WatchThose of you who do.
I don't understand this.
Please post a quick note, whatever you care to express. I don't mind if you're sarcastic or derisive, its just that I'd just like to hear some thoughts and this seems like a good place to ask, people on this list are articulate and seem to have a lot of personal experience.
I actually kind of don't expect much of a response, its a touchy subject to come right out and ask about, but I hope so.
Its healthy to be skeptical and all, but I see so much hate of "gov" here in the US, so much unfocused rage. What exactly is the issue/s?
I appreciate anything anyone cares to offer.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
IWOG - if you had a computer, and 5 minutes, you could find out the truth for yourself. It appears you would rather throw stones and ignore reality. So I'll do the work for you, you lazy do-gooder.
http://oldgloryradio.com/wordpress/?p=318
There you will find the DHS report on the "radical right". In it you will find phrases such as "right wing extremists" and "right wing terrorists".
In addition there is a strategic report compiled by state and federal law enforcement agencies titled "The Modern Militia Movement", dated Feb. 20, 2009. "Red flags" outlined in the document included political bumper stickers such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul...
It should be abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You just argue a lot. No one should ever take you seriously. Hahahaha...quack, quack, quack. kookoo, kookoo.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,614 comments
Abe--
Is that the best you've got? A report saying that people with Ron Paul bumper stickers MAY be part of the radical right? That's a far cry from a politician calling people who disagree with their policies "terrorists".
You're really playing loose with the truth on this one...
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
That's nice and everything but nothing you linked says that police should be suspicious of anyone with a Ron Paul bumber sticker nor does anything you linked say people with Ron Paul bumber stickers are terrorists.
In fact I searched the entire webpage for the text "Ron Paul" and it doesn't appear anywhere on the document.
We'll call that one a fail. Is there any other source you'd like to link to show that you were telling the truth and not simply making stuff up?
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I was personally called a traitor while voicing opposition to the Iraq war. In my experience, almost all the ridicule, hatred, and scorn comes from people like "honest" Abe.
Oh the irony!!!!!
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog - I see you STILL won't take the time to look ANYTHING up. Its all on on-line. The Ron Paul reference was on another link, but its there.
I would not call you a traitor for opposing the Iraq war. What is ironic is that we can agree on anything.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
Iwog is correct about:
"No document warned police to be suspicious of anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker. No document said people with a Ron Paul bumper sticker were terrorists."
From the Missouri law enforcement intelligence report from early 2009:
“Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.”
Abe is incorrectly turning this around by asserting that LE thinks Ron Paul supporters are domestic militia members, while LE -- and reality -- is saying that militia members tend to be Ron Paul etc. supporters.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
You lazy, liberal, progressive, pompous commies make me laugh. Read it yourself:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/86api/document_state_of_missouri_report_on_modern/
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
More ridicule, hate, and scorn from the guy who protested he's beeing ridiculed, hated, and scorned!!!
Okay stop it man, you're making me laugh too hard.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
Honest Abe says
hey man I'm not a communist.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
The commie rats, of both parties, that have been in the White House and Congress, with the help of The Fed, continues to deficit spend us into bankruptcy.
They have built a rotten financial structure, made out of a house of cards, erected on a bed of sand, built over a fault line, in a known financial hurricane zone, on borrowed money, at huge degrees of leverage.
As our worthless, paper, fiat currency continues to collapse, everything will continue to increase in price due to horrible inflation caused by governments shameless expansion in the money supply.
Why do we "respect" and actually pay these people ?????????? Anyone ?
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
You've got some fundamental gaps in your knowledge of how the economy works.
You need to ignore money for a moment and think about how wealth is created. The United States has X amount of productivity every year. Productivity has two major components: Capital and labor. Real capital is NOT MONEY. Real capital is factories and land and oil and tools and everything necessary so labor can work and create wealth.
The money supply as a number is almost totally irrelevant. The United States could print $100 trillion tomorrow and spend it into the economy. Productivity would skyrocket. Unemployment would be 0%. The shelves would be full of new things to buy, and the market full of consumers with high paying jobs to buy them with. Workers would win and hoarders would lose, but the average wealth of the nation and standard of living per capita would increase by a HUGE amount. The NET effect of printing $100 trillion and spending it in the United States would be POSITIVE.
The problem with the United States is not government spending or currency printing. The problem with the Untied States since Reagan took office is that we can no longer produce what we consume. (mostly oil) The solution has been to borrow enough money every year to cover the gap by selling bonds.
Since money is only a promise for future production, and since a trade deficit is cumulative and represented by a stockpile of that future production in foreign hands, we are watching our wealth get sucked away by foreign interests. The end result is many more dollars WITHOUT increased production. Inflation results and hyperinflation is inevitable. Stockpiling bonds in foreign hands is like building a damn with ice cubes. It's not a question of IF the Chinese will liquidate these assets, it's WHEN. There have already been repeated calls by the Chinese military to do this. Those who say "Never" are insane.
Capital is monopolized by the aristocracy. Labor is monopolized by the consumer class. At any given point in the history of a nation, it's a tug of war between these to forces to be dominant. If labor gets too powerful, you end up like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. If the aristocracy gets too powerful, you end up with squalor and eventually revolution.
Right now our nation is TOTALLY dominated by the aristocracy. Nearly all capital is in the hands of gigantic multi-national corporations. By all rights, we should be in another Great Depression with a massive underclass living in squalor.
The only thing preventing this dismal reality is borrowing. We pretend to promise our future production to the Chinese so they will loan the government money. The government pretends to "temporarily" place this wealth in the hands of consumers. The consumers pretend that someday they will pay it back.
This flow of currency from the hands of the Chinese to an American's bankruptcy filing is the only thing that keeps us afloat. Republican fiscal responsibility will KILL the economy and make most Americans into sharecroppers. It's the worst thing we as a nation can do right now. It's the end game that will create a permanent depression. The next act is revolution.
The road back to health is a return to economic borders (tariffs) combined with a massive devaluation of the dollar and a royal screwing of foreign bond holdings. Obama either knows this or is lucky to have a political philosophy that includes this. Unfortunately I have to go back to my original post in this thread. Americans are currently being brainwashed by right wing propaganda to support the aristocracy at their own expense. Should the Democrats lose control of the government and allow "fiscal responsibility" in the form of a balanced budget and a strong dollar policy, it's the end.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
^ very nice. My general perspective on the Great Recession was that inflationary expansion was better than a deflationary collapse with mass unemployment, but we're still in the latter mode apparently.
Given that only 25% of this country can find their ass with a flashlight, should present conditions obtain in November there will be a major reversal in Congress, a la 1994.
I'm thinking of votiing Republican just out of self-preservation instinct. Let's get this over with.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
Wow you should post that up as essay somewhere Iwog.
Good stuff!
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog - sorry, but you're wrong again. You say "the net effect of printing 100 Trillion dollars and spending it in the U.S. would be positive". POSITIVE??? Well, Quack man, you, and anyone who agrees with you, have got massive flaws in your knowledge of both economics and history. Haven't any of you heard of the hyperinflation in Germany after WW I ? No, well let me educate you - because History can repeat itself.
Germany printed and printed and printed gobs of money. Productivity soared, employment was near zero...BUT prices SKYROCKETED. Everything flew off the shelves. Everything, including food. For some - starvation, children died. People burned worthless paper currency to stay warm, as that was cheaper than any other type of fuel.
"The preocccupation of citizens was hunger, cold and the steadily mounting social unrest and misery. Rioting and highway robberies were occuring all around Berlin. The disparity between the rise in the cost of living and the rise in wages had become very marked. Whereas the rise in the cost of living had gone up by about 1,500 times (NOT a misprint - 1,500), the wages of the best paid worker had gone up by barely 200 times" From the book entitled "When Money Dies: The Nightmare of the Weimar Collapse", by Adam Fergusson.
Iwog you further state "Fiscal responsibility will kill the economy". NO, what is, and has been killing the economy is fiscal IRRESPONSIBILITY. Read the book "When Money Dies"...it is a chilling story of fiscal irresponsibility. You don't want that to happen here in America. I know I don't.
THATS WHY I'M TRYING TO EDUCATE YOU PEOPLE - SO YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE SAME FAILED POLICIES THAT WERCKED HAVOC ON AN ENTIRE POPULATION AND ULTIMATELY GAVE RISE TO WORLD WAR TWO. THAT WAR WAS FOUGHT WITH CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, THE NEXT ONE WILL BE FOUGHT WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I DO NOT WANT HISTORY TO REPEAT ITSELF. BUT IF YOU DO THE SAME THING - YOU'RE GONNA GET THE SAME RESULT. SO DON'T DUMP TRILLIONS OF WORTHLESS PAPER DOLLARS INTO OUR ALREADY CRIPPLED ECONOMY.
And tariffs are not a "solution" either. You surely must know tariffs are taxes...don't you ? All that means is if an American wants to buy that product, they get screwed by having to pay more for it. In other words the consmer takes it in the shorts, again, by being forced to pay a higher price in order to protect a non-competitive business, product, or industry. Some "solution".
IMPEACH EVERYONE.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
There's no way you'll ever understand how markets work until you let go of all the lies you've been brainwashed with.
YOU PERSONALLY cannot pay for what you consume! You share a per capita trade debt that exceeds what you can produce. YOU PERSONALLY cannot pay back the Chinese for all the products you've stolen over the last 25 years. Paper money blinds you. It allows you to pretend you pay for your taxes and your wars and your shoes and your gasoline and your food. It's all a lie and you will NEVER realize it.
If the United States government balanced its budget tomorrow, it would stop issuing bonds. If it stopped issuing bonds, the trade gap between the United States and many other nations would be paid for with CAPITAL ASSETS. There is no more food, there are no more weapons, and there are no more electronics that we can build and export to cover it the gap. We can't pay for it. YOU cannot pay for it.
It is LITERALLY Chinese nationals carrying American corporations and natural resources off our shores until they are all gone. That is what happens if we balance the federal budget. You'll deny it til you die, but YOU PERSONALLY owe the Chinese and the Saudis and many others a debt that you cannot pay back.
If the United States prints money to cover this obligation, the dollar is devalued until that external debt can no longer wreck the nation. It didn't work in Germany because the German debt was owed in gold. That's the piece of the puzzle you're missing. The German economy was destroyed by EXTERNAL debt owed to other nations. Since it was paid in gold, it could not be devalued. The United States can be destroyed by EXTERNAL debt owed to other nations IF we refuse to devalue the dollar.
YOU and the Republicans are on the side cheer-leading for a new Weimar Germany. Not I.
Your propaganda piece wouldn't be complete without a rant against tariffs. What's amazing to me is you don't see the complete and total contradiction between your two positions. You rail against debt, yet you also rail against tariffs. Therefore you're both against controlling our economic borders AND against the trade deficit. (which must be financed with debt)
So I'm sure everyone is interested............pray tell how you make both come true? Perhaps the Chinese are simply going to lower the price on all their products to FREE. That way we wouldn't have to borrow anymore money to buy them. Sound reasonable?
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
^ The yuan is still at 7 now but since their minimum wage is 65c it clearly should be at parity or even 1:2.
I lack the brain to fully tease out the impact of this change.
Our foreign-held debt really isn't that bad I don't think:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
grew 20% last year, that's not good.
Japan's economy is a fiscal mess yet they each own $6000 in t-bills. And their population is declining now so this will only get better : )
The trade imbalance with China fell a bit to $220B in 2009 but they only rolled over their treasuries, putting most of the cash in strategic investment funds I guess.
OPEC of course were the big winners in 2008 and I think a chunk of that windfall eventually ended up in the UK, which now has $300B in our bonds on their books.
Everybody's economy is f---ed to the degree capital gets tied up in its real estate sector. This only became obvious to me in late 2003, alas, but it's as plain as day to me now.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Every country's econony is messed up because every county uses its own worthless fiat currency. No country can have a sound economy until they have sound currency. fiat currency has been tried countless times thruout history and the result is always the same, without fail...the currency collapses. Can someone please name a fiat currency that has historically held its value? There are none.
Next, acting financially irresponsibly can never be a solution. Spending more than is available is a disaster, never a solution. Then one must borrow to cope. That creates additional problems, such as interest on the borrowed money which compounds the problem.
Our country borrows from the Chinese because our leaders are financially irresponsible, promise too much and spend too much. Its pretty obvious.
Our country has caused itself to be non-competitive by a blizzard of regulations, rules, laws, "codes" and the like. To compound the pain to business throw in abusive unions and crushing preditory lawsuits.
Is it any wonder american companies move offshore???
The bottom line is two wrongs don't make a right. OK, make that three wrongs: (1) Debasing our own currency can never be a solution, (2) Deficit spending due to financial irresponsibility can never be a solution (3) Countless government regulations, abusive unions and preditory lawsuits don't create competitive american companies - it does the opposite. OK, make that four wrongs: (4) Penalizing the american people who buy foreign products to help american businesses remain competitive is no solution either. It just costs the american consumer more, and doesn't make the american business any more competitive what-so-ever.
All the above is what america has been doing, its a reciept for failure, and is causing the pain most everyone is experiencing today.
The following is a quote from"Secrets of the Millionaire Mind" by T. Harv Eckler. It's appropriate and works equally well for individuals, families, businesses...even the U.S. Government..."IF YOU WANT TO GET RICH, FOCUS ON MAKING, KEEPING, AND INVESTING YOUR MONEY. IF YOU WANT TO BE POOR, FOCUS ON SPENDING YOUR MONEY"
No more hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors deficit spending worthless fiat currency leveraged to the moon non-sense. What our country needs is fiscal responsibility, sound currency and COMMON SENSE.
Thank you, and remember to vote EVERYONE out - impeach everybody.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
As I expected you didn't read anything I wrote.
I asked you how you can be against tariffs AND against borrowing at the same time, and you probably didn't even understand the question.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,614 comments
Honest Abe says
That is just complete BS. Jobs move overseas because other countries have lower standards of living. End of story.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
It is indeed very "competitive" if you move all your manufacturing to totalitarian countries where slave labor and deadly pollution levels are perfectly acceptable business practices. We seem to have found the ultimate version of "keep the slaves at a distance" they aren't just out of smelling range, they are WAY over there in places with no cameras allowed and dissent is crushed. USA! USA! USA!
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Both of you want to argue, pretend, justify and debate why everything is just fine the way things are now. They aren't, our country has tried it "your way" and look what we have...a financial meltdown. And our "wise" leaders are trying to solve our problems by adding more of what caused the problems in the first place...which you obviously agree with...ugh.
Borrowing is not a solution. Tariffs are not the solution. More Government regulation is not the solution. Further debasing our currency is not the solution. Excess spending is not the solution. Inflation is not the solution. Expanding union power is not the solution. Socializing businesses and industries is not the solution. More taxes is not the solution. More bailouts are not the solution. The Fed's manipulation of interest rates is not the solution.... Getting government out of the way and letting businesses and consumers make their own unrestricted free choices IS a solution. But that involves freedom - which seems to drive you guys CCCRRRAAAAAZZZYYYY. Getting government out of the way and letting the economy heal itself would be like "water seeking its own level". But once again you guys are probably way too smart to comprehend something as simple as that.
I've stated there are laws of nature as well as laws of business and finance. For example: water always runs downhill. For example: if you spend more money than you have, you always experience financial difficulty.
Come on, its not that hard to understand.
Throw everyone out of office! Campaign for Liberty. Ron Paul.com
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
My way: 1946 to 1980 - High taxes, strong Unions, strong tariffs, strong government regulation
Your way: 1981 to 2010 - Low taxes, weak Unions, no tariffs, near total deregulation
Want to talk about that financial meltdown again? Everything is trending YOUR WAY yet everything is getting worse.
Borrowing isn't the solution, borrowing is the lifeboat. You want to sink the lifeboat.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
iwog says
I'm not taking sides on this but iwog left out the small (sarcasm intended) matter of the aftermath of WWII in your analysis of the 1946-1980 time frame. Bombing every other industrial country flat while exponentially expanding the manufacturing base makes for a pretty good formula for prosperity. Starting in the 1970's the US needed to compete head to head with the rest of the world for the first time in 40 years. Your premise is faulty.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
^ yup, plus until 1970 we actually, literally owned half or so of the oil in the mideast. Then the camel jockeys decided it was their oil.
Plus from 1946-1974 China was an economic black hole and not a trade competitor. Japan was more of a junior partner 1950-1980, until the strengthening yen increased their global footprint by an order of magnitude.
The rise of a middle class in India and their plugging into our economy via the internet is another dimension of this puzzle.
How can a guy with a $500,000 mortgage compete with a well-paid, for India, dude making $15,000 a year?
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
bob2356 says
You're proposing an alternate explanation of why things were good, but it's incomplete and misleading. Japan and Germany were fully rebuilt and economic heavyweights by 1960. The "Japanese miracle" was 1955 to 1961. By 1961 West Germany had a larger economy than France AND Britain. Cheap Japanese imports were being shipped worldwide, so much so that they became a cliche.
Yet the United States economy "burdened" with progressive taxes, high tariffs, strong unions, and government regulation STILL afforded the average citizen with the highest standard of living in the world.
So is it true that the United States enjoyed a stategic economic advantage after World War II? Yes. Was that advantage gone by 1960? Definately. How can someone seriously entertain the premise that events in 1945 prevented a Toyota plant in 1960 from exporting cars all over the world? I don't suppose anyone saw a VW bug or bus on the road in 1960. Clearly something else is going on.
Even if you want to use the mental shortcut and blame USA prosperity on WWII, you still have a problem. How come in an era of weakening unions, falling tax rates for the rich, deregulation, and free trade globalism is everything going to hell??? How come the permanent trade deficit started in 1983 and not in 1970 when the country was being FLOODED by foreign cars and Japanese electronics???
If you're a free market supply-sider, you cannot answer these questions. From 1981 onward, EVERYTHING has been for you!!! Tax cuts, open borders, right-to-work states, deregulation, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the destruction of almost all New Deal protections. So why are we sitting on the edge of oblivion??
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
iwog says
Not definitely. 1960 was the end of the 50s. Postwar America ran through its first serious cyclical recession in 1958. It took the 1950s for Germany and Japan to just clean up all the damage done to their countries and reenter the world economy. The 1950s was the beginning of the trend, the 1960s its peak, the 1970s its wind-down.
Japan's GDP still expanded at a 10% annual rate for much of the 60s, took a beating in the early 1970s but their economy had another round in it in the 80s.
I don't know anything about the German economy to intelligently comment on it.
iwog says
The import boom really didn't hit until gas prices got over $1, ca. 1978 when Japan first had half the car market. Import rlectronics too was only ramping up in the 1960s, only hitting stride in the early 1980s.
When RCA was developing its CED format videodisc technology in the late 70s it planned on manufacturing everything in Indiana. But by 1980 the VHS and color TV market was owned by the Japanese.
At any rate, the last trade surplus in goods we enjoyed was 1973 and 1970 was the last year of our sustained trade surplus.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I use 1983 as the point at which our trade deficit became meaningful and permanent. You're right that it started in the 1970's, but it was so small as a % of trade that it had little chance of disrupting our econoomy.
The deficit was 10% of exports in 1982. By 1984 it was over 21%. At the peak in 2006, the deficit was over 50% of exports. It's lower now because of the recession, but that was also the case during the 1992 recession after which the trade deficit soared to new records.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
Japan was cleaning our clocks with the 250 yen exchange rate.
Remember, Volcker's 20% interest rates strengthened the dollar since funds wanted in for a piece of that action.
The Plaza Accord of late 1985 reversed this and restored some balance between Europe and the US at least (Japan didn't want anything from us).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord
The North Sea oil coming online in the mid-late 80s tanked the price of oil, which also helped.
You asked why in the post-Reagan era things are so out of whack.
Looking at this chart it's clear to me that the Bush administration inherited an imbalanced system, and in their inimitable way did absolutely nothing to address it.
When I left the US in 1992 "Made in China" was a rarity. When I came back in 2000, it was a trend. By 2006, our entire economy was Made in China, or so it seemed.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/bush.boxes/
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
iwog says
You ever hear of momentum. Global economic trends don't turn around in a year or two. The advantages built up in America between 1945 and 1960 were enormous. Huge. Gigantic. Really really big. Autos, electronics, aerospace, appliances, heavy machinery whatever, you name it American manufacturing dominated it. More than enough to carry into the 1970's. Japanese cars didn't penetrate in America at all until the oil shock of the 70's. I lived through it. A japanese car in 1972 was a very rare sight. Toyota didn't even sell cars in the US (or pretty much anywhere else other than Japan) until 1958. Christ, Toyota made 8400 cars total in 1955 (the only early year I could find a total worldwide sales number for) and they were the largest japanese car manufacturer. They sold 2000 cars in america in 1964 and 71,000 in 1969. So how had they wiped out the advantage of GM, Chrysler, Ford (along with american motors, naish, rambler, hudson, etc.) which were selling 6-7 million cars a year in the early 60's and over 10 million a year by the late 60's? I repeat that your premise is faulty.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
bob2356 says
I think you're missing my premise entirely. The argument being put forth is that because Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK were bombed out, they could not effectively compete with the United States therefore our economy prospered. That our high taxes, strict government regulation, strong unions, and economic border controls WOULD have crushed our poor little economy, but we didn't have any competition.
This was simply not true in 1960. VW produced 739,443 beetles in 1960. That's almost DOUBLE the production figures for Chevy's small car, the Nova, for ANY YEAR IT WAS EVER PRODUCED! I do not think it's a credible theory that World War II was enabling American industry by 1960. I think had tariffs been down and unions been weak, our markets would have been flooded by imports just as they are today.
Remember that supply-side nuts don't just need to explain what happened from 1946 to 1980, they also have to explain what happened from 1981 to 2010 when EVERY single piece of legislation out of Washington was going their way. They can't.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
You keep jumping around. First to the japanese then the germans. Vw was the only volume car producer in germany in 1960. That means that 739,443 beetles was pretty much the entire output for all of germany for worldwide sales. How can you compare that to one model of car from one division of one american car company and say that the national auto industries were in any way shape or form comparable? That's just nonsense. American car companies sold over 6 million cars domestically alone. Japan's gdp in 1960 was 16 billion the US was 980 billion. The average japanese worker earned 10% of the average american worker in 1960. You really don't believe that Japan (and to a lesser degree Europe) was still recovering from WWII at this point? Japanese growth really took off in the 60's averaging about 10% a year, but prior to that they were struggling.
No our markets would not have been flooded with imports. The manufacturing capacity simply didn't exist overseas prior to the 1960's. That's a simple fact.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
You keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with my original point. Of course Japanese and German production numbers were small. We were controlling our markets with tariffs and quotas. They could not expand efficently into our country.
I'm asserting that both German and Japanese industrial capacity was rebuilt 15 years after the end of World War II. As evidence of this, I provided the FACT that by 1960, Germany had the highest GDP of ANY European nation. Germany was the nation most bombed into oblivion. (BTW you are mistaken about VW production. I was ONLY counting bugs) Yet Germany became the economic superpower of Europe by 1960.
You CANNOT say that Germany was handicapped by Allied bombing in 1960 AND that Germany was tied with the UK for the biggest economy in Europe in 1960. Since #2 is a fact, I reject #1. Much more likely is that Japan and Germany were limited by their respective markets. Since the United States still had strong tariffs and quotas, they COULD NOT exploit the American markets NOR could they attract American capital.
Therefore I credit the high standard of living from 1946 to 1980 to American industry building wealth for Americans. I ENTIRELY REJECT the notion that we became rich simply because the rest of the world was destroyed. Here are the reasons:
1. It's not true. South America, most of Africa, Canada, and many Asian nations were untouched by war. They were neither bombed nor did they expend much towards the war effort. Mexico certainly could have invaded our markets, but they didn't because they were stopped at the border.
2. Bombed nations were rebuilt by 1960 and their sales were no longer limited by their industrial capacity. In fact VW bug production both climbed AND fell in the 1960s depending on the market and the world economy. They were NOT LIMITED BY WAR DAMAGE, they were limited by demand. Demand was limited by tariffs.
3. Modern China is an excellent example of what MIGHT have happened had foreign markets been as open in 1960 as they are now. It does NOT take 15 years for an American corporation to set up a factory in China and build products. In fact it can take as little as a few months. This was prevented in 1960. It's not prevented now.
The United States prospered because of the laws in effect at the time, NOT because the rest of the world was destroyed. It's a handy shortcut to use when you're a supply-sider and need to win an argument, but it's simply not true.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
iwog says
You are overstating the causes with black/white argumentation. A lot of the wealth creation of the postwar environment came from US investment in overseas resource bases.
iwog says
With what? Zarapes?
The point I'm trying to make is on January 1, 1946 the US of A had immense portion of the surviving capital in the world. It was seen that we needed to even things out a bit with the Marshall Plan later that decade to help our Allies get back on their feet in the early 1950s, and after that their economies grew at 5-10% for the next two decades, along with Germany and Japan who recovered at similar growth rates.
It’s a handy shortcut to use when you’re a supply-sider and need to win an argument, but it’s simply not true.
There are a lot of factors involved in the economic history of 1950-1980. The advantageous world position enjoyed by the US was one of them. Multinationals were able to ramp investment in the third world for healthy ROI, enriching the US greatly given our advantageous running start as the near-suzereign global power. Oil was free for the taking until things started falling apart in the late 1960s wrt diplomacy and trade relations with the oil producers.
1960 was the end of the beginning of this age and neither Germany nor Japan were up to full speed yet. Demographics also play into this story a lot, the postwar baby boom was turning 5 or 10, prompting significant demand pull for goods and services in all associated areas. 1955 was the peak year of the baby boom, and 1980 was when the baby boom was turning 25.
The story from 1980 has been about globalization, with India and China coming online as full competitors to American wage-earners, replacing Japan and Singapore and other much less sizable labor forces.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I agree that the United States had all the capital, hell we ended up with all the gold too.
The problem is that none of this wealth would have improved the life of the average worker without New Deal style government controls and progressive taxes. Eliminate those, as was done starting with Reagan, and all that capital goes overseas to find the cheapest labor so rich people don't have to share their profits as much.
Complex issues are often simplified when they shouldn't be. Likewise simple issues are usually made more complex to hide an agenda. Throughout history, it has ALWAYS been a struggle between capital and labor. Between workers and the aristocracy who owned everything.
The best economy seems to be one near the half way point. Workers receive a significant portion of their productivity back to make their lives easier, and rich people can still make enough money for a few vacation homes and a private plane.
The situation now is almost too stupid to be believed. Warren Buffett fully admits that his secretary is taxed at a higher rate than he is. Rich people are complaining about being taxed after they are dead. Some people can accumulate billions while WalMart employees must apply for state aid and food stamps.
And yet the Republicans keep crying MORE tax cuts! More deregulation! It's all the fault of the unions! Pure insanity.
Follow
Befriend
35 threads
5,700 comments
Bellingham, WA
^ sure, I agree with that. The wealthy have interest earning interest earning interest now. At work a coworker was talking about how he got to pal around down in Carmel with a Johnson & Johnson fortune moneyed dude, how the dude's intergenerational wealth was simply throwing off cash too fast to humanly spend.
When 10% of the country owns 70%+ of the wealth (and more of the actual capital wealth), you're nearing the event horizon of feudalism and wage slavery.
All Clinton did was add two tax brackets to mildly redirect upper middle class and above incomes to the public sector, no Republican voted for this, and their doomsday fearmongering posturing BS did not come to pass. The opposite, in fact.
Anybody making more than $500,000/yr is making more than wages from labor. They're welcome to go Galt, in this economy somebody hungrier will be more than happy to take up the slack.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,497 comments
iwog says
America wasn't the only market in the world in 1960. American exports dwarfed german and japanese exports in almost every market around the world.
iwog says
No you asserted that german and japanese industrial capacity were on par with american industrial capacity by 1960. That's too ridicules to even comment on.
iwog says
Sure I can. England committed economic suicide after WWII. Germany had rebuilt industrial capacity enough to surpass England, but that wasn't very hard. Gee they even managed to get ahead of Italy (wow), France (never an industrial giant), Spain post franco (barely), and eastern europe (whoops they are behind the iron curtain. Being the economic superpower of europe in 1960 is certainly not the same as having an industrial base that even began to compare to america's.
iwog says
What the heck other models did vw produce in 1960. The combi van. They must have sold at least a couple thousand of those every year.
iwog says
American industry was ABLE to build wealth BECAUSE the rest of the industrial capacity in the world was destroyed.
iwog says
None of these area's were industrialized nations to any degree before WWII (africa?? was that a joke?). What is the point? Is it like the old joke "doctor will I be able to play the piano after surgery" "Yes you will" "that's funny I never could play it before". Exactly which asian nations weren't touched by war by the way? Affected were Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Burma, Phillipines, Formosa, Cambodia, Laos, Indochine (Vietnam), Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), and Malaysia, That pretty much leaves India, Pakistan, Afganastan, and the middle east. Holy cow batman, these are surely some industrial giants. Remind me again what was it that Mexico was manufacturing at the time to flood our markets with?
iwog says
Again, america wasn't the only market in the world. They were limited by demand because in 1960 because both germany and japan were producing very limited variety of goods because they were just getting to the tipping point where they were in a position for their industries to take off.
iwog says
It's certainly a handy shortcut to deny the huge investment (as in huge public debts not matched again until late in the bush administration) in increasing American industrial capacity from 1940 to 1946 followed by the utter and complete lack of competitive manufacturing capacity worldwide for at least a decade afterwords had nothing to do with american prosperity of the period.
I am not a supply sider and I am a big believer in progressive taxes. Cutting the top tax rates always seems to correspond to a huge increase corporate malfeasance. It becomes worth taking a chance. But to assert that populist laws of the 1950's were the cause of american wealth building of the period just doesn't have any basis in reality.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
shrekgrinch says
Translation: Taxes make me very upset so I prefer anarchy.
Did you want to modify your answer to make it seem less absurd?
Follow
Befriend (9)
120 threads
2,591 comments
Burbank, CA
iwog says
How about "Steeling is against the law. The Government hates competition?"
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,480 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
RayAmerica says
So do you hate any government that forcibly takes money from you? (all taxes) Are you an anarchist too?
If you're going to jump on the lunatic boat you might as well be clear about it.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
Why was this dusty thread resurrected?