Is president Bush the worst US president ever?

[Lazarus Plus]

What basic economic theory are you talking about? The theory that increased government spending not only increases GDP directly but leads to higher growth in the private sector thanks to the goods and services the government buys? Also, many of the projects had a direct and appreciable benefit to the economy- the TVA, for instance, and the various hydroelectric dam projects and road systems in the West. The western United States got its first real economic boom from FDR's programs, and you can blame him for the unprecedented growth that section of the nation has experienced. It wasn't money "thrown away", especially when you consider that it kickstarted the economy.

It didn't. The economy remained moribund right into WWII. You can argue that, theoretically, what he was doing should have worked but historically, according to statistics, it did not.

First of all, you could argue that the Red Army pretty much did collapse in the opening months of Barbarossa.

Who cares? Historically it survived, so that's a moot point.

The entire railroad transport system (the only way to move goods and troops in all weather conditions) was centered on Moscow, so it wasn't so much as a symbolic city as a vital transport hub. Without it, reinforcements and supplies wouldn't have been able to move quickly, if at all.

They would have lost a great deal more territory. This is true. They would not have LOST, however. That is an assumption that does not take into account the terrain, fighting conditions and supply problems that the Germans would have faced further east.

The Germans would have to keep fighting, because the Red Army was never going to fall apart, whatever Hitler's strategists predicted. Even if a greater part of it DID, they'd still have massive partisan problems behind them, and their forces would have to extend, historically, to the AA Line. (Archangelsk to Astrakhan, which would be an expansion to the Urals.) The supply problems and number of soldiers that would be necessary to secure this territory would be vast. All of that assumes that the Red Army stops fighting, which it certainly would not.

And the Germans would have easily reached the oil fields within a year if Hitler hadn't frittered away his divisions and victories across a thousand-mile front instead of concentrating them on one sector and actually getting something back.

Incorrect. Look at a map, and see what an extended front he would have ended up with if he had concentrated his striking power in the south in '41. The Red Army would be in Berlin while his soldiers captured Baku.

Are you referring to '42? This hardly matters, since, as I've said, even if the Red Army was forced to retreat, and they ran out of oil, the Wehrmacht would STILL be unable to adequately defend Europe from invasion by the US with their commitments in the East. They simply could not free up enough divisions to protect against the myriad possible locations the Allies could have landed.

Of course the Mexicans rejected it. They didn't want war with the US. Also, a defensive alliance at that point was patently a proposal for a mutual attack, since Mexico otherwise didn't have any reason to fear a US invasion.

Actually, it is not, since as long as the US didn't declare war on Germany, nothing would have happened. Guess who declared war on who?

Also, the fact that we didn't have agreements with England and France is irrelevant.

Without AGREEMENTS we have no commitment. What material gain was made? All I see is the cause of WWII resulting from this fiasco. You suggest that the US had a moral imperitive to fight. Sorry, but I don't equate the Kaisers with pure evil, and neither should you. They were not Nazis, and any revisionist attempt to villify them as such should be strenuously rejected.

They were still our allies and our best trading partners, and we'd have been extremely shortshighted and self-centered to simply leave them to the wolves.

THEY WERE NOT OUR ALLIES! That word MEANS that some agreement had been reached, verbal or contractual. NONE EXISTED TO THAT POINT. How would we have been shortsighted? Trade partners CHANGE. The biggest trade partner of the US is presently the Chinese. Should we fight wars for them? As I said, I don't consider the Germans evil, and therefore I don't (stupidly) call them wolves for fighting in their own national interest.

Exactly. So nobody is right or correct in this situation, including Congress. So why say that Wilson was wrong because Congress said so?

And yet you were the one criticizing them for supposed moral lassitude... No thanks, I don't care to get into THAT.

By the way, you did the exact same thing when you critized a duly elected president who held office 80 years ago.

I am not speaking from the (new) perspective of the "early 19th century Germans were evil and therefore were opposed by the 'free' peoples of the world" perspective. Because it's BULLSHIT.

Also, the president can "contravene dictates" by Congress in the realm of foreign policy, because that's become his unoffical domain. And it's a tired argument to say that he can't, because he has, dozens and dozens of times.

Is he also supposed to put American lives in danger specifically to force a course of foriegn policy that HE happens to favor, even when the American people and Congress did not? Gee, I guess TECHNICALLY he can. I don't think he SHOULD, and saying that it was the right thing to do is awfully hard to defend (unless of course you think the end justifies the means, which, given the result of WWI, I don't see how you COULD).

Also, cut the "try again" and "read history" bullshit. We're not here to look down our noses at other people or wag our supposedly huge intellectual wangs all over the place.

You're a big toughie aren't you?

No, I didn't agree with you. I said he didn't want to do it but he was powerless to stop it and let anything good come of the situtation.

Wait, so nothing good came of it? Gee, I guess he shouldn't have brought the US to war then huh?

 

[Bradylama]

Roosevelt did help establish an infrastructure that people were better having than not, but then again, Roosevelt didn't establish that precedent.

Depending on how you look at it, The New Deal could have been a success in an intellectual sense. That the security of opportunity it allowed helped, in the long run, to secure the status of the nation and its economy.

Economically, however, it was a farce. For every Dam and road that Roosevelt constructed, there were a myriad of failed programs and government initiatives that either didn't work, were abandoned too soon, or kept around despite their inefficiency. (Social Security, anyone?) The end result was a gigantic waste of money that drained the economy. Sure you have people getting payed, but the source of that cash came from the collective coffers given by their fellow taxpayers. The end result is that even though a larger number of people can spend their money on things, the actual ability to produce the items or services with which to buy them decreases, which basically amounts to a flat employment rate.

Actually, that's not quite true. Government spending works because the government isn't actually spending any tangible amount of worth. That is, perhaps the most dangerous legacy of the New Deal, which is the implication that the government can get away with borrowing money with impunity.

Tying back into the original topic and the way things are now, how much honestly safer is our economy thanks to The New Deal?

 

[Sander]

Even ten milliomn more deaths, for a total of 25 million, is still better than the 50 million that would lose their lives a generation later. Victory failed to teach the lesson that a stalemate would have: An uneasy peace is preferable to total war.

This is bullshit. The uneasy peace existed, mainly uneasy on the German side, but there was no way anyone could've known the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. So no, that would not have taught anyone anything and would've been rather desastrous in terms of men lost.
See, you can't learn anything from something that doesn't happen. A stalemate after another 10 million deaths (instead of a Treaty of Versailles) would mean that all they would be able to say was 'We lost 25 million men in that war. What a terrible war.'
The comparison with World War 2 would be lost, since there would be no World War 2 (or at least not with those causes).
Furthermore, we can never know what would've happened later on. Perhaps a strengthened Germany would, 20 years later, again attack the rest of Europe. Perhaps not. It's idle speculation and it's completely and utterly ridiculous to say that they should've sent 10 million more to die, just to learn a lesson they couldn't even learn.

Also, Pajari is right, your 'Learn history!' quips are nothing but annoying and only demonstrate your weakness. They're ad hominems, and typing those words doesn't actually make you right in any way.

Oh, and as for the Mexicans, it was well known at the time that the USA supported the British with supplies. The German U-Boats were also attacking American merchant vessels, and at times (accidentally or not) even purely civilian vessels. If Mexico had joined Germany, it would've been purely anatagonization, and the telegram also detailed that Mexico would attack the USA if Germany failed to maintain neutrality with the USA (which was already strained at the time).
So, if Mexico had taken up the offer, the USA could only see that as a declaration of hostile intent, although not war per se. And when you compare the military power of the two, it's basically suicide.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

This is bullshit. The uneasy peace existed, mainly uneasy on the German side, but there was no way anyone could've known the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. So no, that would not have taught anyone anything and would've been rather desastrous in terms of men lost.

I'm afraid I disagree with you there, and this is purely a matter of opinion. So we won't get much further arguing it, will we?

See, you can't learn anything from something that doesn't happen. A stalemate after another 10 million deaths (instead of a Treaty of Versailles) would mean that all they would be able to say was 'We lost 25 million men in that war. What a terrible war.'
The comparison with World War 2 would be lost, since there would be no World War 2 (or at least not with those causes).

We said "What a terrible war" after WWII as well. The only difference was in numbers of lives lost, the damage to Europe and the first use of the Atom Bomb. The only difference that actually MATTERS was the Atom Bomb. I don't believe it was necessary, in the chain of events that I mentioned, for WWII to happen, since the futility of war would be learned through a stalemate rather then a near defeat to a total victory.

Furthermore, we can never know what would've happened later on. Perhaps a strengthened Germany would, 20 years later, again attack the rest of Europe. Perhaps not. It's idle speculation and it's completely and utterly ridiculous to say that they should've sent 10 million more to die, just to learn a lesson they couldn't even learn.

Even if that did happen, at least we wouldn't have Nazis in charge and a great deal more people WOULD NOT DIE the second time around since you wouldn't have Hitler perpetrating the crimes he did.

Also, Pajari is right, your 'Learn history!' quips are nothing but annoying and only demonstrate your weakness. They're ad hominems, and typing those words doesn't actually make you right in any way.

I didn't see anything in those things I said that TO that was worth replying to seriously, in my opinion. I'll just ignore them from now on.

Oh, and as for the Mexicans, it was well known at the time that the USA supported the British with supplies.

Actually, that extended to all countries, but thanks to the British blockade those supplies were only allowed to reach one side. That same blockade, against all military law at the time, was designed to starve the German people. But whatever. Another event that Wilson intentionally overlooked.

The German U-Boats were also attacking American merchant vessels, and at times (accidentally or not) even purely civilian vessels.

Guess who asked Wilson to ask Americans and American vessels to not move into belligerent waters? Congress. It wasn't helped by British vessels flying the flags of neutrals including the US.

If Mexico had joined Germany, it would've been purely anatagonization, and the telegram also detailed that Mexico would attack the USA if Germany failed to maintain neutrality with the USA (which was already strained at the time).

I can't argue with that. But Germany was not intentionally antagonizing the US. Wilson was forcing events that had that effect.

So, if Mexico had taken up the offer, the USA could only see that as a declaration of hostile intent, although not war per se. And when you compare the military power of the two, it's basically suicide.

It is military suicide. But the Germans at that time didn't have a clear picture of Mexican and American military potential, They were also worried, correctly, by Wilson's pronouncemets about American shipping in a hostile war zone, where the Germans KNEW that accidents would happen.

 

[Sander]

I'm afraid I disagree with you there, and this is purely a matter of opinion. So we won't get much further arguing it, will we?

Oh, go read some history and then come back.

We said "What a terrible war" after WWII as well. The only difference was in numbers of lives lost, the damage to Europe and the first use of the Atom Bomb. The only difference that actually MATTERS was the Atom Bomb. I don't believe it was necessary, in the chain of events that I mentioned, for WWII to happen, since the futility of war would be learned through a stalemate rather then a near defeat to a total victory.

Why? Why would a stalemate teach a futility of war? There have been countless stalemates throughout history, it never taught anyone anything.

Even if that did happen, at least we wouldn't have Nazis in charge and a great deal more people WOULD NOT DIE the second time around since you wouldn't have Hitler perpetrating the crimes he did.

You really don't understand the concept of 'Would've, should've, could've, bullshit', do you?
I'm serious. My point was that a stalemate would not teach anyone anything new, because the comparison with WW2 would be lost, and you say 'At least Hitler wouldn't be killing so many Jews'.
That's not the bloody point. For all we know Germany would've continued on and become violently anti-Communist, invading Russia and killing some 200 million Communists. Gee, then a lot of people would die, right?
And when the concept of Eugenics and racial hatred sparks a fire somewhere, we could watch a holocaust anyway.
Because we don't know (or could know at all) any consequences whatsoever, the USA cannot be held responsible for WW2. No reasonable man ever anticipated that, no one. Furthermore, the USA never even supported the Treaty of Versailles, which makes their beign at fault even more ridiculous.

Yes, the treaty was pretty damn bad, but saying 'If we hadn't done that but sacrificed some 10 million more, then we wouldn't have lost so many in WW2' is idiotic, because you can't possible say what happened at all.

Actually, that extended to all countries, but thanks to the British blockade those supplies were only allowed to reach one side. That same blockade, against all military law at the time, was designed to starve the German people. But whatever. Another event that Wilson intentionally overlooked.

The USA supported the Brits especially. The blockade was basically used as an excuse to not supply the Germans, and the reason why they did supply the Germans is because they didn't really want to get involved.

Guess who asked Wilson to ask Americans and American vessels to not move into belligerent waters? Congress. It wasn't helped by British vessels flying the flags of neutrals including the US.

True.

I can't argue with that. But Germany was not intentionally antagonizing the US. Wilson was forcing events that had that effect.

Shall I say this again: it asked Mexico to attack the US in the case that neutrality would be broken (whether directly or not). If that's not a declaration of hostile intent, then I don't know what is (besides an outright declaration of war).

It is military suicide. But the Germans at that time didn't have a clear picture of Mexican and American military potential, They were also worried, correctly, by Wilson's pronouncemets about American shipping in a hostile war zone, where the Germans KNEW that accidents would happen.

...
So? This doesn't change anything about the Zimmerman telegram.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Oh, go read some history and then come back.

Click-a-click BOO YAH.

Why? Why would a stalemate teach a futility of war? There have been countless stalemates throughout history, it never taught anyone anything.

That's funny. What about the 30 Years War? What about the War of 1812? Those mistakes were not quickly repeated. I could say the same about Korea and Vietnam, since people have drawn many conclusions from those, even if certain administrations didn't catch it. There was a lesson from WWI as well, and arguably it drained the elan of the French poilu to the point that they lost the war from defeatism alone. Who knows? Lessons were learned, and they continue to be learned to this day. I reject the notion that nothing is learned from stalemating.

You really don't understand the concept of 'Would've, should've, could've, bullshit', do you?

Then stop bringing up alternative history scenarios for fuck's sake. If you don't want to talk about them, then don't talk about them. You keep bringing up your opinion on why a stalemate would teach nothing. I am giving you my response.

I'm serious. My point was that a stalemate would not teach anyone anything new, because the comparison with WW2 would be lost, and you say 'At least Hitler wouldn't be killing so many Jews'.

What necessity is there with a comparison to WWII, if a stalemate occured? That's my point. And yes, Hitler wouldn't be killing so many Jews. That would be one important result of no collapse in the German government brought about, ultimately, by US intervention. No US intervention spells stalemate, spells each side draws a lesson from a costly continental war: Peace is better than war. Duh.

That's not the bloody point. For all we know Germany would've continued on and become violently anti-Communist, invading Russia and killing some 200 million Communists. Gee, then a lot of people would die, right?

Sure, why not? Since we are countering ideas that are somewhat plausible with things that are absolutely absurd.

And when the concept of Eugenics and racial hatred sparks a fire somewhere, we could watch a holocaust anyway.
Because we don't know (or could know at all) any consequences whatsoever, the USA cannot be held responsible for WW2.

I never held Wilson responsible, or the US, responsible for WWII. And I defy you to show me where I did. I hold Wilson responsible for dragging us into a war that was, for the US, completely pointless. Several ancillary effects resulted.

No reasonable man ever anticipated that, no one. Furthermore, the USA never even supported the Treaty of Versailles, which makes their beign at fault even more ridiculous.

The ONLY reason we didn't "support" that treaty was the provision for the League of Nations. It would have been absolutely ratified were it not for that. And again, I didn't suggest that anyone could have anticipated the chain of events leading to WWII.

Yes, the treaty was pretty damn bad, but saying 'If we hadn't done that but sacrificed some 10 million more, then we wouldn't have lost so many in WW2' is idiotic, because you can't possible say what happened at all.

No, I can't say what would have happened. I'm saying what I think would have probably happened. Why do I have to explain that to you? I'm not Hari Seldon for christ's sake. In fact, why are you acting like I'm the first person to ever guess what might have happened instead of what did? Good god.

The USA supported the Brits especially. The blockade was basically used as an excuse to not supply the Germans, and the reason why they did supply the Germans is because they didn't really want to get involved.

I couldn't comment on that without further research, but I'm fairly certain from memory that the US companies supplying arms were selling to all buyers, bar none. So you can argue what "the USA" "supported" but I don't buy that. Business is where you find it.

Shall I say this again: it asked Mexico to attack the US in the case that neutrality would be broken (whether directly or not). If that's not a declaration of hostile intent, then I don't know what is (besides an outright declaration of war).

What would you suggest Germany to do in 1917? It seems like a reasonable attempt to protect one's national interests to me. They weren't trying to piss off the US. That was a last ditch attempt that was supposed to remain secret. The Brits gave it over and made it public.

 

[Sander]

That's funny. What about the 30 Years War? What about the War of 1812? Those mistakes were not quickly repeated. I could say the same about Korea and Vietnam, since people have drawn many conclusions from those, even if certain administrations didn't catch it. There was a lesson from WWI as well, and arguably it drained the elan of the French poilu to the point that they lost the war from defeatism alone. Who knows? Lessons were learned, and they continue to be learned to this day. I reject the notion that nothing is learned from stalemating.

That's your problem. Really, after every stalemate some go 'That was futile' (while the defender willl probably go 'At least we defended well'), some don't, and a couple of decades later the country is at war again. Lessons from history are really easily forgotten.
And then there's the fact that after World War 1 everyone thought of it as the war to end all wars, something that should not be repeated because of the countless victims of the war, but that didn't stop some maniac with a silly moustache to start a war anyway. And that was exactly the lesson you say people would learn from a stalemate: hah!

Then stop bringing up alternative history scenarios for fuck's sake. If you don't want to talk about them, then don't talk about them. You keep bringing up your opinion on why a stalemate would teach nothing. I am giving you my response.

I keep bringing it up?
Ahem: "They almost certainly would have stalemated after a few more years and signed a peace treaty. Neither side had the morale in the army or the numbers to achieve a total victory. If this had happened, no WWII could have taken place. Who knows how history would have changed? Could have been for the positive.."
That's where *you* were the one who brought it up in the first place. Don't pin the blame on me, Lazarus.

What necessity is there with a comparison to WWII, if a stalemate occured? That's my point. And yes, Hitler wouldn't be killing so many Jews. That would be one important result of no collapse in the German government brought about, ultimately, by US intervention. No US intervention spells stalemate, spells each side draws a lesson from a costly continental war: Peace is better than war. Duh.

And everyone learned that from World War 1 anyway. Except for Hitler and the NSDAP.
And, again, you have no clue what would've happened then, even though you continue to state that you do. Yes, Hitler possibly wouldn't have killed so many Jews, but hey, maybe Austria-Hungary would be bankrupt from the war and in a similar situation to Germany. Maybe the USSR decided it would be fun to invade Western Europe and kill several hundred million because Stalin was a maniac.
We don't know any of that, so saying 'Ending World War 1 was wrong because Hitler killed people' is on about the same level as saying 'Stopping Napoleon was wrong, because this caused World War 1!'

Sure, why not? Since we are countering ideas that are somewhat plausible with things that are absolutely absurd.

The point was that there are many different scenarios that could cause a lot of deaths.
Plus, it isn't that implausible, since in the 30s there was a communist v. fascist struggle going on around the world.

I never held Wilson responsible, or the US, responsible for WWII. And I defy you to show me where I did. I hold Wilson responsible for dragging us into a war that was, for the US, completely pointless. Several ancillary effects resulted.

O rly?

You just agreed with me right there. And it doesn't matter if he "couldn't really blame them" he STILL threw Germany to the wolves for his precious league. And the result? WWII.

Stop lying, please, it's tiresome.

The ONLY reason we didn't "support" that treaty was the provision for the League of Nations. It would have been absolutely ratified were it not for that. And again, I didn't suggest that anyone could have anticipated the chain of events leading to WWII.

Then why do you continue blaming Wilson? Oh wait, you didn't, cause it makes you wrong, so you just deny it.
Psch.
Also, the reasons don't matter, it wasn't ratified or supported at all by the USA or Wilson. Hence blaming them in any way for the Treaty is moronic at best. All that happened was the loss of Alsace-Lorraine due to Wilson's Fourteen Points, for the rest the US had no say in it.

No, I can't say what would have happened. I'm saying what I think would have probably happened. Why do I have to explain that to you? I'm not Hari Seldon for christ's sake. In fact, why are you acting like I'm the first person to ever guess what might have happened instead of what did? Good god.

No I'm not. What I'm doing is disputing your argument, which arose from an argument against Woodrow Wilson. *You* brought up the argument that a few years of stalemate would've been better than invading, because then WW2 wouldnt have happened. I say that you have no clue whatsoever what would have happened and illustrate that with examples, you retort with a bunch of 'yeah-buts' and now you're whining that it's not fair to counter your argument with saying that the argument is flawed.
Gee, compelling argument.

What would you suggest Germany to do in 1917? It seems like a reasonable attempt to protect one's national interests to me. They weren't trying to piss off the US. That was a last ditch attempt that was supposed to remain secret. The Brits gave it over and made it public.

I'd suggest they not do something moronic as trying to involve Mexico in a war against the USA. In politics you always have to be prepared that the information gets leaked, especially in a case such as this.

 

[welsh]

The main criticism of the New Deal comes, I think, from critics who think the state should stay out of the economy and who support a more liberal view of economics.

But did the New Deal work?

What was the GDP growth during the New Deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp33-41.jpg

Depression Statistics-

"Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically."[10] Economic indicators show the American economy reached nadir in summer 1932 to February 1933, then began recovering until the Roosevelt recession of 1937-1938. Thus the Federal Reserve Industrial Production Index hit its low of 52.8 on 1932-07-01 and was practically unchanged at 54.3 on 1933-03-01; however by 1933-07-01, it reached 85.5 (with 1935-39 = 100, and for comparison 2005 = 1,342).[11] In Roosevelt's twelve years in office the economy had an 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP [12], the highest growth rate in the history of any industrial country [13], but it came with heavy taxes and federal controls that angered businessmen.

8.5% annual gorwth of GDP. That's the growth of Asia's newly industrialized nations during their good years.
more?
New Deal

But a lot of those programs were wasteful. Yes, a few were. But they were aimed at increasing labor and reducing unemployment for few things are more politically dangerous that a large unemployed population- see Germany and Italy as examples.

I mentioned this before, but the New Deal should be seen in comparison with other industrialized nations that were also suffering during the global depression. Compare the US policies with UK, France, Sweden, Germany and Italy. A good source for that was cited for John either above or on another thread.

But what about the New Deal Programs. Many were canned by 1943, but not all.

New Deal programs?

Reconstruction Finance Corporation a Hoover agency expanded under Jesse Holman Jones to make large loans to big business. Ended in 1954.
Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) a Hoover program to create unskilled jobs for relief; replaced by WPA in 1935.
United States bank holiday, 1933: closed all banks until they became certified by federal reviewers
Abandonment of gold standard, 1933: gold reserves no longer backed currency; still exists
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 1933: employed young men to perform unskilled work in rural areas; under Army supervision; separate program for Native Americans
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 1933: effort to modernize very poor region (most of Tennessee), centered on dams that generated electricity on the Tennessee River; still exists
Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), 1933: raised farm prices by cutting total farm output of major crops (and hogs)
National Recovery Act (NRA), 1933: industries set up codes to reduce unfair competition, raise wages and prices;
Public Works Administration (PWA), 1933: built large public works projects; used private contractors (did not directly hire unemployed)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) / Glass-Steagall Act: insures deposits in banks in order to restore public confidence in banks; still exists
Securities Act of 1933, created the SEC, 1933: codified standards for sale and purchase of stock, required risk of investments to be accurately disclosed; still exists
Civil Works Administration (CWA), 1933-34: provided temporary jobs to millions of unemployed
Indian Reorganization Act, 1934 moved away from assimilation
Social Security Act (SSA), 1935: provided financial assistance to: elderly, handicapped, paid for by employee and employer payroll contributions; required years contributions, so first payouts were 1942; still exists
Works Progress Administration (WPA), 1935: a national labor program for 2+ million unemployed; created useful construction work for unskilled men; also sewing projects for women and arts projects for unemployed artists, musicians and writers.
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) / Wagner Act, 1935: set up National Labor Relations Board to supervise labor-management relations; In 1930s it strongly favored labor unions. Modified by Taft-Hartley (1947); still exists
Judicial Reorganization Bill, 1937: gave President power to appoint a new Supreme Court judge for every judge 70 years or older; failed to pass Congress
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 1938: established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours, and a minimum pay of 40 cents/hour; still exists

Prior to the New Deal you had an economy driven largely by large corporate interests with little participation by the government and few rights to labor. The New Deal changed this, allowing the government a greater regulatory role over the national economy, but also allowing labor more rights and opportunity vis-a-vis big business.

From Stanley Schultz, Professor of History of University of Wisconsin-

Cracks in the Economic Foundation
After the Great Crash, the American public sought a scapegoat for the economic collapse. Some held President Hoover responsible, others targeted the "three B's"--brokers, bankers, and businessmen. But the cause of the Great Depression could not be attributed to one individual or even a group of people. The roots of the Great Depression were in the very structure of the American economy, namely:

1. Unequal distribution of wealth and income.
Despite rising wages overall, income distribution was unequal. Gaps in income had actually increased since the 1890s. The 1% of the population at the very top of the pyramid had incomes 650% greater than those 11% of Americans at the bottom of the pyramid. The tremendous concentration of wealth in the hands of a few meant that continued economic prosperity was dependent on the high investment and luxury spending of the wealthy. However, both the high spending and high investment of the time, much like today, were susceptible to economic fluctuations; they were much less stable than people's expenses on daily necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. Therefore, when the market crashed and the economy tumbled, both big spending and big investment collapsed, as well.

2. Unequal distribution of corporate power.
From the late 1870s on, there had been an ongoing movement of business consolidations and mergers in the United States. During WWI, many potential commercial competitors merged into huge corporations like General Electric and eliminated competition in major American industries. In 1929, two hundred of the biggest corporations controlled 50% of the nation's corporate wealth. This concentration of corporate wealth meant that if just a few companies went under after the Crash, the whole economy would suffer.

3. Bad banking structure.
In the 1920s, banks were opening at the rate of four to five per day, but without many federal restrictions to determine how much start-up capital a bank needed or how much it could lend. As a result, most of these banks were highly insolvent. Between 1923 and 1929, banks closed at the rate of two a day. Yet, until the stock market crash in 1929, the nation's seemingly inevitable prosperity helped concealed the potentially fatal flaws in the American banking system.

4. Foreign balance of payments.
World War I had turned the United States from a debtor nation into a creditor nation. In the aftermath of the war, both the victorious Allies and the defeated Central Powers owed the United States more money than it owed to foreign nations. The Republican administrations of the 1920s insisted on payments in gold bullion, but the world's gold supply was limited and by the end of the 1920s, the United States, itself, controlled much of the world's gold supply. Besides gold, which was increasingly in short supply, countries could pay their debts in goods and services. However, protectionism and high tariffs kept foreign goods out of the United States. Recall from Lecture 15 that the Hawley-Smoot Act (1930) set the highest schedule of tariffs to date. This protectionism produced a negative effect on United States exports: if foreign countries couldn't pay their debts, they had no money to buy American goods.

5. Limited or poor state of economic intelligence.
Most American economists and political leaders in 1929 still believed in laissez-faire and the self-regulating economy. To help the economy along in its self-adjustment, President Hoover asked businesses to voluntarily hold down production and increase employment, but businesses couldn't keep up high employment for long when they weren't selling goods. There was a widespread belief that if the federal budget were balanced, the economy would bounce back. To balance the budget demanded no further tax cuts (although Hoover lowered taxes) and no increase in government spending, which was disastrous in light of rising unemployment and falling prices. Another problem with economic practices of the day was the commitment of the Hoover administration to remain on the international gold standard. Many analysts implored Hoover to increase the money supply and to devalue the dollar by printing paper money not backed by gold, but the president refused. Going off the gold standard was one of Roosevelt's first actions when he entered the White House in 1933.

 

[Brother None]

Lowering troop numbers down there is a bad idea, and Clinton would have done that sooner.

Lowering troop numbers is not even vaguely as bad an idea as sending in the very small amount of forces that was sent initially.

Everyone should not by this point that even if Iraq was at any point even vaguely a threat to national security, that even then no war would have been preferable to a war with insufficient men, which is what you have been waging since day 1 now. In both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Does this change his duplicity? Does this forgive entering a nation into a war that did not involve it until that point?

Wait, are we talking about George W. Bush or WW here?

Excuse me, Mr Plus, but don't you think it is rather odd to charge Wilson for being the worse president ever for interceding in a long-stretching and potentially dangerous war in Europe to further an agenda of international stability, while W. Bush destibalized a region by attacking a country without provocation? How do the two even vaguely compare and, impossible to think, how is Wilson the bad one?

He did everything he could to further the chances of ENTERING the war, which he was told specifically NOT TO DO by Congress.

This applies to an infinity of presidents. Going over the heads of congress or, even better, decieving it is not exactly an uncommon policy. Bush certainly did it to enter the war on Iraq. Again, how is Wilson then worse than Bush?

Are you American?

He is, though he used to work a Frenchman.

I won't argue with Keynes in any particulars. I just don't particularly agree that deficit spending is a wise system.

However, in practica deficit spending and other forms of economy-through-welfare has worked to recover economies or keep stable, powerful economies running, Norway being one of the biggest examples.

Your basic grasp of economic principles seems smaller than Pajaris', though, which makes your quips amusing. If taxpayers dollars are used to fund jobs, the only guaranteed inevitable effect is that those dollars will rotate through economy. You can't throw the money away because it can't possible dissapear, ever, unless someone throws it into a savings account, *which is exactly what spending taxdollars this way prevents*.

Better yet, rather than theory let's look at practice. The economy grew 58% in 8 years from '32 to '40, or 7.25% per year. It gre 56% during the war years, or 11.2% per year. In '33 to '40 unemployment fell from 25.2% to 13.9% to 2% in '45. Or 1.6% decrease per year outside of wartime and 2.4% decrease during wartime.

It is economically unsound to directly compare them, so I won't. Simple fact then is that FDR's policies resulted, without a war of any kind, in an economic growth of 7.25% a year.

During the years Bush has been President now, we've had a .9% decrease in unemployment adapted to population numbers per year or a .1% increase unadjusted in the first 5 years. During his first 4 years including all of 2000, the GDP growth rate per year was about 2.4%.

Both recovering from economic hits, Bush recovering from the milder one. So how is FDR the bad one and how is deficit spending dumber than Reagenomics?

In fact, your logic makes little sense. Military spending is just a cog in the governmental spending in general. What exactly makes military spending and the creation of a wartime economy, AKA recycling taxpayer's dollars into an economy albeit a wartime one, different from deficit spending?

Also also, again your reason for naming FDR worse than Bush is contentious at best. FDR's fiscal policies can be discussed freely, of course, but they have not been tried and failed and been discarded generally. Reaganomics have been tried, failed and were subsequently discarded as an economic theory, yet Bush applies them *again*. So again, what makes FDR the bad apple here?

The fact that the British intercepted it over what was supposed to be a secure diplomatic line is what I find somewhat outrageous.

My Frith! Espionage!? During wartime?! The audacity! The outrage!

Even ten milliomn more deaths, for a total of 25 million, is still better than the 50 million that would lose their lives a generation later. Victory failed to teach the lesson that a stalemate would have: An uneasy peace is preferable to total war.

Ok, since your crystal ball just told you that non-intercession by the US would have meant WW II would never have happened (since apparently Versailles is the only cause of WW II, go figure, that's a new one), my crystal ball now tells me that it would have only postponed a WW II between different power blocks, as development of nuclear weapons would have preceded the war rather than followed it and the fast gains of communism in Asia would embolden communist Russia to invade Eastern Europe piecemeal until it reached the borders of Western Europe, provoking a massive war between two gigantic power blocks consisting of 2 huge countries on one side against 1 huge country with a lot of allies on the other (rather than a massive war between 3 medium-sized countries and the rest of the world). Can you even begin to understand the death toll that would have caused?

But wait, my crystal ball is now telling me something else, it's telling me that trying at make arguments based on idle, baseless speculation is the dumbest thing since the name 'Wii'. Go figure!

 

[SnaX]

We can't forget Gerald Ford (the guy after Nixon). He didn't really fuck any thing up (tough for a Republican), it's just that he didn't do anything!

 

[KQX]

He didn't really fuck any thing up

Sure he has. The Mayagüez incident?

Ford's had the idea to fix the problem quickly, but instead in the end, the number of casualties surpassed the number of hostages.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

I keep bringing it up?
Ahem: "They almost certainly would have stalemated after a few more years and signed a peace treaty. Neither side had the morale in the army or the numbers to achieve a total victory. If this had happened, no WWII could have taken place. Who knows how history would have changed? Could have been for the positive.."

Ahem: "Without the US I doubt those countries would have won the war."

That sounds like alternative history to me. And it was my response to it you quoted. Thanks.

That's where *you* were the one who brought it up in the first place. Don't pin the blame on me, Lazarus.

O rly?

And everyone learned that from World War 1 anyway. Except for Hitler and the NSDAP.
And, again, you have no clue what would've happened then, even though you continue to state that you do. Yes, Hitler possibly wouldn't have killed so many Jews, but hey, maybe Austria-Hungary would be bankrupt from the war and in a similar situation to Germany. Maybe the USSR decided it would be fun to invade Western Europe and kill several hundred million because Stalin was a maniac.
We don't know any of that, so saying 'Ending World War 1 was wrong because Hitler killed people' is on about the same level as saying 'Stopping Napoleon was wrong, because this caused World War 1!'

And AGAIN, I did not say that it WOULD happen. All I said was that that is what I personally think would happen. You disagreed with my reasoning. Great. But circling this fact is getting ridiculous. If you have a problem with me having an opinion (or a clue, or the lack thereof) I don't really care. It's my opinion on that subject. And it is subjective.

The point was that there are many different scenarios that could cause a lot of deaths.
Plus, it isn't that implausible, since in the 30s there was a communist v. fascist struggle going on around the world.

Sure. But I thought we'd established a stalemate in that particular scenario. Doesn't matter though.

Stop lying, please, it's tiresome.

Why are you quoting something that was not said to you, and was already resolved? I'm sorry if you read something into that and then called a bullshit flag on it, but I didn't say WWII was Wilson's fault. (Which I thought was obvious.) I said the treaty was the cause of WWII, and surprise surprise, my favorite president didn't stop it from happening. (To clarify, the treaty) And why the confrontational attitude? As far as I know, I haven't insulted you. Maybe you are taking offense by proxy for Parji or something, but still.

Then why do you continue blaming Wilson? Oh wait, you didn't, cause it makes you wrong, so you just deny it.
Psch.

Ugh. Look up, please. Just UGH.

Also, the reasons don't matter, it wasn't ratified or supported at all by the USA or Wilson.

IN-COR-RECT. Simply wrong. That treaty would have FLOWN through if it weren't for the cluases of the League of Nations. It had mroe than enough support. Wilson's "all-or-nothing" attitude (while admirable in it's idealism) was suicidal to the treaty. Claiming that the reasons don't matter doesn't change that. And saying that it wasn't supported is a falsehood. Sorry.

Hence blaming them in any way for the Treaty is moronic at best. All that happened was the loss of Alsace-Lorraine due to Wilson's Fourteen Points, for the rest the US had no say in it.

It had say in it. But it didn't have enough, and waht say it had was sacrificied for Wilson's ideals over realpolitik. Why do you think that Wilson wanted in the war to start? So he could push his agenda. I'm sure he was plenty broken up over Germany, but he had concerns that came first over holding his allies back from revenge.

No I'm not. What I'm doing is disputing your argument, which arose from an argument against Woodrow Wilson. *You* brought up the argument that a few years of stalemate would've been better than invading, because then WW2 wouldnt have happened.

Yeah yeah yeah. Look up.

I say that you have no clue whatsoever what would have happened and illustrate that with examples, you retort with a bunch of 'yeah-buts' and now you're whining that it's not fair to counter your argument with saying that the argument is flawed.
Gee, compelling argument.

Eh? Then explain your reasoning. Saying that an argument is flawed without giving a counter-argument is ridiculous. I'm a little surprised you'd call that kind of bullshit without more than a bitter attack. And by the way, I thought we weren't here to call names like second graders.

I'd suggest they not do something moronic as trying to involve Mexico in a war against the USA. In politics you always have to be prepared that the information gets leaked, especially in a case such as this.

It is a historical fact (as earlier stated) that the German General Staff overestimated the potential strength of Mexico vis-a-vis the US. I don't know why I have to repeat this, but it is a keystone of my argument. And, as stated before, it is fact.

It looks a lot more reasonable when Mexico looks like it might stand a chance and you might be able to tempt them as the Germans attempted to do, doesn't it? That's what I think, at least.

Wait, are we talking about George W. Bush or WW here?

Excuse me, Mr Plus, but don't you think it is rather odd to charge Wilson for being the worse president ever for interceding in a long-stretching and potentially dangerous war in Europe to further an agenda of international stability, while W. Bush destibalized a region by attacking a country without provocation? How do the two even vaguely compare and, impossible to think, how is Wilson the bad one?

I can't say what the long term ramifications of Bush are yet. That's why. Give me fifty years and I'd be glad to answer that in more detail.

He did everything he could to further the chances of ENTERING the war, which he was told specifically NOT TO DO by Congress.

This applies to an infinity of presidents. Going over the heads of congress or, even better, decieving it is not exactly an uncommon policy. Bush certainly did it to enter the war on Iraq. Again, how is Wilson then worse than Bush?

I don't like Bush, but I'm trying to take a long term view here. For all I know, things will click ever so right for Bush's legacy to be glowing. I don't like him, but things are a little too NOW for my tastes in that. I'm sorry if you think I shouldn't be so restrained.

However, in practica deficit spending and other forms of economy-through-welfare has worked to recover economies or keep stable, powerful economies running, Norway being one of the biggest examples.

I'm sorry, but sources I've read have argued that the success of the New Deal in particular was a fluke. I could be wrong. After all, the economy never recovered fully until WWII, so we can never be sure. Also, we've yet to see in the US an actual deafulting on debts, in which case we'd see a depression rivaling or being worse than that of Germany circa 1919. (At least, in the worst case scenario.)

I suppose that could be a petty concern compared to the proven benefits of deficit spending, but I find the risks too great personally.

Your basic grasp of economic principles seems smaller than Pajaris', though, which makes your quips amusing. If taxpayers dollars are used to fund jobs, the only guaranteed inevitable effect is that those dollars will rotate through economy. You can't throw the money away because it can't possible dissapear, ever, unless someone throws it into a savings account, *which is exactly what spending taxdollars this way prevents*

To my understanding the private sector has a higher capital re-investment rate than anything under government control, a testament to the efficency of raw capitalism. The money doesn't disappear but much of it's potential growth benfit to the enconomy is wasted. Less taxes and less government employment means a faster growth rate usually. (If I'm wrong please inform.)

Of course, it could be argued that the New Deal's effect on employment had substantially the same effect thanks to the boost in consumer demand for products. I just don't know.

Better yet, rather than theory let's look at practice. The economy grew 58% in 8 years from '32 to '40, or 7.25% per year. It gre 56% during the war years, or 11.2% per year. In '33 to '40 unemployment fell from 25.2% to 13.9% to 2% in '45. Or 1.6% decrease per year outside of wartime and 2.4% decrease during wartime.

It is economically unsound to directly compare them, so I won't. Simple fact then is that FDR's policies resulted, without a war of any kind, in an economic growth of 7.25% a year.

Who's to say that wouldn't have been normal recovery under normal circumstances? The US was recovering from depression, and the effects of Hoover's administration might have been delayed (as they often are historically.) The numbers don't prove the argument (though support is lended).

During the years Bush has been President now, we've had a .9% decrease in unemployment adapted to population numbers per year or a .1% increase unadjusted in the first 5 years. During his first 4 years including all of 2000, the GDP growth rate per year was about 2.4%.

Both recovering from economic hits, Bush recovering from the milder one. So how is FDR the bad one and how is deficit spending dumber than Reagenomics?

Are you under the impression that I'm a republican conservative?

Anyways, I don't know enough about decisions in the economic sphere that Bush has made to comment on that, so you've got me there.

In fact, your logic makes little sense. Military spending is just a cog in the governmental spending in general. What exactly makes military spending and the creation of a wartime economy, AKA recycling taxpayer's dollars into an economy albeit a wartime one, different from deficit spending?

Because a war, for the winning side, generally evolves into an economic boom that is very substantial. This effect has been observed several times in history to this point.

Also also, again your reason for naming FDR worse than Bush is contentious at best. FDR's fiscal policies can be discussed freely, of course, but they have not been tried and failed and been discarded generally. Reaganomics have been tried, failed and were subsequently discarded as an economic theory, yet Bush applies them *again*. So again, what makes FDR the bad apple here?

The only solid one I have is my reluctance to pass judgement on something so contemporary. Consider it retracted. Bush very well may be worse.

My Frith! Espionage!? During wartime?! The audacity! The outrage!

Call me old fasioned, but I long for the days when certain parts of warfare were inviolate. (Such as diplomatic correspondence.) Sorry.

Ok, since your crystal ball just told you that non-intercession by the US would have meant WW II would never have happened (since apparently Versailles is the only cause of WW II, go figure, that's a new one), my crystal ball now tells me that it would have only postponed a WW II between different power blocks, as development of nuclear weapons would have preceded the war rather than followed it and the fast gains of communism in Asia would embolden communist Russia to invade Eastern Europe piecemeal until it reached the borders of Western Europe, provoking a massive war between two gigantic power blocks consisting of 2 huge countries on one side against 1 huge country with a lot of allies on the other (rather than a massive war between 3 medium-sized countries and the rest of the world). Can you even begin to understand the death toll that would have caused?

It could very well happen. Actually, allow me to rephrase something there, then. Versailles and the depression caused WWII. I think that's accurate enough.

I won't argue with alternate history that attempts to peer that far ahead into the future. My crystal ball stops at about 1939. I assume that the Soviet Union would invade western europe sometime after that (a la Red Alert, rather) at which point the shit hits the fan. I don't know.

Hopefully fifty million people (or more) wouldn't die in such a confrontation, but I can only guess. Alternative history is funny that way.

But wait, my crystal ball is now telling me something else, it's telling me that trying at make arguments based on idle, baseless speculation is the dumbest thing since the name 'Wii'. Go figure!

Great. You're an inspiration.

 

[Sander]

Ahem: "Without the US I doubt those countries would have won the war."

That sounds like alternative history to me. And it was my response to it you quoted. Thanks.

That was one tiny sentence that expressed doubt. You postulated then with certainty that there would be a stalemate after a few years *and* that WW2 would then never happen.

And AGAIN, I did not say that it WOULD happen. All I said was that that is what I personally think would happen. You disagreed with my reasoning. Great. But circling this fact is getting ridiculous. If you have a problem with me having an opinion (or a clue, or the lack thereof) I don't really care. It's my opinion on that subject. And it is subjective.

Ah yes, wonderful, losing an argument means that you go 'but it's my opinion, nyah nyah!'
Plus, I'll quote the same bit of text to prove you wrong:
"They almost certainly would have stalemated after a few more years and signed a peace treaty. Neither side had the morale in the army or the numbers to achieve a total victory. If this had happened, no WWII could have taken place."
So yes, you did say it would happen. Stop lying. It's tiresome and unfunny.

Why are you quoting something that was not said to you, and was already resolved? I'm sorry if you read something into that and then called a bullshit flag on it, but I didn't say WWII was Wilson's fault. (Which I thought was obvious.) I said the treaty was the cause of WWII, and surprise surprise, my favorite president didn't stop it from happening. (To clarify, the treaty) And why the confrontational attitude? As far as I know, I haven't insulted you. Maybe you are taking offense by proxy for Parji or something, but still.

...
What? Look, Lazarus, you get into an argument, and now you're surprised that people use your own words against you when you start lying, and seem to be surprised that people disagree with you. The confrontational attitude is part of the entire debate and when you start lying to me about what you did and did not say (which is quite relevant), I get a little annoyed.
And really, that piece of text I quoted was you putting the blame on Wilson. You claim Wilson threw Germany to the wolves, and then say that the result was World War 2 (which was very irrelevant in any case), which is establishing a causal relationship and putting at least part of the blame on Wilson.

Ugh. Look up, please. Just UGH.

Ugh yourself. Can't stand the fact that what you said gets used against you? Tough luck, don't get into debates.

IN-COR-RECT. Simply wrong. That treaty would have FLOWN through if it weren't for the cluases of the League of Nations. It had mroe than enough support. Wilson's "all-or-nothing" attitude (while admirable in it's idealism) was suicidal to the treaty. Claiming that the reasons don't matter doesn't change that. And saying that it wasn't supported is a falsehood. Sorry.

No it isn't. It's very, very true. That treaty was not supported by the USA, it was not signed, the USA did not support. Please, go look it up. It's true.

It had say in it. But it didn't have enough, and waht say it had was sacrificied for Wilson's ideals over realpolitik. Why do you think that Wilson wanted in the war to start? So he could push his agenda. I'm sure he was plenty broken up over Germany, but he had concerns that came first over holding his allies back from revenge.

Wilson was there, yes. However the treaty never got altered significantly, because the rest of the countries wanted full reparations and insisted on it. The US then didn't ratify or support the treaty.

Eh? Then explain your reasoning. Saying that an argument is flawed without giving a counter-argument is ridiculous. I'm a little surprised you'd call that kind of bullshit without more than a bitter attack. And by the way, I thought we weren't here to call names like second graders.

What, again? I claim that it's impossible to predict what would have happened simply because you're not a psychic. I've given you about five examples of what could've happened, and Kharn elaborated another one. Those are called counter-examples, and are a form of argument.

It is a historical fact (as earlier stated) that the German General Staff overestimated the potential strength of Mexico vis-a-vis the US. I don't know why I have to repeat this, but it is a keystone of my argument. And, as stated before, it is fact.

It looks a lot more reasonable when Mexico looks like it might stand a chance and you might be able to tempt them as the Germans attempted to do, doesn't it? That's what I think, at least.

Not really, since it means expanding a war they weren't really losing at the time. It also means the Germans were even dumber for not checking their false intelligence.

 

[Brother None]

I can't say what the long term ramifications of Bush are yet.

True. But neither did Wilson or any of his contemporaries know the long term remifications of his actions and in purely political and contemporary terms I'd call W the bad apple.

It seems a bit odd to judge someone badly because his actions had results he couldn't possibly foresee. What's next, blaming Marx for the USSR?

I'm sorry, but sources I've read have argued that the success of the New Deal in particular was a fluke.

As have I, but that doesn't make it so.

I could be wrong. After all, the economy never recovered fully until WWII, so we can never be sure. Also, we've yet to see in the US an actual deafulting on debts, in which case we'd see a depression rivaling or being worse than that of Germany circa 1919. (At least, in the worst case scenario.)

I suppose that could be a petty concern compared to the proven benefits of deficit spending, but I find the risks too great personally.

But now you're talking about deficit spending as a default mode rather than a way to boost or strengthen the economy effectively.

Careless deficit spending, which is something FDR was also guilty of, is a plague, but FDR isn't the worst of it. GWB is obviously one of the worst deficit spenders in history, and the way he does it is more reminiscent of Reagan than FDR. FDR did kind of "invent it", but it would've come around at some point anyway, like during the arms race, so it's hard to blame him for the stupidity of his inheritors.

To my understanding the private sector has a higher capital re-investment rate than anything under government control, a testament to the efficency of raw capitalism.

True in practice, but not by definition, and not necessarily true during recession periods.

The money doesn't disappear but much of it's potential growth benfit to the enconomy is wasted.

Diverted, not wasted. It is not the most effective way to boost the economy, but it is amongst the most effect available to the government.

Less taxes and less government employment means a faster growth rate usually. (If I'm wrong please inform.)

Here is a fairly simple analysis why this is not true. But you can easily find documents on why it is true as well.

Statistic evidence indicates that GDP real growth rate historically has been lower during tax cuts than during tax equalisation/expansion times. Conservatives then argue that this is because of the old delayed reaction-theory, as in "Bush has to suffer from Clinton's policies" or "FDR just floated on Hoover's wins", which seems little more than a paper tiger to me, but it's hard to prove it untrue.

Personally, I believe tax cuts have a negligebly small effect on the economy, considering the costs.

Who's to say that wouldn't have been normal recovery under normal circumstances?

Such an argument is contentious at best. Saying that would've been the normal recovery rate amounts to saying FDR's massive policies had zero effect on the economy, which is laughable considering the size of them.

The US was recovering from depression, and the effects of Hoover's administration might have been delayed (as they often are historically.)

I hate that argument.

Are you under the impression that I'm a republican conservative?

Yes.

Because a war, for the winning side, generally evolves into an economic boom that is very substantial. This effect has been observed several times in history to this point.

Aye, and part of this economic boom is massive government employment of its people. See, deficit reinvestments are a huge part of wartime economy boosts.

Call me old fasioned, but I long for the days when certain parts of warfare were inviolate. (Such as diplomatic correspondence.) Sorry.

That is laudable, but far from realistic.

It could very well happen. Actually, allow me to rephrase something there, then. Versailles and the depression caused WWII. I think that's accurate enough.

Versailles, depression, appeasement policy, Italian expansionism, colonialism, nationalism as the dominant philosophy, the Franco-Prussian war and the old balance of colonialism all contribute.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

That was one tiny sentence that expressed doubt. You postulated then with certainty that there would be a stalemate after a few years *and* that WW2 would then never happen.

Tough, as you say. You postulate doubt. Hooray. It sounds like you're whining, now.

Ah yes, wonderful, losing an argument means that you go 'but it's my opinion, nyah nyah!'

Congratulations os graduating first grade. Secondly, I don't believe I am wrong on that particular subject (at least, you haven't shown me to be wrong, you've just, quite frankly, bitched, about me having an opinion on what would happen in that scenario)

Plus, I'll quote the same bit of text to prove you wrong:
"They almost certainly would have stalemated after a few more years and signed a peace treaty. Neither side had the morale in the army or the numbers to achieve a total victory. If this had happened, no WWII could have taken place."
So yes, you did say it would happen. Stop lying. It's tiresome and unfunny.

Once again, how am I lying? I stated it as a postive, but who gives a shit? It's an opinion. You're calling me a liar off the fact that I sounded very certain of myself. I'm still pretty sure that would happen, so calling me a liar off of a tense formation is absolutely fucking ridiculous. So shove it.

...
What? Look, Lazarus, you get into an argument, and now you're surprised that people use your own words against you when you start lying, and seem to be surprised that people disagree with you. The confrontational attitude is part of the entire debate and when you start lying to me about what you did and did not say (which is quite relevant), I get a little annoyed.

Oh great. Except, how did I lie? THAT is starting to annoy me. You're basing this off of WHAT?

And really, that piece of text I quoted was you putting the blame on Wilson. You claim Wilson threw Germany to the wolves, and then say that the result was World War 2 (which was very irrelevant in any case), which is establishing a causal relationship and putting at least part of the blame on Wilson.

Again, I'm sorry that you read it (incorrectly) in a certain way. Not what I meant. But part of the blame (I've established this) is, in MY opinion, Wilson's. You know, getting involved in WWI in the first place.

Ugh yourself. Can't stand the fact that what you said gets used against you? Tough luck, don't get into debates.

Yeah, whatever, tough guy.

No it isn't. It's very, very true. That treaty was not supported by the USA, it was not signed, the USA did not support. Please, go look it up. It's true.

You don't understand what the word support means, apparently. Are you talking about, in official policy? By the people? By the president? Under which time periods? What? Because, please, AND DO LOOK THIS UP, if it weren't for Wilson refusing to compromise on the League of Nations clause that treaty would have been ratified. That is fairly well supported to me. It didn't get ratified, for one reason only. Sounds like it had lots of support at that time.

Wilson was there, yes. However the treaty never got altered significantly, because the rest of the countries wanted full reparations and insisted on it. The US then didn't ratify or support the treaty.

The US was integral to the creation of the treaty. Repeating these tired lies are pointless. Again, that support (or the lack thereof) came later, and had nothing to do with the peace negotiations. This should be obvious.

What, again? I claim that it's impossible to predict what would have happened simply because you're not a psychic. I've given you about five examples of what could've happened, and Kharn elaborated another one. Those are called counter-examples, and are a form of argument.

Great. They were all interesting and fascinating and would make good novels.

Not really, since it means expanding a war they weren't really losing at the time. It also means the Germans were even dumber for not checking their false intelligence.

Again, if the US didn't violate neutrality, it would not be expanding a war. They were trying to have a contingency plan. (As explained by the German foriegn minister, in fact.) And by this time, if they weren't losing, they were still bled ALMOST as white as the British and French.

How can they check FALSE intelligence? They would have no way of knowing it was! Historically German intelligence services have never been particularly great anyways.

True. But neither did Wilson or any of his contemporaries know the long term remifications of his actions and in purely political and contemporary terms I'd call W the bad apple.

It seems a bit odd to judge someone badly because his actions had results he couldn't possibly foresee. What's next, blaming Marx for the USSR?

I could also blame Gaius Marius for the Roman Empire. Want to watch?

Anyways, it's not so much that he couldn't forsee them as that they seemed to be a "Means to an End" argument of why lots of people should die. (There are worse examples in history of this, but not many for US presidents)

As have I, but that doesn't make it so.

You could be right.

But now you're talking about deficit spending as a default mode rather than a way to boost or strengthen the economy effectively.

Hasn't it become a default mode, for the US government at least?

Careless deficit spending, which is something FDR was also guilty of, is a plague, but FDR isn't the worst of it. GWB is obviously one of the worst deficit spenders in history, and the way he does it is more reminiscent of Reagan than FDR. FDR did kind of "invent it", but it would've come around at some point anyway, like during the arms race, so it's hard to blame him for the stupidity of his inheritors.

I can't argue with that overall. Starting a precedent is starting a precedent though.

True in practice, but not by definition, and not necessarily true during recession periods.

Yes. Which is why, admittedly, it's hard to say whether the New Deal worked (comparitively) or not.

Diverted, not wasted. It is not the most effective way to boost the economy, but it is amongst the most effect available to the government.

I suppose that is true. My perceptions on it are jaded by reading about how willfully wasteful the government can be.

Here is a fairly simple analysis why this is not true. But you can easily find documents on why it is true as well.

One question: Is that talking about "trickle-down" style tax cuts or middle and lower class tax cuts? I didn't see the distinction.

Statistic evidence indicates that GDP real growth rate historically has been lower during tax cuts than during tax equalisation/expansion times. Conservatives then argue that this is because of the old delayed reaction-theory, as in "Bush has to suffer from Clinton's policies" or "FDR just floated on Hoover's wins", which seems little more than a paper tiger to me, but it's hard to prove it untrue.

Under ALL tax cuts or merely ones that favor big business? I was under the impression that tax cuts aimed primarily at the middle and lower class had a boost effect to consumer demand, that causes a ripple on the whole economy.

Personally, I believe tax cuts have a negligebly small effect on the economy, considering the costs.

As compared to good services and a balanced budget I tend to agree with you.

Such an argument is contentious at best. Saying that would've been the normal recovery rate amounts to saying FDR's massive policies had zero effect on the economy, which is laughable considering the size of them.

One could also argue that FDR's policies had a negative effect on the economy but that won't be me. You're probably more right than I am, at least. I don't know.

I hate that argument.

Somebody had to say it. I don't know if it's true, as it's a contentious statement, as you say.

Yes.

No. I'm actually quite leaning towards the other side, though I'm registered as an Independent.

Aye, and part of this economic boom is massive government employment of its people. See, deficit reinvestments are a huge part of wartime economy boosts.

But that employment gets de-mobbed back into private industry and services rapidly. (espeically when the positions are held open by others NOT in government employment (hello ladies!)) Those deficits also get a bite taken out of them, historically, either by increased tax revenues or reparations or plunder (depending what time period you're talking about.) Either way, the deficit spending has tended to not continue, or at least not be as massive, after the war.

That is laudable, but far from realistic.

Pre-WWI not so much. Oh well.

Versailles, depression, appeasement policy, Italian expansionism, colonialism, nationalism as the dominant philosophy, the Franco-Prussian war and the old balance of colonialism all contribute.

I think we can safely establish Versailles and the Depression the most important factors, but those are all factors. Absolutely.

 

[Sander]

Congratulations os graduating first grade. Secondly, I don't believe I am wrong on that particular subject (at least, you haven't shown me to be wrong, you've just, quite frankly, bitched, about me having an opinion on what would happen in that scenario)

Let me start over again: you try to prove something by using an alternate scenario, I say that that is no proof or a very desirable scenario (due to the extra certain deaths) *as part of the argument* and now you're saying 'Yeah but it's just opinion, so why do you care?'
Hey, if it's just your opinionand no one should care, why did you enter the debate at all?

Once again, how am I lying? I stated it as a postive, but who gives a shit? It's an opinion. You're calling me a liar off the fact that I sounded very certain of myself. I'm still pretty sure that would happen, so calling me a liar off of a tense formation is absolutely fucking ridiculous. So shove it.

I'm calling you a liar for claiming you didn't say something when you did. For fuck's sake, how hard is that to understand?
You said that you didn't say that WW2 would happen (and that you didn't blame Wilson, and some other things). I show that you did. Hence, you lied.

Oh great. Except, how did I lie? THAT is starting to annoy me. You're basing this off of WHAT?

See above, reading comprehension wonder.

Again, I'm sorry that you read it (incorrectly) in a certain way. Not what I meant. But part of the blame (I've established this) is, in MY opinion, Wilson's. You know, getting involved in WWI in the first place.

*blinks*
Most brilliant twist and turn ever. 'No, I didn't place part of the blame on Wilson, you just misread. But I do blame him.'
What the fuck have you been smoking?

You don't understand what the word support means, apparently. Are you talking about, in official policy? By the people? By the president? Under which time periods? What? Because, please, AND DO LOOK THIS UP, if it weren't for Wilson refusing to compromise on the League of Nations clause that treaty would have been ratified. That is fairly well supported to me. It didn't get ratified, for one reason only. Sounds like it had lots of support at that time.

People were getting back to isolationism, so no support there, no signing of the treaty, hence no offical support either, Wilson obviously didn't support the eventual document, and since the USA never entered the League of Nations it was never officially ratified.
Hence, don't blame the USA.
Also< I'd like to see your sources on American support(in any way) for the treaty.

The US was integral to the creation of the treaty. Repeating these tired lies are pointless. Again, that support (or the lack thereof) came later, and had nothing to do with the peace negotiations. This should be obvious.

I'd disagree, the US was integral to estatablishing a situation where the Treaty of Versailles could exist. The heavy content was not influenced as much by the USA. I'd be happy to see some sources proving me wrong, though.

Great. They were all interesting and fascinating and would make good novels.

Yes, and they're all *just* as useful as yours was, which was entirely my point all along.

Again, if the US didn't violate neutrality, it would not be expanding a war. They were trying to have a contingency plan. (As explained by the German foriegn minister, in fact.) And by this time, if they weren't losing, they were still bled ALMOST as white as the British and French.

If the message got intercepted or leaked in any way (because, for instance, the Mexicans wanted to get closer to the USA) they'd be heavily fucked. Which is a contingency plan, yes, but one that can be a real liability when it isn't even needed is a really poor contingency plan. In the way it was constructed, it was also provoking military attacks on the USA, which is really just hostile.

How can they check FALSE intelligence? They would have no way of knowing it was! Historically German intelligence services have never been particularly great anyways.

Because you check every bit of intelligence, especially on something vital as this. Hell, Mexico wasn't even near the size of the USA, how could it ever have its manpower? It shows you they were morons for not thoroughly checking their intel on something as vital as this.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Let me start over again: you try to prove something by using an alternate scenario, I say that that is no proof or a very desirable scenario (due to the extra certain deaths) *as part of the argument* and now you're saying 'Yeah but it's just opinion, so why do you care?'
Hey, if it's just your opinionand no one should care, why did you enter the debate at all?

No, I disagreed with something YOU said FIRST. If you don't like my argument, then tough. Because you have only bitched about it ten million times.

I'm calling you a liar for claiming you didn't say something when you did. For fuck's sake, how hard is that to understand?
You said that you didn't say that WW2 would happen (and that you didn't blame Wilson, and some other things). I show that you did. Hence, you lied.

Uh, bullshit. I "said that I didn't say that WWII would happen" makes no fucking sense in any case and is completely untrue. I think you must have had a typing error there, since it was basically the reverse. I never said Wilson was directly responsible for WWII except in your fucking fantasy. I also said that I DID NOT BLAME HIM (alone or completely) for WWII. I connected him to it indirectly. If those things cannot be concomitant to you, then I don't give a shit. Someone can be connected to something without being the primary fucking culprit. That's how history works.

See above, reading comprehension wonder.

Yeah huh.

*blinks*
Most brilliant twist and turn ever. 'No, I didn't place part of the blame on Wilson, you just misread. But I do blame him.'
What the fuck have you been smoking?

How hard is this to understand? WWI would not have been won by the allies (in my opinion, mind you) if the US hadn't joined. Wilson was the person most responsible for making that happen. Hence, through degrees of seperation, he is partially responsible for events that occured afterwards. Get it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you attack me for placing ALL or MOST of the blame on Wilson? So how does "part" come into it? Wait wait wait:

Then why do you continue blaming Wilson? Oh wait, you didn't, cause it makes you wrong, so you just deny it.
Psch.
Also, the reasons don't matter, it wasn't ratified or supported at all by the USA or Wilson. Hence blaming them in any way for the Treaty is moronic at best.

Is this the line in question that I was disputing and wherein (previously) I blamed Wilson?

I thought that we've established that it doesn't matter whether there was "support" for the treaty, the US still helped make it. Which is indisputable by the way. So ratification or no, YEAH, he gets a piece of the blame.

People were getting back to isolationism, so no support there, no signing of the treaty, hence no offical support either, Wilson obviously didn't support the eventual document, and since the USA never entered the League of Nations it was never officially ratified.
Hence, don't blame the USA.
Also< I'd like to see your sources on American support(in any way) for the treaty.

The isolationist movement gained it's real power several years after WWI, when people realized what a mistake that war was.

"Don't blame the USA" what? They were, as I have repeatedly said, completely a part of the creation of that treaty, so it really does not matter whether it was ratified by the US or not. They were a part of it as much as the rest of the allies.

My sources of support are books that I've read, which are in libraries. (You'll probably scoff at this, but whatever.) I can't remember the names since it was years ago that I read extensively about WWI.

I'd disagree, the US was integral to estatablishing a situation where the Treaty of Versailles could exist. The heavy content was not influenced as much by the USA. I'd be happy to see some sources proving me wrong, though.

Wikipedia says specifically that the US was involved and that no side was able to get a compromise that was worthwhile. Also, that Wilson sacrificed much of his original platform for the League of Nations. Sounds like he was plenty involved to me.

Hence:

The treaty had provided for the creation of the League of Nations, a major goal of US president Wilson. The League of Nations was intended to arbitrate international disputes and thereby avoid future wars. Not all of Wilson's Fourteen Points were realized, since Wilson was compelled to compromise with Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Orlando on some points in exchange for retaining approval of the "fourteenth point", the League of Nations. The common view has been that France's Clemenceau was the most vigorous in his pursuit of revenge against Germany, the Western Front of the war having been fought chiefly on French soil.

Yes, and they're all *just* as useful as yours was, which was entirely my point all along.

Except (and this is the primary point here) I didn't pretend to predict very far into the future as your counter examples did. You know, that whole "being reasonable" thing?

If the message got intercepted or leaked in any way (because, for instance, the Mexicans wanted to get closer to the USA) they'd be heavily fucked. Which is a contingency plan, yes, but one that can be a real liability when it isn't even needed is a really poor contingency plan. In the way it was constructed, it was also provoking military attacks on the USA, which is really just hostile.

Considering the rhetoric coming from Wilson at the point that the Zimmerman telegram was sent, I'd be plenty concerned if I were the Germans. And, again, if it had REMAINED secret there would have been no harm and no foul. The point of the telegram was for it to remain secret. Secret like, "If the treaty does get signed we don't mention it" secret. Secret protocols like those that helped kick off WWI and WWII, for instance.

Because you check every bit of intelligence, especially on something vital as this. Hell, Mexico wasn't even near the size of the USA, how could it ever have its manpower? It shows you they were morons for not thoroughly checking their intel on something as vital as this.

First of all, easier said than done. Secondly, NO COUNTRY in the whole WORLD can check it's intelligence twice regularly and at will to make sure it's accurate, especially with information as critical to national security (for the target nation, that is) as this. That's patently ridiculous. Third, not great on intelligence gathering, as I've said.

 

[Brother None]

Do keep it civil, you two.

Lazarus; citing Wikipedia as a source is little more than a joke.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Do keep it civil, you two.

Lazarus; citing Wikipedia as a source is little more than a joke.

Sorry. I don't have any written sources handy nor I do I have access to any online refrence materials (that are credible.)

The wikipedia article in question did not cite it's sources, so... I can't do much to prove it without visiting a library I suppose.

 

[Sander]

<snip a load of shit>

Okay, the last time. Let's try again: you claim you did not say something. I call you a liar because you really did say those things. You blame me for it. I go 'Huh?'
One of the several illustrations:
Lazarus: "I'm sorry if you read something into that and then called a bullshit flag on it, but I didn't say WWII was Wilson's fault."
Sander: "And really, that piece of text I quoted was you putting the blame on Wilson. You claim Wilson threw Germany to the wolves, and then say that the result was World War 2 (which was very irrelevant in any case), which is establishing a causal relationship and putting at least part of the blame on Wilson. "
Lazarus: "Again, I'm sorry that you read it (incorrectly) in a certain way. Not what I meant. But part of the blame (I've established this) is, in MY opinion, Wilson's. You know, getting involved in WWI in the first place."

Me: Twist and turn motherfucker!

The isolationist movement gained it's real power several years after WWI, when people realized what a mistake that war was.

"Don't blame the USA" what? They were, as I have repeatedly said, completely a part of the creation of that treaty, so it really does not matter whether it was ratified by the US or not. They were a part of it as much as the rest of the allies.

My sources of support are books that I've read, which are in libraries. (You'll probably scoff at this, but whatever.) I can't remember the names since it was years ago that I read extensively about WWI.

Gee, so are my sources (including a doctor in History), and they disagree with this. Huh, how convenient.

Wikipedia says specifically that the US was involved and that no side was able to get a compromise that was worthwhile. Also, that Wilson sacrificed much of his original platform for the League of Nations. Sounds like he was plenty involved to me.

Yeah, useful.
You know, I had a discussion with someone about Churchill's rise to power a month ago. I quoted Wikipedia (also stating that I was sorry for not being able to find a more reliable source), he quoted his specialist books. I looked up the books and found he was right. Gee.

By the way, there was no source material on the Churchill article either.

Except (and this is the primary point here) I didn't pretend to predict very far into the future as your counter examples did. You know, that whole "being reasonable" thing?

Oh yes, and your example is completely arbitrarily more reasonable because, you know, it is.
Note that I never spoke about how far into the future either.

Considering the rhetoric coming from Wilson at the point that the Zimmerman telegram was sent, I'd be plenty concerned if I were the Germans. And, again, if it had REMAINED secret there would have been no harm and no foul. The point of the telegram was for it to remain secret. Secret like, "If the treaty does get signed we don't mention it" secret. Secret protocols like those that helped kick off WWI and WWII, for instance.

Yes, of course, it's very nice to try to rely on things remaining secret in an age of espionage.
Of course, as I've been trying to explain, that doesn't make it any smarter. Hell, it probably makes it even dumber.

First of all, easier said than done. Secondly, NO COUNTRY in the whole WORLD can check it's intelligence twice regularly and at will to make sure it's accurate, especially with information as critical to national security (for the target nation, that is) as this. That's patently ridiculous. Third, not great on intelligence gathering, as I've said.

So, they suck at gathering intelligence, they don't check their intelligence because 'it's not feasible' (for fuck's sake, look at the size and population countries alone, sheesh), and that somehow makes them less dumb?
Heh.