rickyp wrote:fate

After all, if all it takes is a unionst and progressive taxation to create a vibrant middle class, you've got to explain a lot of countries who have those things and don't have a strong middle class.

Its not all it takes, but they were the key factors in the growth of the American middle class. If you have examples of |a lot of coutnries" ..... offer them up.

As soon as you PROVE they are the key factors in American growth.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with this: "...boldness of enterprise is the foremost cause of (America's) progress, its strength, and its greatness."

Doctor Fate wrote:
Meanwhile, I'll stick with this: "...boldness of enterprise is the foremost cause of (America's) progress, its strength, and its greatness."

Here, Here.

We've been down this road before ... I don't think any minds will be changed.

Using an auto analogy, capitalism and enterprise are the engine. A lot of people focus on the wheel or gas pedal because they can't see the engine. Others focus on the airbags and ABS which are certainly important. Some of our friends worry about whether the cup holders are even distributed and whether the A/C adequately hits the rear seat. But without the engine you got nothing.

fate

As soon as you PROVE they are the key factors in American growth.

I said growth of the American middle class.... not growth. There can be enormous growth in an economy but its benefits can accrue to only a small group. As was happening in the US before WWi.
How many historiaans do you need me to quote before you accept the historical accuracy? (What are you offering in the way of evidence for your vague claims?)


ray

Using an auto analogy, capitalism and enterprise are the engine. A lot of people focus on the wheel or gas pedal because they can't see the engine. Others focus on the airbags and ABS which are certainly important. Some of our friends worry about whether the cup holders are even distributed and whether the A/C adequately hits the rear seat. But without the engine you got nothing

I don't really understand your analogy... Could you not actually point to real events in history and perhaps document them?

Capitalism and enterprise were mainstays of the surging American economy but the beenfits of that surging economy accrued to a small group of ultra wealthy people for the msot part. With the creation of strong unions working people carved out a larger slice for their labor, and working conditions that favored familiy life more.
Progressive taxation took in more money and paid for much of the infrastructure that benefitted those in lower social circumstances both in immediate ammenities, and in providing the means to lift themselves economically. Plus the infrastructure benefitted the growth of more industry...

This was particualrly true after WWII when taxation rates were at their highest but social benefits for education also great. And the midddle classs surged.
This isn't an analogy Ray. Its historcial record.

rickyp wrote:fate

As soon as you PROVE they are the key factors in American growth.

I said growth of the American middle class.... not growth. There can be enormous growth in an economy but its benefits can accrue to only a small group. As was happening in the US before WWi.
How many historiaans do you need me to quote before you accept the historical accuracy? (What are you offering in the way of evidence for your vague claims?)

No, I'm not going to let you shift the burden of proof. YOU said taxation and unions are THE key reasons for the emergence of the American middle class. Then, you (without accreditation) cited an op-ed. So, no causation has been proven.

I say there is something unique about American drive--and it's because we were born of rebellion, because our founding is based on ideas uniquely scribed on paper and the heartbeat of the American spirit. Let an Irishman explain it.

Bono explains why America is America.

Capitalism and enterprise were mainstays of the surging American economy but the beenfits of that surging economy accrued to a small group of ultra wealthy people for the msot part. With the creation of strong unions working people carved out a larger slice for their labor, and working conditions that favored familiy life more.

As I pointed out, many other things accompanied unions, so it's a bit difficult to give unions the credit. I mentioned electricity. Please add: communications, television, the automobile, mass transportation . . . I suppose many could be added.

Progressive taxation took in more money and paid for much of the infrastructure that benefitted those in lower social circumstances both in immediate ammenities, and in providing the means to lift themselves economically. Plus the infrastructure benefitted the growth of more industry...

Again, show the CAUSATION.

Further, one notable liberal (Elizabeth Warren) has suggested infrastructure primarily benefits the rich.

This was particualrly true after WWII when taxation rates were at their highest but social benefits for education also great. And the midddle classs surged.
This isn't an analogy Ray. Its historcial record.

It's selecting one or two items from a huge menu and, without support, saying THEY are the reasons for the middle class.

Let me try it again: Italy has progressive taxation and unions. Do they have a booming middle class? Or, do they have economic lethargy? Spain? Greece?

If taxation + unions = middle class success, then why isn't it in every country with those two items?