I think you both paint with too broad a brush. Yes, the results of the summer of love were disappointing, but hippies were called counterculture for a reason; it’s hard to change a current by swimming against it but it can be influenced.
Not everybody of the boomer generation wore sandals and lovebeads, nor are they the only ones wearing MAGA hats.
Dammit. I’d say we should all leave. Costa Rica, South Africa, something. But I don’t really think they’d notice us until their vital supplies of Schoolhouse Rock quotes ran low.
As for the Boomers and such? I think Starving Artist is correct that infrastructure improvements such as electricity - though I’d include access to clean and reliable water as well - did more than any generation could do to improve the lives of those outside the US.
Were I to decide to critique the Boomers - which, as Gen-X, I believe is in the constitution somewhere in one of those amendment things - I’d offer that they were truly the first real consumer generation. The first one with both the wealth and desire to focus on consumption to such a degree that American society became disposable. That’s encouraged both short-term thinking and ecological degradation to an amazing level. Having a throw-away culture is one of the things we must solve if the USA is to remain any form of meaningful society in the middle-term.
It strikes me as an odd methodology to simply cite trends during the period in which boomers held power at some levels of government. Every big picture social change is going to be the product of many more people than a generational cohort.
Who had a bigger impact on the 1990s, Bill Clinton or Bill Gates (b. 1955)?
IMO, it would be more persuasive to identify the leading causes of particular trends and attempt to connect boomer leadership to them. The crime drop, for example, has a few widely recognized leading causes: the work of community organizations, more policing and changing police tactics, and economic improvement. (Lead is probably not a big contributor, despite being a liberal cause celebre, since we see no cohort effects–but if it is, then Nixon gets credit, and he is not a boomer.) Of those, Gen X gets as much credit as boomers–though Clinton did put a lot of cops on the streets with the help of non-boomer legislative leaders. And, of course, you have to account for the ways in which boomer leaders made crime higher–misguided prison policies, gun policies, re-segregation of schools, etc.
The thing is, you have to look at cause and effect. Yes, improvements in infrastructure and access to better goods and services have been the reason why there has been such a boom in quality of life world wide in the last 50 years, but why? Well, that’s easy. The boomer generation became the most affluent generation in human history, and their affluence drove the world wide economic boom. A poster up thread talked about how a lot of the decline in world wide poverty can be attributed to China, but the reason for that was opening up trade relations with the US and the boom in consumerism of the boomers transferring great wealth into China for goods and services. This is what allowed China (as well as many other 3rd world nations) to have economic booms of their own, to bring capital and investment into those countries along with (relative) prosperity.
Certainly the ecological damage has been great, and it’s something the later generations will have to live with…just like the boomers had to live with the baggage and damage earlier generations left for us…but, the thing is, the vast amounts of wealth as well as the huge leaps in technology and science gives the means to start addressing these issues.
Did I hear something? Must’ve been the wind.
Seriously though as a force you are forgettable … no fault of your own. You are just stuck between two large demographic waves. Mind you I was born in '59 and while most would place me (and Obama, born '61) as a tail end Boomer, some would place us as leading edge X. But using '65 to '80, as seems to be most official, you are fairly few folk, not even a 20 year range cohort and the first era of better birth control use. There will be/are Gen X-ers as leaders but who they are and what they do will be mostly defined by what the Gens above and below them decide.
You aren’t even anyone who will get blame.
Both Boomers, both big impacts, of different sorts. But on review give the X-ers credit for Google, Musk, and we can fight for gets Bezos. Maybe not so forgettable.
Assessing cause is a matter of debatable opinions. All we can actually say with confidence is what correlated with the time period that Boomers have been the dominant force in the dominant culture of the world. If what happened during that time period was all a pile of steaming shit we’d be sure to be blamed. Let’s at least accept that it’s been far from that.
I’ll grant you some of that, but I still don’t see how boomers helped end global poverty. Most of the reductions in global poverty came from China instituting reforms in the 70s.
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html
Also as far as crime, a big part of the crime decline was due to removing lead from gasoline and making abortion legal, both actions that happened in the 70s when the oldest boomers were in their 20s. They didn’t really have a role in that either.
Also a lot of the democratic waves that have occurred in the world pretty much stalled by the 90s. Many of the reforms happened in the 70s and 80s with de-colonization. I think from the 90s until now, the number of governments on earth that are liberal democracies has pretty much stabilized at around ~90 after growing in the post WW2 period. So again, that really wasn’t the boomers.
Also aren’t a lot of the tech advances we see things that were created by Gen-X and popularized by millennials? I’m not sure if the boomers are the generation to credit for that. However I could be wrong. Smartphones for example aren’t a boomer tech. Gen-X invented them, millennials beta tested them and brought them mainstream.
I’m hoping that when Gen-X and millennials take power politically (maybe in 20 years) then we will see things like genuine health care reform, anti-trust legislation, stronger action on resource depletion and pollution, address of income inequality, pro middle class legislation. etc.
As someone who is arguably a Xennial, I just am not that impressed by the boomer generation in America. Maybe I missed something but when I think of boomers I think of angry old white people holed up in their homes, watching fox news and voting for policies that make their children’s lives more painful because they are threatened by multiculturalism and the plutocrats exploit their fears for personal gain. To me the true period of boomer leadership was around the early 90s until the next decade or so. That was the period where the GOP went insane, we got caught up in wars of choice, income inequality kept getting worse, etc. Boomers did some good things, but it is time for them to retreat from leadership and let the next generations take over.
No, the reduction in poverty came from the US and the rest of the world opening up diplomatic relations and trade with China in the 80’s and 90’s and beyond. Mao finally shuffling off this mortal coil and Deng’s reforms certainly helped as well, but reforms would mean nothing if they didn’t have that boom in trade…that boom that came from boomers buying stuff from China. All of this hinged on the US re-establishing diplomatic and trade relations with (mainland, communist) China and putting Taiwan into a secondary position (granted, Nixon wasn’t a boomer so I concede that this initiative wasn’t boomer driven). It was the US that pushed for China to take the seat on the UNSC that Taiwan had, and the US who really pushed open the doors of trade that allowed China to so reduce it’s poverty and rise so quickly as an economic power…and it was the boomers buying stuff that flooded the country with capital to do all that stuff.
The world bought China’s goods because they were cheaper. Again, that is due to leadership in China. Had Indonesia produced cheaper goods then people would’ve bought goods that say ‘made in Indonesia’. China abandoned Mao and communism in favor of business friendly market reforms.
Also the US isn’t the only trade partner with China. China does a lot of trade with the EU, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, etc. Of the top 11 trading partners, the US only makes up about 1/5 of the trade.
I don’t see how boomers buying cheap Chinese goods means they are responsible for China lifting itself out of poverty. China is lifting itself out of poverty due to domestic reforms, and an awareness that they have to bring value to the global marketplace.
If the US had refused to allow Chinese goods to enter their marketplace, then yes China’s growth would have been less. But I don’t think it would’ve been that much less. Maybe 9% GDP growth rates instead of 10%.
Doesn’t that come back to what I said, X? That the boomers contribution came down to being the first consumer generation? And I’d argue that has more drawbacks than benefits. A consumer attitude allows for an emphasis on possessions and not on accomplishments and wisdom. It wasn’t Gen-X or those following - I’m unclear on the definitions - who were dubbed the ‘Me’ generation, it was the Boomers.
One can certainly argue that increased consumption led to lowered poverty levels, certainly. But that increased consumption comes with enormous downstream, hidden costs in - as mentioned - environmental degradation, unrealistic expectations, resource depletion, downward pressure on wealth in the developed worth and even migration.
Of course they bought Chinese goods because they were cheap. But they bought them mainly because the world opened up to Chinese trade at the same time the Chinese shifted away from Mao. Both things had to happen, and you are only allowing for one. China couldn’t sell anything to anyone outside of other communist countries had relations not normalized.
Oh, ONLY 1/5th. 
The point for this discussion, however, is that many other countries followed (and follow even today) the US’s lead. When the US normalized relations with China that normalized them for a lot of other countries too. Could China have traded without normalizing relations with the US? Sure. But it would be nothing like what it is today if the US was still in Cuba mode with China.
China isn’t lifting itself out of poverty in a vacuum. Without the trillions of dollars in trade they have received, much of it from boomers buying Chinese goods and services, I have no idea how you rationalize how China COULD lift itself out of poverty. You are putting the horse before the care and saying that it’s really the cart that’s responsible for making it all move. Without the vast amounts of money from trade China would still be mired in extreme poverty.
Not a chance. No idea where you get this from, but it’s so far off I don’t even know where to start. It’s inconceivable that China would be anywhere near where they are today if the US never normalized relations with China. Not just the fact that a huge percentage of Chinese trade comes from goods and services sold in the US (or sold to other countries who use them to sell stuff in the US), but the cascade effect of the US not trading with China meaning many other countries wouldn’t trade with them either, or trade with them on a more limited basis.
I’m going to ask for a flag on this play, X. While I’d agree that working with international trade did a LOT to life the average Chinese out of poverty - though there are issue with treatment of workers and safety and such - it is entirely unclear whether that would happen without the government of the PRC setting things in such a way as to create the conditions where such could happen.
There are certainly intensely resource-rich nations that sell to the world where poverty is still a real issue. Brazil, Indonesia, whatever-the-hell Congo is calling itself now. It’s clear that it’s more than just being able to sell that lifts poverty but also the management of how the markets take in and handle the new wealth. I’d argue that’s far more important than trade in poverty reduction.
But I didn’t say that it would have happened without changes by the CCP with respect to their stance towards not just the US but much of the western world. Had they stuck with the same Mao type policies they would still be the same completely dysfunctional nation they were before Deng. Both things had to happen. The difference between what I’m saying and what Wesley Clark seems to be saying is I’m saying that regardless of Deng’s changes the US had to be on board as well to make China what it is today. Wesley seems to be dismissing the US’s role as having ‘nothing to do with the US’, which is just wrong.
Certainly, though that wasn’t really the point I was making. China has been able to capitalize (heh) on more than just being able to sell cheap goods and services but also to be an offshoring destination able to leverage and sell it’s cheap labor and, um, fluid regulation environment. They are also a huge market themselves, especially for value added goods, making them a perfect match for the US wrt trade. But in the early 70’s the US didn’t HAVE to trade with China, nor did we have to normalize relations, though it was in our best interests to drive a wedge between the USSR and China. We certainly didn’t start trading with them or normalizing relations out of the goodness of our hearts. However, this action had a profound impact on China that I feel Wesley is not only downplaying but is totally dismissing.
Where is your evidence for any of these arguments?
The world doesn’t revolve around America. Had America enforced an embargo on China yeah China’s history would have been different. But we don’t know how. I tend to believe that if China started offering lower cost goods and a business friendly environment, that any embargo would’ve broken down or been abandoned by Europe and Asia even if America wanted it. Either way, China’s GDP didn’t start growing until several years after Nixon met with Mao, and it started growing under Deng. Kicking Mao out of power and abandoning communism was the best decision modern China made and it had nothing to do with the US.
As I said, America alone makes up a relatively small % of China’s overall trade. America’s trade balance with China is about the same size as Hong Kong and South Korea’s exports from China combined (America makes up 18% of Chinese export market, while South Korea makes up 5% and Hong Kong makes up 14%. If South Korea & Hong Kong started trying to take credit for China lifting 700 million people out of poverty they’d be laughed out of the room. South Korea and Hong Kong took advantage of China offering good leadership and competent market reforms, they didn’t lift China out of poverty.
Lest anyone get confused, this is saying that prosperity in places like China and South Korea has been growing faster than that of the U.S. Within the U.S., income inequality has gotten much worse over the same time period, not better.
“Boomers” are as crappy a generation as any that came before or existed since.
All–encompassing generational labels that ignore individual variation and achievement suck.
And I’d be turning into a irritable codger if I hadn’t been one for a long time already.
I was going to say ‘reality’, but I’ll go with Cuba. And the Soviet Union. Why? Because they are examples of countries that the US either didn’t trade with or had very limited trade…which is exactly what China would have been had the US not opened up trade and normalized relations. And it wouldn’t have just been the US. The pre-EU Europeans wouldn’t have opened up as much trade either, nor would anyone invest heavily in China or in putting manufacturing in China. Nor would China have been a member of the UNSC without the US vote…and by extension the vote of the UK and France, though it would be moot as all it would have needed to not have (mainland) China replace Taiwan would be the US’s veto.
At the time we are talking about it certainly didn’t…it revolved around the US on one side and the USSR on the other. Even if you posit that having the US shun China that this would mean China would go back to good relations with the USSR, so what? From a trade and expansion perspective that wouldn’t make China what it is today. Following the collapse of the USSR perhaps relations would have changed then, though we still haven’t fully normalized relations with Cuba even today, so maybe not too. Even if they had, China would be a decade or more behind, and in a much weaker position.
I know it’s a thing around here to downplay the US, but don’t take it to ridiculous levels.
We didn’t have to embargo China…we just could have not traded with them, and by extension encouraged our (economically powerful) allies to not do so either, instead of the reverse. China’s history would be totally different, whatever Deng did or didn’t do or what policies the CCP did or didn’t pursue. They would probably be better off than the disaster basket case they were under Mao, but they certainly wouldn’t be what they are today had the US not reached out to them in the 70’s.
Ok, but why do you believe that? Who would have invested the capital and taken the risk of moving manufacturing centers to China if the US continued to shun the area? The Chinese can’t just pull low cost goods and services out of their asses after all. You have to build factories and manufacturing centers, build distribution and who would be footing the bill for that stuff? And who would be buying those goods in the 80’s and 90’s if not the US and our various allies even if you could magically build all of that infrastructure on just what the Chinese right after Mao?
All of those things happened because the US normalized relations. Without that, you wouldn’t have trade relations nearly as strong with even the other regional powers, let along Europe.
Absolutely. As I said, and unlike your argument, both things had to happen. Deng needed to back the Chinese away from the madness of Mao and open up to trade and business AND the US had to normalize relations. If Deng just does his part without the US it would be a fail, unless you are asserting that the USSR would have both normalized their own relations AND could give the economic boost in the 80’s that the US and it’s allies did to China?
And do you think that South Korea and Hong Kong (under the UK) would have opened up for trade if the US didn’t normalize relations? If so, what do you base that on, exactly?
And, I’m sorry to say, but trade DID, absolutely, lift China out of poverty. They didn’t do it on their own and in a vacuum.
That’s not even true today, unless you consider over $550 billion dollars in trade out of a total of $3.5 trillion to be ‘relatively small’. This of course doesn’t take into account the trade China has to countries who use those goods and services to value add and then trade those value added goods and services on to the US. And, of course, it’s putting the horse before the cart…TODAY, the US/China trade might be ‘relatively small’ (to you), but all of the other trade they have pretty much hinges on other countries trading and investing in them…which wouldn’t have happened, or have happened nearly as much had the US not normalized relations with them starting in the 70’s. A large percentage of their trade comes from the EU, Japan and South Korea, and last I checked, especially in the 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s, those countries were all tightly aligned with the US. Had the US not traded with or invested in China, had we not normalized relations, what makes you think those other countries would have?
Have you checked South Korea’s alignment? Seriously, you are, again, putting the cart before the horse. It’s like, to you, history would be exactly the same had the US just not normalized relations with China…everything would be exactly alike, but China would be simply $550 billion odd trade dollars. They would, of course, just import all of the goods and services they get from the US from everyone else, the US tech transfers (a.k.a. stealing) would have happened exactly the same, US companies wouldn’t have invested in them but everyone else would have, and China would be exactly where they are today except a bit poorer. Does this narrative really make any sense to you? In the context of the cold war when this all happened? Even in the context of the immediate post-cold war period? When do you surmise this great technology and capital transfer to China would occur to set up all this trade with the EU, South Korea, Japan and the rest?
Except South Korea wouldn’t have done so, and neither would Hong Kong under the UK. I seriously doubt that the UK would have turned over Hong Kong ahead of schedule, either, in the wake of non-normalized relations with the US.
Before anything else I am going to repeat myself: can we start off by at least agreeing that these various positive things are all correlated with the time that the Boomers were the dominant force of the world’s dominant culture?
Correlation is of course not correlation. But clearly it was not reverse causation. Could all have been coincidental. Could have caused by the actions of others and American Boomers just didn’t block it. IF one wants to cast China as the driver of normalization and increased trade one still has to accept the importance of leadership in America being a willing partner in that, rather than setting up barriers and a Fortress America mentality. Minimally it is very clear that a lot of good occurred during time of Boomer dominance. Not that all was good of course.
A fair cop but also lest anyone get confused income inequality has increased in the United States not because the country’s poor have gotten poorer, they have not. Real income has gone up, by a little, for the poorest and moderately for the median. Income inequality has increased within the United States because the rich have gotten richer by lots more, and because there has been a hollowing out of the middle with (offsetting) movement in both directions.
This was also to no small degree a consequence of trade: America lost low skill work to countries whose low skill workers get paid a lot less (decreasing poverty there, allowing China’s leadership to lead well and thus for their economy to grow), and we grew the job pool for those with higher skills and education, with the most growth in the export of ideas and intellectual property. We simultaneously invested in education, for ourselves, for our children, and as a society.
Those without much education or skill who before could be in the lower middle dropped down while those with higher skill levels and education more commonly moved up. The median moved up substantially but inequality went up more and fewer are at the median than before.
The increase in inequality within the country is a negative that has occurred during the Boomer period, no question.
And of course Boomers we not suddenly doing any of this in a vacuum. They continued and expanded on what was already in progress and cooperated with others across the world who were willing to engage.
I don’t think you can, because a lot of the good things you list started occurring in the 70s and 80s.
The wave of liberal democratization over the world.
China adopting market reforms which helped reduce global poverty.
Societal reforms that resulted in lower crime rates for future generations
The oldest boomers were 30 years old in the late 70s and the youngest were still in high school. If anything the greatest generation and silent generation deserve credit for these advances (well, not really since the democratization and China issues had nothing to do with America, those were the people in foreign nations doing this).
I’d wager the boomers didn’t really start running things until the 90s, and they still run things (although that will be transitioned to millennials and Gen-X sometime in the next decade).
A lot of good did happen in the 90s until the 2020s. A lot of technology and medical advances occurred in the 1990s-2020s era. But there has been a lot of bad too. Politics has become more radicalized. Income inequality (domestically) keeps getting worse.
I’d say the best thing about the boomer era was that it seems to be a golden age for science and technology.
