well, and that many major socioeconomic stats have either reached an all-time good point, or are very near it.
 
W

Wolfert Webber

Guest
Larger improvements went to the rich than to others, but read my posts and you'll see that there have been significant improvements at the median level, as well, and that many major socioeconomic stats have either reached an all-time good point, or are very near it.
The last time I clicked on a link posted by a Leftist my computer was hijacked by ransomware.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
The Syrian civil war and refugee crisis is terrible, but in the context of historical global wars, it's a minor conflict with a small humanitarian fallout.
Do you actually fool anyone with this? Sooooooooo in the context of "historical global wars" we lost virtually nobody during the Iraq war correct? Not nearly as many as an ill advised defense of Korea and Vietnam (all buy Democratic Presidents by the way) but I imagine you still used those 4K casualties to beat Republicans over the head with....even though by your own measurement above it was........nothing?

Hypocrisy in "historical context"o_O is hysterical.



Right wingers have such weirdly short memories. Do you recall Russia's invasion of Georgia? Do you remember who was president? Are you aware that China's operations in the Spratly islands, to extend territorial claims, date back many decades and heated up in the Bush years, not under Obama?
I do recall Russia's invasion of Georgia, again it was Russia taking advantage of a weak President. Putin knew that Bush was dead politically and could do nothing about it.

The difference today is that Putin knows that Obama was never going to do anything about....well anything. He certainly took advantage of an incompetent and just generally stupid President and pushed his agenda and will continue to do so.

Yes, the disputes in the Spratly Islands have been going on for years but it was not until recently (2014) they actually started building to increase their territory.

Soooooooo sadly your defense is that, things are lovely....as long as i can blame someone else for things that are actually not......
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
just like you posted if only more money was given to the Hoods all would be well and only reason they rioting is from being poor.......

upload_2016-8-17_12-12-17.pngno one with living brain cells falls for you BS
 

Arkady

President
Do you actually fool anyone with this? Sooooooooo in the context of "historical global wars" we lost virtually nobody during the Iraq war correct?
Depends who you mean by "we." We, humankind, lost a great many people in Bush's historical blunder in Iraq. A Lancet survey put the death toll above 600,000 in just the first three years of the conflict. Other methods have put it anywhere from around 100,000 to over 1 million (with methodology making a big difference, since you could count just violent deaths or enhanced mortality thanks to the destruction of infrastructure, etc.)

I do recall Russia's invasion of Georgia, again it was Russia taking advantage of a weak President. Putin knew that Bush was dead politically and could do nothing about it.
Do you recall the Russian invasion of Chechnya during the Clinton administration? Do you remember the Russians spending year after year defying Reagan's demands that they exit Afghanistan (and do you remember Reagan eventually caving in on his ultimatum about never negotiating an arms deal until they pulled out?) Do you remember them rolling into Hungary? Czechoslovakia? Poland? Since the time of FDR, I can only think of a single administration in which the Russians DIDN'T do something of that sort: GHW Bush.... and that's not because he was seen as a particularly strong president, but rather because the Soviet system happened to be in the midst of a collapse that left them unable to project power for a few years. Were there ANY strong presidents, in your mind, in that time? Why didn't Johnson's presence in the Oval Office keep the Soviets out of Czechoslovakia or Ike's keep them out of Hungary? Why didn't Truman keep them from clamping down on East Germany? Why did they confront Kennedy in Cuba? Etc. This isn't about the perceived strength of the American president. It's about the Russian desire for a buffer zone of controlled territories, and their calculation that the US won't intervene if it's far enough out of the way of our direct interests.

The utter historical ignorance of right-wingers really says something ugly about the state of education in much of this country. It leaves them prey to right-wing propaganda that imagines Russian aggression is something new and attributable to Obama's style.

As for Pew, they collect the data. The data is consistent with similar single-country polls conducted by other organizations. If you don't like what the data says, that's because it contradicts your false assumptions.
Have you seen me taking issue with the data? If not, what's the point of your post?

Yes, the disputes in the Spratly Islands have been going on for years but it was not until recently (2014) they actually started building to increase their territory.
Incorrect. See the links.
 
Top