Of course the economy was much smaller then, especially on a per capita basis, and modern capitalism hadn’t had time to create the safe, abundant, filled-with-medical-marvels lifestyle we enjoy today.

> Of course the economy was much smaller then, especially on a per capita basis

Indeed, and even more on an aggregate basis, the population also being much smaller.

> modern capitalism hadn’t had time to create

You're assuming that was created by modern capitalism, which I think is a major flaw. Capitalism contributed certainly, but so did democracy, freedom, rule of law, government investment, civil society, etc. etc. Just look at most of the education system, courts, security, roads, most of science, soldiers, etc etc etc.

> abundant, filled-with-medical-marvels lifestyle we enjoy today.

A great many, maybe most people in the US don't live in that world.

Now that tax rates are lower again compared to the "90%" rates, is the same saying not true for today compared to that time period?

So, surely, you will agree the people who live the easiest and highest quality lives are people today, and lowering tax is actually fully indicative of increasing life expectancy and quality of life.

Be consistent.

As we've cut taxes beginning in the 1980s, most people in the US have been living worse. Now life expectancy has been dropping, iirc home ownership, access to education, etc.

I don't mean there's a 100% direct correlation, but that investment is needed for returns. If we don't invest in healthcare, we'll have worse health. If we don't invest in education, etc.

> investment is needed for returns

What returns? A very important part of "investing" is ensuring your losing positions are cut early and cut fast, its not continuously putting money into a black hole hoping one day the worst of the worst magically becomes the best of the best.

The rest of your comment is you being quite inconsistent, and frankly, a position that is full of lies.