Questions that need answering.

[MrFun]

1) How long can mass-exportation of jobs continue before American companies have created a long-term economic crisis for United States? Or are we not already in a long-term economic crisis?

2) Why are real wages in United States not keeping pace with cost of living?

3) If we want Americans to stop buying medicine from Canada, then doesn't it make sense to lower medicine prices here in United States?

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??




Thanks for any meaningful insight, or thoughts on these.

[Flip McWho]

1) Maybe you are already in a long term economic crisis, so long term it doesn't really show up? Seriously, what do you mean mass-exportation of jobs? I'm having a slow day and can't figure that one out. Sorry for being a pain.

2) Real wages never do keep up. People usually live beyond their means. Companies only pay more when they are forced to usually. So the wages won't increase untill (one L or two? for untill?) the workers complain enough. Mostly I think it has to do with inflation. I'm trying to remember 6th form economics. Something to do with inflation rising faster than wages can keep up. Something like that. (I think)

3) Yeah it does make sense to lower prices in the states. Maybe it's more expensive in the states to make the medicine and the Canadians can make it cheaper therefore sell it cheaper. You could either lower prices or make it illegal to buy medicine in canada, both would work .

4) God knows. Maybe it's cause the political status quo at the moment is suiting most people.

[Harry Tuttle]

1) I'll make the argument that the less technical, mass producing jobs - data entry, basic programming, automobile manufacturing - are being replaced in the U.S. by jobs more complicated and of a higher technical skill. For instance, as before in the 1950's, most companies didn't look for individuals with an education past high school. Nowadays, a Bachelors isn't enough most of the time. So, I'l make the leap and say that the jobs in the U.S. are being replaced by jobs that require a higher skill level.

2) They are. Stop buying a bunch of crap. Your parents made do with a black and white TV (even that might be a stretch) and a crappy refrigerator. No one spent money on $200 game consoles back in the "good old days". Time magazine had an article last month that explained how are perception is warped because we actually live better, on a whole, than we did in the past.

3) Economics. Just wait for it. The drug companies will start to feel it soon enough.

4) I would say that because the standard of living is so high, that the country is no longer filling up the empty frontier, and the fact that advances in communication has allowed for a greater understanding of our world. Plus the population is smarter and more informed than it ever was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Harry, those are very insightful answers and I agree with most. That Time magazine article sounds very interesting. Maybe I'll search it out .

[orange]

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

That's actually a question I've been wondering a lot about, myself, lately. Seems odd, doesn't it?

[OzzyKP]

what happened in 1890s?

[JohnT]

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

This is an odd question. Are you telling us that we are the same ideologically as we were 70 years ago? I find that a bit hard to believe. I would say that the country went through a realignment around 1980.

I'm not too sure what happened in the 1830s (are you referring to Jacksonian democracy?), but the other dates (except for 1790) are instances where political (1860's) or economic (1890's, 1930's) crises's occurred.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


4) I would say that because the standard of living is so high, that the country is no longer filling up the empty frontier, and the fact that advances in communication has allowed for a greater understanding of our world. Plus the population is smarter and more informed than it ever was.

Wait -- you're saying that the past political realignments were based on ignorance??

I thought that these past political realignments either ocurred because at the time, the electorate was dramatically expanded, or there was enough of a compelling crisis to create a political realignment.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
what happened in 1890s?

Panic of 1893, a 5 year Depression.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
what happened in 1890s?

Republican party had renounced its platform of racial equality -- a result from a long-drawn process that began with end of Reconstruction in 1877.

The issue over the currency of United States.

The agrarian crisis.

I have not done enough reading on the specific history of these political relaignments, so I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable can fill me in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait -- you're saying that the past political realignments were based on ignorance??

I think what he is saying is that the current lack of political realignment is because not only is the population more informed, but the parties as well, so are able to head off any potential realignment.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s. The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

This is an odd question. Are you telling us that we are the same ideologically as we were 70 years ago? I find that a bit hard to believe. I would say that the country went through a realignment around 1980.

I'm not too sure what happened in the 1830s (are you referring to Jacksonian democracy?), but the other dates (except for 1790) are instances where political (1860's) or economic (1890's, 1930's) crises's occurred.

BASICALLY, yes -- in 1930s, the Democratic party began its liberalization under Roosevelt, reversing its strong stance of states' rights over federal government. That is still the ideology of the Democratic party today, since this realignment.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by MrFun


Wait -- you're saying that the past political realignments were based on ignorance??

I thought that these past political realignments either ocurred because at the time, the electorate was dramatically expanded, or there was enough of a compelling crisis to create a political realignment.

No, I'm talking about the stress and change that was going on in the country during those times. And really I don't get your meaning of "realignment". If anything it was war, nation building, or economics that started any sort of upheaval in the political structure of the country: 1790 Independence, 1830 expansion, 1860 civil war, 1890 rebuilding of the south and outside expansion, and 1930 finally the great depression.

[MrFun]

Harry -- I agree with you on your reasons you stated for realignments.

[OzzyKP]

Eh, doesn't seem too big. Except the racial equality thing.

I do wonder what happened between 1860 and 1930. The democrats became modern in 30, but if you are saying the republicans fell into their mold in 1890, then the reps and dems supported the same thing from 90 to 30?

[Harry Tuttle]

ok, cool

[Kirnwaffen]

I'll take a stab at 4. To be more accurate, you can actually merge everything from 1830 through 1860 into one big period of political upheaval. There were huge social and economic changes taking place in the time periods you describe (well, I'm blanking on the 1890s, but all the other times there were). Naturally, big social and economic change tend to exacerbate differences of opinion on certain issues. These issues cause splits in political parties, which breed new political parties, and new constituencies. Right now, we're exiting a period of relative stability during which we were bound by a common threat. There is certainly a lot potential for certain issues to cause another major political realignment, but you'll have to give it time.

[OzzyKP]

i get what you mean Fun. Realignment is what takes the party of Lincoln to the party of Bush, and the party of Jefferson to the party of Ted Kennedy.

[MrFun]

Ozzy, in regards to the issues of race relations between the 1890s and 1930s:

by the end of Reconstruction, many Republican leaders began to embrace white supremacy as a means to reconcile with the South (North won the war, but South won the peace). More conservative Republicans were done fed up with this "Negro" question -- and chose to focus much more strongly on economic interests.

As a result, I think that between the 1890s and 1930s, the Republican party and the Democratic party were both white supremacist parties. The Democratic party began to liberalize on economic issues by the 1930s, and soon afterward, began to liberalize on race relations, especially when they brought it onto their political platform in 1948.

[Flip McWho]

I agree with Harry Tuttle aswel. Sounds like they are the best reasons. Also now days political parties are getting to be damn close to each other anyways. Well in NZ anyway.

[OzzyKP]

I want to see a realignment!

It was looking like it would be a Republican-Libertarian party vs. a Democrat-Socialist party. Now with Bush and Dean its looking like a Republican-Fascist party vs. a Democrat-Libertarian party.

Dear god, just not a Republican-Fascist vs. Democrat-Socialist.

[Harry Tuttle]

I agree with Mr. Fun. The parties were supremicist during that time. Hell, I'd even make the statement that there was only one kind of "party rhetoric" in the latter quarter of the 19th century. The civil war really put everyone into the same line.

[OzzyKP]

And the number one question that needs answering:

When is Ozzy getting laid?

[Harry Tuttle]

Recover from that ATV accident yet?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now with Bush and Dean its looking like a Republican-Fascist party vs. a Democrat-Libertarian party.

Dean is signaling a Democrat-Libertarian coalition? Are you talking about a different Dean?

[Ramo]

4) Why are we still in the longest period of political status quo in the history of United States? The last political realignments occured in: 1790s, 1830s, 1860s, 1890s, and finally, 1930s.
The previous political realignments lasted 30 to 40 years -- right now, we are more than 70 years from the last political realignment. Why is this??

You missed '68. The South used to be Democratic, remember?

[OzzyKP]

Well moreso than some dems. But i wouldn't necessarily say it is a signal, but the contrast between him and Bush heightens the difference.

Weak example, I agree. And most likely my later prediction will be the correct one. Neo-Cons vs. FDR Dems. *shudder*

[Imran Siddiqui]

And most likely my later prediction will be the correct one. Neo-Cons vs. FDR Dems. *shudder*

Well that's nice. But what about on the domestic front. You do know that there is no such think as a neo-con in dealing with domestic issues, don't you?

[OzzyKP]

Thats the thing, they are as big government as the dems it seems, cause they'll go for whatever big spending bill to lock up votes. Or at least Bush is.

Not to use an extreme example, but real fascists like Hitler and Muscilini are often described as extreme rightists, but their domestic policies were quite socialist. Big government spending programs.

Neo-cons seem like that too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neo-cons seem like that too.

Repeat after me:

Neo-Cons have no domestic policy
Neo-Cons have no domestic policy
Neo-Cons have no domestic policy

Continue .