Boon years based on a world whose industries got bombed out during WWII whereas ours didn't is also a fallacious comparison.
I didn't make that comparison.
The tax code was an irrational mess that resulted in less than optimal decisions based on tax loopholes. No one paid that rate so that is just a red herring on your part.
Not my part - I never claimed American rich people paid their official rates of tax.
Reagan raised payroll taxes (as I recall) and lowered (much needed) income and corporate taxes
My point exactly - I posted that, except for the "much needed" idiocy. It was a lousy idea that began the crippling of the American economy.
Your eloquent retort aside, that is the case. The day of the striking union is over.
The day of collectively blackmailing capital is not over, of course. So organized capital faces disorganized labor - labor disorganized at gunpoint, by law - with consequences increasingly familiar to any student of Western economic history.
Much of what Reagan did was because of the stagflation that he had to deal with
That's no excuse. He crippled the US economy for a generation now - it's still sliding. We are fulfilling yet another prediction of the remarkably prescient Gore Vidal: we are becoming a sort of elephantine Paraguay.
When the economy is vibrant, you get wealth inequality.
Only if you screw up.
We didn't, for example, for fifty years of the greatest prosperity and economic "vibrancy" the world had ever seen.
When we decided we had had enough general prosperity, and started back to the old European class system, the economy began losing vibrancy - as predicted by standard economic theory and verified over centuries of experience, severe wealth inequality stifles market based industrial economies. It reduces productivity, impairs efficiency, and blocks the flow of capital as well as information within the the economy - leading to stagnation and plutocracy.
Check out, for example, the progress of Trump's Mexican wall, or the consequences of Reaganomic agricultural policy, or the distribution of investment profits since Reagan. That's the economic future championed by the Republican Party, brought to you by Reaganomics.
Your Reagan diatribe notwithstanding, the 50's weren't the magic that you think they were
The gains in prosperity by the ordinary citizens under the New Deal were not magic - the black ones had to flee the Confederacy to get even part benefit, for one thing.
The wealth "inequality" that we have now is no different that what existing at the end of the 1800's.
!? Wow. You just walk right up and admit that?
Neither are and will be the consequences. How long before we see the private security forces handling the riots, and murdering rioters in the street? How long before the public school and public university is something we used to have - like leisure time, a house affordable on one 40hr job, and health care from doctors?
It took world war to dig out of that sewer - and that only worked because it was far more destructive than the wealthy expected.
Meanwhile, you betray your ignorance by putting "inequality" in quotes.
Wealth inequality is not hypothetical, or abstract. It's physical reality that anyone can observe and the competent can measure. Much has been discovered and understood about its effects, since then - we know more what we're getting into this time.
The average person or even the poorer segment are still better off.
They aren't.
How did the McGovern election fail so miserably?
He lost to Nixon in 1972 - how do
you think that happened? Try using your common sense.
Key term: "Southern Strategy". Key lie: Nixon had a plan to end the Vietnam War. Key fact: the average American white man was a Trump voter even then. Key circumstance: economically Nixon was running then to the left of Biden now. That put him quite close to the American center, and he was the incumbent President during a war.
