So in 1968, a time of relative prosperity, 32% of 18-301s lived with their parents, and after 6 years of recession/stagnant growth, now 36% do? That doesn't tell me much.
That's fair, but it's largely how you frame things. As you mention, there were frequent, devastating crashes and bank failures before the Fed, FDIC, etc. were instituted. Those programs limited banks' freedom to operate however they wishes, but it dramatically increased people's freedom to invest their money without having it vanish overnight with no recourse and live through horrendous depressions. I'll take my freedom to drink water without getting arsenic or lead poisoning, unadulterated food, functional roads, and even our flawed legal system - at the cost of taxes and limits to my freedom to violate these new laws - any day over the historical realities that led to regulations on those things.Point taken. A perfectly free market is the best societal wealth builder, but would be chock full of enough peaks and crashes to make it a miserable place for a lot of people a lot of the time. I would not want to live in a perfectly free market. I do however prefer to live in a society where I am as free as possible, and that is not a society that tells me I cannot have a soft drink over a certain size.
You know, many liberals are liberal for social policy, not fiscal policy.
There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism. It is simply a talking point that the Republicans repeat over and over during elections, just to do the exact opposite. The suckers in here buy it hook, line, and sinker though! Repeat a lie enough times...
Of course it's not just about money. Power gets you guys off even more, whether it's the power to decide what one can have for lunch or power over one's health care. And pretending that recognizing the goals for which proggies work equals believing in a conspiracy fools no one. There's an old saying that the best trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist. Proggies are not nearly as smart as old Scratch and you have zero chance of fooling people into believing they don't exist.
not sure what your point was.
Good Chart Blackjack, I do believe that almost all of the 32% were women in 1968. Remember women essentially couldn't get loans, checking accounts and forget about credit until they were married even then it was based on the husband. I also bet many, many, many property owners refused to do business with a young single woman. Society has changed too much for this to be accurate
I don't buy that 'true free thought' leads to the greatest inefficiency. It's actually the ONLY thing that creates any efficiency what-so-ever.
Women couldn't get checking accounts in 1968? You sure about that? In any case, in 2007 (just before the recession) it was still 32%, and I'm pretty sure that at that point property owners were doing business with young, single women... even if it wasn't the kind of business they wanted to be doing with those young, single women. A 4% jump during the worst economic malaise since the great depression doesn't signal some kind of social trend to me.
Um, I was actually referencing the proggie plan to make all health care government controlled like most "enlightened" nations, not this Obamination whose main thrust appears to be destruction of our existing health care system. But think you for foaming, I suppose.Forcing the for profit companies who make money off of killing people in this country to use some of those profits to actually COVER people is "control over one's healthcare" to you... That explains your insanity. It is also straight from right wing think tanks/legislators, and implemented by a middle/right party. All a blowhard like you can see is that the opposite "team" did it, and therefore it is evil. Oh no! For profit companies can't just exclude the less profitable anymore! CONTROL! Fucking idiot.
For what it's worth, my aunt bought her first house about that same time. She was divorced with a small child. An aunt on the other side owned her own home (bought earlier, not inherited) and she had never married. Both these were in small southern towns, which one would expect to be the most conservative.Women couldn't get checking accounts in 1968? You sure about that? In any case, in 2007 (just before the recession) it was still 32%, and I'm pretty sure that at that point property owners were doing business with young, single women... even if it wasn't the kind of business they wanted to be doing with those young, single women. A 4% jump during the worst economic malaise since the great depression doesn't signal some kind of social trend to me.
I'm just not understanding why anyone would willingly want a new dark ages, which is basically what I get from what you're saying.You know, I agree with you 100%. I feel the real upside of of independent thinking is innovation and progress in society. That is why I personally will cling to my way of life as long as I can. Without the "inefficiency" of failed experiments and projects how can we grow as a society?
But the truth is some sort of tech-based empire wouldn't need to simulate the innovation that comes from independent thinking. If a certain level of personal material comfort is met and the system was sustainable without means of corruption then it could exist for as long as humanity embraced the collectivist mindset. We have been there before.
The core concept isn't some sort of Star Trek episode, it is that through history there is swaths of time when humans simply failed to progress for a long period and we can get there again one day if our current system fails. To assume that independent thinking and free society is a given going forward, if nothing else due to the resource consumption of the choice in free society (election money, marketing-based packaging materials, etc.), seems foolish to me.
Competition and freedom is at the heart of innovation but humans have shown they can and will exist without all three. Most people deep down are conservative, and not in a D vs R way but simply as "they don't want things to change." It is possible, maybe not the way I described, but is possible humanity might go back down that path at a point in the future when the ocean with 10 billion little islands ends up looking like a continent anyway.
The trend is towards less privacy and a more regulated existence. The millennials embrace some of this for their own reasons, but the end result is the same.
I'm just not understanding why anyone would willingly want a new dark ages, which is basically what I get from what you're saying.
they may be more liberal but they fail to watch / listen to liberal programing. The results are in:CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES. MARCH 18, 2014
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,797,000
FOXNEWS THE FIVE 2,154,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,051,000
FOXNEWS MEGYN 1,982,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,720,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 1,621,000
CNN 8PM PLANE SEARCH 963,000
MSNBC MADDOW 962,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 918,000
CNN 7PM PLANE SEARCH 883,000
CNN 5PM PLANE SEARCH 793,000
CNN 9PM PLANE SEARCH 784,000
CMDY COLBERT 778,000
MSNBC MATTHEWS 750,000
Millennials don't watch TV news.
And the news online is bite-sized for those with short attention spans...
Article from 2004: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/01/26/358850/
Article from 2014: http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/19/news/companies/oprah-starubucks-tea/index.html?iid=HP_LN
Thus the millennials are a whole lot dumber than they realize?
I never cease to be amused by the older generations now repeating the exact same nonsense that every older generation has said since the dawn of time as if THIS TIME it's really true. Millennials aren't dumber than you. (They aren't smarter either) they are on average better educated than your generation, however. They also appear to be markedly more liberal.
I for one am happy about this as it is long past time to reverse many of the changes enacted by the boomers.
I never cease to be amused by the older generations now repeating the exact same nonsense that every older generation has said since the dawn of time as if THIS TIME it's really true. Millennials aren't dumber than you. (They aren't smarter either) they are on average better educated than your generation, however. They also appear to be markedly more liberal.
I for one am happy about this as it is long past time to reverse many of the changes enacted by the boomers.
I'm a millennial too. Um, my peers are pretty dumb. Smart phones and multi-tasking really does decrease a persons attention span. Read a book or something. Watch a documentary that doesn't have to change scenes every 10 seconds to keep your attention span. Stop reading internet news articles. Its not possible to get the full story in under 1,000 words yet alone 250 words. Most millennials are ignorant as hell. The only thing keeping their ignorance from really clashing with reality is that they are pretty oblivious too.
People were trying and failing to google their way through organic chem. lols.
I'm a millennial too. Um, my peers are pretty dumb. Smart phones and multi-tasking really does decrease a persons attention span. Read a book or something. Watch a documentary that doesn't have to change scenes every 10 seconds to keep your attention span. Stop reading internet news articles. Its not possible to get the full story in under 1,000 words yet alone 250 words. Most millennials are ignorant as hell. The only thing keeping their ignorance from really clashing with reality is that they are pretty oblivious too.
People were trying and failing to google their way through organic chem. lols.
Um, I was actually referencing the proggie plan to make all health care government controlled like most "enlightened" nations, not this Obamination whose main thrust appears to be destruction of our existing health care system. But think you for foaming, I suppose.
I'm aware of no objective, empirical evidence that backs up your contention that people of the current generation are dumber than before. If anything (presuming you think education matters) people of this generation are 'smarter' and less ignorant.
how about this. we get our state run universal medical care and then we can give some deregulation to private organizations.
sound good?
and also since many utility organizations are more or less funded and supported by local governements how about we do the same with the energy industry?