Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am really amused that there are people who think life in America was so much better than it is today.
It seems to me they have fabricated some kind of technicolor fairy tale that people lived relatively stress-free lives in Disney-like Victorian villages with access to all kinds of cultural and recreational activities awaiting them.
Sheesh!
Here is a picture of the world of my Great Grand-parents ... working in sweat shops to make ends meet, always going to funerals of children who died of treatable diseases and malnutrition, living in over-crowded tenement apartments in the city, not knowing what a "vacation" was, sweltering in the summer and freezing in the winter ... hey, they weren't even considered "poor" because they all had jobs, clothes, a roof over their heads, and food in the pantry (they even owned a gold wedding ring, a pair of silver candle-sticks, a lace table cloth, and always had a quarter to see a vaudeville show on Saturday night ... no, they were not considered poor).
Now, look at those tenements.
Were they over-crowded? Yes.
Air-conditioned in summer? No. They were hot in summer.
Cold in winter? Yes. The only heat came from the coal burning stove in the kitchen/parlor.
Bathrooms? Out house in the back. After WW1, one flush toilet per floor - shared by different families.
Take a bath? A pail, a bar of soap, a washcloth, and a tin basin on the kitchen floor.
Infested with roaches, mice and rats? Yes, you bet!
So you can see I'm not making this up that the cost of living was a LOT LOWER and therefore the standard of living was a lot higher during the time we were without a central bank read this:
<<
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) had been on a continuous decline during the 1800's. Only twice during this time did it increase briefly, once during the War of 1812 and another due to the Civil War. By 1912 the Cost Of Living in the country was extremely low.
After over one hundred of years of decline the CPI as well as Inflation rose continuously. Once the Federal Reserve Act was passed the cost of maintaining the Debt to Foreign Bankers was detrimental to the life of America's average working family.
It was only twenty years later (1933) that the Bankers orchestrated the Great Depression, literally Bankrupting the Country. Before it was over, through Foreclosures the Banking Elite took possession of over thirty percent of America's Farmland.>>
This article talks about how central banking has affected our Freedom.
"It (FREEDOM) has been lost in modern times as the Dollar has lost 96 percent of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve takeover in 1913. It takes almost $100 today to buy what $1 would buy in 1913."
So if this is the case, you guys who think you are so smart and think that an income of $750 was minimal back then and wouldn't provide a living like $40k would today IF that was even what most Americans make - which it isn't, try multiplying it by 100 times or adding 2 zeros and you have a $75,000 income.
I don't think we'd be hurting like we are today if every family had an earner making that much. Back then remember, there was generally just one income earner.
Here's another accounting of what happened:
<<
To be sure, there was a massive deflation of the money supply, especially in the years 1839 to 1843, and a similarly massive decline in prices. So why wasn't this a 'severe depression' as Lowenstein wrongly avers? As Rothbard writes on this:
“Evidently, the 1839–43 contraction and deflation was a healthy event for the economy, since it liquidated unsound investments, debts, and banks, including the pernicious Bank of the United States....
[ Isn't the above what Ron Paul has been saying OVER AND OVER? How can we many Americans be so OBTUSE?]
...But didn’t the massive deflation have catastrophic effects—on production, trade, and employment—as we have generally been led to believe? Oddly enough, no. It is true that real investment fell by 23 percent during the four years of deflation, but, in contrast, real consumption increased by 21 percent and real GNP by 16 percent during this period. It seems that only the initial months of the contraction worked a hardship. And most of the deflation period was an era of economic growth.”
The big government politicians who invented the horrible Jim Crow laws didn't save us. They came after the fact as usual. Blacks made more gains in management level position in the few years before the CRA than the few years after.
No one has a right to anothers property. You're work is your property. What next? Government going to come into your private business and tell you you can't have a vending machine because the chips are unhealthy? Or tell the business they cannot allow smoking? (too late on that one) Or tell a football team they cannot leave for Baltimore?
Government cannot be moral. They were the ones who thought it was immoral for whites to marry blacks.
As far as government is concerned, property rights matter. Society should handle the rest.
Agreed
You had to throw that jab in there, didn't you? Well, in that case the fans spoke! The NFL knew of the importance of keeping football in Cleveland. At any rate, I don't think the nanny state knows no boundaries when it comes to banning things. Those who support bans... well... just remember, they'll find something that they hold dear to ban.
You ARE missing the point. Back then LOTS of people including lots of the working class had houses and families and only ONE of them had to work to keep that standard of living. Forget about the fact that middle class families had maids. Today you need TWO incomes just to make ends meet.
Most people today could live like in 1850 with only one income too, we choose not too because we want things like air conditioning and indoor plumbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
They wouldn't have WANTED a TV or a computer then.
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
They had a heck of a lot better quality of food than we do today even if they did grow it themselves AND they had fewer chronic and degenerative diseases than we do today.
No, they didn't. You want to eat an apple in January you go to the store and buy an apple, for them January fruits and veggies meant eating only canned goods because it wasn't the growing season. People in Omaha can buy fresh fish from the ocean. Their fruits and veggies were far smaller and riddled with pests. There is absolutely no comparison of food availability and quality, despite what your fear mongering tainted food websites tell you.
I am really amused that there are people who think life in America was so much better than it is today.
It seems to me they have fabricated some kind of technicolor fairy tale that people lived relatively stress-free lives in Disney-like Victorian villages with access to all kinds of cultural and recreational activities awaiting them.
It is simply the most unbelievable case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. She has decided that creating a central banking system made life miserable so in her mind that is how history must be cast. Everyone was happy and prosperous with no central bank, everything sucked afterwards.
Most people today could live like in 1850 with only one income too, we choose not too because we want things like air conditioning and indoor plumbing.
lol
No, they didn't. You want to eat an apple in January you go to the store and buy an apple, for them January fruits and veggies meant eating only canned goods because it wasn't the growing season. People in Omaha can buy fresh fish from the ocean. Their fruits and veggies were far smaller and riddled with pests. There is absolutely no comparison of food availability and quality, despite what your fear mongering tainted food websites tell you.
Not to mention meat was often stored in less than ideal conditions at room temperature and USDA regulations for sanitary handling were non-existent. I doubt those looking back fondly with rose-colored glasses have ever read The Jungle.
Sorry, I'll take our regulated, modern society any day of the week.
You ARE missing the point. Back then LOTS of people including lots of the working class had houses and families and only ONE of them had to work to keep that standard of living. Forget about the fact that middle class families had maids. Today you need TWO incomes just to make ends meet. Few if any middle class families have maids today and two incomes are needed to pay the maid if they have one. Few if any upper middle class families have maids let along full staffs and chefs like they did back then.
And comparing amenities is ridiculous.
What you are calling "amenities" don 't even cost us that much anymore. You can get your stupid iPad and wide screen TV for next to nothing these days. They enjoyed whatever were the state of the art amenities back then as we do today. They wouldn't have WANTED a TV or a computer then. Their horses and carriages were a lot more expensive to keep up I bet.. than a car is. Some of the small wooden sailboats they had back then would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build today. They had CULTURE they had BOOKS theatre, music, art which only a few of us partake in today because most of us can't afford it or are so dumbed down we aren't even interested in it. They had a heck of a lot better quality of food than we do today even if they did grow it themselves AND they had fewer chronic and degenerative diseases than we do today. They weren't STRESSED OUT like we are today. Today some of us aren't even ALLOWED to grow our own food as it is AGAINST THE LAW thanks to Obama's "Food Safety Modernization Act" which is nothing about safety and does nothing good for the American public.
There is NO COMPARISON. Their quality of life was better back then and cost them a heck of a lot less to get a heck of a lot more than it costs us today.
These three paragraphs are the biggest load of BS assumptions I think I have ever read on this board, and you don't have the ability to back up ANY of it because you never lived in that period of time. You can wax poetic all you want about the 19th century, but the fact is that people lived shorter, harder lives, were less productive, were less educated, were less technologically advanced, were less tolerant, had less free time, lived in dirtier cities, had slower transportation of people and goods (again, less productivity), had more pollution, did nothing to protect resources or the environment, and had worse hygiene and sanitary conditions. Streets filled with mud when it rained. People urinated and defecated in buckets and then threw it into the street, which then ran into rivers and contaminated local water supplies. Buildings were covered in black soot and lung disease was widespread. Arms and legs were regularly lost in machinery at pre-OSHA factories. Children as young as seven and eight worked 10 hour days in manufacturing plants to help make ends meet at home, and many ended up permanently disfigured. Average life expectancy was 48 years in 1900. It was 38 years in 1842. Try reading actual books written by people in the 19th century and early 20th century instead of creating some magical utopia in your head.
How do you know they wouldn't have wanted a TV back then? Do you have a time machine?
How many average working people back then owned sailboats?? Do you really think the average farm laborer or day laborer had a sailboat waiting at the dock? They were just as out of reach to most people back then as they are today.
You can't afford a $25 ticket to community theatre? You can't afford a $15 ticket to the local art museum? You can't afford a $5 cover charge to see a live local band? Art, music, and theater is more accessible today to a wider audience than it EVER was in the 19th century. Could a 19th century working class American go online and download Beethoven's 9th Symphony for free or view the Mona Lisa from the comfort of their armchair? Did they have billions of pieces of information and data at their fingertips for a minimal monthly fee? Could the rural farmer (who was lucky to see the big city once a year) Google the results for the 1896 Athens Olympics half a world away?
Your whole argument that life was better back then is beyond absurd. It sounds more like you haven't figured out how to live a fulfilling life, and instead of trying to find a solution, you choose to rant about the supposed ills of modern society.
Last edited by mustang84; 08-07-2012 at 12:11 AM..
That might be, but SO WHAT?
Gold is just a commodity - and a volitile one at that. Sometimes it goes up in value - sometimes it goes down. Over the last few years gold prices have skyrocketed - but prior to that it was flat for 20+ years and in the year prior to that prices crashed and in the year prior to that they skyrocket. Gold prices move around - just like ANY other commodity.
Ken
Actually the point about inflation is quite important and how they have changed the calculation of such. Substituting hamburger in place of steak, for example, is ridiculous govt "logic". True COL has been convoluted.
Gold is a very important part of "shadow" banking.
In that realm it is more than a commodity, regardless of whether you are a fan of gold backed currency.
Essentially there is gold "backing" or "collateral", but that special value has been taken away from "Joe Citizen" when they rounded up all the gold. The current audits on the FED also show the gold "collateral" that was part of the federal reserve act, I believe. Since then, they have tried to "obfuscate" that value as well. Just one more way certain few get to have their cake and eat it too.
These three paragraphs are the biggest load of BS assumptions I think I have ever read on this board, and you don't have the ability to back up ANY of it because you never lived in that period of time. You can wax poetic all you want about the 19th century, but the fact is that people lived shorter, harder lives, were less productive, were less educated, were less technologically advanced, were less tolerant, had less free time, lived in dirtier cities, had slower transportation of people and goods (again, less productivity), had more pollution, did nothing to protect resources or the environment, and had worse hygiene and sanitary conditions. Streets filled with mud when it rained. People urinated and defecated in buckets and then threw it into the street, which then ran into rivers and contaminated local water supplies. Buildings were covered in black soot and lung disease was widespread. Arms and legs were regularly lost in machinery at pre-OSHA factories. Children as young as seven and eight worked 10 hour days in manufacturing plants to help make ends meet at home, and many ended up permanently disfigured. Average life expectancy was 48 years in 1900. It was 38 years in 1842. Try reading actual books written by people in the 19th century and early 20th century instead of creating some magical utopia in your head.
How do you know they wouldn't have wanted a TV back then? Do you have a time machine?
How many average working people back then owned sailboats?? Do you really think the average farm laborer or day laborer had a sailboat waiting at the dock? They were just as out of reach to most people back then as they are today.
You can't afford a $25 ticket to community theatre? You can't afford a $15 ticket to the local art museum? You can't afford a $5 cover charge to see a live local band? Art, music, and theater is more accessible today to a wider audience than it EVER was in the 19th century. Could a 19th century working class American go online and download Beethoven's 9th Symphony for free or view the Mona Lisa from the comfort of their armchair? Did they have billions of pieces of information and data at their fingertips for a minimal monthly fee? Could the rural farmer (who was lucky to see the big city once a year) Google the results for the 1896 Athens Olympics half a world away?
Your whole argument that life was better back then is beyond absurd. It sounds more like you haven't figured out how to live a fulfilling life, and instead of trying to find a solution, you choose to rant about the supposed ills of modern society.
I don't like to generalize. Quality of life is very specific to individuals. However, true inflation, has put many people on the street. During the depression this was also bad. However, the guy living in the woods behind the Safeway I would argue is not better off than many from the early 1900s.
When you could go take care of yourself, being self-sufficient, however crudely, imo you were far better off than many today. Simply because most today ARE NOT self-sufficient due to our current models and anything that could occur to reveal this to specific individuals shows how badly one can suffer in a very short term.
The comment made earlier about farming is significant. Because farming is self-sufficient. Anyone nowadays trying to become self-sufficient will quickly find out how much harder this is to do because of intrusive "Big Brother". Self-sufficiency is key because it gives an individual much more control. Without this control you are far more at the mercy of system changes that occur.
Most people today could live like in 1850 with only one income too, we choose not too because we want things like air conditioning and indoor plumbing.
lol
No, they didn't. You want to eat an apple in January you go to the store and buy an apple, for them January fruits and veggies meant eating only canned goods because it wasn't the growing season. People in Omaha can buy fresh fish from the ocean. Their fruits and veggies were far smaller and riddled with pests. There is absolutely no comparison of food availability and quality, despite what your fear mongering tainted food websites tell you.
I'm not talking about CONVENIENCE like you just described. I'm talking about QUALITY as in NUTRIENTS and SAFETY and FLAVOR. I'm talking about eating fresh whole foods that have not been picked weeks ago and traveled thousands of miles after being sprayed and nuked and had their genetic make-up changed before it appears in the store. The down grade in quality and safety is hardly worth the trade-off for convenience sake.
Give me 25% fewer choices and a 100% guarantee that it WHOLESOME and safe and unadulterated NUTRIENT DENSE and picked within the last 3 days ANY DAY over 25% more variety for food that will do more harm than good if you consume it ---- ANY DAY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, in that case the fans spoke! The NFL knew of the importance of keeping football in Cleveland. At any rate, I don't think the nanny state knows no boundaries when it comes to banning things. Those who support bans... well... just remember, they'll find something that they hold dear to ban.
