Monday, July 5, 2010

A History of the American Economy - Part 3

"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." – Winston Churchill


There is this sense in American Media that the world began in the "Post War Period" (I often found that phrase somewhat dysfunctional, as if we live in the period when man came to his senses and wars are no longer fought...). That the end of WWII ushered in a brave new world unconnected to the past. Perhaps the advent of Television and mass communication had something to do with this.

In fact WWII WAS a dividing line of sorts in that immediately after the War the U.S. had almost of the world's Gold and almost all of the world's productive capacity - but that was not a permanent condition... we just thought it was.

The American Industrial Revolution meant Railroads ("RR"). In the years immediately after the Civil War the Railroad industry was the second largest employer after agriculture (Government jobs were not a significant portion of employment). The expansion of the RR's created markets where none existed and dramatically expanded those that did and provided access to farmland and natural resources that seemed almost boundless. And they were, from a short term economic view, boundless - attracting overwhelming investment for goods and services that could not find a market, leading to the inevitable bust. The 8 year period of over investment and over-capicity gave the U.S., and the world (although who gave who what is up for debate; the idea that this Depression was caused by the stock market crash in Vienna in May of 1873 is just as silly as the idea that the stock market crash of '29 caused the Depression of the 1930's) a nearly 25 year period of deflation and alternating recession and stagnation that did not let up until the end of the century.

During that time the U.S. was not a world power and the U.S.$ was NOT the world reserve currency. The British Pound filled that function. Accordingly the American people had to fund their own government spending, as well as provide for their own end of life needs (Even Presidents. The president at the time of the Panic of 1873 was U.S. Grant. Grant lived most of his post-presidency in poverty, even enduring bankruptcy. It was not until 1958 that a presidential pension was passed into law).

It is worth noting that while the U.S. economy was in almost constant recession during the last 25 years of the 19th Century the population was exploding with U.S. cities experiencing a 15 million person growth spurt. Even so, the majority of Americans lived on farms or small towns supporting farm land. at the turn of the Century. To understand what life was like for the over 30% of Americans employed in agriculture a definition of a "farm" is in order. Most farms had a small family house, often one large room with lofts. There was no indoor plumbing for toilets or the kitchen sink. Water was had from a well. There was no heating or A.C. Sanitation was an outhouse. Cooking was done outside in a "cook tent" until heat was desired in doors. Most boys went to school until 8th grade (so did many, but fewer, girls), but the graduation test for an 8th grade education in 1900 would stump 90% of the kids at the best high schools today. For farm families, at 14 you were a man and you had skills (and not video game skills).

"Roads" we merely dirt wagon paths and when wet they were mostly impassable. Local transportation was by wagon. Socializing was done in town on Saturday night and Sunday Church - hence, the Saturday night bath. Yes, there were the RR's but once off of the line, everything was transported by horse and carriage.

There were no federal income taxes... and if there were, how would they be collected? Most people today work for corporations or governments - easy collection points for the forced extraction of payroll deductions. Not so in the late 19th Century. The U.S. economy was as much a barter economy as a currency economy - particularly in rural communities. Trading using gold and silver NOT minted by the U.S. was also common place. I would argue that people were "freer" than now, but life was unforgiving. There were no social "safety nets" to speak of other than "faith based" charity - and that was not much.

In the absence of Corporations there existed REAL capitalism. If you failed, you went bankrupt. Life was an ongoing meritocracy.

(I am being summoned and will continue this shortly)


52 comments:

bureaucrat said...

I appreciate the detailing of life 100 years ago, but I doubt anyone, except for a few "overactive thinkers," would ever want to go back to that. You forgot how all the old, dead, white men had all the money and/or all the control, helped along by their God. Yes, it was sink or swim. Several thousand years ago, it was the same thing, only worse.

Modernity (and oil) allowed living to be much easier. But it didn't solve everything. For one, if you don't have a job, you are still "less of a man" and at the mercy of the world for food, etc. For another, if you don't get your share of the pie, and start borrowing to compensate, you will be up shit creek soon enough. That is what is happening now.

We could be greatly benefiting from living in our time period, but because of loose borrowing and the resulting asset bubbles, and not to mention waste, we have managed to shoot our own selves in the foot. :(

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

I am getting there. Just trying to make an apples to apples comparison in transportation.

Dextred1 said...

Bur,

You sound like a racist! Just saying!!! You are smart enough to make a point without the dripping sarcasm. I doubt most people want to go back to that exact life, but you would be blind if you did not see that there are many admirable qualities of the people then. I know all you big city libs are so intelligent and refined, but many people like the country life without the crime, high taxes, drug dealers, crappy drivers and rude personalities. Why is the country this way, simple a lot of the values carried over from past generations? We can’t all be revolutionary’s bur. You are the resident Marxist on here and I like hearing you points sometimes. You challenge my thinking, but would you talk to Jeffers or others in this forum like that in person. Don't think so. Be respectful, a sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.

bureaucrat said...

You get what you pay for. ;)

There were lots of qualities about people back then. Not everything they brought over from Tuscany and Dublin was useless. But in those times, there was one authority -- older white men, who had the money, had the guns, had the property and had the church on their side -- plain and simple.

And I'm sure you know the methamphetamine isn't being manufactured in the cities, but in the rural areas, along with all the marijuana. The rural areas are where all the welfare families are (the inner cities fulla those awful Negroes are NOT the biggest receivers of welfare dollars).

The rural people (and the suburbanites as well) get to leave the inner city and its costs taking care of damanged people behind so the rest of us can pick up the bill.

I have no problem telling Jeffers the facts as I see them, and I'd tell him to his or anyones face the same thing.

I'm 6'3 210 pounds. ;)

bureaucrat said...

We're gonna need a lot more sarcasm to get these 310 million U.S. people to stop this "waving the flag cause we're so amazing" debt-spending nonsense.

My aunt is passing around an email she got, about how all the countries "we" liberated in WW2 require passports for us to now visit France, etc. The old guy being asked for the passport says "I didn't need a passport when we landed in Normandy to liberate your country!!"

The it goes on about how America paid for the liberation of Europe in WW2, etc.

Wonder how that speech would fly today, where we'd have to admit that all our boats and guns and soldiers are paid for, in 2010, by the Chinese government buying our bonds.

Sad.

Anonymous said...

Please post some data Bur about Rural people being the number one welfare recipients. If the estimated breakdown of population is currently 80% urban vs. 20 rural, than I guess everyone in the country must be on welfare then?

Saying that white people are the biggest welfare recipients which is true, doesn't mean that all these whites are in the rural areas, the majority live in cities as well--just like the blacks.

All cities need hinterlands, and both cities and rural areas both play their parts--I don't know why you seem to knock rural living so much, but you seem to value your opinions more highly than most. Demeaning others via a blog does that make you feel 6'4"? Cities and small towns/rural areas both have pro's and cons to them, and as far as I know, most of us can still travel to either. The jobs aren't coming back, and we can't keep up with the 150k in new jobs needed with current population/new "workers" this will effect state and local communities even if many of the folks didn't pay much Federal tax, as the downward spiral continues--until we break out Nanotech and we turn garbage into Oil eh?

-Meiyo

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Bur:

Have a little patience. I am going somewhere with this, its just that its going to take a bit of explaining and I don't have the time to spit it out all at once. IN order to make the ultimate point I need to bring us back a ways.

Bear with me.

PioneerPreppy said...

Well I missed most of this discussion since as a backwoods rural dweller I had the evil tree roots block my septic system this weekend and back up Saturday night. Yum.

I spent all day Sunday and today digging it out by hand and replacing the section that had collapsed on the drain field then snaking the lead flow pipe from the house.

One of the most disgusting jobs of living in the country and back breaking besides and I wouldn't trade it for a world of big cities.

Sounds like Bur has an issue with White men as well. Funny no other race or gender has ever died for others so different from themselves yet the white man is the devil hmmmm.

Saturday I got to do the other nasty country job of loading idiot cubes of alfalfa/clover. Nice to know at 45 with my mere 6 foot height and 180 frame I can still load 100 pound bales over my head in each hand while balancing on a moving flatbed.

My point? I could go back and have gone back to what Bur laid out. Sometimes in ice storms for weeks at a time. Septic systems only require a local water source not a city sewer.

As for the welfare thing I believe I read somewhere that rural areas were hardest hit when jobs started going over seas. Funny thing is if you count all the little "extra" social welfare niceties like subways, DV centers, and the like the rural areas fall way behind the cities in spending per person.

Just a matter of perspective. Oh did you all see the articles about how Illinois is just not paying bills now? You remember all those little "tidbits" which mean nothing to the big picture?

One last point. Even 60 years ago your job didn't matter so much as your ability to work. Seems a much better mark of someones worth than if they managed to know the right person or got extra points for being a minority. Sure am glad taking all the power from the old white guys paid off so well.

bureaucrat said...

From "BNet" from 1996 (fastest I could find) ...

http://findarticles.com/
p/articles/mi_m1355/
is_n21_v90/
ai_18744024/


"Most people who depend on welfare are White and live in suburbs or rural areas, a recent study shows. The findings are contrary to the popular belief that most welfare recipients are unemployed, inner-city minorities whose families have gotten public assistance for generations.

The study reveals that Whites make up 48 percent of the poor, followed by Blacks, 22 percent, and Hispanics, 22 percent. The information for the study was compiled from 1994 Census data, and the study was conducted by Population Reference Bureau, an independent group.

Welfare recipients was not the only "myth of poverty, challenged by the study. The study also notes: .... "

bureaucrat said...

I doubt Dextred1 feels demeaned or intimidated. I just was pointing out that I don't need any more friends, and I'm going to tell it like it is, with facts as I find them. There is no point in blogging or commenting on anything unless it is to find some kind of truth, something sorely lacking in the popular discussion of energy, finance, the economy, and debt. I don't fear facts.

My Federal pension and 401k will likely be gutted at some point .. that is a possibility, not yet fact. :(

Got no problem with rural living either. I was just pointing out 1) living in a rural area in the past meant deferring to the "OWMIC" (old, white male in charge) who may have no idea what he is doing and 2) if you think you are going to evade the worst of "peak oil" if it comes by scurrying away to some farm, you are delusional. :)

I'm more hopeful for oil demand destruction and oil waste abatement to defer peak oil than I am about substitutes.

Donal Lang said...

Bur
I used to come to the USA on business on a regular basis - I don't any more because you treat all visitors like criminals, so now I do my business in Europe. Osama certainly won THAT war!

Greg; you're right to draw the comparisons. To me the big one is the difference between spending wealth on infrastructure (like railways) which create more wealth, and consumption which destroys wealth. Consumption isn't just electonic gewgaws, it includes welfare, and even war if it isn't an 'investment' (in other words doesn't show a 'profit' in resources grabbed).

So what's America INVESTED in recently?

bureaucrat said...

Hmm, two of my comments were removed ...

Stephen B. said...

I too want to see this data showing rural areas as being the largest consumers of welfare, housing and food aid, etc.

I have traveled some and, while I don't doubt that rural areas soak up plenty of welfare dollars too, I also have a good feel for what percentage of Boston's poorer neighborhoods chow down the govt. aid - the latter is pretty damn high.

Bur, you've made this assertion before, that rural areas are larger welfare consumers. I want to see the numbers, with citations.

The constant, liberal, big government, bureaucrat rant aimed at rural (and white) people is getting old.

Show me the numbers and the sources.

Lastly, don't show me farm crop payments either. Those often go to corporations and trusts rather than people and families and while ag payments are troublesome too, they are a different beast and should be examined separately.

Let's see those welfare numbers.

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PioneerPreppy said...

I lost some comments as well..

As for the rural welfare comment.

If you take all the social welfare perks as a whole ie clinics, sub ways, dv centers etc government spends more per person in the cities.

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bureaucrat said...

No, Donal, we treat you like terrorists AND criminals. :)

I happen to like visitors. I have one friend left who is a Mexican illegal, who was carried over the border at age 1 by his parents struggling to find work, who were fleeing a country (Mexico) that the Mexicans STILL HONOR on Mexican Independence Day with Mexican flags everywhere. This is to honor a country that doesn't give a damn about them, and is glad they are gone!

We especially like you to visit if you have money to spend. :)

Dextred1 said...

Welfare reform happened in 1996 so your stats are way different than today. I assume the population was probably 70% or more white then also which would skew more towards white receiving benefits. The difference is that I don't want anyone to have benefits and the dems (including you) say well whites get it. So what, they paid into it. I would guess most if not all vote democratic. All it is a way for the dems and government to control people. I am not who you want me to be. I do not think anybody should get anything from the government.

Dextred1 said...

Okay my comments keep getting removed.

Anonymous said...

This article proves nothing to the point about as you stated "The rural areas are where all the welfare families are". Clearly you can't include suburbia with rural and make that claim. I know that for a fact the majority of the poor in PA live in the urban centers, perhaps this differs from state to state.

Rural folks are a smaller and smaller percentage of the population--and they were poorer than those who lived closer to cities basically the entire 20th century and doesn't seem to be changing. Is this the forum to argue geographical location? Cities and rural lands have existed since written history and both serve purposes and have pro's and con's.

Your comments are heavily biased and irrational when it come's to this. You make it sound like everyone used to live in the city and then skipped town--to "leave the damaged people behind". When the opposite is true. People have progressively been migrating to cities, not just suburbia over the past 100 years. Many rural area's could make the claim that in fact they have been left behind--the fact that so many are poor and have to use public services would suggest this--your very argument.

Most of these country folk didn't move from the city to become poor rural folk, but rather more rural people have moved to cities. The damaged rural folk are just as damaged as you say as city folk, if such a distinction even exists beyond words--they are all people just struggling along. Many rural folks never got to enjoy the temporary boom of the 90's--perhaps the wealthy suburbs people are the one's you feel angry at for not helping out--so blame the baby boomer yuppies that have money if you like, but your ire seems misdirected or bent on challenging some sort of racism--that I don't think you see in this forum.

-Meiyo

Dextred1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dextred1 said...

You just made my point; even with those stats from 1994 the whites did not collect according to population size. Welfare reform happened in 1996 so your stats are way different than today. I assume the population was probably 70% or more white then. The problem is dems seize on things like this to push their agenda. I do not want anyone to receive benefits period. I am not who you want me to be. I am a classic liberterian or a traditional conservative ( i don't mean GWB either) I want maxium freedom, small government, low taxes, and prosecution of corruption.


Now whites are 65% of population 198,000,000 million now so of course they have many recipents Still less than population, where blacks represent 40% of benefits taken in.


Welfare recipients

White 38.8%
Black 39.8
Hispanic 15.7
Asian 2.4
Other 3.3

(Interesting that you brought this up as a type of race baiting)

Blacks represent 15% of the population and receive close to 40% of benefits. If you just repeat liberal talking points you will be wrong bur. 80% of the population lives in cities. 20% in rural areas so the comparison is not quite apple to apple. Most suburbs are hardly the country. As for meth, the smell is horrendous and as such is hard to produce in the cities without getting noticed. If there is a profit signal people will do it.



Sarcasm has it place, not ever post and not every day. As for you height and weight, you are a 40 yr old office worker. STOP living in you glory days.

Dextred1 said...

Jeffers,

Love this topic, keep up the good work.

“In the absence of Corporations there existed REAL capitalism. If you failed, you went bankrupt. Life was an ongoing meritocracy.”
This is the most misunderstood thing about capitalism. This crony corporatism now is no more capitalism then a house cat is a Siberian tiger. I always tell my cousin that the free market is always functioning, like the laws of science, but sometimes, with a big enough printing presses you can suspend them for a short time, like shooting a bullet straight in the air. This little conundrum will never last too long, the market like the bullet will self-correct, why? Because a free market like gravity is natural way things work. Forced tax payments by the pukes from the UOWEUS (IRS) is hardly something we should wish or desire.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin

Dextred1 said...

Doanl Lang,

Great point, consumption is leaving us with little infastructure spending to expand future economic production

bureaucrat said...

From Wiretap magazine 2000 ...

'Although my mother collected welfare in the seventies, a lot of sources indicate the picture is pretty similar today. Working-class advocate Michael Moore says of the welfare stereotype: "Aside from the fact that it's racist, it's just not true. According to the U.S. government, the majority of welfare recipients are white, live in the suburbs, have two kids, want to work, and stay on welfare an average of only two years."

So one must ask .. what is "rural"? :)

Dextred1 said...

Michael Moore, really. Neutral source Hashanah. By the way bur you brought it up, not me. I said the country has a lot of admirable qualities. You respond about welfare. Peppy brought up the fact that the money in a lot of other forms go to the cities. It is probably a wash. I don't understand why you insist on this course. I hate welfare; it is an albatrosses on the necks of taxpayers like every other facet of the welfare state. You are like the typical leftist and approach the situation to win, not to be right. I give stats you give a quote from Michael Moore. Bur, I don’t even care who gets the aid. It needs to stop, period. What is your point? Should whites just give up. Where are you leading with this. You some underlying racial problem which clearly clouds you vision.

Anonymous said...

Apparently you need to ask yourself what "rural" is Bur, but I'm sure you can do a search of definitions, to find that--it doesn't mean the suburbs.

I'm pretty certain people around the country driving through the varied middle class to upper class suburbs aren't remarking about how rural it is in the 'burbs'.

We've already agreed that the data shows that whites are the biggest partakers of welfare, why do you continue to beat this drum? My argument with you remains that you attempted to pin the welfare majority on rural folks, which given only 20% of the people in the US live in what is consider "rural" areas--makes this illogical, unless I happen to know the only people in the US that live in the rural areas that aren't on welfare, and no one in the cities are? The numbers don't add up--conflating suburban living into rural living seems ridiculous to me. So if the other 20% of the people just move to the cities, everything will be great eh?

Smiley faces don't make for valid arguments, and Michael Moore is pretty laughable about how he has changed/stretched his bio over time, didn't he grow up in Flint Michigan?
-Meiyo

Joseph said...

Nice Pt III Greg, keep 'em coming. For those missing comments I believe it is OWMIC of which bur speaks.

bureaucrat said...

There is also this thing called the "exurbs." Is that suburbs, rural or what?

I'll look for more current articles. And I'm sure you'd had Michael Moore no matter what he said. :)

My only issue with "rural" is stated above.

(P.S. I like smiley faces)

bureaucrat said...

"Hate"

Anonymous said...

I just read an article on the state of the IL budget. Perhaps this sheds some light on your angst Bur. Since apparently IL has spent like liberals, but taxed like conservative republicans for a couple decades causing massive deficits. It sounds like a sad state of affairs when IL is in worse shape then CA, particularly since that your criminal politicians seemed to borrow money for a very long time to continue to pay unfunded pensions--with price tags in the Billions.

I have seen most of Michael Moore's movie's and have no hate for him--but he does lie/exaggerate, and his bio is one example of this. My "issue" was with what you stated incorrectly, using emotionally laden exaggeration to make a point--beyond your valid point that white's are the largest recipients of welfare monies. Then you go on to blame people that live in rural area's from moving away from the cities and "leaving the damaged people behind"--which is factual untrue. Again, perhaps some suburbanites can be said to have left the city and weakened the tax-base there this seems a common trend not just in Chicago but across the US. But the rural folks aren't a bunch of survivalists who moved away from the city, most of them have lived in the rural areas for generations and often struggle to thrive rather than move to cities.

Michael Moore make's some good arguments about corporatism and its control of the political machinery, yet he continues to promote the political machinery that is rigged against his supposed ideals--so he changes his tune to ridicule Ralph Nader, and vote for Kerry? I think some documentaries that are a bit better on corporatism are the "Corporation" and perhaps "Food, Inc."

-Meiyo

bureaucrat said...

I'm checking on the "welfare = rural" thing, but in the meantime ...

Most state budgets pay for the same things. Just like 80% of Federal spending is SS, Medicare, Medicaid matching, interest and Defense, most states spend 90% of their budgets on Education, human services, health care (Medicaid) and pensions (for state-county-city employees and teachers). CA and IL are no different from the other states in terms of large percentages of their budgets going to a few things.

While CA is guilty of reckless "democrat" spending, and IL is guilty of an abnormal 3% flat income tax rate (while at the same time not taxing government pensions or government "401ks" like mine), both states have not been run very well.

But then the question becomes ... who his going to pay for the schools what property taxes don't pay for? Who is going to pay for medically treating dirt-poor people who are by their very nature going to have more illness, some of it not their fault? If you don't want poor people or severly handicapped people dying on your front lawn, SOMEBODY has to pay. Evading taxes only works for awhile. The criminality of the Illinois state government is confined to a handful of politicians who would have ended up in jail anyway.

Anonymous said...

I suppose it goes back to "dont make promises you can't keep." Apparently politicians don't want to actually PAY for things, but they want to promise things to people anyway. It's called magical thinking, that the future economic growth will somehow always pay for excesses of government, and pandering via low taxes and high spending. From what I read, IL is set to make the most drastic cuts in the country to human services and the like.

A few corrupt politicians? Well, I think that's a funny statement. I think Twain's statement about Politician's are like diapers, and should be changed often for the same reason applies. It appears that the Dem/Rep's basically force most "representatives" to cow tail to their multinational/corporate interests or not receive the support of the two respective Oligarchies. I suppose IL just stands out that your politicans at the highest levels seem to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar more often, my guess is that this stuff happens elsewhere--they just might be smarter than Mr. Hairdo who seems to love the limelight--even if it involves criminal prosecution and ridicule.

A rigged game of social darwinism seems to be the way of things, just b/c you don't like it doesn't mean it won't continue to exist. True compassion is helping people to help themselves, but sadly this is rarely the case with Gov't spending. So apparently intergenerational tyranny is OK with most people--destroy the environment and go into massive debt, leaving the youth and future generations holding a burning bag of feces chained to a system that can't print/or "grow" its way out of debt. History class is pretty much a narrative about how empire's grow and collapse over time, maybe the US can't continue to ride the magic Unicorn of irrational optimism and magical thinking forever? Nah, I'm sure we can--perhaps if everyone just believes in the delusion long enough we can use that power of attraction thing to make the world into some Utopia that it never will be.

-Meiyo

bureaucrat said...

Some people can't help themselves so easily, and the last 30 years have been a classic case of "we want lower taxes and we want higher benefits," and that has put us in the long term malaise/debt bubble we are now entering. Debt isn't a bad thing as long as you don't get in over your head.

bureaucrat said...

Jeffers, part 4, please .. HURRY! :)

PioneerPreppy said...

I wouldn't lay too much of the blame on the "we want" crowd.

Sure the government unions have taken way too much but it was the original progressive FDR that opened up this can of worms.

All of us have been sold a bill of goods (or forced to buy) and the politicians robbed Peter to line their pockets and fund more votes.

Our parents will be the only ones who really will benefit as the retirement age gets increased etc.

Dextred1 said...

Hey you guys ever heard of James burke. The video is connections episode 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORY-mXXgJg4

Watch this link. It is the first of 5 parts of this episode. Really cool stuff. A lot of info on the fall of Rome and modern equivalents to compare to peak oil.

Dextred1 said...

Watch the episode 5 parts if you have time worth it.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bur, you never answered my questions, I'm assuming that is because you know that your argument was invalid. Clearly, the rural folks "leaving the city" is not what "left the damaged people behind". You then went on to argue that rural people were the largest welfare recipients. So in one sentence you blame the rural folks for the plight of cities, and then talk about how they are the biggest welfare receivers. This is patently illogical, so according to your theory you want the "welfare" money of the rural folks back into the city? That certainly isn't going to help the tax-base.

There is a plethora of data showing the progressive move from rural lands to cities over the past century, suburbia is the only movement away from the cities--and suburbia is not the rural land.

Apparently your unwilling to admit you used reactive, emotional, illogical arguments to try and pin urban problems on people that aren't the cause of Chicago's problems or any other city for that matter. Are you still looking for data to say that rural areas somehow use the most welfare services, even though they are only 20% of the population? I worked for non-profits for 8 years, and looked at data every year, and I can tell you that rural poor are an under-served population that receive limited social services and state monies. Not many soup kitchen's or community health center/counseling centers etc etc out in the country. It's hard to imagine that a population center such as Chicago can have less welfare folks then the rural areas--just given population distribution.

So are you going to reply to my queries? You stated you want the truth from these forums, yet use illogical propoganda to make a point and then gloss over it and refuse to reply. A simple, hey rural people aren't responsible for the damage to cities would suffice, I was being a drama queen to make a point--that I meant to make about the wealthy suburbanites that apparently you hold some contempt for.

-Meiyo

bureaucrat said...

You just want to listen to yourself talk. ;) Bottom line: the women, the children who grew up, and minorities are not interested in letting big, white Godly father run their lives, and thats why they left the farms, to make money and find some freedom and culture in the cities. Rural populations continue to drop.

Not everyone in rural areas own farms. I'll bet almost none of them own farms (most farms are now corporate-owned). I've seen more than once it written that the rural areas are where a lot of welfare dollars go (as well as it is where the methamp and marijuana is produced/grown), but it depends on how "rural" is rural (many suburbs are also part rural).

The jobs are in the cities, the money is in the cities, the fun is in the cities, freedom from domineering men is in the cities, and thats why most people live in cities.

If you wanna live on a farm, more power to you. If you think you will avoid a peak-oil-style conflagration in a rural environment .. best wishes to you. You wont.

Anonymous said...

Your comments continue to stink of racism and bigotry. I don't care if your white or not, I don't go to KKK websites or black panther websites to hear inane racist crap. Again you postulate things that you cannot support beyond your biases. Sure some people left rural areas b/c of their parents or their white daddy or their black domineering daddy. Clearly, this is not why all/majority of the people migrated away from rural areas.

A former colleague of mine is from AL, where her father was a sharecropper. Apparently some states such as AL actually have huge minority populations that live in rural areas--it's not all white folks in some states.

I think its time to go the way of coal guy and quit posting here, and quit reading the comments--since the "voice" I see mostly is your Bur, and for your few comments that are of interest--they are spread with gross generalizations and hateful generalizations and blame towards people that often have as much problems as those in the cities, sometimes more so.

Perhaps you should talk to your father about your issues with white daddies, rather than project it onto this blog.

Regards,
Meiyo

bureaucrat said...

Oh don't be such a baby. :) I am an investor. I am here to consider angles for making money. In Chicago I'm surrounded by all kinds of minorities (while I grew up in white suburb and went to VERY white college). I accumulate useful facts (and stereotypes, when it comes to my friends. :)) because I want to predict the future. Everything that happens has already happened.

Let's keep to the real point of the blog, then: oil/gas/energy, and everything will be groovy.

And remember: Less is More.

Stephen B. said...

Lol,

People did not leave the farms to get away from Daddy.

They left the farms because farm mechanization started dropping commodity prices (in real dollars) while the allure of the (new) mills and factories beckoned.

I am quite sure that once folks got to the mills and factories, they had a few thoughts about the mean, white men that were their foremen (obviously, up until recently, all the bosses in the cities were white men) and yet they stayed on those jobs.

*IF* the cities were so much better than the country, why is it that SO much literature, songs, dreams, movies romanticizes the COUNTRY? Why is it that when almost anybody makes any decent money in the cities, they move out to the .......COUNTRY (or at least the gussied up suburbs?)

I'm with Meiyo. Further conversation with Bur is a questionable endeavor at best.

PioneerPreppy said...

Every issue for a progressive, civil employee or liberal always comes down to the white male it seems.

This is the real hurdle for the future IMO. Until "they" can get over their hatred of white males there will always be strife.

bureaucrat said...

The hit the right words .. "ROMANTICIZED the country." The green is always greener .. over the septic tank. ;)

Stephen B. said...

Well said PioneerPreppy.

Dan said...

Methinks Bureaucrat’s problem is he never earned anything himself and hates himself for it, and by expression all other white males as well. He has told us his parents sent him to a top university, and paid for it; although, it probably didn’t start or end there. For this he hates them and wants to tax them into poverty. After school he went to “work” for the federal government, if you call reading and posting to blogs “work.” So basically everything has been handed to him, he didn’t earn diddly, and he feels guilty for it.

Dan said...

Methinks Bureaucrat’s problem is he never earned anything himself and hates himself for it, and by expression all other white males as well. He has told us his parents sent him to a top university, and paid for it; although, it probably didn’t start or end there. For this he hates them and wants to tax them into poverty. After school he went to “work” for the federal government, if you call reading and posting to blogs “work.” So basically everything has been handed to him, he didn’t earn diddly, and he feels guilty for it.

A Quaker in a Strange Land said...

Stephan:

BTW.... I miss Coal Guy's commentary.

Hey Coal Guy! Phone Home!

Anonymous said...

Hi Greg,

Been very busy, then on vacation. Tomorrow I'll be busy again. I'll check in as I can.

Regards,

Coal Guy