This is like saying that because Rome had slaves and people were fed to lions in the arena, the dark ages were 'better'...
Progress is supposed to continue, and we should have higher hopes than comparing our current lot to ages which were objectively pretty horrible... We've literally undone the progress made since 1950, and you're arguing that's OK because at least it's better than the 1800s or whatever.
It ultimately boils down to the tragedy of the commons. If you look at the postwar WW2 era, the commons were flourishing, due to (in no small part) government spending.
The meme of Keynesian economic theory created this concept of "in the long run, we're all dead". So effectively, the baby boomer generation leveraged future generations' well being. You can't borrow now without giving something up in the future, there will always be an equivalent exchange.
I'm not arguing that at all. My point is simply that we haven't undone the progress made since the 50's, we've undone the progress made since the country was founded. I complete agree that progress should continue. The issue is it's not. We are in unprecedented territory right now.
Sorry, sounded like you were arguing for the status quo.
> We are in unprecedented territory right now.
We are but we aren't. Regression in equality is unprecedented, but inequality isn't. We fixed the problem of inequality, then subsequently politicians convinced us to let them unfix it, to our own detriment.
We know the solutions, people just don't want to implement them. Money controls media, which tells people what they want. 'Establishment' politicians buy votes with handouts and shiny objects, all the while dismantling the welfare state and passing laws which increase inequality. I guarantee if people voted on every bill that went through Congress, the US would look far, far different...
Progress is supposed to continue, and we should have higher hopes than comparing our current lot to ages which were objectively pretty horrible... We've literally undone the progress made since 1950, and you're arguing that's OK because at least it's better than the 1800s or whatever.