|
| perhaps the one third/two thirds path we`ve chosen has worked for the last 3 decades, but it doesn`t seem sustainable with the entitlements and the social decline in the bottom 1/3. that crime and other debauchery costs and affects the upper 2/3rds. i wouldn`t call the 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s "protectionist" maybe because we weren`t bold enough to go that far out on the modern monetary theory limb or what. there was poor people, even Jesus talked about "the poor will always be among you" but the cafe owner, hardware store employee, car salesman, insurance salesman, the banker all were kind of in the same boat economically. communities had the 80% middle class 10% poor and 10% rich, that was sustainable.
the problem is, even if we can accept and afford (which we can`t) shoveling money to the lower class, there`s a "custer/native american issue" in that the lower classes aren`t negative towards socialism... "one man/ one vote" and there are plenty of community organizers that will get out the vote. we are only free until the next election, in the past there wasn`t the huge gap between the political parties, there was plenty of layers where one election going the wrong way could result in literal land reform.
i think, even if our growth would`ve been slower had we been a little more "protectionist" at least the bottom third would be less reliant on entitlements and had skin in the game, too many are in a spot where if they perceive things aren`t working, they`re more apt to do a 180 politically. | |
|
what i`ve observed about free trade.
