How did the USA lead the world by so much in the 1950s?

[redfish1]

People from that generation as a whole had a better work ethic because of the enviroments they were raised in and it was before corporations started taking over this country and destroying the true middle class.
in the 1950's companies didn't hire consultants to replace veteran engineers with new college grads or outsource blue collar jobs to china. Business owners had these things called ethics and integrity that got in the way of stuff like that back in those days.

[kevxu]

Because essentially the rest of the industrialized world was still recovering from WW II.

[John Walmsley]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Here's a fascinating graphic look at the relative development of the nations of the world over the last two centuries.

200 countries, 200 years, 4 minutes. [VIDEO]

jtur88,

Thanks for posting the link to an interesting and highly relevant video! I looked up a 2008 program of Moyer's Journal (how I miss Moyer's insightful discussions!) in which historian and author Steve Fraser explained that we are going through a second Gilded Age, where the political system is being bought and skewed for the benefit of the rich. Fraser said, "The US is the most economically stratified society in the western world." A link to that program follows:

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS

That the disparity between rich and poor is growing ever more widely was pointed out by David Stockman, President Reagan's economic adviser, in an interview on Sunday's CNN GPS with Fareed Zakaria. He said that in 1985 the top 5% of the people in the US controlled $8 trillion of the wealth. By 2007 that figure had risen to $40 trillion of the county's wealth, or a five-fold increase in 22 years! Meanwhile, many have dropped from the middle class and the numbers of poor have increased dramatically.

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by John Walmsley

That the disparity between rich and poor is growing ever more widely was pointed out by David Stockman, President Reagan's economic adviser, in an interview on Sunday's CNN GPS with Fareed Zakaria. He said that in 1985 the top 5% of the people in the US controlled $8 trillion of the wealth. By 2007 that figure had risen to $40 trillion of the county's wealth, or a five-fold increase in 22 years! Meanwhile, many have dropped from the middle class and the numbers of poor have increased dramatically.

It has often been suggested that this is not by accident, but by design. Though I hate to admit it, I'm beginning to think it is true. If it continues, this will completely eliminate the middle class and reduce the good ol' US of A to a Second-World country.

If you want to know what this would look like, direct your gaze southward to Mexico.

-- Nighteyes

[Drover]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Yes, I expected there would be someone would handpick some pet prejudice, and point out a brief flurry to use as as proof of a broad principle. How long are you going to continue to keep flapping your wings about Chinas disastrous policy of a half century ago, to keep your head in the sand about the reality of today's global economics?

Did you notice that the USA never really pulled away from the pack, even in 1948. There were always a lot of countries very near us, and always at least several ahead of us, even as they were digging out of the ruins of a war that never touched us, except to give our profiteers purchase. Stop the video at 1948 and take a close look. Less than 2 years after the armistice, four countries to the right of the USA, and five more above it. With US industry running at peak capacity, and not a single broken window from the bombs. Already nine countries richer and/or healthier. And after that, almost everyone gaining on our smug, flatulent, imaginary superiority..

You don't see it as fascinating and tragic, that the USA never was able to use all our natural advantages to separate ourselves from the rest? The best we ever did was to momentarily take the lead by a nose.

That was because, right after WWII, most western European countries adopted strongly socialist policies, and within a couple of years of the end of WWII, had already surpassed the USA, because they had almost absolutely abolished poverty. The goal of capitalism was never to abolish poverty, and still isn't. Capitalism has no opinion about poverty and destitution, its sights are set on the other end of the spectrum.

Back to the OP. In 1950, the USA led the world largely by virtue of simply outnumbering them. We had the third largest population of any country on earth, and still do. Take sports, for example. We think we have so many great athletes, but in every Olympic games, the USA ranks about 20th in medals won per capita. But we have so much Capita, we generally manage to compete with so many rich people in so many events, we win enough medals to be second or third overall, and the NBA all-stars couldn't even beat Lithuania, and now baseball players from Caribbean islands dominate the major leagues. In fact, on a per capita basis, the USA has rarely, if ever, led the world in anything except executions and obesity and junk food. Venezuelans and Iranians, as we threaten to annihilate their countries, are actually better-fed than we are, and health care for everyone, with per capita GDP less than one-fifth of ours.

Holy crap, WTF are you talking about? Overreact much?

Pet prejudice? If observing that disastrous government and economic policies drastically shortened the lifespan of tens of millions of people, then I suppose there's no such thing as an actual tragedy in your world. I didn't even read the rest of your screed and I doubt I missed much.

[NorCal Dude]

My answer:

Brenton woods.