The other thing that corresponds with this is women entering the workforce in large numbers after ww2. I’ve been told the end result is an approximate halving of the real value of a working persons wage since then.

You want to check when they invented hire purchase as an explanation Chris. (Oh yes – a n=bank invention). Nothing to do with feminism that women entered the work force and more to do with the “never never” of hire purchase.

Common old debt. Its the best thing to make people (men and women) turn into work / wage slaves. Cheap credit and debt.

says

”

Rod: I’d suggest the upward shift is more influenced by LBJ’s Great Society programs in the mid 1960′s. Welfare spending ran up from $13b/annum in 1965 to $786b/annum in 2010 – a total spend of ~$9.5 trillion over 45 years.”

Oh goodness me. Apparently there was never any president after LBJ and he alone was responsible fir the increase in welfare spending between 1965 and hang on….2010.

Faustus (or Falsetus).

LBJ died in 1973. You speak crap. Ive heard of blaming ghosts and spirits but this is really stretching it (long dead ghosts?).

what about the other 100,000 of the 6th army?
Did the Russians release them as well and bearing in mind 50,000 of the 6tth army had already died. So Paulus lived?
Wow. One??? Split hairs and you missed the point.

The point is Hitler got smashed by the russians in the end (Stalingrad and the Russian retaliation) didnt he ?

and wasnt Hitler the darwinian style right winger who thought people who were genetically inferior would naturally lose in life and battles?

Funny about that. You cant be too sure about who is inferior can you?

That is suspiciously like the lump of labour fallacy.

Women entered the workforce because of labour saving devices – which have raised the K/L ratio anyway (or must have happened for them to be built).

If you compare the real estate price growth in Australia and track it to female labour force participation, that has a strong correlation.

Not every married woman wants to work, but they have to more or less, as housing costs are so great.

“I lost the argument (even old ones I shouldn’t rehash) and look like a pillock, but it’s a nice place to go to on holiday”

Yes. Like Bangkok.

The systematic allocation of huge funds to social welfare is not necessarily a problem in itself (depending on your perspective on the social compact). Funding welfare by debt, rather than productivity growth/taxation certainly is. US Government debt has increased over the same 45 year period by around $14/15 trillion.

Nixon was elected on the basis of getting out of VIetnam and pulled the pin on the whole cluster, though the war was specifically lost by the useful idiots in the Media, and their clueless leftist supporters, who opposed standing up to expansionist Communism.
So, forgive me if I don’t trust your take on economics.