War is Hell

A frequent theme over the years of these missives is the answer to the question, "why was growth and equality (modulo race) so much greater in the 50s and 60s than since?". The answer was generally in response to some nonsensical blathering from the Ayn Rand crowd. Well, Tex, this time it's different. This time a mainstream pundit has finally struck the Mother Lode. Not too surprisingly, it's David Leonhardt:

Failing New York Times
[When I got back from my greasy spoon reading of the Times, note in hand as usual, I went to the site expecting to extract a sentence or two. But, NO. They have instituted an even more foolish and Draconian access. So, starting tomorrow, I'll be typing in those few sentences. I could do with the typing practice, in any case.]

So, if you've seen his piece, he says (in his words) what has been said here. The reason for the great growth in the 50s and 60s was due to the fact that the men (and they were 99.44%) who had the hands on the levers of power in both the private and public sectors were the product of both the Great Depression and WWII, thus a pervasive "we're all in this together" attitude. Taxes on the rich were high, unions were strong, and the middle class got most of the moolah. And, thus, aggregate grew nicely. Laffer be damned, real corporations only increase output when there is clearly unmet demand. All the money printing, so called, by the Fed and ECB has gone to the 1%, thus no demand pull inflation. Commodities are in restraint, so no cost push. And, in case you haven't noticed, median income isn't going anywhere North. So, no inflation.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and all that.