It is without debate that the 1940s through the 1960s were America's "golden years" wherein:
Economic growth was nearly double what it is today;
Unemployment was half of what it is today;
The national debt averaged half of what it is today (relative to GDP)
High school graduates could graduate AND GET JOBS without endebting themselves pursuing worthless degrees.
Life was better. The economy was better. And the future much brighter.
Of course, since the '50s were largely the pinnacle economic achievement of free markets, those on the left must attack it. And thus, with the assurance of a ball returning while playing against a wall in one-man tennis, you can reliably predict two common arguments the left will use when trying to tear down those glorious '50s:
- 1. The highest income tax bracket was 91% in the '50s
- 2. The '50s were "raaaaayccccissss"
The first argument is easily debunked because so few people were in the 91% income tax bracket that its leftist-desired wealth redistributive effects were not realized, nor did it really affect the economy. Additionally, using the REAL tax rate (that would be "spending as a percentage of GDP" for you non-economists out there) shows overall taxation much lower in the Evil Racist 50's than what we have today (25% GDP at state federal and local vs. the 35% we have today, and that includes the Korean War).
But the "But the '50s Were Racist" argument the left uses to chicken-out of this economic debate is particularly obnoxious. For not only is it -
a red herring
and ultimately irrelevant to the economic debate (attempting) to be had,
...it's downright tiresome. Alas, time to take this pathetic canard down.
The first and most obvious flaw with this argument is the fact that IN NO POINT IN TIME in the history of THE ENTIRE WORLD was there "no problems." ANY point ANYWHERE in history there was always something bad going on.
The roaring '20s? Untreatable cancer.
The industrial revolution? Polio.
Roman empire? Slavery.
The Renaissance? Cheating spouses.
You might as well respond to the argument that "the '80s was an economic miracle" with "yeah, but the Challenger blew up."
Bad things existing or happening during an booming economy does NOT moot the economic production that occurred during those times, NOR the variables/policies that lead to said booming economy.
Two, (and you need to follow the logic on this VERY CLOSELY and CLEARLY):
In claiming racism is a valid enough reason to debunk and dismiss the economic boom of the '50s, this MUST mean that the left believes racism had a causal relationship (in part) with the economic boom. Otherwise they would be intellectually honest and aim for "the best of both worlds."
They would say, "well, we should look at what economic policies were in place during the '50s AS WELL AS eliminate the racist policies that plagued the day." However, they don't. They associate and thus imply that RACISM CAUSED THE ECONOMIC BOOM OF THE 1950s and therefore we cannot implement those policies.
Let that sink in.
I know leftists and socialists won't, but let that sink in your brain.
The left (albeit naively, idiotically, and unconsciously) is claiming RACISM CAUSES ECONOMIC GROWTH.
I don't need charts, data, or empirical evidence. This is just HIGHLY FLAWED and INSANE logic. Racism is GOOD for the economy??? And that if we wanted to get the economy booming again we should implement RACIST policies???
I know the left does not advocate such a thing, but their unchecked, emotionally driven "logic" does.
Finally, what's worse is it shows just how little the left views minorities (albeit unconsciously). For this argument to be true - that instituting the economic policies of the '50s would BY NECESSITY bring back "racism" - then minorities would have to have net negative economic NPV's. i.e. - they would have to be economic sink holes. Not just that they would "produce nothing of value" but actually DESTROY economic value (on par with an estimated 2% GDP per year).
And the WHOLE REASON for the booming economy in the 1950s was because "whitey" was keeping blacks (and others) out of the economy, because if minorities were allowed in the economy (or treated as equals) then the economy would tank as if minorities were somehow "saboteurs."
Those aren't my words. Nor (admittedly) are they the conscious words of the left. But, again, it IS their logic and what they are effectively implying.
The truth is the "But the '50s Were Racist" argument is just another TIRESOME, REPEATED, and COWARDLY tactic of the left where they hide the failure of their economic policies behind an unrelated social issue. They cannot debate their economic plan of socialism, wealth redistribution and parasitism on...
...and thus must take the greatest decade in American economic history and villainize it by tainting it with "racism" (and of course "sexism" as men beat their wives THRICE DAILY and Don Draper banged every secretary in his office in the '50s,)
However, foolish as this argument is, there is a STEEP price to pay if Americans turn off their brains and fail to realize the non-sequitur in the left's argument. In dismissing the '50s economic boom "because racism" we REFUSE to look at a point in all of human history where an economy was NEVER BETTER. Poverty was decreasing at the fastest rate in human history FOR ALL PEOPLE. Standards of living were increasing faster than ever. And if we kept this economic miracle up, we would have had income per capita's of over $100,000 today.
The key -
The answer -
The solution -
To nearly all of our economic and financial problems lay in those decades of America's glory years sans, of course, the racism.
Too bad nobody's courageous enough to study them, highlight them, or advocate bringing them back because a bunch of intellectually dishonest parasites calling themselves democrats might falsely accuse you of being a (GASP!) raaaaayyyyyyycccciiiiiisssss!
Enjoy more of Aaron Clarey's writing at Captain Capitalism.
Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.