Sorry, the disadvantages the author complains about were set into motion almost irreversibly years before many "boomers" parents were even born, by the formation of the Federal Reserve and the taxation of income replacing the taxation of commerce, followed by Depression then devastating currency devaluation when most boomers parents were still too young to understand the direct impact of this blow compounded across future generations.
Some economists still don't even understand.
Stopping Nixon was the last chance to curtail this loss of prosperity, just because those aware boomers failed to overcome overwhelming odds doesn't mean the blame lies with them, or even those who were less aware.
Yup, a previous generation is to blame, but baby boomers ain't it.
Average citizens having typical resource shortages are supposed to be powerless to do anything but complain. This is by design.
Those having resource surpluses would be the only ones capable of changing the situation, whether they are above average or not.
Even if all you are going to do is whine about it, at least improve your aim by a few decades and identify the correct previous generation to begin with.
Nixon was even too young to have initiated the accelerated removal of opportunity from the working class, he was just happily continuing to help nail the coffin back together, after a world war hard won through previous administrations temporarily releasing prosperity in a fit of desperation.
Boomers were all still way too young to have much power over political parties established to only truly work for a few percent of well-entrenched dynasties, but it doesn't mean they didn't try.
Plus IIRC Nixon and his war were actually stopped, but it was just too late to save a very significant percentage of the wealth of a nation.
Wall Street was hurt but not relatively as bad, since the main thing permanently lost was wealth that had survived amongst the 99% over many generations enduring the above periodic confiscations, or which had been accumulated even more rarely afterward in spite of them.
Even then some wealth still survived scattered among the 99% and if those are the main boomers you are exposed to it would be easy to completely miss the way that wealth has always been out of reach for the true majority of boomer age citizens simply because they are just too young.
I don't see any more recent generations actually stopping wars, or accomplishing the removal of any Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump before they are good and ready to leave after carrying out their deeds.
Or even less likely adopting a structure of increasing prosperity for those who are not already prosperous, and it's been a long 21st century.
Looks like it's turning out just like the 20th century except without the resources of a more widely properous previous century to fall back on.
Social disaster is often the result of financial disaster.
Social Security was also a result of the financial disasters outlined above.
Everyone living today has grown up with the full knowledge of the committment made to the retired elderly of future generations, by wiser rulers who witnessed the stepwise deprecation of the viability of private savings options almost a century ago.
It's taxes on income & property which make savings impossible for most working people, not a defect in the collective attitude of a still-living recent generation.
Therefore a public retirement savings component was enacted for all who participate, and after continued removal of wealth from the middle class it now often represents not an augmentation but the whole enchilada, the only thing left on the plate.
Obviously capitalists have benefitted by not having to pay employees enough to fully save for their own retirement, while retirees have benefitted from what amounts to nothing more than a safety net these days.
Not the greatest benefits for either, well that's all you have left with the balance of prosperity this far offset for so long.
But it's plain to see that with Social Security everybody wins.
Some economists still don't even understand.
Stopping Nixon was the last chance to curtail this loss of prosperity, just because those aware boomers failed to overcome overwhelming odds doesn't mean the blame lies with them, or even those who were less aware.
Yup, a previous generation is to blame, but baby boomers ain't it.
Average citizens having typical resource shortages are supposed to be powerless to do anything but complain. This is by design. Those having resource surpluses would be the only ones capable of changing the situation, whether they are above average or not. Even if all you are going to do is whine about it, at least improve your aim by a few decades and identify the correct previous generation to begin with.
Nixon was even too young to have initiated the accelerated removal of opportunity from the working class, he was just happily continuing to help nail the coffin back together, after a world war hard won through previous administrations temporarily releasing prosperity in a fit of desperation.
Boomers were all still way too young to have much power over political parties established to only truly work for a few percent of well-entrenched dynasties, but it doesn't mean they didn't try. Plus IIRC Nixon and his war were actually stopped, but it was just too late to save a very significant percentage of the wealth of a nation.
Wall Street was hurt but not relatively as bad, since the main thing permanently lost was wealth that had survived amongst the 99% over many generations enduring the above periodic confiscations, or which had been accumulated even more rarely afterward in spite of them.
Even then some wealth still survived scattered among the 99% and if those are the main boomers you are exposed to it would be easy to completely miss the way that wealth has always been out of reach for the true majority of boomer age citizens simply because they are just too young.
I don't see any more recent generations actually stopping wars, or accomplishing the removal of any Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump before they are good and ready to leave after carrying out their deeds.
Or even less likely adopting a structure of increasing prosperity for those who are not already prosperous, and it's been a long 21st century.
Looks like it's turning out just like the 20th century except without the resources of a more widely properous previous century to fall back on.
Social disaster is often the result of financial disaster.
Social Security was also a result of the financial disasters outlined above.
Everyone living today has grown up with the full knowledge of the committment made to the retired elderly of future generations, by wiser rulers who witnessed the stepwise deprecation of the viability of private savings options almost a century ago.
It's taxes on income & property which make savings impossible for most working people, not a defect in the collective attitude of a still-living recent generation.
Therefore a public retirement savings component was enacted for all who participate, and after continued removal of wealth from the middle class it now often represents not an augmentation but the whole enchilada, the only thing left on the plate.
Obviously capitalists have benefitted by not having to pay employees enough to fully save for their own retirement, while retirees have benefitted from what amounts to nothing more than a safety net these days.
Not the greatest benefits for either, well that's all you have left with the balance of prosperity this far offset for so long.
But it's plain to see that with Social Security everybody wins.
Unless you're not very good at doing the math.