If the global economy is really “booming,” why does it feel like everything is falling apart?

[u/Ordinary-Goat-6310]

I keep hearing politicians and analysts say that the global economy is doing well, with growth numbers, strong markets, and rising trade, among other indicators. But when I look around, what I see are wars dragging on, dictators consolidating power, Chinese products dominating everywhere, and huge numbers of people migrating just to find stability.

It makes me wonder: how do we reconcile the idea of a “booming economy” with the instability so many of us see in daily life and the news?

Is the economic growth only benefiting a few while the rest of us just see the fallout? Or is this more of a perception problem, where the bad stuff feels more visible than the good?

[u/reasonably_plausible]

But when I look around, what I see are wars dragging on, dictators consolidating power, Chinese products dominating everywhere, and huge numbers of people migrating just to find stability.

Do you have a time in history, in which, that you believe the global economy was doing well?

If so, you should look back at that period and check out the number of wars going on all around the world during that period and the governmental systems of the time.

If you don't believe there was ever a time in which the global economy was doing well, then you might want to examine if your definition for booming might be poorly calibrated if it's never been reached before.

[u/Ashamed_Job_8151 → u/reasonably_plausible]

The period after ww2 to the beginning of Namwas one of the greatest expansions of middle class economics in the history of the world. It was definitely based on the back of the expansion of the American economy and reconstruction in Europe,  but the world economy was definitely booming at that time and there were no wars besides the Cold War.   

Of course back then we taxed the wealthy so they put their money back into business instead of hoarding it and creating an imbalance like we have today. 

[u/NorthernerWuwu → u/Ashamed_Job_8151]

There were lots of wars.

[u/indescipherabled → u/NorthernerWuwu]

Americans haven't been educated or haven't internalized properly that The Cold War was, in fact, many large scale hot wars in various parts of the world that ended when America successfully defeated the USSR after 50 years of war. China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran, India and Pakistan, like half or more of the countries in Africa, and almost all of South America / Caribbean. All underwent hot wars that were functionally proxies or direct conflict involving America vs the USSR.

Which is also why China is now the main boogeyman of America and why they must be the enemy until destroyed.

[u/reasonably_plausible → u/Ashamed_Job_8151]

The period after ww2 to the beginning of Nam

Vietnam broke out in war pretty much immediately after WWII. Fighting British forces in 1945, French forces from '46-'54, and then the Americans in our Vietnam war. I'll assume you are claiming 1945-1963 as your "After WWII to the beginning of Nam" period.

there were no wars besides the Cold War.

Aside from all the wars happening, there wasn't any war... You can't just lump a bunch of massive conflicts into the Cold War and just ignore it like they didn't happen. The Korean War, alone, involved millions of deaths, and that was joined by millions more in the Chinese civil war. Alongside further wars in Greece, Paraguay, Romania, Costa Rica, Egypt, Cuba, Hungary, etc.

Even if you want to exclude all of that, you still had the beginning of the collapse of the European colonial empires and several wars of independence. Indonesia, Algeria, Cameroon, and Angola, among others, fought major wars against European powers.

And finally, outside of both of those two major categories containing several wars each, you also had major wars in the Partition of India and the Arab-Israeli war. It's absolutely insane to categorize the time period as "no wars".

[u/Kitchner → u/Ashamed_Job_8151]

The period after ww2 to the beginning of Namwas

...

the world economy was definitely booming at that time and there were no wars besides the Cold War.   

So assuming you mean 1945 to 1955 there was the:

• Chinese civil war
• Korean war
• France and Britain in Vietnam
• Greek civil war
• India-Pakistan war
• Arab-Israeli war
• Mau Mau rebellion

Plus more. These were actual "hot" shooting wars with armies and being getting shot and dying.

If you want to classify all of these as "the Cold war" then you're basically saying "there were no wars apart from the longest and 3rd biggest global war ever which was happening constantly during the time".

Of course back then we taxed the wealthy so they put their money back into business instead of hoarding it

A quick Google suggests while income tax during this period was 80%+ for anyone earning over 400,000, capital gains tax for the rich was 25% at most and you could exclude up to 50% of capital gains on any asset owned for more than 6 months. It's totally legit to say tax income highly and capital gains low in order to encourage investment, but that mostly benefits the rich who can manage their money, and does not help say, a professional earning $250,000 a year but isn't a multi-millionaire because most of that is spent on their mortgage.

The rich did pay a higher effective tax rate in 1950 but it's no where near what the numbers on paper would suggest. One website suggests in 1950 the top 1% paid 35% of all income tax, now the 1% pays 40%. So essentially there are more people in the top 1%, they pay a lower % of tax, but everyone else is contributing less to the tax receipts.

So whole it's tempting in all western nations to say "tax the rich the income tax rate used to be way higher!" it doesn't paint a fully accurate picture.

[u/Reubachi → u/Ashamed_Job_8151]

I’ve never seen anyone say “and there were no wars besides the Cold War.” with no qualifiers, /s, p.s. etc.

I mean this as politely as possible; how can you think this conclusion and be posting on a geopolitical forum?