The American Dream was bought with credit. It was bought with resources borrowed (or taken) from ecosystems, non-renewable energy, indigenous peoples, etc., not just money borrowed from banks. This borrowing was wreckless. A lot of consumption more than investing. Externalities not included in the prices of that consumption.

Like with any debt, eventually you pay one way or another. We are massively in debt.

The American Dream was not sustainable.

"The American Dream" isn't very old. Here is a Google Ngram chart that shows the history of the expression in print:


See? 1930, the beginning of the worst crisis in capitalism and writers started talking about this American Dream.

Unfortunately I do not have a chart that reveals whether the American Dream has succeeded, failed, or never existed in the first place. We do have history, however, and it is clear that capitalism was developed in England and was exported to the colonies. I can't say whether it was the British Empire or the United States that most fulfilled capitalism's potential. Let's call it a draw. And let's not forget Europe, South America, Asia, and Africa. Capitalism is alive and well all over, for good or for ill.

Capitalism = "The American Dream"? Maybe? Probably? Obviously? I don't know.

The American Dream was bought with credit. It was bought with resources borrowed (or taken) from ecosystems, non-renewable energy, indigenous peoples, etc., not just money borrowed from banks. This borrowing was wreckless. A lot of consumption more than investing. Externalities not included in the prices of that consumption. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you will find that this is a pattern which is far older than the United States. There is no way for any organism to exist without using resources from ecosystems. As for the rest, sure: non-renewable energy, seizure of indigenous resources through genocide, reckless, costs externalized, etc. All true.

Capitalism is not sustainable--anywhere. To the extent that capitalism = the American Dream, then neither is sustainable.

This next comments will seem like they are totally off-topic, but it actually are not:

I've been reading the Doomsday Machine by Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg worked for the RAND Corporation in the 1950s and '60s as a national defense analyst and strategist. He became well acquainted with American nuclear war strategies at the time. He was appalled to discover that the US had a first-strike strategy; Command and Control was sloppy at best; authority to launch nuclear weapons was delegated by Eisenhower and subsequently followed by several presidents; the plan was all out attack on both the Soviet Union and China -- regardless of whether China was involved in whatever threat the USSR was thought to pose. The plan called for the destruction of every significant city in the USSR and China.

Kennedy wanted to know what the human cost would be -- assuming that all of our bombs reached their targets and no weapons were launched from the USSR. The military had a ready answer: around 700 million in Europe and Asia. The military planners, however, had not included deaths from fire storms, which they should have because they knew all about firestorms from Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. A quite reasonable estimation of total deaths would be closer to 1 billion -- then 1/3 of the world's population.

The assumption was that the USA would survive the fallout from this massive attack with little or no cost. At the time, the concept of nuclear winter had not been developed. Ellsberg notes that the US still has enough missiles (about 400) and nuclear-armed submarines to bring about nuclear winter, even if we were the only ones to fire off our atomic weapons--because of the fire storms boosting massive tonnage of soot into the high atmosphere where it would remain for years--blocking a lot of sunlight and chilling the planet significantly -- causing a massive kill off of many species, including humans.

One might hope that America and the American military are not one and the same thing. At the very least, the ideas of Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism are ticking away in their heads, and in the heads of a lot of civilians too.

[Delete] @Baden

I won't give you another chart, but note that some material has been added to the post where the chart was.

White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg provides detail about how the earliest colonies were riven by deliberate deep class divides, and not just the divide between free and slave. There were wealthy white elites imported directly from England; what would later be called 'bourgeois whites' (businessmen, entrepreneurs, speculators); white farmers (small landowners), and then riff raff -- working people, in other words. So 4 classes. Working people were kept at the bottom of the class structure--not just relatively poor, but absolutely poor. Not until "disruptive" industrialism got underway, and created more routes to advancement, were working people able to make some advances -- not into the classes above them, but at least greater financial well-being within their own class of workers.

The westward movement of Europeans (led, spurred and facilitated by land speculators, railroads, etc.) created more opportunities for working people to get a slightly larger piece of their smaller share of the pie, but westward movement also involved a lot of financial and mortal risk for 'pioneers'. In the late 19th century the workers, still the bottom class relatively and absolutely, began to agitate against long work weeks, long days, unsafe conditions, low pay, and so forth by organizing unions. The resistance from the upper classes was fierce, and has remained fierce to the present. Which, by the way, is why the union movement is so weak in the United States. As the saying goes, the labor movement didn't get sick and die, it was murdered.

So here we are, 21st century; working people are as much at the bottom as ever, with no place to go. The small entrepreneurs, bourgeoisie, rich, and super rich are all still there too, richer and stronger than ever.

T Capitalism hasn't failed, actually. It has succeeded admirably. Whether it will continue to succeed forever is a foolish question, of course. Who the hell knows. That some people have done so poorly under capitalism isn't a sign of failure, it's a sign of capitalist control.

Take black people, for instance. Why are so many black people poor? Poorly educated? Jobless? Sickly? It's not an accident. A central cause of black poverty today is the history of the Federal Housing Administration which, between 1930 and 1980, deliberately, competently, and thoroughly prevented black people from benefitting from the federal housing programs, the post WWII housing boom, and more recent advances in housing value. White people, on the other hand -- the ones who were well enough employed in the metropolitan areas of the country in 1946 to benefit, received a huge financial boost by being let into good, newly built mass housing which would hold its value and appreciate over the decades, up to the present. At least two generations of whites, numbering in the millions, benefitted from FHA programs. Not blacks. They were explicitly excluded from the programs. This is all described and documented in an excellent book, THE COLOR OF LAW by Richard Rothstein, 2017.

Education is largely organized around housing, and poor people tend to live together in cheaper, poorer or public housing. Poverty and less education isn't a good combination and when opportunities are closed off, people can't readily bootstrap their way up. They are stuck. At the bottom.

Now, not all white people benefitted from the FHA program. Poor whites, rural whites, and low paid whites, or whites with large families (which tended to keep them poorer) were not able to afford these programs, or they weren't available in their part of the country. That's maybe slightly less true now than in the past, but not by much.

If things are so bad, why are 62% of American billionaires self-made? Clearly the evidence shows that most of the new rich were much poorer people at one point.

there are 540 plunderers and extortionists worth more than s billion dollars--$2.399 trillion in all--in the United States. Whether they were self made, crawled out of a sewer, or were suckled on a 24 caret gold teat is of no concern to me. There is no reason for us proles to stare in wonder, jaws agape, at Mark Zuckerberg or Andrew Carnegie.

If you are awestruck by their net worth, and you think that Jesus approves, then drool on at the wonder of their wealth.

there are 540 plunderers and extortionists worth more than s billion dollars--$2.399 trillion in all--in the United States. Whether they were self made, crawled out of a sewer, or were suckled on a 24 caret gold teat is of no concern to me. There is no reason for us proles to stare in wonder, jaws agape, at Mark Zuckerberg or Andrew Carnegie. — Bitter Crank

Well, you were just making statements like:

Working people were kept at the bottom of the class structure--not just relatively poor, but absolutely poor. Not until "disruptive" industrialism got underway, and created more routes to advancement, were working people able to make some advances -- not into the classes above them, but at least greater financial well-being within their own class of workers. — Bitter Crank

The resistance from the upper classes was fierce, and has remained fierce to the present. — Bitter Crank

These statements are false, and categorically so if it's possible for working class people to become rich themselves. The wealthy are not hoarding anything - if they were, then we would see that most fortunes out there were inherited, not self-made.

But the fact remains, that even though the bottom %s own less of the pie percentage-wise, the pie is now exponentially bigger, so that smaller % is, in real terms, a bigger portion than ever before.

I see no problem with 1% owning even 99% of the wealth, so long as the other 99% have what they need to survive, take care of health, education, food, shelter, and the necessities.

[Delete] @Baden

Let me ask you what Socio-economic class you would consider yourself? — René Descartes

Middle class (maybe middle-upper class depending on what geographical area you take as your reference)

[Delete] @Baden

It promises equal opportunities but those are lies which are concealed by a dream of a better future. — René Descartes

You do have equal opportunities, if you start a business and do the things that you should be doing if you are interested in becoming wealthy. You won't become wealthy just by working for someone else :s - it's silly to expect that to happen in the first place.

If things are so bad, why are 62% of American billionaires self-made? Clearly the evidence shows that most of the new rich were much poorer people at one point. — Agustino

35% of the Forbes 400 list were from lower class backgrounds. 95% of the country are in that category. A completely free journey uninfluenced by prior wealth we would expect to result in a similar distribution. 95% of billionaires should be self made if the American dream is working. In fact only 35% are. You're a businessman, you tell me if a strategy that is supposed to achieve 95%, but actually only manages 35% is usually classed as 'working'.

You're a businessman, you tell me if a strategy that is supposed to achieve 95% — Pseudonym

Who said it's supposed to achieve 95%? :s

[Delete] @Baden

35% of the Forbes 400 list were from lower class backgrounds. — Pseudonym

So, more than half of the self-made fortunes are from lower-class backgrounds. (35%/62%).

Only 35% of the Forbes 400 were from middle class-working class backgrounds so I would say the remaining two thirds actually did inherit their wealth. — René Descartes

Do you have anywhere to cite that figure? I thought the 35% represented working class people, not middle-class.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

Would you also like to know how many African Americans made that list... 1 — René Descartes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_billionaires

12, with Nigeria producing what looks like a disproportionate number. Notice how all other black billionaires are virtually from the US. So there's more than 1 African American billionaire on Forbes.

The relatively low numbers are not surprising granted the discrimination that existed previously against black people in the US. However, notice how the numbers of black billionaires are growing. In the 90s, those numbers were 0, were at 12 now.

Who said it's supposed to achieve 95%? :s — Agustino

Simple statistics, but if you want me to spell it out for you...

The American dream says that if you want to get rich all you have to do is work hard.

People who are born rich are not somehow genetically predisposed to want to be rich, nor are they any more likely to be harder workers.

Therefore that subset of the population who want to be rich (want it enough to work hard to get it) should reflect the socioeconomic make-up of the whole population.

The subset of the population who actually are rich does not reflect the socioeconomic make-up of the whole population (not even close).

Therefore, statistically, the two subsets are unrelated. Ergo being in the subset 'people who want to be rich and are willing to work hard to achieve it' does not have any statistically significant relationship to being in the group 'people who actually are rich'.

I see no problem with 1% owning even 99% of the wealth, so long as the other 99% have what they need to survive, take care of health, education, food, shelter, and the necessities. — Agustino

Do you think that hypothetical scenario would be compatible with social stability? I think it would instead lead to widespread resentment of that 1%, even if the basic needs of the other 99% were met, and this would consequently increase the likelihood of the breakdown of democracy.

I just don't see how we can isolate economic considerations from larger social, cultural, and political ones.

In my ideal (and admittedly unrealistic) world we would collectively and freely choose to simplify and re-prioritize our lives around values less enamored with material prosperity, and less beholden to narrow definitions of "success."

I would not want to force my views on others, however, and would much rather live in this debased capitalist world than one in which communist aims and values were imposed on the populace by some class of intellectual elites.

I guess I'm a sort of culturally conservative hippie--combining aspects of libertarianism, communitarianism, environmentalism, and anti-hyper-consumerism--if such a thing isn't a complete contradiction.

The American dream says that if you want to get rich all you have to do is work hard. — Pseudonym

Then the American dream is a lie.

Therefore, statistically, the two subsets are unrelated. Ergo being in the subset 'people who want to be rich and are willing to work hard to achieve it' does not have any statistically significant relationship to being in the group 'people who actually are rich'. — Pseudonym

Sure, because just working hard is not enough to get rich. You must also work smart.

It also matters what you mean by "getting rich". A lot of people can probably get to $1-10million dollars if that's really their goal and they keep trying to get there.

To get to billionaire level though is a lot more difficult, and in large parts also depends on favourable circumstances. In other words, you can't really sell just about anything to get to billionaire levels. To become a millionaire, you just have to be a good marketer, you don't necessarily need a great product - like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock

To become a billionaire, either political connections or very valuable products/services combined with amazing marketing.

I think it would instead lead to widespread resentment of that 1%, even if the basic needs of the other 99% were met, and this would consequently increase the likelihood of the breakdown of democracy. — Erik

Yes, I think unfortunately that would be the case, because the 99% are barbarians.

http://blakemasters.com/post/24578683805/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-18-notes

Read René Girard's anthropological work for more detail on the all against one sacrificial crisis that is used to maintain social stability.

Society though is usually built by the 1% - they are its founders, who are then killed by the 99%.

You genuinely don't understand the statistics do you. The failure of one subset to match the socioeconomic distribution of the population as a whole means that that subset must be made up from some criteria not available to the population as a whole on the basis of their socioeconomic status.

Unless you're suggesting that poor people are generally not 'good marketers' or 'smart' then the disparity between the groups has still not been explained.

Who said "The American Dream" is based upon the value of a form of currency?

These statements are false — Agustino

No, not false. Maybe it is true in the post-socialist wonderland where you live, that every schoolboy becomes rich by a frenzy of hard labor and inspiration IF he wants to. It isn't true in the United States.

You are right that billionaires are made, not born. You are wrong that the doors to fabulous wealth are wide open. There are certain entry level requirements that working people (most of the population) lack: the habits of middle class parents; a solid education starting in primary school and ending in one of the top ranked universities; contacts among successful, wealthy people; access to investment capital, and so on.

You are wrong about what 99% of the population sharing 1% of the wealth means: an exceedingly small share of a comparatively tiny pie. For many Americans it doesn't mean the abject poverty of the sort that the poorest decile experience; it doesn't mean the deprivation of the poorest third, even. But for even the middle 4 deciles of the 99%, it means poorer housing, less education, inadequate welfare, poorer outcomes all round. Only for the 2 richest deciles of the 99% is there better education, secure finances, good healthcare, adequately funded retirement, regular travel, and so forth.

You are wrong about the ferocity with which the labor movement has been suppressed. The suppression of organized labor has had a profound effect on American life, especially in the last 50 years. In an earlier period, labor was suppressed with goon squads and clubs. These days it is done through law and propaganda, backed up by the power of the state which has proven more effective.

You are probably not aware that wealthy conservatives have resented the existence of Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare (for the retired and disabled), Medicaid (for the indigent), welfare programs, etc. and have periodically sought to undo these programs ever since they were started, in some cases, 88 years ago.

The American dream says that if you want to get rich all you have to do is work hard. — Pseudonym

No it doesn't. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream

The American dream says that success is achieved through hard work. It doesn't say everyone will be rich or even expect to be rich. It is the reason immigrants flock to the US despite leaving everything known and familiar to a nation not entirely welcoming them.

The opportunity is in the US, often unrecognized by those borne into it who are more interested in complaining than appreciating the sea of wealth and opportunity they are truly blessed to be swimming in.

The American dream says that success is achieved through hard work. — Hanover

What's 'success' then?

Presumably the American Dream is about more than the amount of lucre one has accumulated. Isn't it also about the freedom to think, speak, and act politically; to go anywhere in the country without permission; to enjoy the great outdoors without running into too many fences with NO TRESPASSING signs; to pursue the kind of life one wants to pursue, or at least try; free libraries, health, education, and welfare for all; a wide assortment of religious, social, and political views not just tolerated but expected... ???

Maybe all that is utopian.

What's 'success' then? — Pseudonym

Ummm like when money is falling from the sky on top of you? :-O