Did we learn anything about American poverty prior to the Civil War?

[The Gold Standard]

Unfortunately, his cost of taking care of himself leaves nothing for him to send home to his family, so they starve.

They starve? They can't get help from the church or a local charity? They can't get help from friends or family? Someone else couldn't join him shoveling manure? The local government has no programs that might help them? The state government? They just starve? Luckily we saw the light and the federal government takes care of us now.

 

[YumYum]

They starve? They can't get help from the church or a local charity? They can't get help from friends or family? Someone else couldn't join him shoveling manure? The local government has no programs that might help them? The state government? They just starve? Luckily we saw the light and the federal government takes care of us now.

As stated in the OP, there were people who did get help from family and friends and churches. But there were many who didn't. Starvation can mean being malnourished, which many Americans died from. In their weakened state they became sick with diseases and had other health ailments.

The purpose of the OP was to show that when the government freebies are turned off, Americans today are going to be faced with the same things that poor Americans were faced with in the early nineteenth-century. The only difference is that in those days, people did help one another. Are we going to help our neighbor? Are we prepared mentally for what is coming? As we sit in the comfort of our homes, behind our computers, can we really say that we can relate to what early poor Americans, who were paupers, went through?

I find it somewhat amusing that the Free Marketers think that prior to 1913, everything in America was peachy-creamy. But, as they say: "whatever floats your boat."

 

[The Gold Standard]

I find it somewhat amusing that the Free Marketers think that prior to 1913, everything in America was peachy-creamy. But, as they say: "whatever floats your boat."

Bank behavior was still inflationary before the Federal Reserve, so of course there were booms and busts. The lack of central planning and government intervention is what allowed the quick turnaround of those busts. I'm sure there were some workers who were unable to adapt to a changing economy and suffered, just as there are with people today. Today, however, the busts last many years. Is that more compassionate than making people rely on local and state level safety nets? The need for the federal government to get involved is greater than the need for recessions to be quick and real economic growth to return following our inflationary busts?

 

[nobody's_hero]

War.

War is the answer. If things were bad pre-1913, it was because war was financed with a fiat currency (debt) and then deflation hit whenever we went back on a gold standard.

Other than that, things were "peachy-creamy".

The same holds true today, only the government has now figured out that a return to the gold standard is unnecessary. So we're on a one-way inflation binge that's gonna make people wish we were those impoverished people in the 1800s. They'll sure have had it better than we will when the inflation crisis hits.