[jbmorgado]

And exactly as the article states, there was a revolution exactly at that time because of the effects of the great depression and the lives of those people ended up better than their parents after that same revolution took place.

A revolution doesn't need to be an armed revolution.

[dragontamer]

I care about your ridiculous claim that's being lamented by certain politicians who have nothing better to do than lie at your face.

> For the 1st time in recorded history of democratic societies, the sons will live in worst conditions than their parents

Can people PLEASE stop saying this line? The article notes a cycle, which is closer to my understanding of history. But none of this "first time ever" crap. I swear, every time Marco Rubio said this line I wanted to punch him in the face.

[jbmorgado]

> The article notes a cycle, which is closer to my understanding of history

That's because either your understanding of history, your written comprehension, or both are quite bad actually.

The article notes a cycle that is always corrected with some kind of revolution, armed or not.

The article also notes that in open societies sons never end up living worts than their parents (in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane) because either society functions properly and that is not a issue, or if it doesn't revolution takes place.

[dragontamer]

The article isn't matching my political views, so don't pretend that I agree with what it says. But that's beside the point.

> in general, not with your naive example of a particular case where a son ends up living a worst life than his parents because of some hurricane

You know you're dissing "Their Eyes were Watching God", right? This isn't exactly an unpopular novel.

---------

My point is that the article is actually good on history (although I disagree with how the author interprets history). You however, are nowhere close to historically accurate.