Is your argument really that because things were really bad in 1905 we shouldn't complain that after many decades of progress* that we are now rapidly sliding back to things being extremely shitty again?

Because that's a really strange way to look at it.

(* driven largely by increased regulation, unionization, etc... all the dirty words for modern conservatives)

>> Is your argument really that because things were really bad in 1905 we shouldn't complain...

No that is not my argument really.

You're not really making an argument.

OK. If I'm not making an argument then we both agree that my argument is not that because things were really bad in 1905 we shouldn't complain that after many decades of progress.

Thanks for agreeing with me, kubb.

No objections from me, but also no need to thank me. I just stated the obvious.

>> I just stated the obvious

No, you did way worse that that.

You’re not saying anything substantial again, albeit in passively aggressive tone.

You might care to specify what exactly your argument is then, as I'd formed a similar conclusion.

The Jungle led to an era of reform over nearly a century in which laissez faire and caveat emptor were displaced, largely to positive results, by appropriate regulation.

That regulatory turn had been opposed, increasingly dismantled since the Reagan administration, and in the past month and some has been outright dynamited. The consequences are beginning to show.

If that is your argument, it would benefit by more precise communication.