"The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century, which occurred mainly inwestern countries following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s. It ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession."
Economic recovery from the Great Depression and of WWII, a period in which demand for goods and services exploded, many social changes took place. Women filled the labor gap during the war and many happily returned to homemaking while many others remained in the paid labor force but at unequal pay. Race issues began to explode as returning African- and -Asian American military personnel returned home no longer willing to put up with segregation and Jim Crow laws. 1968 Was a dreadful year with riots, sit-ins, marches and protesters of all varieties joining in resistance to unfair laws, policing, and economic segregation.
By 1971, the "Nixon Shock", the unlinking of money from gold, meant money was printed based on nothing. When USA needed money, it was printed. The consequence is volatility.
The Bretton Woods Agreement, a system of monetary management created the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world's major industrial states. In 1971, the USA unilaterally terminated convertibility of dollar to gold, thus ending the Bretton Woods Agreement. Officially, the $ became "fiat currency", backed by nothing more than a promise to pay.
What is unclear is how one can fulfill a promise if there is nothing to back it up. Due to excess printed dollars, and negative U.S. trade balance, other nations began demanding fulfillment of America's "promise to pay" – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold.
These and other major shifts in policy brought the end to the Golden Age of Capitalism and economic decline continues at an accelerated rate.
John, I wish you would stop sounding so superior.
Ok... now can you please explain what this means for the 99th%?
1. Yes, I agree, this is a basic Stats 101. It displays evidence in ways that words cannot.
2. The "Log" to which you refer is one of many ways of displaying complex concepts.
3. There are many choices of displays and "Log" is very useful, as you claim, but not always the best way. In the case of this particular question that your log shows is not the best display for this particular problem.
4. What are your credentials?
5. You appear to be someone who knows a little bit about a complex problem and assumes you know it all.
6. The log you displayed does not explain anything and in fact does not give the whole picture. It obscures the detail I am trying to convey, which is, the spread between rich and poor is spreading and current political and economic theorist recommend AUSTERITY for the middle class. That is just plain wrong. There is nothing right about that idea, and in fact will send us into a deeper hole.
Here are videos that give you a good rundown about what I claim.
Steve Keen The Return of The Bear
Sorry John, but it seems that you are the one who is wrong. Every single chart and graph I have ever looked at which includes the top 1% makes it abundantly clear that their income and wealth have grown over the past few decades while the rest of us have stayed at essentially the same levels. It is very misleading to point to the 95th % and say "see, everyone's income growth is the same", because that does not specifically address the question of the top 1%. This is a vital point which you seem to insist on ignoring. Now, if you can produce some charts or graphs, or even a set of numbers showing how the top 1% have not seen any real change in income or wealth over the past few decades, I'm sure we'll all be very happy to consider what you have to say.
Is it not interesting the percentages are so similar in 1928 and 2007?
Yes, Joan, quite the coincidence, isn't it? ;-)
OK, if income gains for the bottom 5th is 16%, add that to 25%, add that to 25%, add that to 95%, add that to 281% how would a log graph look? Well, it would look just like the 2007 column. Yes, a log chart like that would be impressive, but not nearly as impressive as seeing the relative changes over time in a line graph.
If the bottom quintile paid 16% of the income tax total, and the 2nd paid 23%, and Middle paid 25%, 4th paid 35%, top quintile paid 95% and top 1% paid 281% That should bring quite a big income to pay down our national debt. That would require no loopholes.
Do I really have to repost all the pics I already posted for you? I have made my argument: it is the 1%, the 1%, the 1%, who have hijacked the country. I posted these pics the first time because I saw the graph in your link and knew how misleading it was because it left the top 1% out and, as you can see from my graphs, if you look at every other segment of the population all the way up to the 95th% and maybe even higher, we all look to be in the same boat, but the top 1% are in their own boat all by themselves. They are the ones who have hijacked the economy and the country. You missed my point and are insisting that my point is invalid. Well please then supply us with a graph which demonstrates how I am wrong.