What has changed so much since the 50's-early 70's?

[donttread]

The post WW 2 era was the boom time of our modern economy. As I have said before a couple could get married out of HS, invest no time or money in college ,own a home and raise a family on one income.
One obvious difference is pushing manufacturing offshore.
But that is not the only difference as the fall of the boom economy coincides very closely with
1) The war on Poverty
2) The war on drugs and the resulting prison industrial complex
3) The unbridled growth of the megacorps
4) Big money political campaigns
5) Rapid urbanization and increased population density
6) Federalization of education
7) Federalization of other states rights
8) Big brother is listening, and watching
9) A disconnection from the earth, to the point where many kids know little else about our food than that it comes from a grocery store
10) The advent of increasingly "lazy" as in less physical work and play
Of course some of these factors are intertwined with the loss of manufacturing and our governments complicity where that is concerned. Yet we never seem to look at the other factors as a whole. Perhaps you can add some as well? Thoughts

[Peter1469]

Don't forget tax policy.

[donttread]

Don't forget tax policy.

Good catch Peter although I think we can safely call the tax code what it really is:
The control code

[nathanbforrest45]

Greater government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. The increase in the welfare state stifling self reliance and destroying minority families as a unit.

Why has manufacturing gone off shore? If you say greed you are a shallow idiot who's thoughts are worthless.

[donttread]

Greater government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. The increase in the welfare state stifling self reliance and destroying minority families as a unit.

Why has manufacturing gone off shore? If you say greed you are a shallow idiot who's thoughts are worthless.

Call it what you will . A corporation is SUPPOSED to be greedy by law, nice little clause there. It is however all about the transfer of wealth

[Mac-7]

The post WW 2 era was the boom time of our modern economy. As I have said before a couple could get married out of HS, invest no time or money in college ,own a home and raise a family on one income.
One obvious difference is pushing manufacturing offshore.
But that is not the only difference as the fall of the boom economy coincides very closely with
1) The war on Poverty
2) The war on drugs and the resulting prison industrial complex
3) The unbridled growth of the megacorps
4) Big money political campaigns
5) Rapid urbanization and increased population density
6) Federalization of education
7) Federalization of other states rights
8) Big brother is listening, and watching
9) A disconnection from the earth, to the point where many kids know little else about our food than that it comes from a grocery store
10) The advent of increasingly "lazy" as in less physical work and play
Of course some of these factors are intertwined with the loss of manufacturing and our governments complicity where that is concerned. Yet we never seem to look at the other factors as a whole. Perhaps you can add some as well? Thoughts

I can put it simpler.

Free trade with underdeveloped countries and the loss of manufacturing jobs to china is what changed.

[Cigar]

:afro: People don't take anyone's crap anymore

[Mac-7]

:afro: People don't take anyone's crap anymore

True.

obama voters take other peoples money through a government check now.

[Cigar]

True.

obama voters take other peoples money through a government check now.

Thank You ... now fetch me an Apple Pie ... Boy :grin:

[Mac-7]

Thank You ... now fetch me an Apple Pie ... Boy :grin:

Sorry, but I'm not your welfare councilor.

there is nothing free in this store.

[donttread]

I can put it simpler.

Free trade with underdeveloped countries and the loss of manufacturing jobs to china is what changed.

That's abig part of it but there is more underlying it. For example why did we start a"War on Poverty" when poverty was less and fairly well managed by charities?
Or why start a "War on Drugs" at all?

[Mac-7]

That's abig part of it but there is more underlying it. For example why did we start a"War on Poverty" when poverty was less and fairly well managed by charities?
Or why start a "War on Drugs" at all?
we may disagree about the war on drugs but not welfare.

Lib do-holders thought they were helping the poor but in fact hurt the underclass instead.

[iustitia]

The internet.

[Chris]

Call it what you will . A corporation is SUPPOSED to be greedy by law, nice little clause there. It is however all about the transfer of wealth

There are two forms of transfer of wealth. One, economic, voluntary, say if you and I exchange for what we each want, we have not only transferred wealth but generated it since we both gain. Same if I purchase something from a megacorp. Two, political, coerced, when government transfers it via taxes, regulations, protections like quotas, tariffs, etc, where there is a net loss, not just for the administrative costs of transfer, but the lost of our spending our wealth on economic, voluntary exchanges.



What else has changed: Baby boomers passing through.

[Mister D]

The post WW 2 era was the boom time of our modern economy. As I have said before a couple could get married out of HS, invest no time or money in college ,own a home and raise a family on one income.
One obvious difference is pushing manufacturing offshore.
But that is not the only difference as the fall of the boom economy coincides very closely with
1) The war on Poverty
2) The war on drugs and the resulting prison industrial complex
3) The unbridled growth of the megacorps
4) Big money political campaigns
5) Rapid urbanization and increased population density
6) Federalization of education
7) Federalization of other states rights
8) Big brother is listening, and watching
9) A disconnection from the earth, to the point where many kids know little else about our food than that it comes from a grocery store
10) The advent of increasingly "lazy" as in less physical work and play
Of course some of these factors are intertwined with the loss of manufacturing and our governments complicity where that is concerned. Yet we never seem to look at the other factors as a whole. Perhaps you can add some as well? Thoughts

The post war world was exceptional. Most of the developed world was in ruins. The good times had little to do with any domestic policy.

[Bob]

The post WW 2 era was the boom time of our modern economy. As I have said before a couple could get married out of HS, invest no time or money in college ,own a home and raise a family on one income.
One obvious difference is pushing manufacturing offshore.
But that is not the only difference as the fall of the boom economy coincides very closely with
1) The war on Poverty
2) The war on drugs and the resulting prison industrial complex
3) The unbridled growth of the megacorps
4) Big money political campaigns
5) Rapid urbanization and increased population density
6) Federalization of education
7) Federalization of other states rights
8) Big brother is listening, and watching
9) A disconnection from the earth, to the point where many kids know little else about our food than that it comes from a grocery store
10) The advent of increasingly "lazy" as in less physical work and play
Of course some of these factors are intertwined with the loss of manufacturing and our governments complicity where that is concerned. Yet we never seem to look at the other factors as a whole. Perhaps you can add some as well? Thoughts

Well, I have insight since I lived those days.

During WW2, any workers that could build airplanes, jeeps tanks, tires, ships and all the things needed to wage war made good money despite the wage freezes and price fixing.

When troops got home, if they sent their pay home, and it was in the bank, they could buy things if they were able to get a peace time job. War was over so war plants either converted back to civilian products or were closed down. Being laid off at the ship yard was no fun since no war ships were then constructed.

I recall hobos all over the place during and after the war. I never found out from them if they did well post war.

FDRs follower Truman was liked by my parents so I also liked him. It was loyalty as a kid to parents more than really knowing. All the aircraft plants had to cut way back and once the war ended, so did the jobs making B-29s end. With the slow down in war production, clearly not all factories boomed.

We started hearing of big brother in the 1950s but this was spurred by the movie 1984 plus the fear in this country of Soviet spies. I recall a TV program about soviet spies and of course it had to be totally true.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0DW_qpilRQ

[donttread]

we may disagree about the war on drugs but not welfare.

Lib do-holders thought they were helping the poor but in fact hurt the underclass instead.

There is NO, ZERO, NOT a BIT of real world evidence that prohibition does anything but make things worse

[Mac-7]

There is NO, ZERO, NOT a BIT of real world evidence that prohibition does anything but make things worse

I told you we would not agree on the drug issue.

[iustitia]

There's nothing to agree on. The War on Drugs has done nothing positive for mankind especially for Americans. The drug debate isn't between two equally valid positions backed by evidence. It's one side that knows what is going on and another that doesn't feel obligated to justify their position.

[Mister D]

What we need address as a society is why so many turn to drugs for relief.

[Mac-7]

There's nothing to agree on. The War on Drugs has done nothing positive for mankind especially for Americans. The drug debate isn't between two equally valid positions backed by evidence. It's one side that knows what is going on and another that doesn't feel obligated to justify their position.

You sound pretty sure of yourself.

Since you have all the answers tell us why society banned those drugs in the first place.

[Bob]

What we need address as a society is why so many turn to drugs for relief.

I think they use drugs for a variety of reasons. Some for presumed relief. Some due to peers. Some due to a misplaced notion drugs = fun. Some to be with ladies.

[iustitia]

You sound pretty sure of yourself.

Since you have all the answers tell us why society banned those drugs in the first place.

When the hell did "society" ban drugs?

Better yet, why don't tell everyone here why marijuana is illegal in the first place?

After that tell us what part of the Constitution justifies drug prohibition.

[Mac-7]

When the hell did "society" ban drugs?

Better yet, why don't tell everyone here why marijuana is illegal in the first place?

After that tell us what part of the Constitution justifies drug prohibition.

I asked you first.

Society is represented by the government and it was society's decision not to encourage drug zombies by legalizing the drugs.

now answer the question.

why did the United States of America ban those drugs?

[Peter1469]

A power grab by the federal government.

[Mac-7]

A power grab by the federal government.

No, the ban on drugs had popular support.

and the fact that you are afraid to answer the question speaks volumes.

[Captain Obvious]

The post war world was exceptional. Most of the developed world was in ruins. The good times had little to do with any domestic policy.

The Soviets were the other big benefactor in the long run of WWII.

[Peter1469]

No, the ban on drugs had popular support.

and the fact that you are afraid to answer the question speaks volumes.

That states have authority to ban drugs, the federal government does not.

[donttread]

I told you we would not agree on the drug issue.

I'm serious Mac, I researched it extensively after losing a daughter to Heroin. Every place that decriminalizes and improves treatment sees decreased OD deaths and drug related crime. Check out what Portugal has accomplished in just ten or so years. There are similar examples in South America and elsewhere. But I literally could not find ANY real World evidence that prohibition worked. It's not that decriminalization sometimes works. IT Always WORKS! Here's a chance to prove that you can modify your views based upon fact. Go ahead show me some real world examples where prohibition actually works. I'll be waiting

[Mister D]

The Soviets were the other big benefactor in the long run of WWII.

The USSR was devastated. I would say Japan perhaps even though she too was devastated. Or the world wars were so tragic there were only losers.

[donttread]

Still waiting Mac. But if you simply want to keep your opinion because it fits with your party line don't do the research . We wouldn't want you to be conflicted about what you thought you knew

[Mac-7]

Still waiting Mac. But if you simply want to keep your opinion because it fits with your party line don't do the research . We wouldn't want you to be conflicted about what you thought you knew

Sorry, but I asked you first and you don't get to avoid answering my question by diverting me to one of your own.

all the drugs that you want to legalize were once legal.

why did society find the need to ban them?

[Peter1469]

Sorry, but I asked you first and you don't get to avoid answering my question by diverting me to one of your own.

all the drugs that you want to legalize were once legal.

why did society find the need to ban them?

Power

Protect the pharmaceutical companies.

[donttread]

Sorry, but I asked you first and you don't get to avoid answering my question by diverting me to one of your own.

all the drugs that you want to legalize were once legal.

why did society find the need to ban them?

First of all that is a load of crap stall tactic.
Secondly, tobacco and alcohol were once illegal as well. Why were they re legalized and others not? Why did the prohibition of alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment and the outlawing of other drugs did not? It's all about who the dealers are and the power they sway. How was Joe Kennedy any better than your neighborhood Coke dealer? Purely a matter of power and influence.
So now I'll be waiting for you to come up with a real world example of successful prohibition.

[Mister D]

First of all that is a load of crap stall tactic.
Secondly, tobacco and alcohol were once illegal as well. Why were they re legalized and others not? Why did the prohibition of alcohol require a Constitutional Amendment and the outlawing of other drugs did not? It's all about who the dealers are and the power they sway. How was Joe Kennedy any better than your neighborhood Coke dealer? Purely a matter of power and influence.
So now I'll be waiting for you to come up with a real world example of successful prohibition.

Alcohol was legalized because it's culturally embedded. IOW, people like it. There was no conspiracy.

[Mac-7]

Power

Protect the pharmaceutical companies.

Ok.

If you thing illegal drugs never caused any harm and this all just a big conspiracy nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

In the 19th century drugs based on cocaine and heroine were addicting do many people that the public knew that individual self control was not the answer.

No matter how bad you think the war on drugs is legalizing them is worse.

[donttread]

Alcohol was legalized because it's culturally embedded. IOW, people like it. There was no conspiracy.

People liked coke and opium too. But apparently they did not lend themselves as well to megacorp production

[donttread]

Ok.

If you thing illegal drugs never caused any harm and this all just a big conspiracy nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

What we're saying is that prohibition magnifies the harm
In the 19th century drugs based on cocaine and heroine were addicting do many people that the public knew that individual self control was not the answer.

No matter how bad you think the war on drugs is legalizing them is worse.

[Mister D]

People liked coke and opium too. But apparently they did not lend themselves as well to megacorp production

not to the extent they liked alcohol and those drugs do not have the long history of use in our culture that alcohol does. I know you guys reduce virtually everything to economics but you really need to expand your minds a bit.

[Bob]

If you people want to discuss drugs, why not bracket them.

Don't lump marijuana in with heroin or rock cocaine.

Don't lump in aspirins with meth.

Some drugs kill. Some turn you into living zombies.

Use common sense please.

[donttread]

Screwed up the quote box again. Actually Mac research in real world decriminalization situations does NOT show significant increase in use but DOES show significant drops in related death and crime, not to mention that legalization would de fund the gangs and cartels tomorrow.
I told you. I've researched this . Prohibition simply doesn't work in any way shape or form

[Mister D]

btw, the prohibition of heroin and pot did not fuel organized crime and the black market like the prohibition of alcohol did. There is a reason for that. That's a recent development.

[Peter1469]

Ok.

If you thing illegal drugs never caused any harm and this all just a big conspiracy nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

Straw man. Who said that they were not harmful.


In the 19th century drugs based on cocaine and heroine were addicting do many people that the public knew that individual self control was not the answer.

No matter how bad you think the war on drugs is legalizing them is worse.

Straw man. Who said that that cocaine (a schedule 2 drug) and heroine are not addicting?

I said the federal government has zero constitutional authority to legislate drugs. It is a state issue, although I understand that most Americans don't concern themselves with such trivial matters.

Don'ttread said that there would be less problems if drugs were legal. I actually agree and have yet to see any evidence to counter it.

I see only straw men.

[Bob]

As to alcohol found in hard liquor and beer, wine and the like, if they remove the product that imparts flavor and you drink the pure alcohol, I suspect all alcohol found in consumables tastes the same. It is the flavoring agent in wine, beer, vodka, whiskey etc that tastes good. I suspect you can enjoy the flavor of beer with no alcohol, flavor of wine with no alcohol.

For some odd reason, people still like getting smashed. I used to enjoy a bit of smashing.

[donttread]

If you people want to discuss drugs, why not bracket them.

Don't lump marijuana in with heroin or rock cocaine.

Don't lump in aspirins with meth.

Some drugs kill. Some turn you into living zombies.

Use common sense please.

Much of how society ranks the dangerous level of a particular drug has NOTHING to do with the drug's pharmacology . For example alcohol is a much more deadly drug than , except for the people murdered illegally trafficking in MJ. While heroin carries many dangers chief among them is the lifestyle addicts are forced to live and the fact that they can never know the purity of the drug the bought. Imagine if you drank 12 beers only to find out they were beer tasting grain alcohol, or more correctly only for the Coronor to find out because you'd never know.

[Bob]

Much of how society ranks the dangerous level of a particular drug has NOTHING to do with the drug's pharmacology . For example alcohol is a much more deadly drug than , except for the people murdered illegally trafficking in MJ. While heroin carries many dangers chief among them is the lifestyle addicts are forced to live and the fact that they can never know the purity of the drug the bought. Imagine if you drank 12 beers only to find out they were beer tasting grain alcohol, or more correctly only for the Coronor to find out because you'd never know.

I believe luck was on my side in Germany the time of the 1963 Christmas party at Schweinfurt Army Airfield.

I was sent to the airfield to cure a problem pilots had and six the mess. But the Airfield Captain of course favored his men in his command. I don't recall who got a party rolling, but we had maybe a dozen at the airfield and bottles of booze were everywhere. Also some food was brought.

My job was to handle the airfield radio to keep in touch with local aircraft traffic. I was doing a job that one should not do and drink. But it was Xmas evening. I was minding my business when an officer pilot came to me and asks, Bob, what do you want to drink. I loved the pilot officers since these were cool guys.

Anyway he brings me a glass of the booze I requested. The Airfield CO, a Captain trying hard to make it to retirement and a real boob, did not want me running radios and drinking. But no aircraft were flying. It turns out I drank far too much and ate too little food. The food saved my life I believe. I got so drunk I had no awareness of the situation. I was woken up by the Captain the next am yelling at me he would have me court-martialed. I called my own CO at Bat HQ and informed him i got drunk. He says, don't worry about it, You won't be court-martialed. He was right. I never heard a word about it.

Booze and drugs do not enhance performance. They can turn you into a vegetable at the time.

Anyway, the science of booze is not one of my areas of knowing much. I drank, I did not analyze it.

Today I seldom drink.

[Mac-7]

I said the federal government has zero constitutional authority to legislate drugs. It is a state issue, although I understand that most Americans don't concern themselves with such trivial matters.

Don'ttread said that there would be less problems if drugs were legal. I actually agree and have yet to see any evidence to counter it.



You and don'ttread are entitled to your opinion about legalizing drugs but society has been down that road already and had a lot of problems.

The same goes for federal authority to outlaw drugs.

If you believe they should not be allowed to regulate harmful drugs that's up to you.

But clearly the federal government can regulate them if it wants to,

[Peter1469]

You and don'ttread are entitled to your opinion about legalizing drugs but society has been down that road already and had a lot of problems.

The same goes for federal authority to outlaw drugs.

If you believe they should not be allowed to regulate harmful drugs that's up to you.

But clearly the federal government can regulate them if it wants to,

Clearly. By ignoring the Constitution. I said that already.

Stop with the straw men. Nobody said legalizing drugs will result in no problems. We have said the problems are less and cheeper to deal with than the "war on drugs."

[donttread]

btw, the prohibition of heroin and pot did not fuel organized crime and the black market like the prohibition of alcohol did. There is a reason for that. That's a recent development.

Well it is what it is now and illegal drugs especially pot find the gangs now. BTW, wasn't the 70's mafia into drug trafficking?

[donttread]

Clearly. By ignoring the Constitution. I said that already.

Stop with the straw men. Nobody said legalizing drugs will result in no problems. We have said the problems are less and cheeper to deal with than the "war on drugs."

Exactly. Can you show me anywhere in the enumerated powers where "drug policy within the states" comes up?

[donttread]

Humor me Mac . Do the research and get back to me

[Mac-7]

Exactly. Can you show me anywhere in the enumerated powers where "drug policy within the states" comes up?

For better or worse (usually worse these days) the federal courts decide what the constitution means .

And the courts have not seen fit to override the established laws yet.

[Mister D]

Well it is what it is now and illegal drugs especially pot find the gangs now. BTW, wasn't the 70's mafia into drug trafficking?

Somewhat (drug dealing was officially forbidden) but the Mafia was and is quite diversified. That's why it worked so well for so long.

[Bob]

Well it is what it is now and illegal drugs especially pot find the gangs now. BTW, wasn't the 70's mafia into drug trafficking?

The Mafia always made money where they could. Some of the families, being close to the catholic church could have been anti drugs. I don't know myself. I know better than to watch the Sopranos or God Father and assume I know the Mafia.

We don't see it these days but when I grew up, the newspapers showed a lot of Mafia guys shot to death in cars, restaurants and so forth. Today you don't hear of it.

96059606

[Mister D]

The Mafia always made money where they could. Some of the families, being close to the catholic church could have been anti drugs. I don't know myself. I know better than to watch the Sopranos or God Father and assume I know the Mafia.

We don't see it these days but when I grew up, the newspapers showed a lot of Mafia guys shot to death in cars, restaurants and so forth. Today you don't hear of it.

96059606

All of the families were officially anti-drug and the Mafia is not close to the RCC in the US or Italy.

[donttread]

All of the families were officially anti-drug and the Mafia is not close to the RCC in the US or Italy.

Catholic familes anti -drug, with the exception of alcohol and tobacco of course

[Bob]

All of the families were officially anti-drug and the Mafia is not close to the RCC in the US or Italy.

I won't challenge you on the MAFIA.

Let's concede you know more about that sort of crime than I do.

[iustitia]

The Sicilian Mafia and Corsican gangsters helped the CIA traffic heroin into Europe as pointed out by Alfred W. McCoy in "The Politics of Heroin".