Tempest should love this one

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
And you assume that it is a positive distribution for all the people.

Please show me where I have made this assumption??

It's amazing how people will put words into your mouth to make a point.


Quote:

There are now ~6 billion people on the planet and most of them are better off than our predacessors.


Here it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
And you assume that it is a positive distribution for all the people.

Please show me where I have made this assumption??

It's amazing how people will put words into your mouth to make a point.


Quote:

There are now ~6 billion people on the planet and most of them are better off than our predacessors.


Here it is.

smirk2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

But why are they better off??? Why? Because of first-world tax dollars driving technology? Because of charity, much (billions) coming out of my tax dolars? Handouts? Wheat? immunizations? technology?

What brought the rest of the world up was our charity and business decisions in chasing a cheaper laborer... from which the lower 95% or so benefit, and the upper 5% or so profit on.

Those who profit do better... those who benefit, just benefit for the widget they bought at that moment. Like I said in another thread... they danced as the titanic sunk.

So my thought is that WE brought the rest of the world up... by our practices and our decisions. At cost to us. Now, meanwhile we were accumulating debt like nobody's business. Debt = cannot afford... So we were allowing the upper 5% to profit, so the lower 95% could "benefit", meanwhile writing checks that they could not cash, in the form of the national debt.

Would SS and medicare last a LOT longer had the money been put away instead of spent? Would half of the issues be so if we hadnt indebted ourselves to the point of no return?

We brought them up, with the sweat of our brows and the taxes from our pockets. Some profited, some "benefitted". Only very few win, even if most seem to maintain the status quo via education and hard work.

Meanwhile our poor decisions errode the ability to sustain.

You bring up good points but for scale. We give away ~$26 billion a year. A lot of money to be sure, but fairly small in comparison to our GDP and certainly the Global GDP. So that is far from driving the global economy.
What if we didn't do the Marshall plan? Just left Europe on it's own after WWII. Would we have been better off? Would we have the trading partners that we have now? (And the economic activity) Would the Soviets have rolled over the border and taken over?(Probably) And that would have cost us how much? (Both in money and lives)

I'm not a fan of foreign aid but I believe that it is necessary where our national security is benefited.

You are also missing that the freedom this country demonstrated to the world and helped to bring freedom to billions of people that also help their economic condition. As Panda pointed out, Warlords (powerful, corrupt government) do not benefit the people much.

Quote:
I feel that there must be "levels" or groups or classes of people, because there is a natural distribution in everything, intelligence, health and drive included.

I agree. That's why I said that there will be unemployment no matter what you do.
 
Quote:
What if we didn't do the Marshall plan?


I'm sure that one could call this a kind and benevolent action.


On further simple analysis, what would have been the alternative for a nation that was 100% intact and at (fake number purely for demonstration purposes) 2000% industrial output? It would be so sensible to have our returning heroes arrive at a depression. Let alone that Daddywarbucks had lots to reap in the fact that, for a good LONG TIME, there was no competition for a world that needed much more than they could provide for themselves ..given that they were literally up to their neck in rubble. They could name their price. It was going to be a situation where demand outstripped supply for a good long time.


To the victors go the spoils...
 
Errr ..and this has what to do with the Marshal Plan?

(whistling that adapted theme music from Gilligan's Island)
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Makes you wonder why the Soviet Union collapsed, eh? They were in a similar position that we were.


No they are not.

There were no unemployment back in the soviet times, but a lot of political movement that focus on ideology and personality. This is common in most communist nations that the focus is on weeding out and alienating the enemy, rather than fixing the problems the nation faces. It is either our way or the unpaved highway.

According to my folks, back in the communist China's time, you cannot buy anything even if you have money. The stores are always empty and you are not allowed to raise your own cattle/pigs/chicken, etc. What they got in their food quota of the month is about 1 cup of cooking oil, 1-2 lb of meat, and 20lb of rice regardless of age and body size. You cannot improve your life because that creates inequality, and it is anti-communism. Everyone has to go to the black market to get what the want and trade what they don't want.

The communist government did not give handout, but mandate what you cannot do. What the capitalist America try to avoid/disapprove is the handout. We still have freedom as a consumer, and that's a big difference here.
 
Last edited:
I might suggest that the reason for entering into the war was that taking on a short-term debt, and destroying the industrial base of your biggest competitors, you actually would reap dividends for the next 30 years, in terms of output.

We then chansed the buck in terms of "efficiency" a bit too much, and started loosing out.

Had we not done the Marshall Plan? Had Russia rolled over everything? Well, for my family, that is exactly what happened, and a group that was "middle class" lost everything that they had, were refugees, and crossed Germany with all they had in a handwagon. If they were lucky, there was a train that ran from bomb crater to bomb crater.

It was only that they were not members of the party, that let them find work and then come over as endentured servants (more or less).

So that part is real for me anyway... Had it happened over all of Europe? Well, the great experiment of 1917 failed, right? And what is there in what is left of it?

So I suppose it would mean a bigger "emerging" market in 2009?
 
Quote:
I might suggest that the reason for entering into the war was that taking on a short-term debt, and destroying the industrial base of your biggest competitors, you actually would reap dividends for the next 30 years, in terms of output.

Not sure where you were going with your post but the war was raging in Europe for at least 2 years before we got involved, and 8 years before that in Asia. And there was that little event in Hawaii...
Quote:
So I suppose it would mean a bigger "emerging" market in 2009?

Not sure what you mean here?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I might suggest that the reason for entering into the war was that taking on a short-term debt, and destroying the industrial base of your biggest competitors, you actually would reap dividends for the next 30 years, in terms of output.

Not sure where you were going with your post but the war was raging in Europe for at least 2 years before we got involved, and 8 years before that in Asia. And there was that little event in Hawaii...
Quote:
So I suppose it would mean a bigger "emerging" market in 2009?

Not sure what you mean here?


What he meant was if we left Europe aside and let the Nazi or Commies overrun it, and make the entire Europe and Asia 3rd world, then by 2009 we will be the only superpower and can produce anything we want and charge however we want, and our economic power would be much higher than the years after WWII.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top