That’s because us moderate-to-liberal types are realists. 
Uh…yeah… :rolleyes: Take it easy.
Whoa! Have I just witnessed the real-world usage of the super-sensitivity power? Did you come into contact with radioactive material or is it a genetic mutation? :eek: Sarcasm aside, I am merely condensing a quarter’s worth of notes from my seemingly worthless US Labor History class (and, a smidgeon of Intro to Labor Economics). It is a fact that people from the 50-80’s did not go to college as much as kids do now (warning .pdf, but the graph is helpful). During those times in America, especially in the heartland (i.e. midwest, though according to my professor, it was anything between New England and CA), society considered working the farm to be good enough, then whatever small industry came by (textiles, mass produced goods, etc.), then the corporate farm, then the auto plant/steel mills, etc. So that I am completely clear, there is nothing wrong with choosing that path or not. With regards to personal finance, a good economic agreement can be made against attaining higher and much more costlier degrees. Again, if you want to argue whether that’s good (well, “better,” really) or not, open a thread.
Yeah, only if you let it.
Internationally, Reagan was the greatest American President of the post-WW2 era. He (along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II) was largely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the freeing of Eastern Europe.
A bit of a side question, if you don’t mind, though I don’t knowif anyone here will be old enough to offer a proper answer: back in his heyday in the 40s and 50s, how famous was Reagan as an actor? Who’s a person of comparable fame and talent today? I’ve never been able to tell how famous he actually was back in those days.
For some reason, Kurt Russell comes to mind. Someone like that.
[continuing the hijack]
Personally, I feel that classicism, like what drives a capitalistic economy, is just an indicator symptom of a larger phenomenom of “Keeping up with the Joneses” (please excuse any spelling errors). In a free market economy, the best state for the economy, theoretically, is one that promotes efficient markets (of which I am a big believer and all-time fan), i.e. an ideal capitalist market, or ideal market (purely for the purposes of this discussion).
An ideal market will have income inequality, there is no way around it. People can simply provide better value to the economy than others at any given point in time, and as such, can reap more rewards/profits/etc. However, in order to do this, they (the actors in this market) cannot discriminate with who they deal with, or it will lead to inefficiency. Any inefficiency will lead to another actor to overtake that opportunity (it’s in these micro instances where the economy seems like a zero-sum game).
Therefore (and I am skipping a lot, because I mean to make this brief), any inequalities in wealth is only on a personally perceived basis, i.e. one is only “poor” in the sense that one does not bring as much value as someone else. If one doesn’t have enough to feed oneself, then technically, that person is in poverty and that is an entirely different matter. If others don’t associate with that person because he doesn’t make enough, well, then TDB – he probably didn’t want to deal with those a-holes anyhow. It’s only perceived, because as an actor, everyone is needed in the market. By adding limits, by making the market more inefficient, such is only a recipe for market failures, and when that happens, there are a lot more things to worry about then not getting into the local country club.
I’ll expand more if you want, but hopefully you get my gist.
Not a bad choice, though of course Russell was a child Disney star, which has no equivalent to anything in Reagan’s resume, so the shapes of their careers are different.
I’d compare Reagan to, say, Bill Pullman; a B- level star, who’s done a variety of reasonably successful movies but never really been a major crowd-drawing star.
Johnson’s approval rating had dropped to 49% (better than Carter, worse than Ford) by the time he left office from 74% at the end of 1963. (Sources here and here.)
Yep, I can go with Bill Pullman. His President Whitmore could be Reagan’s Gipper.