Nuanced difference. My point was that the significant drop in poverty from 1950-1970 existed with the increase and proliferation of the middle class. Their post implies that 20 year period (1950-1970) had high poverty rate the whole time, which is absolutely false.
It also coincided with the US propagating violent dictatorships and committing unparalleled war crimes abroad. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Indonesian Mass Killings, rise of the House of Saud, Shah in Iran, and incredible meddling and history of coups/death squads in Latin America.
That middle class wasn’t made by just engaging in good business, unless you consider the violence of imperialism good business… In which case absolutely go fuck yourself… But only if you stand by all that foreign aggression and murder and downstream oppression.
America got all those bombs from a genie lamp, definitely no large scale industry that helped factory workers secure a middle class existence. The treats they consumed had nothing to do with the destitution their government caused in the third world either. The US did not overthrow a government at the behest of a banana company.
Oh, nice whattaboutism. Didn’t say shit about Russia dumbass. What the fuck does that have to do with a conversation about the US engaging in direct imperialism during the 20th century? You sick fucks are obsessed with Russia, it’s kind of cute. Like you’ve got a crush or something.
My guy I’m just talking about well recorded history here. Go Google operation Condor, or if you’re really feeling adventurous, literally any history book about Latin America. US violence and meddling is a core part of what gave the country a deeply unfair advantage. There was only dramatic reduction in poverty and a “growing middle class” because we were actively preventing that from developing abroad. Pretending foreign policy and domestic issues are separate realms is completely juvenile. Look at OPEC for the easiest example in the world.
