Why is Hollywood so nostalgic for the 80s? I thought Reagan was le bad
Hollywood accountants said the time is right to do the 80s after milking the 70s. Guess what's coming after that?
>>216965742in the 80s writers were nostalgic for the 1950s.That is because writers today grew up in the 80s and writers in the 80s grew up in the 50s.>>216965792or that the previous generation of writers grew up in the 70s
Back then they thought the trickle down economics was going to work, they thought just 10 more years then we will all be rich, anything else was better than slippin Jimmy and the oil crisis.Boomers were just stupid back then
theyre all so ugly
>>216965742The kids are in their 20s now, just how long were the '80s?
It was a better time. >>216965792After they get through with the 90s they're not gonna be able to do nostalgia slop anymore maybe early 2000s but after that from like 2010 on it's just endless slop with no distinguishing characteristics
>>216965742false dichotomy
>>216965929The 80s lasted 35 years.
>>216965895>trickle down economicsMade up leftist boogeyman term that has nothing to do with the economic policy of today.Do you think endless government spending, government debt, money printing is "trickle down economics"?You are a fucking tool and advocate more central banking and government intervention. You want to make the problem worse.
>>216965840>in the 80s writers were nostalgic for the 1950s.No, it was prime time to cash in on boomer nostagia. >or that the previous generation of writers grew up in the 70sNo one cares when writers grew up. they are assigned work based on economic viability. The writers of Leave it to Beaver wrote perfect boomer childhoods but were much older.
>>216965946or they can go back and remake pre-2000s again.
>>216965792At what year will nostalgiabaiting stop? 2001?
>>216966049>that has nothing to do with the economic policy of today.yeah, today they just keep multiplying their money by taking it from everyone else
>>216966276>yeah, today they just keep multiplying their money by taking it from everyone elseNo, they just fucking print itTens of trillions of dollars in the past few years aloneAnd you retards blame a tiny change in the tax code 40 years ago?Libertarians were right about everything.
>>216966049>government spendingthere are certain areas where the government HAS to step in because it doesnt generate a profit. one example is the postal service, no private company would bother with that shit in remote areas because it will always operate at a loss. its something the government takes over for the common good.>government debtdid you ever ask yourself who the government actually owns the money to? the answer is mostly its own citizens and corporations. the government borrows money from the private sector and agrees to pay it back + interest to stimulate growth. the assumption is that the economy will always grow and that the country will not default on its own debts, the number "20 trillion" is literally meaningless, what matters is what the government does with these funds. a government that has no debt (to its own citizens) would be a disaster>money printingeconomies slowly grow with time, the population grows, and industries expand, so more money is needed in circulation, and more money needs to be printed. its literally that simple. a little inflation is good, so people spend their money. deflation would be a lot worse because people would hold on to their money and economic activity would cease and the entire thing collapses. no evil jew conspiracy, just basic math.
80s stuff was being treated as nostalgic by the mid to late 90s. By 2010 you couldn't be nostalgic for things that are ten years old because things stopped changing so dramatically and everything became designed in boardrooms according to consumer homogenisation policies.
>>216965742>80s >dress like theyre in the 50s / 70s
>>216965742People were still hopeful. Then society peaked in '93 and rolled downhill until 2001 where it died, before finally landing hell in 2007. All we got left to look forward to now is an orgy of violence before the server reset.
>>216966628I don't have a crystal ball, but it really does seem that way.
>>216966444>certain areas where the government HAS to step in because it doesnt generate a profit.If it doesn't generate a profit that means it consumes resources instead of creates them.Government wastes money on so many fucking things and this spending is out of control.It's okay to spend some money on welfare but we're obviously comically beyond that.>one example is the postal serviceShould be privatized.>remote areasYet Amazon delivers to those areas all of the time.>did you ever ask yourself who the government actually owns the money to?Mainly the federal reserve and foreign countries.>the answer is mostly its own citizens and corporations.This isn't a good thing>agrees to pay it back + interest to stimulate growthThey pay it back in devalued funds, debtors lose money most of the time that's why the fed needs to step in.> the number "20 trillion" is literally meaninglessYou MMT retards are mentally ill and have been refuted by the Austrians.>what matters is what the government does with these fundsIt spends them, which, when the funds come from the fed, devalued the currency and misallocates resources.>a government that has no debt (to its own citizens) would be a disasterThat's hilariously wrong since we had massive growth in the late 1800s with no central bank and very little government borrowing.>the population grows, and industries expand, so more money is needed in circulationThat last statement doesn't follow from the preceding ones.>a little inflation is goodIt isn't. Being robbed of the benefits of capitalism(deflation) isn't a good thing, your purchasing power is being stolen from you.>deflation would be a lot worse because people would hold on to their money and economic activity would ceaseEntirely a myth.https://mises.org/mises-daily/deflationary-spiral-bogeyIt's funny that prices for consumer electronics decreased for decades yet this didn't happen>jew conspiracyIt's you people more likely to be racist, but okay
>>216966444Also it's funny you're saying this economically illiterate nonsense now when your theories are being disproven in real time.Look at the massive inflation we are experiencing(and the government lies to cover it up)Look at the price of gold.Look at the price of homes.Look at the AI bubble.What will you retards say when the world drops the US dollar as reserve currency?
>>216966444>who is the government in debt toStopped reading right fucking here, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about if you can't get this right.
>>216965742theyre trying to make it seem like the 80s were bad and young girls were coalburners, fyi the duffer brothers are fake and the show is made by jewish rabbis
>>216966217There's nothing good to remember in a post 9-11 world
>>216965895And they were right, the boomers for the most part are all rich. It's the later generations who were fucked, but that wasn't Reagan's fault.
Hasn't this shot been going on for a decade? Why aren't they in the 90s playing with Dreamcasts?
>>216965946The 2000s were mostly a combination of grim and muh patriotism. That's way different than the 2010s, which was all faggotry and woke-shit.
>>216965742If you set a show in the late 2000s-2020s then audiences can't tell if it's the present or past without explicitly saying what year it is or mentioning highly specific consumer tech. The culture and aesthetic is largely the same, people's lifestyles are pretty much the same. There's nothing in a setting from the last 20 years that would make it interesting to modern audiences. Everyone being online with a smartphone also creates the need for more challenging and creative writing since they removed a lot of real time uncertainty from daily life.So cycling between 60s-90s, including different periods within those decades, allows for more fun and soulful settings, as well as reliance on easy traditional plot points and tension building that could only exist in a pre-smart phone era.
