Hey Spaniards, is this true?

[Martinus]

Did anyone read Ide's post?

Yes. Then you started posting some complete nonsense.

[Razgovory]

Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.

Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.

Wait, which country are you talking about?

[Martinus]

Well besides the massive and devastating depression that dominated the last quarter of it.

Which leaves three quarters of a century of prosperity during a time of low taxes and small government.

Wait, which country are you talking about?

Wait, I missed that. Is Yi actually calling the 19th century (a century with slavery, Wild West, robber barons and the Civil War) a "century of prosperity"? 

Wow, this is out there even for him.

[Eddie Teach]

Well, the USA did turn from a backwater into the world's largest economy during that century. A lot of that was due to immigration and expansion, but not all.

BTW, "a century with slavery"? That's kind of like saying "a century with humans".

[Razgovory]

Well, for over half that time Slavery was law in the US, and was slave labor made up a massive apart of the economy.  It was an era of weak federal government for the most part, but state and local governments were quite powerful.  It was also an age of extreme corruption and an age when business could and did just murder people who were inconvenient.  It also saw some of the biggest economic disasters in US history, most notably when the President destroyed the Bank of the United States because someone insulted his wife.  Though to be fair, a lot of of this is positive in some libertarian circles.

[Martinus]

Well, the USA did turn from a backwater into the world's largest economy during that century. A lot of that was due to immigration and expansion, but not all.

BTW, "a century with slavery"? That's kind of like saying "a century with humans".

Well, you can't say it was a time of great prosperity if for a better half of it, a substantial portion of populace was treated like property. From that perspective, North Korea is also a land of prosperity, as Kim Jong Un must have a pretty pretty pretty good life there.

The word "prosperity" is not limited to factors such as economic growth - it has to imply a certain degree of economic welfare for everybody, not just the ruling elite.

[Martinus]

Well, for over half that time Slavery was law in the US, and was slave labor made up a massive apart of the economy.  It was an era of weak federal government for the most part, but state and local governments were quite powerful.  It was also an age of extreme corruption and an age when business could and did just murder people who were inconvenient.  It also saw some of the biggest economic disasters in US history, most notably when the President destroyed the Bank of the United States because someone insulted his wife.  Though to be fair, a lot of of this is positive in some libertarian circles.

Not to mention it was a completely different world. As Picketty shows, you can't sustain indefinite growth like this unless you are engaging in some forms of imperialism and/or colonisation, or are generally exploiting someone (so it had very little to do with low taxes and low regulation).

[garbon]

Ugh, I thought we were past the Martinus book report.

[Eddie Teach]

The word "prosperity" is not limited to factors such as economic growth - it has to imply a certain degree of economic welfare for everybody, not just the ruling elite.

Sure, it should be measured across the board, but that doesn't mean it's not about growth. Were sharecroppers better off than slaves? Were factory workers in 1900 better off than workers in 1800? These are the questions we should be asking. Comparing things in the past to now and finding none of them measure up isn't a very useful exercise.

[Ed Anger]

Ugh, I thought we were past the Martinus book report.

It's 20 pages, single spaced with an 8 pt font. Comic Sans to boot.

[Ideologue]

The word "prosperity" is not limited to factors such as economic growth - it has to imply a certain degree of economic welfare for everybody, not just the ruling elite.

Sure, it should be measured across the board, but that doesn't mean it's not about growth. Were sharecroppers better off than slaves? Were factory workers in 1900 better off than workers in 1800? These are the questions we should be asking. Comparing things in the past to now and finding none of them measure up isn't a very useful exercise.

What if we discover "now" doesn't measure up?