July 24, 2015

The Fifties were an economic miracle, but the Left wants you to believe it was thanks to racism

Aaron ClareyRebel Blogger

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
  • and
  • 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 non-sequitir
a red herring
intellectually dishonest
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...

historical, or
empirical grounds,

...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!

And no country with an income per capita in the 6 figures is worth that risk, now is it?

Enjoy that decline.


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.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-07-28 14:26:05 -0400
Uh, Prince, it wasn’t paranoia. We know from documents that indeed communists DID infiltrate the Truman administration. McCarthy was right, 100% right. And what he did paled into comparison the Hollywood blacklisting of conservatives. Anti-Jewish sentiment is a pale memory to the actual Jew hating murders that are committed today by the Islamo-fascists. And the KKK was brought to you by….Democrats. Only a Democrat could actually have a career as a Senator, Senator Byrd, after being an active member of the KKK
commented 2015-07-28 14:21:42 -0400
The left live on fantasy. Anyone who has seen Annie, the new movie, can’t miss the propaganda it promotes when in glories in the so called success of FDR’s New Deal. Yes, digging holes more government money makes total economic sense. They want to gloss over the 50s, where, unlike the 1980s to now, one person could work, feed their family, pay a mortgage, and they buy their child their first car. They love to hatchet an age where taxes were low. It has always been the progressives, such as FDR, and Johnson, who increased the tax base. That’s right. Under conservatives, less of the middle class paid any tax at all, and it was in the progressive era and the welfare era under Johnson that more of the middle class were swept into the tax base.
commented 2015-07-27 08:48:20 -0400
While I agree with Clarey’s position on this issue, I must say, that this was one of the most poorly written and hard to read columns I have seen on Therebel to date.
commented 2015-07-27 08:20:27 -0400
Meh, the previous comment seems written by someone who never lived in the 50s – certainly never in NS or Halifax. AFA the unprecedented economic spur of the 50s, the films touched on it but did not have the retrospect to prioritized this simple economic condition – that being SPENDING POWER OF THE DOLLAR. – yes these people floated large purchases on credit BUT they were paid decently and inflation did not eat their savings and spending power away so a dollar bought a lot and paid off debts quickly – something governments who inflate monetary systems with debt financing and monitariztion seem to miss.

We now have 2 generation working who have never seen a decent raise that mitigated the inflation caused by their government economic policies.
commented 2015-07-26 20:18:20 -0400
The 50s and 60s… let’s see… we had crosses burning in yards (care of the Ku Klux Klan), we had free murders and lynchings of “coloreds” in the Deep South (ask some Nova Scotians about Canada’s treatment of Blacks — we weren’t much better), we had the fear of the Bomb overhanging our society, we had the Korean Conflict (in reality, a war, but nobody calls it as such), we had the overarching fear of Communism, and the subsequent paranoia that the Soviets were penetrating every layer of governnment and society, we had Senator McCarthy and his anti-Communist witch-hunt (in Hollywood leading to wrecked careers and all kinds of “self”-censorship in cinema), we had an overall anti-Jewish sentiment in society (some of it even taught in churches, that the Jews killed Christ)… we didn’t have “faith” so much as “religion”, and that religion is what the youth rebelled against in the 60s and 70s…

No, the 50s were not all they were cracked up to be, nor were they as shiny as nostalgia portrays them…
commented 2015-07-26 17:00:50 -0400
Lefties hate success unless that “success” is their free reign to oppress the public! Should Tommie the Commie or Trudope, or “coalition” of both prevail this fall, Canada will get full measure of Socialism/Communism applied to the public. USRC. Union of Socialist Republics of Canada. Lefties everywhere are salivating for this outcome! Regrettably, most are fools and truly do not realize what this means! The former Soviet Union showed us what a “peoples” republic was really all about. Slavery for the masses and entitlements for the ruling class!
commented 2015-07-26 11:20:02 -0400
Linda: “Our men came home from World War 2 and together with their wives and families rekindled Canada’s economy through hard work and devotion to this land and their way of life”

Nice thought, Linda, but fewer men returned home than left for war, and would have had little impact next to economic policies and military expansion. If you can find someone making a serious claim that the booming 50s were directly caused by men returning from the war and establishing families, post it here. There are other considerations:
commented 2015-07-25 14:49:03 -0400
The 50’S. Lets see. No nanny state , free range kids , good teachers , smaller government etc. What’s not to like. I think those who hate Canada fear a rival of the1950’s
The 50’S weren’t perfect, but we sure had fun .
We never locked our doors. Now we are the ones locked in , afraid to offend becsuse we’re punished for our opinions

Our men came home from World War 2 and together with their wives and families rekindled Canada’s economy through hard work and devotion to this land and their way of life.
We owe them our gratitude and respect.
commented 2015-07-25 12:24:55 -0400
Julie Keshiro wrote: “With that comes lower birth rates resulting in higher labour costs which drive up costs of living.”
Well, then according to this theory; Africa, Middle East & parts of Asia which are densely populated should have a very low ‘costs of living’ & a very ‘high living standard’. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. If the cost of living is low in these countries so are the living standards & social ethics.
The problem with the world is that it’s grossly overpopulated & most of the population is useless, living as parasites.
During the past 5-6 decades hundreds of billions of dollars (perhaps trillion in total) have been spent on aiding these countries but NONE has shown any signs of progress. That’s where the western dollars (taxpayers money) are going, down the drain, this burden is pulling down the western world too, and stalling the progress.
commented 2015-07-24 22:29:09 -0400
Article: “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 50’s: 2. The 50’s were ‘raaaaayccccissss’”
Headline: “the Left wants you to believe [the economic miracle of the Fifties] was thanks to racism”

Aaron is debating a fictional character here. Nobody is saying the Fifties were booming because of racism. He invents a position, claims it as fact in the headline and the rest of the article, all the while arguing against it. Aaron can’t quote anyone because nobody is making this claim. In fact, a Google search for ”50s economy racism" brings up this very article twice in the top five. None of the top 10 entries even hint at causation. Exactly who is making this claim? Someone please help Aaron out and find someone arguing that the economic “miracle” of the 1950s was directly caused by racism.
commented 2015-07-24 21:58:21 -0400
I’ve been insulted – ? – often, for expressing an opinion, by lefty/liberal types telling me I should stop living in the 50’s, or not as ‘nicely’, to go back and live in the 50’s.
I wish…
I think dinosaur was thrown in there a few times too.
As far as racism today is concerned, those mentally disordered lefty/liberal types ought to look to their messiah, ‘Obumbler the Racebaiter’ and his ‘Fellow Travelers’, for any racial turmoil today…
commented 2015-07-24 21:28:21 -0400
Julie: "With that comes lower birth rates resulting in higher labour costs which drive up costs of living.”

I’d be interested in seeing some evidence that a higher birth rate positively affects living standards. On the other hand, here’s a quote from a study which shows the opposite—data and Matlab scripts included:

“Fertility as low as 1.6 births per woman and possibly even lower should not in itself be a matter of concern. Fertility below replacement and modest population decline favor higher material standards of living.

USA fertility rate 2012: 1.88
CAN fertility rate 2012: 1.61
commented 2015-07-24 20:39:07 -0400
They are not Liberals they are Totalitarian dictators and control freaks!
commented 2015-07-24 19:36:09 -0400
I miss the 50s. I know I was just a youngin’ back in those days, but the world was so much less complicated. Good and evil were as clear as black and white (no racial overtones intended). Elvis was king, The Lone Ranger was on TV, you courted your sweetheart at the malt shop (not me…. I was too young, but I was looking forward to it when I got older), you could get an orange soda or a coke for 10 cents to take home or 8 cents to drink in the store. You could also get 3 jaw breaker candies for a penny and suck on one for a full hour, for 2 cents you could be sucking candy all day. Just don’t let the teacher catch you or might get a detention, or even worse, the strap. We respected our elders and we respected authority. Of course, our elders and those in authority earned respect back in those days. I know racism was more entrenched and pronounced back in those days, but I never saw it. I suppose it depended on where you lived. Where I lived, first in northern Alberta, then Richmond and Grand Forks, BC. it wasn’t an issue. In the ensuing years, we’ve gained a lot, but we also lost a lot. We lost our innocence and simple faith in God.
commented 2015-07-24 18:54:25 -0400
what happens to society I meant. Also just to add that the left obviously don’t want to acknowledge this fact or even examine this theory and so would rather whitewash the whole ‘golden generation’ as flawed.
commented 2015-07-24 18:50:42 -0400
I’m very glad you raised this issue Aaron. I believe it was former Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, who said that the greatest cost for the Canadian government has been the breakdown of the family unit. When I compare the 50s and 60s to today, the biggest difference that comes to mind is the secularization of society. With that comes lower birth rates resulting in higher labour costs which drive up costs of living. We also see more single parent families today than ever before. If the family is the building block of society and that stability is gone, what happens to the family? This will be the big question of this century. I guess only time can tell.
commented 2015-07-24 12:45:45 -0400
“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 50’s: 2. The 50’s were ‘raaaaayccccissss’”

Aaron, you’re knowingly refuting an imaginary claim yet the headline says “the Left wants you to believe [the economic miracle of the Fifties] was thanks to racism.” You don’t provide any evidence that anyone is making this claim, which you pull out of thin air. Why did you waste your time writing this and not, say, something based in fact?