Except that neither explanation (his or mine) covers the actual most likely reason for U.S. economic dominance in the post-war period: we were the only game in town.
That competitive advantage didn't last as long as both of you are assuming. The U.S. rebuilt both Japan and Europe shortly after the war and they began to compete globally by the mid- to late-1950's. The Soviet Union was too embroiled in the Cold War to compete and capitalism was inconsistent with their political agenda, so I'm not sure why you even brought that country into the debate. China fell in that same camp up until the mid-1970's.
Do you mean to tell me that the issue of what is responsible for our post-war prosperity isn't as simple as "this thing was true in the post-war period, so it's responsible for the prosperity"?...My god... that's almost exactly the point I was making.
That was complete economic nonsense which only resonated with you...LMAO.
...rises in the cost of living is (broadly) accounted for by inflation. Hence my saying that the minimum wage was far lower adjusted for inflation. But thanks for playing.
Where in the heck are you drawing your economic "evidence"? When purchasing power goes down, as it has been for decades, that means that the purchasing power of a dollar is higher in previous years, NOT lower. Since the economic concept is lost on you, here's the evidence in graphic form (pay attention to the top line since it reflects the inflation adjusted wage trend you mistakenly assume to be "higher" now than it was in 1968).
None of which Moyers cites to provide foundation for his claims, and all of which is contradicted by equally voluminous economic theory and evidence contradicting it.
Biased and deeply flawed studies from the Charles Koch Foundation (aka the Cato Institute), Mises and other partisan think tanks don't count for much since their "evidence" doesn't hold up to scrutiny, particularly sionce many of them rely on wild theories rather than real world evidence.
Watch as I knock the cover off your "evidence" argument...If your economic and fiscal policy preferences held the credibility you assume, the U.S. economy, budget and middle class would not be in the gutter after those policies cratered the national economy and budget. There's your proof. Reaganomics/trickle down/supply side-centric policies and legislation are all directly responsible for this nation's fiscal/economic problems since Progressive measures have never seen the light of day since the early 1980's. The problems can be traced to every bit of that political/legislative/fiscal/economic agenda.