No substance? I imagine the trillions of dollars spent globally on charity are "absolutely no substance"? That every humanitarian aid we sent to countries struck with disease or famine is "absolutely no substance"? We as humans are doing more than ever before - no one was sending food aid to Africa 100 years ago,because we had our own problems at home - but now, because of the improved economy we can!
Sure, middle and working class workers make less now than they did in 1990 dollars. So what? An average human being is much less likely to die from illness or starvation than as little as 100 years ago, and you keep iterating that the top 1% make more money than ever before?
But you know what, whatever - let's say that the economy is shit if you insist. I still keep asking(for the 3 time now!) what is your definition of the good economy then?
Your claim of " As for the starving children in Africa(or America,or anywhere else) - we will fix that too." had no substance.
I would prefer a more stable fairer economy that rewarded the people actually doing the work rather than the owners of capital. People that are working a full time job or more should not need to have to worry about being able to afford essentials like rent and food (the UK has seen a huge growth in the use of food banks despite your thriving economy).
Technology is making many things better, but not fairer. And why do you choose 100 years ago as your comparison? Why not 2006?
Because I am looking at the large scale of things, while you concentrate on the few last years. This is the problem between our arguments. You refuse to see that as society we are doing better than ever before, consistently pointing out how things have gotten bad in the last few years. Yeah, they have - that doesn't change the broad outlook.
As for the food banks - fantastic! That means that the system is working - if you are hungry, you will not starve because the economy can afford to feed hungry people even if they don't have a job! Don't you think that this is a success?
Generally when speaking about economics, people are talking in those sort of timescales or shorter, not over a hundred years. So economically we are doing poorly.
As for your food banks comment - I think you are a fool or a troll.
Sure, middle and working class workers make less now than they did in 1990 dollars. So what? An average human being is much less likely to die from illness or starvation than as little as 100 years ago, and you keep iterating that the top 1% make more money than ever before?
But you know what, whatever - let's say that the economy is shit if you insist. I still keep asking(for the 3 time now!) what is your definition of the good economy then?