6 ms·

Now imagine all that opportunity, plus a much less competitive business environment and fewer regulations. That is what it was like 50 years ago in the US.

by jjeaff 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Also important was a much faster rate of growth in population: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... It’s also my opinion that the internet and use of computers and high speed communications have led to more market efficiency and less arbitrage opportunities. In decades past, an individual might have been more likely than now to notice and take advantage of an inefficiency, whereas now the bigger players have access to much more data about the market, satellite imagery, pricing and sales information, etc so that they are competing on all levels.
homero 6y ago
Anything went but that included building your factory next to the river and dumping in the river.
jedrek 6y ago
Imagine having well paid customers.
- 9387367 6y ago
  That's communism...no...what? wait a minute!!
refurb 6y ago
"a much less competitive business environment" Which business environment? The competitiveness is absolutely not universal across all markets in the US. There are plenty of markets that aren't competitive at all.
- evgen 6y ago
  I believe the point being made was that in the 50s and 60s in the US there was a large domestic market that had almost no foreign competitors (either they were still rebuilding form WW2 rubble or were way behind US tech) and those same foreign markets were mostly open for US exports. In a lot of industries there was probably a good foreign competitor at the top-end, a few low-end foreign companies, but the vast middle of the market was exclusively owned by US companies for at least two decades.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Sure, but could you imagine the auto industry back then? Or oil and gas? My point is that there are always highly competitive markets and markets with a lot of slack in them. Not to mention brand new markets that have never existed before.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Now imagine 100 years ago, with regulations levels at this imagined 'golden age'. It was actually called the 'gilded age' and the wealthy scooped up everything for themselves, caused a global depression, and impoverished/starved millions. That's why we put the regulations in place. We can argue there are too many, but just smashing the current system is no way to restore anything. And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age.
- tertius 6y ago
  > And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age. Poverty levels tells a different story.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Growing standard of living is part of it, sure. But because most people can scrape by now, is no excuse for the 1%.
    - tertius 6y ago
      If it's getting better for all then why does it matter? Serious question.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ABCLAW 6y ago
        1. The premise that everyone is benefiting is false. A tremendous amount of people are in industries that are shuttered, communities that are withering, locations that are in decline, or otherwise not 'getting better'. 2. The proper basis for comparison for the iterative generation of wealth and productivity isn't the past, it's the reasonable alternatives at the same time in development. Imagine you and I start with 100 coins each. In Scenario A, I take 30 of your coins. Then we fight each other and fritter away 10 coins each. Then our respective coin volume doubles. I end up with 240 coins. You end up with 120. We're both better off than in the past. In total, we have 360 coins. In Scenario B, I steal all your coins. Without any coins, you can't fight me, so neither of us loses any further coins. Our coin volume doubles. I end up with 400 coins. In Scenario C, I don't steal your coins and because we're not busy fighting each other, no losses occur. We both end up with 200 coins. In total we have 400 coins. I think the lesson here is self evident, and that's without raising the fact that growth slows and societies collapse due to wealth disparities. If the simple thought experiment isn't enough and you'd like something a bit more involved, read up on the history and philosophy surrounding our transition away from the feudal system. Our distaste of titled hereditary privilege was very well deserved.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
> a much less competitive business environment Could have stopped there. Looks to me like the big chains drove out the ma & pa businesses. Now the online giants are driving out them.

Now imagine all that opportunity, plus a much less competitive business environment and fewer regulations. That is what it was like 50 years ago in the US.

by jjeaff 6y ago

Now imagine all that opportunity, plus a much less competitive business environment and fewer regulations. That is what it was like 50 years ago in the US.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Also important was a much faster rate of growth in population: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... It’s also my opinion that the internet and use of computers and high speed communications have led to more market efficiency and less arbitrage opportunities. In decades past, an individual might have been more likely than now to notice and take advantage of an inefficiency, whereas now the bigger players have access to much more data about the market, satellite imagery, pricing and sales information, etc so that they are competing on all levels.

homero 6y ago

Anything went but that included building your factory next to the river and dumping in the river.

jedrek 6y ago

Imagine having well paid customers.

9387367 6y ago
That's communism...no...what? wait a minute!!

refurb 6y ago

"a much less competitive business environment" Which business environment? The competitiveness is absolutely not universal across all markets in the US. There are plenty of markets that aren't competitive at all.

evgen 6y ago
I believe the point being made was that in the 50s and 60s in the US there was a large domestic market that had almost no foreign competitors (either they were still rebuilding form WW2 rubble or were way behind US tech) and those same foreign markets were mostly open for US exports. In a lot of industries there was probably a good foreign competitor at the top-end, a few low-end foreign companies, but the vast middle of the market was exclusively owned by US companies for at least two decades.
- refurb 6y ago
  Sure, but could you imagine the auto industry back then? Or oil and gas? My point is that there are always highly competitive markets and markets with a lot of slack in them. Not to mention brand new markets that have never existed before.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Now imagine 100 years ago, with regulations levels at this imagined 'golden age'. It was actually called the 'gilded age' and the wealthy scooped up everything for themselves, caused a global depression, and impoverished/starved millions. That's why we put the regulations in place. We can argue there are too many, but just smashing the current system is no way to restore anything. And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age.

tertius 6y ago
> And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age. Poverty levels tells a different story.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Growing standard of living is part of it, sure. But because most people can scrape by now, is no excuse for the 1%.
  - tertius 6y ago
    If it's getting better for all then why does it matter? Serious question.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ABCLAW 6y ago
      1. The premise that everyone is benefiting is false. A tremendous amount of people are in industries that are shuttered, communities that are withering, locations that are in decline, or otherwise not 'getting better'. 2. The proper basis for comparison for the iterative generation of wealth and productivity isn't the past, it's the reasonable alternatives at the same time in development. Imagine you and I start with 100 coins each. In Scenario A, I take 30 of your coins. Then we fight each other and fritter away 10 coins each. Then our respective coin volume doubles. I end up with 240 coins. You end up with 120. We're both better off than in the past. In total, we have 360 coins. In Scenario B, I steal all your coins. Without any coins, you can't fight me, so neither of us loses any further coins. Our coin volume doubles. I end up with 400 coins. In Scenario C, I don't steal your coins and because we're not busy fighting each other, no losses occur. We both end up with 200 coins. In total we have 400 coins. I think the lesson here is self evident, and that's without raising the fact that growth slows and societies collapse due to wealth disparities. If the simple thought experiment isn't enough and you'd like something a bit more involved, read up on the history and philosophy surrounding our transition away from the feudal system. Our distaste of titled hereditary privilege was very well deserved.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

> a much less competitive business environment Could have stopped there. Looks to me like the big chains drove out the ma & pa businesses. Now the online giants are driving out them.