NationStates Jolt Archive

I came across this article the other day, and thought some of you might find it interesting.

It's pretty long, but worth the read.

Article (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=883#more-883)

Its too long to post here, but I'll quote some parts of it.

In the early 1930s, a secret collection of prosperous men are said to have assembled in New York City to discuss the dissolution of America's democracy. As a consequence of the Great Depression, the countryside was littered with unemployed, and the world's wealthy were watching as their fortunes deflated and their investments evaporated. As men of action, the well-financed New York group sought to eliminate what they reasoned to be the crux of the catastrophe: the United States government.

To assist them in their diabolical scheme, the resourceful plotters recruited the assistance of Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, a venerated, highly decorated, and considerably jaded former Marine. It was the conspirators' earnest hope that their army of 500,000 Great War veterans, under the leadership of General Butler, could overpower the US' feeble peacetime military and reconstitute the government as a more economical fascist dictatorship.

"Old Gimlet Eye" seemed to show some enthusiasm for the arrangement, and invited an associate named Paul Comly French to join the discussions. "Roosevelt hasn't got the real solution to the unemployment situation," MacGuire allegedly told French, "but we'll put across a plan that will be really effective. All unemployed men would be put in military barracks, under forced labor, as Hitler does, and that would soon solve that problem. Another thing we would do immediately would be to register all persons in the United States, as they do in Europe. That would stop a lot of Communist agitators wandering around loose." He also hinted that weapons would be furnished by the Remington Arms company, in which the DuPont family owned a controlling interest.

And finally, an excerpt from an interview that General Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler) gave in 1935:

"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…. Looking back on it, I felt I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents."

Click me for further reading on the business plot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

one of the great ironies of american politics is the right wing's total disdain for social welfare, completely ignoring the fact that social welfare effectively kept american democracy intact during and following the great depression.

Major General Smedley Darlington Butlter of the US Marine Corps
was one of the most,
if not the most decorated soldier in US history.
he was loved greatly by his men and has a marine base named after him
at Okinawa, Japan.


his testimony on the coup plot by the group of wall streeters was recorded in the congressional record of the day.


because he was so revered by his men is the reason he was approached by the plotters.
Butler told them if they concocted anything smelling of fascism he would meet them in the streets of dc with 500,000 men.

he also wrote "War is a Racket" which is available in its entirety online.

Great plan of theirs, come to a bunch of soldiers who just spent years and lost friends fighting fascism with an offer to start it up here. That sounds like it would go real well.

Great plan of theirs, come to a bunch of soldiers who just spent years and lost friends fighting fascism with an offer to start it up here. That sounds like it would go real well.

Er, you do realise this happened before WWII?

Er, you do realise this happened before WWII?

Yeah. Back then all too many people thought the marriage of state and corporate interests was a great thing - at least publically.

Yeah. Back then all too many people thought the marriage of state and corporate interests was a great thing - at least publically.


Today the same kind of people just work for think tanks, Halliburton or some K Street lobbying group.

Great plan of theirs, come to a bunch of soldiers who just spent years and lost friends fighting fascism with an offer to start it up here. That sounds like it would go real well.

There were no fascist nations in Europe until after WWI. Not that I can think of, anyway.

There were no fascist nations in Europe until after WWI. Not that I can think of, anyway.

There were primarily monarchies, with the exception of France which was a republic, as their monarchs were overthrown during the French Revolution. The monarchy was only briefly reinstated under Napoleon before it was completely abandoned.

There were primarily monarchies, with the exception of France which was a republic, as their monarchs were overthrown during the French Revolution. The monarchy was only briefly reinstated under Napoleon before it was completely abandoned.

Yes, I know that. And even among the monarchies, few of them were absolute.

Yes, I know that. And even among the monarchies, few of them were absolute.

Mmmm... Asolut. ;)

Was not this posted awhile back and was debated upon? Yea I believe it was.

Well, you already have the United States Kriegsmarine and their funny-looking building near San Diego...

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,979173,00.jpg
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,508184,00.html

Well, you already have the United States Kriegsmarine and their funny-looking building near San Diego...

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,979173,00.jpg
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,508184,00.html

And the navy wonders why the other branches do not take them seriously :D

The USA also had active Eugenics and forced sterilisation programmes based on almost no evidence right up until the early 60s. Every country's got a shitty past in one way or another.

The monarchy was only briefly reinstated under Napoleon before it was completely abandoned.

That isn't correct. There was no monarchy under Napoeon, unless one considers Napoleon a monarch.
The Monarchy was restored in 1814, when Napoleon was defeated. The last king of France was Louis-Philippe I of France, who abdicated in 1848.

one of the great ironies of american politics is the right wing's total disdain for social welfare, completely ignoring the fact that social welfare effectively kept american democracy intact during and following the great depression.

Wrong. Social programs were purely fodder; in fact, the Depression reached its peak around 1938-1939. World War II effectively brought the US out of the Great Depression.

And the navy wonders why the other branches do not take them seriously :D

I thought that had more to do with the rampant homosexuality of the Navy. :D

Wrong. Social programs were purely fodder; in fact, the Depression reached its peak around 1938-1939. World War II effectively brought the US out of the Great Depression.
The New Deal programs certainly didn't cure the depression, but for many people the treatment of the symptoms was life sustaining.

The New Deal programs certainly didn't cure the depression, but for many people the treatment of the symptoms was life sustaining.

The New Deal wasn't about restoring the economy. FDR knew he didn't have the congressional backing to institute the anti-Laissez-Faire reforms that were needed.

Instead, the policy was to set up a welfare and anti-poverty system to let people survive until the economy revived on it's own. It would have, too - probably somewhere around 1942, if the recovery followed the same pattern as the Great Depression of 1895.

As it was, the war came and the economic reforms became possible due to "war exigencies".

The New Deal wasn't about restoring the economy. FDR knew he didn't have the congressional backing to institute the anti-Laissez-Faire reforms that were needed.

Instead, the policy was to set up a welfare and anti-poverty system to let people survive until the economy revived on it's own. It would have, too - probably somewhere around 1942, if the recovery followed the same pattern as the Great Depression of 1895.

As it was, the war came and the economic reforms became possible due to "war exigencies".

Wasn't that what the previous president was trying to do and was tossed out of office? Oh yea...

The New Deal wasn't about restoring the economy. FDR knew he didn't have the congressional backing to institute the anti-Laissez-Faire reforms that were needed.

Instead, the policy was to set up a welfare and anti-poverty system to let people survive until the economy revived on it's own. It would have, too - probably somewhere around 1942, if the recovery followed the same pattern as the Great Depression of 1895.

As it was, the war came and the economic reforms became possible due to "war exigencies".Like I said- treating the symptoms. No work. No food. No money. People had to have something to keep them going until the economy recovered.

The New Deal wasn't about restoring the economy. FDR knew he didn't have the congressional backing to institute the anti-Laissez-Faire reforms that were needed.

Instead, the policy was to set up a welfare and anti-poverty system to let people survive until the economy revived on it's own. It would have, too - probably somewhere around 1942, if the recovery followed the same pattern as the Great Depression of 1895.

As it was, the war came and the economic reforms became possible due to "war exigencies".

Basically, FDR saved the wealthy establishment from Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party of America. Had he not run, and both major parties stuck to their class interests, it is quite likely that Norman Thomas would have won the 1932 presidential election.

one of the great ironies of american politics is the right wing's total disdain for social welfare, completely ignoring the fact that social welfare effectively kept american democracy intact during and following the great depression.


Many people fail to see that before FDR was elected president the economy was in a bounce back. When he took office and implemented all the "welfare programs" the economy sort of deadlined. Welfare can be good, but to many people take advantage of it in America

Wrong. Social programs were purely fodder; in fact, the Depression reached its peak around 1938-1939. World War II effectively brought the US out of the Great Depression.

It certainly brought some great riches!! Like the Bush Family!!

Quote:

"George Walker, GW's great-grandfather, set up the takeover of the Hamburg-America Line, a cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States. In Germany, I.G. Farben was most famous for putting the gas in gas chambers; it was the producer of Zyklon B and other gasses used on victims of the Holocaust. The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, to hide the funds they were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were sending to Nazi Germany, rather than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped pumping money into Hitler's regime.

Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush. (2) On the 20th of October, the government commenced action against the company under the trading with the enemy act. (3) After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal. (4) In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.(5) " Unquote

All these people are affiliated through "Skull and Bones" or the Thule society.. fascist groups who believe in eugenics and actually "steered" Adolf Hitler up until he lost his mind. Is America Fascist... too right it is.

Is America Fascist... too right it is.

Now care to prove that we are?

There were primarily monarchies, with the exception of France which was a republic, as their monarchs were overthrown during the French Revolution. The monarchy was only briefly reinstated under Napoleon before it was completely abandoned.

Well theres debates as to whether he was actually a "monarch" or "the people's champion" but even after Napoleon it was reinstated by the different Monarchs of Europe as a safety measure then overthrown by the July Monarchy, then that was over thrown to make a brief republic which was in turn overthrown by Napoleon III making himself in a similar status to his uncle then that was finally overthrown and France made the third republic.

one of the great ironies of american politics is the right wing's total disdain for social welfare, completely ignoring the fact that social welfare effectively kept american democracy intact during and following the great depression.

That point is also extremely debatable. Many believe it was the protectionist economic system that totally destroyed america, and in statistical figures, FDR put us deeper into the Great Deppression. I had Document Based Question on the subject.

There were primarily monarchies, with the exception of France which was a republic, as their monarchs were overthrown during the French Revolution. The monarchy was only briefly reinstated under Napoleon before it was completely abandoned.

More constitutional monarchies, in the case of Germany and Italy. As for Russia, it's being European is debateable at best.

I came across this article the other day, and thought some of you might find it interesting.

It's pretty long, but worth the read.

Article (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=883#more-883)

Its too long to post here, but I'll quote some parts of it.





And finally, an excerpt from an interview that General Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler) gave in 1935:



Click me for further reading on the business plot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

Haven't read the entire articles, (the first one seems kind of sketchy to me) but I can say that using this as evidence to say that corporations are inherently evil is essentially like saying socialists are inherently evil, as there have been many socialist plots to overthrow government in the past.

That isn't correct. There was no monarchy under Napoeon, unless one considers Napoleon a monarch.
The Monarchy was restored in 1814, when Napoleon was defeated.
If he wasn't a monarach then he certainly had similarities to one such as putting his putting his family into positions of power, divorcing his wife so he could marry a younger women to give him an heir, Calling himself Emperor and proclaiming the first empire of France.

Many people fail to see that before FDR was elected president the economy was in a bounce back. When he took office and implemented all the "welfare programs" the economy sort of deadlined. Welfare can be good, but to many people take advantage of it in America
Do you have some sources for this statement?

Well, you already have the United States Kriegsmarine and their funny-looking building near San Diego...

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,979173,00.jpg
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,508184,00.html

You're kidding.

If he wasn't a monarach then he certainly had similarities to one such as putting his putting his family into positions of power, divorcing his wife so he could marry a younger women to give him an heir, Calling himself Emperor and proclaiming the first empire of France.
Well I believe the logic was, just like in Rome an Emperor could be elected by the Senate in the Republic, which is why Napoleon had a plebiscite on him becoming an Emperor (it was rigged, but nonetheless), this was more for the reason of him being able to negotiate etc on an equal footing with the monarchs of Europe. He was of course before Emperor First Consul, but I think it would be more appropriate to call him a despot. I mean after the English Revolution supposedly England was a Republic, but in end became a military dictatorship and quasi-monarchy under Oliver Cromwell and later his son. So officially I believe France was still a Republic under Napoleon.

You're kidding.

No. America is Fasscist. It never kids.

one of the great ironies of american politics is the right wing's total disdain for social welfare, completely ignoring the fact that social welfare effectively kept american democracy intact during and following the great depression.

Which completely ignores the fact that government and federal reserve monkeying with the economy caused the depression.

Which completely ignores the fact that government and federal reserve monkeying with the economy caused the depression.

How on earth do you conclude that?

The entire point of the Republican fiscal policies under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover was for the Government to have NO ROLE IN THE ECONOMY. Far from "monkeying" with it, they FAILED to act when they SHOULD have acted - allowing ridiculous credit and debt levels to build, permitting the formation of near- and true-monopolies to form (despite the Anti-Trust Actbeing by then well ensconced in US law) and refusing outright to control the shadier side of the stock market - which is where the eventual (and inevitable) trigger event happened.

Sorry, but your hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny!

You're kidding.
I wish you guys were... I'm not!

I wish you guys were... I'm not!

Holy shit, man.

No. America is Fasscist. It never kids.

Good point.

How on earth do you conclude that?

The entire point of the Republican fiscal policies under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover was for the Government to have NO ROLE IN THE ECONOMY. Far from "monkeying" with it, they FAILED to act when they SHOULD have acted - allowing ridiculous credit and debt levels to build, permitting the formation of near- and true-monopolies to form (despite the Anti-Trust Actbeing by then well ensconced in US law) and refusing outright to control the shadier side of the stock market - which is where the eventual (and inevitable) trigger event happened.

Sorry, but your hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny!

The fuck you talking about? How bout them tariffs and the protectionist abilities they put into place? How bout the benefits they gave large and wealthy companies?

No. America is Fasscist. It never kids.

Evidence? or is this just another one of those generalizations? :rolleyes:

Well I believe the logic was, just like in Rome an Emperor could be elected by the Senate in the Republic, which is why Napoleon had a plebiscite on him becoming an Emperor (it was rigged, but nonetheless), this was more for the reason of him being able to negotiate etc on an equal footing with the monarchs of Europe. He was of course before Emperor First Consul, but I think it would be more appropriate to call him a despot. I mean after the English Revolution supposedly England was a Republic, but in end became a military dictatorship and quasi-monarchy under Oliver Cromwell and later his son. So officially I believe France was still a Republic under Napoleon.

No england wasn't a republic, it was a constitutional monarchy. As I recall some of the emperors of rome picked their successors based who was related to them, sort of like a royal line. Often both Napoleon and the emperors would put some relative in to a position of power who was most definitly not qualified for the position. He put his idiot brothers in charge of his conquered territory, stupid stupid idea.

Do you have some sources for this statement?

Well the fact that the depression lasted as long as it did, the fact that it took something as earth shattering such as World War II to shake the economy up and the fact that FDR said he was going to lower taxes. Did you here that lower taxes under a welfare state? (doesn't really have anything to do with what he said but its interesting nonetheless.)

The fuck you talking about? How bout them tariffs and the protectionist abilities they put into place? How bout the benefits they gave large and wealthy companies?

WHAT benefits? The US stopped subsidizing infrastructure industries (such as rail and chemical companies) in the 1890s.

As for tariffs, the US had the lowest tariffs of any of the "Great Powers". It wasn't in their interests to have high barrier levels, since the US made a lot of money via transshipment and storage. Those tariffs look high now, but that's because we, today, have ridiculously low tariffs compared to any other period - and I do mean ANY. When you take a look world wide, you'll find far higher tariff rates in any of the developed world of the time.

Was the US screwing over what would become the "Third World"? Yeah, of course we were. But again, it was primarily via private companies. The Federal Government was holding to it's Laissez-Faire guns - no role for government in the economy.

You're kidding.

They are barracks and it wasn't intentional. They wanted to give the Seals as much window space as they could. Crazy conspiracy theorists think there's some evil motive behind the design.

Evidence? or is this just another one of those generalizations? :rolleyes:

Everyone who talks in absolutes is an idiot.

Is America Fascist... too right it is.


it's a system you get people to believe in.

people won't believe they are slaves if that is all they have ever known.

plus fascism is basically the marriage of corporate and state interests.
some people (but not me) call that "corporatism" to make it sound not quite as bad.
but corporate rule is always bad.


militarism, ultra-nationalism, racism or xenophobia.

Which completely ignores the fact that government and federal reserve monkeying with the economy caused the depression.


and the reason it did not return was because Truman with his wall street advisers were allowed to steer the country into a permanent war time economy during a time of peace. the "military-industrial complex".

only thing is, now even that is starting to fail.
the morality of it never existed.

They are barracks and it wasn't intentional. They wanted to give the Seals as much window space as they could. Crazy conspiracy theorists think there's some evil motive behind the design.

Hmph.

WHAT benefits? The US stopped subsidizing infrastructure industries (such as rail and chemical companies) in the 1890s.

As for tariffs, the US had the lowest tariffs of any of the "Great Powers". It wasn't in their interests to have high barrier levels, since the US made a lot of money via transshipment and storage. Those tariffs look high now, but that's because we, today, have ridiculously low tariffs compared to any other period - and I do mean ANY.

Trade Decline and the U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Many economists have argued that the sharp decline in international trade after 1930 helped to worsen the depression, especially for countries significantly dependent on foreign trade. Most historians and economists assign the American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 part of the blame for worsening the depression by seriously reducing international trade and causing retaliatory regulations in other countries. Foreign trade was a small part of overall economic activity in the United States and was concentrated in a few businesses like farming; it was a much larger factor in many other countries. [3] The average ad valorem rate of duties on dutiable imports for 1921–1925 was 25.9% but under the new tariff it jumped to 50% in 1931–1935.

In dollar terms, American exports declined from about $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.7 billion in 1933; but prices also fell, so the physical volume of exports only fell in half. Hardest hit were farm commodities such as wheat, cotton, tobacco, and lumber. According to this theory, the collapse of farm exports caused many American farmers to default on their loans leading to the bank runs on small rural banks that characterized the early years of the Great Depression.

militarism, ultra-nationalism, racism or xenophobia.

Agreed about the ultra nationalism etc. but to say that corporate interest is fachist is just plain stupid. Fachism nationalises far more than that, in fact the government of FDR was compared to that of fachist government because of its extreme nationalising of things and its focus on a key figure of charisma and power ie: the president of the United States.

and the reason it did not return was because Truman with his wall street advisers were allowed to steer the country into a permanent war time economy during a time of peace. the "military-industrial complex".

only thing is, now even that is starting to fail.
the morality of it never existed.

Right and the New deal managed to magically fix everything, its not like the only reason that America got out of the deppression was because of WWII.

one of the great ironies of american politics is the right wing's total disdain for social welfare, completely ignoring the fact that social welfare effectively kept american democracy intact during and following the great depression.

It clearly says that there were millions of people out of work with, or without, social welfare.

I don't see how social welfare would follow under the 'lets kill Hitler and keep democracy safe' plan either. If I remember it correctly, it was the 'teh eval rght of D00MZ' that has always been a bit more pro-active in foreign policy, like killing Hitler, then silly hippie lefties; who are helping 'defending' American democracy by paying people off with money not their own.

Of course, if your implying American democracy had more to fear from these guys during the Great Depression then Hitler, fair enough, anyone can be an idiot.

Right and the New deal managed to magically fix everything, its not like the only reason that America got out of the deppression was because of WWII.

i heard the new deal wasn't really doing all that much.

i once heard a quote that was attributed to Mussolini.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
but, according to this site there is no source
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html


here is an interesting "14 points of fascism".


The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry
Spring 2003
5-11-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Evidence? or is this just another one of those generalizations? :rolleyes:

Note the two 's's in Fasscist.

Then chuckle if you understand what I meant by:

"No. America is Fasscist. It never kids."

Trade Decline and the U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Many economists have argued that the sharp decline in international trade after 1930 helped to worsen the depression, especially for countries significantly dependent on foreign trade. Most historians and economists assign the American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 part of the blame for worsening the depression by seriously reducing international trade and causing retaliatory regulations in other countries. Foreign trade was a small part of overall economic activity in the United States and was concentrated in a few businesses like farming; it was a much larger factor in many other countries. [3] The average ad valorem rate of duties on dutiable imports for 1921–1925 was 25.9% but under the new tariff it jumped to 50% in 1931–1935.

In dollar terms, American exports declined from about $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.7 billion in 1933; but prices also fell, so the physical volume of exports only fell in half. Hardest hit were farm commodities such as wheat, cotton, tobacco, and lumber. According to this theory, the collapse of farm exports caused many American farmers to default on their loans leading to the bank runs on small rural banks that characterized the early years of the Great Depression.

I can accept Smmot-Hawley as having an effect; it did likely make a bad situation worse.

But note the timing. Smoot-Hawley was a reaction to the start of the Great Depression, not a cause. Part of the reason for it's existence was the Hoover administration's bumbling attempts to ease the burden on the average American - Hoover is often (unfairly) considered to have done nothing on the subject, when in fact he DID try various methods to "kick-start" growth.

The problem was, as a Laissez-Faire Republican, he favoured top-down and trickle-down solutions, when what was needed was a survival plan for the US workforce.

Fascist America is still alive and well in some concepts.

Corporatism is rampant, outsourcing jobs to cheaper markets overseas, while struggling businesses at home are penalized for finding cheap labor here.

The State maintains control over service-related monopolies.

Nationalism and racism is rampant in our immigration policies.

The state wants to keep taking more and more control of society, making @ home economic interests subjugated to the state, as well as @ home social interests.

And all this is done with out the need of controlling fascist political party... Democrats and Republicans each serving their own self-interests, with a complete blind voter base serve to create this despicable system.

Fascist America is still alive and well in some concepts.

Corporatism is rampant, outsourcing jobs to cheaper markets overseas, while struggling businesses at home are penalized for finding cheap labor here.

The State maintains control over service-related monopolies.

Nationalism and racism is rampant in our immigration policies.

The state wants to keep taking more and more control of society, making @ home economic interests subjugated to the state, as well as @ home social interests.

And all this is done with out the need of controlling fascist political party... Democrats and Republicans each serving their own self-interests, with a complete blind voter base serve to create this despicable system.

:D Huzzah! :D

If he wasn't a monarach then he certainly had similarities to one such as putting his putting his family into positions of power, divorcing his wife so he could marry a younger women to give him an heir, Calling himself Emperor and proclaiming the first empire of France.

Indeed, there were striking similarities. However, Napoleon always went to greath lenghts to ensure that his coronation as Emperor of France was nothing like the way the French kings had been crowned. He always distanced himself from the former kings.
Besides, Napoleon had no legitimate claim to the throne, at leats not the way the houses of Bourbon and Valois had.

I can accept Smmot-Hawley as having an effect; it did likely make a bad situation worse.

But note the timing. Smoot-Hawley was a reaction to the start of the Great Depression, not a cause. Part of the reason for it's existence was the Hoover administration's bumbling attempts to ease the burden on the average American - Hoover is often (unfairly) considered to have done nothing on the subject, when in fact he DID try various methods to "kick-start" growth.

The problem was, as a Laissez-Faire Republican, he favoured top-down and trickle-down solutions, when what was needed was a survival plan for the US workforce.

Thats why it really took World War II as a solution rather than the New Deal to fix the Great Deppression. You can't really argue that the New Deal helped America get out of the deppression some may argue that it sustained america until then but in reality the system was in part the reason for the immediate decline in 1938-1939 until the British became involved in World War II and need the U.S. to give them things creating a wartime economy that was really the only thing that got us out.

Fascist America is still alive and well in some concepts.

Corporatism is rampant, outsourcing jobs to cheaper markets overseas, while struggling businesses at home are penalized for finding cheap labor here.

The State maintains control over service-related monopolies.

Nationalism and racism is rampant in our immigration policies.

The state wants to keep taking more and more control of society, making @ home economic interests subjugated to the state, as well as @ home social interests.

And all this is done with out the need of controlling fascist political party... Democrats and Republicans each serving their own self-interests, with a complete blind voter base serve to create this despicable system.

You show me where we are completely discriminating against ethnic minorities other than immigrants and I might agree with you as well as harsh punishments towards our own citizens. And no "Economic suppression" bullshit, i mean real stuff such as relocation of peoples, torture used against our own citizens, and a true state controlled monopoly as currently we give no direct benefits to corporations and have no tariff systems. Outsourcing is the problem that is linked to a global economy. The only real thing we can do that might help is to give corporations benefits to stay here which you seem to vehemently oppose. If we tax them they will take their buisness else where or even worse they will put the economic burden on the consumer. If you really want to go after the elite class, tax them as individuals because it is much harder to tax a corporation. If you are talking about fachism in the sense of Mussolini and Hitler's fachism, then you are most definitly wrong. Their sort of fachism had far more controls over business, handpicking one or two businesses to lead the forefront and outlawing the others. If this were true in the United States there would be no small buisnesses, or new companies. As it is in the United States there are multiple companies competing for multiple markets.

Mussolini pushed for government control of business: by 1935, Mussolini claimed that three quarters of Italian businesses were under state control. That same year, he issued several edicts to further control the economy, including forcing all banks, businesses, and private citizens to give up all their foreign-issued stocks and bonds to the Bank of Italy. In 1938, he also instituted wage and price controls.[15] He also attempted to turn Italy into a self-sufficient autarky, instituting high barriers on trade with most countries except Germany.

You show me where we are completely discriminating against ethnic minorities other than immigrants and I might agree with you as well as harsh punishments towards our own citizens. And now "Economic suppression" bullshit, i mean real stuff such as relocation of peoples, torture used against our own citizens, and a true state controlled monopoly as currently we give no direct benefits to corporations and have no tariff systems. Outsourcing is the problem that is linked to a global economy. The only real thing we can do that might help is to give corporations benefits to stay here which you seem to vehemently oppose. If we tax them they will take their buisness else where or even worse they will put the economic burden on the consumer. If you really want to go after the elite class, tax them as individuals because it is much harder to tax a corporation. If you are talking about fachism in the sense of Mussolini and Hitler's fachism, then you are most definitly wrong. Their sort of fachism had far more controls over business, handpicking one or two businesses to lead the forefront and outlawing the others. If this were true in the United States there would be no small buisnesses, or new companies. As it is we have it here in the United States there are multiple companies competing for multiple markets.

Fascism does not require any of what you mentioned. Fascism is heavy corporatism, nationalism, anti-immigration, militarism, opposition to multi-culturalism, and subjugating society and economic systems to the needs of the state. I'm talking of fascism as it is defined, not as it is implemented under Hitler or Mussolini.

Also I'd really like to see a source on those fourteen points.

U.S President Woodrow Wilson. :)

i once heard a quote that was attributed to Mussolini.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
but, according to this site there is no source
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html


here is an interesting "14 points of fascism".


The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry
Spring 2003
5-11-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

My friend you need to read your own documents:
It is unlikely that Mussolini ever made this statement because it contradicts most of the other writing he did on the subject of corporatism and corporations. When Mussolini wrote about corporatism, he was not writing about modern commercial corporations. He was writing about a form of vertical syndicalist corporatism based on early guilds. The article on Wikipedia on Corporatism explains this rather well.

Also I'd really like to see a source on those fourteen points.

Here are some quotes out of your article:
Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

Fascism does not require any of what you mentioned. Fascism is heavy corporatism, nationalism, anti-immigration, militarism, opposition to multi-culturalism, and subjugating society and economic systems to the needs of the state. I'm talking of fascism as it is defined, not as it is implemented under Hitler or Mussolini.

Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism#Economic_planning

U.S President Woodrow Wilson. :)

Lol, well not really the points I was looking for but thanks anyway. :p

Another good comment on Fachism:
According to sociologist Stanislav Andreski, fascist economics "foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic system of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attempts at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority)."[40] Politics professor Stephen Haseler credits fascism with providing a model of economic planning for social democracy.[41]

we give no direct benefits to corporations

no, actually the us gov't does.


corporate welfare and subsidies.

agricultural subsidies to corporations represent 80% of all subsidies in agriculture.

corporations are also often treated the same as if they were a "regular" business.
when they are anything but.

limited liability is something that exists in the US, but has not always. it is a relatively recent phenomenon. only the last century or so.
so shareholders, the owners, are not held criminally liable for crimes committed in the running under the corporate 'shield'.

we should definitely get rid of this limited liability thing.
it is simply unjust

Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism#Economic_planning

Exactly, and the state's present viewpoint towards economic policy is anything BUT laissez-faire.

under fascism unions were not independent.
union heads and industry heads worked together at gov't planning.
workers had to obey as if they were in some kind of twisted military state.
well, they were.

no, actually the us gov't does.


corporate welfare and subsidies.

agricultural subsidies to corporations represent 80% of all subsidies in agriculture.

corporations are also often treated the same as if they were a "regular" business.
when they are anything but.

limited liability is something that exists in the US, but has not always. it is a relatively recent phenomenon. only the last century or so.
so shareholders, the owners, are not held criminally liable for crimes committed in the running under the corporate 'shield'.

we should definitely get rid of this limited liability thing.
it is simply unjust

Yeah, LLC, wonderful concept... You do something criminal, and as long as you're doing it while wearing the "robes" of corporate leadership, you're free and clear even if it was killing someone.

Yeah, LLC, wonderful concept... You do something criminal, and as long as you're doing it while wearing the "robes" of corporate leadership, you're free and clear even if it was killing someone.


exactly.
and if you think it couldn't happen, just do a quick search for
Bhopal, India.


if the owners of a corporation were actually held criminally liable, once again,
they would be paying attention and not letting this sort of inhumane stuff happen. even your randomly selected shareholder is not necessarily a greedy f.
although...there are plenty of them out there.
you know, the types that would see nothing wrong with business deals with the likes of Sani Abacha of Nigeria, or Nazi Germany.
in the case of Nigeria the IMF & World Bank ensure the people of that country are saddled with the debts incurred by the dictator.
know what?
if a corporation does business with a dictator and the country racks up debt,
no, the people should NOT be stuck with it.
That's a loss the corporation should have to face.
In fact, we should revoke the corporate charter of such corporations as people tried to do with Unocal when they were doing business in BURMA & AFGHANISTAN. The California government chose not to revoke the charter, but stated it recognized that it COULD. And we still can. Corporations are our creations. period.

limited liability is a privilege granted by we the people,
not a right by any means.

no, actually the us gov't does.


corporate welfare and subsidies.

agricultural subsidies to corporations represent 80% of all subsidies in agriculture.

corporations are also often treated the same as if they were a "regular" business.
when they are anything but.

limited liability is something that exists in the US, but has not always. it is a relatively recent phenomenon. only the last century or so.
so shareholders, the owners, are not held criminally liable for crimes committed in the running under the corporate 'shield'.

we should definitely get rid of this limited liability thing.
it is simply unjust

Agreed actually, subsidies should be removed for corporations but I think agricultural subsidies should contiue. To say that the extent we put them out is fascist is just stupid. We have no tariff system, that was one of the key elements of a fascist government. On the point of limited liablility, if you are suggesting that they should held accountable as if what they were doing was some sort of felony then you are completely crazy. I agree that too often corporate execs get away scotch free from things.

if you are suggesting that they should held accountable as if what they were doing was some sort of felony then you are completely crazy.

I just want to ask for clarity, but you're not suggesting that if an LLC does something that is a felony, that it is crazy to suggest that they be held accountable for their act are you? Because that's what it looks like, but it doesn't seem to line up with the rest of your post.

But it fails to address that the Great Depression was deliberately planned by banking interests in order to set in motion events which would lead to the increased power of the Federal Reserve (who had its part to play), an independent "governmental" agency which lends money to the government at interest, which the government has no way to pay off except by borrowing more money at interest, essentially spiraling the global economy into a cycle of debt (as more nations become entangled in the US economy) which lands a tidy chunk of money into the hands of those who hold the reigns of the banks of which it is composed.

Ultimately, the world government is already coming. Some people have already had the ever useful and transaction facilitating micro-chips implanted in their hands. Credit is becoming more popular than cash.

Control of food=control of life

Control of agro-commerce=control of food

Control of currency=control of commerce

When the Amero-union is created, and the Constitution officially buried (more than a century after its time of death), then we will see if the people of this world are ready to shift their minds to the place that those in the know have been spreading quietly for thousands of years.

Those who speak loud often speak lies, for those who speak truth, and speak loud...they don't speak long.

Of course, it helps that most people here will think that I'm a nut, kind of. If you were to see what I'm suggesting (the subject of every book, movie and story you've ever been exposed to...the metaphorical construct which underlies all information) than I'd be hunted down and killed...by you.

Fascism starts in the mind that builds walls around the truth. It only manifests outwardly when there are sufficient walls such that events must arise which force the blind to see, the sleeping to awaken, and the boxed in to break out. The time is coming...soon.

But it fails to address that the Great Depression was deliberately planned by banking interests in order to set in motion events which would lead to the increased power of the Federal Reserve (who had its part to play), an independent "governmental" agency which lends money to the government at interest, which the government has no way to pay off except by borrowing more money at interest, essentially spiraling the global economy into a cycle of debt (as more nations become entangled in the US economy) which lands a tidy chunk of money into the hands of those who hold the reigns of the banks of which it is composed.

Ultimately, the world government is already coming. Some people have already had the ever useful and transaction facilitating micro-chips implanted in their hands. Credit is becoming more popular than cash.

Control of food=control of life

Control of agro-commerce=control of food

Control of currency=control of commerce

When the Amero-union is created, and the Constitution officially buried (more than a century after its time of death), then we will see if the people of this world are ready to shift their minds to the place that those in the know have been spreading quietly for thousands of years.

Those who speak loud often speak lies, for those who speak truth, and speak loud...they don't speak long.

Of course, it helps that most people here will think that I'm a nut, kind of. If you were to see what I'm suggesting (the subject of every book, movie and story you've ever been exposed to...the metaphorical construct which underlies all information) than I'd be hunted down and killed...by you.

Fascism starts in the mind that builds walls around the truth. It only manifests outwardly when there are sufficient walls such that events must arise which force the blind to see, the sleeping to awaken, and the boxed in to break out. The time is coming...soon.

Yes, and the lizard people control the government.

Yes, and the lizard people control the government.

Don't forget the king.
http://www.snapgalleries.com/images/the-sniff.jpg

Agreed actually, subsidies should be removed for corporations but I think agricultural subsidies should contiue. To say that the extent we put them out is fascist is just stupid. We have no tariff system, that was one of the key elements of a fascist government. On the point of limited liablility, if you are suggesting that they should held accountable as if what they were doing was some sort of felony then you are completely crazy. I agree that too often corporate execs get away scotch free from things.

no.
they should be held accountable.
there is nothing crazy about it.
what is crazy is that the owners get away scotch free.
it used to not be like that.
owners were once held accountable.
but this past century of robber baron-ism (yes, it did indeed never end, they just invented the pr industry) has persuaded politicians (owned more like it) to get laws passed favorable to their narrow economic interests.

the owners need to get active in the public entity the own a part of if they do not want to be held accountable for crimes committed.

is this the period in history that the United Statesmen's English started to degrade? Leaving them with the (in some cases barely understandable) sub-dialect they have today? :confused:

is this the period in history that the United Statesmen's English started to degrade? Leaving them with the (in some cases barely understandable) sub-dialect they have today? :confused:

I'm afraid so, but fortunately it appears to only occur in a few isolated spots and subcultures.

Thats why it really took World War II as a solution rather than the New Deal to fix the Great Deppression. You can't really argue that the New Deal helped America get out of the deppression some may argue that it sustained america until then but in reality the system was in part the reason for the immediate decline in 1938-1939 until the British became involved in World War II and need the U.S. to give them things creating a wartime economy that was really the only thing that got us out.

As I posted before, the New Deal was never designed to be a fix for the Depression. It was simply designed to keep the country functioning until it recovered on it's own.

The "Fix" for the cycle of boom and bust that we laughingly refer to as "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" is to abandon the "Laissez-Faire" aspect entirely, and allow a central, governmentally controlled reserve to adjust official interest rates and impose controls on stock trading. When FDR became President, he did not have sufficient backing in Congress to impose such reforms. So, instead he did what he COULD do, which was the New Deal.

Had WWII not come along, it is likely that the US would have pulled out of the depresssion on it's own in the early 1940s - likely around 1942, provided it followed the same pattern as the Great Depression of the 1890s. However, once WWII started, the US industrial sector started making great strides (since they were selling to both sides). This pulled the US up early; and once the US entered the conflict, FDR had little difficulty getting the real economic reforms passed as "War Exigencies" (though, both Truman and Eisenhower were required before the process was completed).

Fascism does not require any of what you mentioned. Fascism is heavy corporatism, nationalism, anti-immigration, militarism, opposition to multi-culturalism, and subjugating society and economic systems to the needs of the state. I'm talking of fascism as it is defined, not as it is implemented under Hitler or Mussolini.

In other words, nothing that truly describes America. Thanks for playing though.

As I posted before, the New Deal was never designed to be a fix for the Depression. It was simply designed to keep the country functioning until it recovered on it's own.

Then why did FDR state it was going to fix the depression? And why was there a sudden downturn at the end of the 1930s until Britain entered the war?

Had WWII not come along, it is likely that the US would have pulled out of the depresssion on it's own in the early 1940s - likely around 1942, provided it followed the same pattern as the Great Depression of the 1890s. However, once WWII started, the US industrial sector started making great strides (since they were selling to both sides). This pulled the US up early; and once the US entered the conflict, FDR had little difficulty getting the real economic reforms passed as "War Exigencies" (though, both Truman and Eisenhower were required before the process was completed).

Not really, there was a severe downturn in 1938 until WWII came along and allowed the United States to actually engage in foreign policy again. That was another factor that lead to the Great Deppression and its contiuation throughout the 1930s, our isolationist view of the world and our tariff systems disrupting our course of trade.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/US-mfg20-40.jpg A chart on the limited success of the new deal. Government intervention could really only do so much.

no.
they should be held accountable.
there is nothing crazy about it.
what is crazy is that the owners get away scotch free.
it used to not be like that.
owners were once held accountable.
but this past century of robber baron-ism (yes, it did indeed never end, they just invented the pr industry) has persuaded politicians (owned more like it) to get laws passed favorable to their narrow economic interests.

the owners need to get active in the public entity the own a part of if they do not want to be held accountable for crimes committed.

Agreed. But to say that this "robber baronism" is somehow supposed to be held as a high felony, as some people would suggest is the truly crazy thing. They need to be held accountable for their crimes though, the corporate elite gets away with far too much. By the way, if you are comparing this century to the late 19th century/ early twentieth century you are gravely mistaken. There are several significant differences between them.

Then why did FDR state it was going to fix the depression? And why was there a sudden downturn at the end of the 1930s until Britain entered the war?

FDR stated it would fix the depression because he was a politician trying to be elected President. Do you think the sound bite is something new? A long explanation would not have gotten through to a cynical, disbelieving electorate. Instead, he gave a short, succinct statement that got the gist of what he wanted to do across, but was not entirely accurate.

As to the downturn in 1937-39, that's simple: money. The New Deal was a deficit spending initiative; the Federal Government did not have the money to pay for it, and unlike our modern politicians, they understood that the pork trough has a bottom. From '37 until the beginning of the war in Europe, both Congress and the White House were trying to cut back on costs on New Deal programs, even trying to get back to balance. It didn't work; without the extra cash flow in the economy, marginal businesses started going under again, and unemployment rose, inflicting even more strain on the welfare systems, such as they were.


Not really, there was a severe downturn in 1938 until WWII came along and allowed the United States to actually engage in foreign policy again. That was another factor that lead to the Great Deppression and its contiuation throughout the 1930s, our isolationist view of the world and our tariff systems disrupting our course of trade.

As I said, our tariffs were actually quite low. And Isolationism applied ONLY to politics - and not all politics. The US was perfectly willing to sign trade agreements and military treaties, as long as they didn't commit us to "entangling alliances" - such as the Washington Treaty of 1920, which basically ended a costly arms race with Great Britain.

If you wish to blame any nations' tariffs for the Depression, I would suggest you look at Britain's. They were already high, and the British Parliament jacked them up Empire-wide over the course of the 1920's, in an attempt to retain trade inside the British Empire. These actions were condemned by both the US and the League of Nations, but went ahead anyway.

As to the probable pull out of the Depression by 1942 - as I said, this is only if it followed the pattern of the 1895 Depression, but it seems likely that it would have. The thing to remember about this kind of depression is that for the rich, this is a good thing. Rich people and companies use them to pay off debt - the inflationary nature of the Depression means that they can pay off debts using far less real buying power than they gained by going into debt in the first place.

So, while the poor get screwed, the rich get richer - MUCH richer. They gather wealth like it was going out of style. And sooner or later, they start spending again.

The 1895 Depression was at it's worst the year before it broke. Then, in the space of six months, companies like DuPont and Standard Oil (this was before it was broken up in 1911, remember) started hiring men and opening factories. By the end of that year, the US was back at full employment - they'd have called you mad to have predicted that a year earlier.

And technically, the 1895 Depression was actually deeper than the 1928 Depression.

I think I can reasonably stand by the statement that the Depression would probably have broken by '42 - maybe '43.

FDR stated it would fix the depression because he was a politician trying to be elected President. Do you think the sound bite is something new? A long explanation would not have gotten through to a cynical, disbelieving electorate. Instead, he gave a short, succinct statement that got the gist of what he wanted to do across, but was not entirely accurate.

As to the downturn in 1937-39, that's simple: money. The New Deal was a deficit spending initiative; the Federal Government did not have the money to pay for it, and unlike our modern politicians, they understood that the pork trough has a bottom. From '37 until the beginning of the war in Europe, both Congress and the White House were trying to cut back on costs on New Deal programs, even trying to get back to balance. It didn't work; without the extra cash flow in the economy, marginal businesses started going under again, and unemployment rose, inflicting even more strain on the welfare systems, such as they were.






So in essence your saying that the New Deal wouldn't have actually been able to solve those problems because the government didn't want to rely on Deficit spending. Thanks for proving my point for me. If it really is good for the Rich then why in the panic of 1893 did J.P. Morgan single handedly stop a deppression from forming? By the way:
Roosevelt rejected the advice of Morgenthau to cut spending and decided big business was trying to ruin the New Deal by causing another depression that voters would react against by voting Republican. It was a "capital strike" said Roosevelt, and he ordered the FBI to look for a criminal conspiracy (they found none). Roosevelt moved left and unleashed a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the new crisis. Ickes attacked automaker Henry Ford, steelmaker Tom Girdler, and the superrich "Sixty Families" who supposedly comprised "the living center of the modern industrial oligarchy which dominates the United States." Left unchecked, Ickes warned, they would create "big-business Fascist America—an enslaved America." The President appointed Robert Jackson as the aggressive new director of the antitrust division of the Justice Department, but this effort lost its effectiveness once World War II began and big business was urgently needed to produce war supplies.[22]

But the Administration's other response to the 1937 deepening of the Great Depression had more tangible results. Ignoring the vitriolic pleas of the Treasury Department and responding to the urgings of the converts to Keynesian economics and others in his Administration, Roosevelt embarked on an antidote to the depression, reluctantly abandoning his efforts to balance the budget and launching a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938, an effort to increase mass purchasing power. The New Deal had in fact engaged in deficit spending since 1933, but it was apologetic about it, because a rise in the national debt was opposite of what the Democratic party had always preached. Now they had a theory to justify what they were doing. Roosevelt explained his program in a fireside chat in which he finally acknowledged that it was therefore up to the government to "create an economic upturn" by making "additions to the purchasing power of the nation."

Business-oriented observers explained the recession and recovery in very different terms from the Keynesians. They argued that the New Deal had been very hostile to business expansion in 1935-37, had encouraged massive strikes which had a negative impact on major industries such as automobiles, and had threatened massive anti-trust legal attacks on big corporations. All those threats diminished sharply after 1938. For example, the antitrust efforts fizzled out without major cases. The CIO and AFL unions started battling each other more than corporations, and tax policy became more favorable to long-term growth.

Lawrence Reed notes that "when a nationally representative poll by the American Institute of Public Opinion in the spring of 1939 asked, “Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?” the American people responded “yes” by a margin of more than two-to-one. The business community felt even more strongly so"[14] Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."

So in essence your saying that the New Deal wouldn't have actually been able to solve those problems because the government didn't want to rely on Deficit spending. Thanks for proving my point for me.

That was your point? Okay...I thought it was mypoint.

If it really is good for the Rich then why in the panic of 1893 did J.P. Morgan single handedly stop a deppression from forming?

I wouldn't have said "single handed". Morgan's actions would not have worked without sound judgement (and appropriate action) by the government of the time.

But as to why: Morgan was an unusual man. His economic leanings were more similar to those of the later Henry Ford than to his fellow "robber baron" bankers and entrepreneurs; despite his strong belief in a free market and Laissez-Faire systems, he also appears to have had an honest concern for working men and the government. Also, I would point out a quote by the man: "If I must foreclose on a loan, it is as much a failure on my part as on the borrowers."


By the way:
Roosevelt rejected the advice of Morgenthau to cut spending and decided big business was trying to ruin the New Deal by causing another depression that voters would react against by voting Republican. It was a "capital strike" said Roosevelt, and he ordered the FBI to look for a criminal conspiracy (they found none). Roosevelt moved left and unleashed a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the new crisis. Ickes attacked automaker Henry Ford, steelmaker Tom Girdler, and the superrich "Sixty Families" who supposedly comprised "the living center of the modern industrial oligarchy which dominates the United States." Left unchecked, Ickes warned, they would create "big-business Fascist America—an enslaved America." The President appointed Robert Jackson as the aggressive new director of the antitrust division of the Justice Department, but this effort lost its effectiveness once World War II began and big business was urgently needed to produce war supplies.[22]

This does not surprise me. FDR's judgement on many things was flawed; look at his trust of Stalin during WWII.


But the Administration's other response to the 1937 deepening of the Great Depression had more tangible results. Ignoring the vitriolic pleas of the Treasury Department and responding to the urgings of the converts to Keynesian economics and others in his Administration, Roosevelt embarked on an antidote to the depression, reluctantly abandoning his efforts to balance the budget and launching a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938, an effort to increase mass purchasing power. The New Deal had in fact engaged in deficit spending since 1933, but it was apologetic about it, because a rise in the national debt was opposite of what the Democratic party had always preached. Now they had a theory to justify what they were doing. Roosevelt explained his program in a fireside chat in which he finally acknowledged that it was therefore up to the government to "create an economic upturn" by making "additions to the purchasing power of the nation."


Yes. Where do you think much of the restructuring money came from? Without that extra cash, the New Deal programs lost a chunk of their effectiveness.

However, I take issue with the concept that the Depression "worsened" in 1937. The overall economic conditions had not fundamentally changed since 1929; what actually occurred was that the bandage that was the New Deal was pulled back slightly, revealing the suppurating, infected wound beneath.


Business-oriented observers explained the recession and recovery in very different terms from the Keynesians. They argued that the New Deal had been very hostile to business expansion in 1935-37, had encouraged massive strikes which had a negative impact on major industries such as automobiles, and had threatened massive anti-trust legal attacks on big corporations. All those threats diminished sharply after 1938. For example, the antitrust efforts fizzled out without major cases. The CIO and AFL unions started battling each other more than corporations, and tax policy became more favorable to long-term growth.

There is no doubt that the New Deal was more hostile to big business than the previous regime had been. The Roosevelt administration scapegoated it mercilessly during the first term of FDR's Presidency; they had some point, but it was largely an unfair attack.

However, big business was not above attacking an easy target either. Analysis of strike actions and union slowdowns in the first half of the twentieth century shows that the worst period for this was the 1920's, not the thirties; indeed, large-scale union activities drop off steadily as you move deeper into the depression, as it becomes easier and easier to replace strikers and the labour market floods.

This didn't stop the big companies (and particularly the big newspapers, lead by the Hearst chain) from blaming a lot of the trouble on the Unions. Every time a factory closed, it was union activities that were said to be to blame for it's becoming unprofitable; every time unionizers tried to organize labour at a new site, rumours of a shutdown began.

As to the reforms to tax: don't forget about the elections of 1938. While the Democrats retained control of both houses, a major swing in the House of Representatives cost Roosevelt a significant chunk of support from his own left wing. Roosevelt HAD to give the right wing and Republicans more leeway on tax, just to get his reforms through.


Lawrence Reed notes that "when a nationally representative poll by the American Institute of Public Opinion in the spring of 1939 asked, “Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?” the American people responded “yes” by a margin of more than two-to-one. The business community felt even more strongly so"[14]

I have no doubt of the truth of this. Whether that sentiment was correct, however, is debateable.

Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."

FDR was banking on the economy turning around, as the prevailing economic theory said it would - eventually. However, with the advent of WWII, that is one bet we will never know the outcome of.

That was your point? Okay...I thought it was mypoint.
My point was bascially that it would take a long time to recover from the Great Deppression through the New Deal as it truly delayed any meaningful growth, keeping the country at a far lower standard of living.

I wouldn't have said "single handed". Morgan's actions would not have worked without sound judgement (and appropriate action) by the government of the time.

But as to why: Morgan was an unusual man. His economic leanings were more similar to those of the later Henry Ford than to his fellow "robber baron" bankers and entrepreneurs; despite his strong belief in a free market and Laissez-Faire systems, he also appears to have had an honest concern for working men and the government. Also, I would point out a quote by the man: "If I must foreclose on a loan, it is as much a failure on my part as on the borrowers."
the point is with out his efforts that panic would have blossomed into a depression.
It is true that he was viewed semi-unusually however many people still believed J.P. Morgan to be a ruthless buisnessman who cared nothing for the common people because his treatement of workers was pretty much the same as other buisnessmen despite that little sentiment at the bottom. Another example of a person who did something "good" in the eyes of the public would be Andrew Carnegie and Rockefeller who both donoted their wealth through philanthropy.
This does not surprise me. FDR's judgement on many things was flawed; look at his trust of Stalin during WWII.
Well that was later in the war were he really shouldn't have trusted stalin and probably had bad judgement due to the fact that it was very near to the end of his life. Nonetheless he did make some terrible decisions such as the deficit spending which is haunting us to this day.
Yes. Where do you think much of the restructuring money came from? Without that extra cash, the New Deal programs lost a chunk of their effectiveness.
The point is he was still deficit spending even after the decline in 1937.
However, I take issue with the concept that the Depression "worsened" in 1937. The overall economic conditions had not fundamentally changed since 1929; what actually occurred was that the bandage that was the New Deal was pulled back slightly, revealing the suppurating, infected wound beneath.
You're right. the thing is, the U.S. government was already at a terrible level economically. So basically any sort of decline would be felt by the public almost immediately. This being the case it was a significant change in the economy because people were able to feel it.


However, big business was not above attacking an easy target either. Analysis of strike actions and union slowdowns in the first half of the twentieth century shows that the worst period for this was the 1920's, not the thirties; indeed, large-scale union activities drop off steadily as you move deeper into the depression, as it becomes easier and easier to replace strikers and the labour market floods.

This didn't stop the big companies (and particularly the big newspapers, lead by the Hearst chain) from blaming a lot of the trouble on the Unions. Every time a factory closed, it was union activities that were said to be to blame for it's becoming unprofitable; every time unionizers tried to organize labour at a new site, rumours of a shutdown began.
The thing about the 1920s was that while working conditions sucked and treatement of the workers was terrible, they received especially higher wages do to the workings of Ford. And if they lost their job it was quite easy to find another one since unskilled labor was in demand. Of course this changed during the 1930s and the Companies tried to continue many of the practices of the 1920s because they were and are greedy organizations. Some of the trouble was definitly the Unions but most of it was just the unprofitablity of the Company at large. Supporting of the Unions is great, socializing just about everything definitly not.
As to the reforms to tax: don't forget about the elections of 1938. While the Democrats retained control of both houses, a major swing in the House of Representatives cost Roosevelt a significant chunk of support from his own left wing. Roosevelt HAD to give the right wing and Republicans more leeway on tax, just to get his reforms through.

And through this, some can argue that the unpopularity of the New Deal would eventually turn around the economy.

FDR was banking on the economy turning around, as the prevailing economic theory said it would - eventually. However, with the advent of WWII, that is one bet we will never know the outcome of.

The thing is the Great depression lasted far longer than the depression of 1895 and definitly was not going to end in the forseeable future without some sort of jolt to the economy.

My point was bascially that it would take a long time to recover from the Great Deppression through the New Deal as it truly delayed any meaningful growth, keeping the country at a far lower standard of living.

Now, the question is, did it actually do that?

Not the "delayed growth" part; while debatable, I'm willing to concede that the early New Deal programs likely did reduce the growth prospects of businesses and thereby the overall economy.

However, the "far lower standard of living" part is questionable. Do not forget that a significant percentage of the workforce in 1933 had an income rate of zero. And the workforce being only a fraction of the actual population (and a significantly smaller one than today, as women were not considered part of the workforce then), there would also have been a large, and unfortunately often forgotten, number of people who relied upon those workers - and starved with them.

The New Deal changed their situation. It ensured a small, steady income - the difference between food on the table and a roof overhead and camping out on the edge of the highway and throwing rocks at rabbits.

Which is more important: a small percentage reduction overall, or a near infinite improvement for the least?



The point is he was still deficit spending even after the decline in 1937.

Yep. But rather then embrace deficit spending, they tried to limit it and do both the New Deal and the necessary reforms - thus starving both of sufficient funding to get the job done.
Because they were still trying to limit deficit spending, they couldn't fund things properly. They would have done better to accept the debt and go for a resolution.


You're right. the thing is, the U.S. government was already at a terrible level economically. So basically any sort of decline would be felt by the public almost immediately. This being the case it was a significant change in the economy because people were able to feel it.

True, perception is it's own reality - especially in economics.


The thing about the 1920s was that while working conditions sucked and treatement of the workers was terrible, they received especially higher wages do to the workings of Ford. And if they lost their job it was quite easy to find another one since unskilled labor was in demand. Of course this changed during the 1930s and the Companies tried to continue many of the practices of the 1920s because they were and are greedy organizations. Some of the trouble was definitly the Unions but most of it was just the unprofitablity of the Company at large. Supporting of the Unions is great, socializing just about everything definitly not.


Damn straight. And I agree that the unions were sometimes their own worst enemies, as with the AFL/CIO battles (only a fool fights in a burning house). I'm just saying that a lot of stuff that was blamed on the unions wasn't anything to do with them - rather, corporate greed and the quick buck were the real culprits.


And through this, some can argue that the unpopularity of the New Deal would eventually turn around the economy.


An interesting way of putting it. Shaming the corporations into doing something for the common man, just so they wouldn't have to put up with the New Deal? Not a point of view I'd considered.


The thing is the Great depression lasted far longer than the depression of 1895 and definitly was not going to end in the forseeable future without some sort of jolt to the economy.

It did last longer, but the pattern of events is remarkably similar. And the extended length can be explained by several factors:

1: The change of general employment from rural to urban work. In 1895 the majority of wageholders and employers still worked the land; by 1928 this was no longer the case, and the effect of depression on the urban poor was decidedly more pronounced.

2: The depression we avoided. Many economists believe that a depression should have occurred during 1915-1919; the groundwork was laid as early as 1912. But the "false prosperity" created (especially in the United States) by World War One masked and prevented this otherwise necessary correction, without in any way dealing with the underlying causes. Thus, when 1928 rolled around, the correction had to work through the problems of not one but two bouts of prosperity, and the problems caused thereby.

3: The 1895 depression was mitigated by a strong European economy. Germany and Great Britain, in particular were riding high on war spoils (for the first) and a prosperous Empire (for the second). In 1929 Britain was ramshackle, Germany a wreck, and France not much better.

4: In 1895 the West Coast was still a development zone, and the midwest was the grain belt. In 1928 the West Coast was fully developed and the midwest was the Dustbowl.

I do believe that the Depresssion would have ended of it's own accord, likely around 1942. But trust me when I say that I am glad it did not have to happen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/US-mfg20-40.jpg A chart on the limited success of the new deal. Government intervention could really only do so much.

One thing that confuses me about the "it didn't work" criticism of the New Deal: If massive government spending and control over the economy can't revitalize that economy, how is it that the massive government spending and control created by necessity of fighting WWII could?

By this line of reasoning, the reason for failure of the New Deal is that it was simply too small an effort, but that its methods and ideology were essentially sound.

And incidentally, in Fascist America, McDonald's eats at you. Couldn't resist.

One thing that confuses me about the "it didn't work" criticism of the New Deal: If massive government spending and control over the economy can't revitalize that economy, how is it that the massive government spending and control created by necessity of fighting WWII could?

Simple reason being that we were producing so much war material that it put people into the workforce as well as the military. With that, the economy got a mass jump start when the war time production kicked in.

By this line of reasoning, the reason for failure of the New Deal is that it was simply too small an effort, but that its methods and ideology were essentially sound.

Actually...FDR did to much to fast for his policies to work effectively.

One thing that confuses me about the "it didn't work" criticism of the New Deal: If massive government spending and control over the economy can't revitalize that economy, how is it that the massive government spending and control created by necessity of fighting WWII could?

By this line of reasoning, the reason for failure of the New Deal is that it was simply too small an effort, but that its methods and ideology were essentially sound.

And incidentally, in Fascist America, McDonald's eats at you. Couldn't resist.

The thing that pulled the US out wasn't the massive government spending, but the massive reinvolvement of industry and ending of the labour glut. With the New Deal, all FDR could do is give a lot of people subsistance jobs. In WWII, he could offer massive contracts to industry to actually DO things. They then hired people to do those things - and at good wages too, since most of the unproductive, unemployed workers were getting inducted into the military (which explains why things got better in 1939 but didn't completely recover until 1941, and US entry).

It was not just money, it was also a reassessment of the value of labour.