Author Topic: FDR and the Devil (Read 2138 times)

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #45 on:** October 03, 2007, 10:39:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
1948-1968 no candidates, I guess they just decided not to take part in the elections themselves (in 1944 they probably just supported FDR).

Sure! Angela Davis for vice-president, "no one prevented"... What a perfect example of "justice" towards political opponents!

Just because none have been elected to National office doesn't mean they're not allowed, just means their platform sucks.

During the Soviet era, how many "democratic" parties were there and allowed to freely run for office? Fact is, the Communist Party was the only tolerated political party in your country during that era. I guess the Soviet model is another "perfect example of justice towards political opponents".

Article 6 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution referred to the party as the "leading and guiding force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations." The party, precisely because it was the bearer of Marxist-Leninist ideology, determined the general development of society, directed domestic and foreign policy, and "imparts a planned, systematic, and theoretically substantiated character" to the struggle of the Soviet people for the victory of communism.

We may have a two-party system, but at least we have a choice.

ack-ack

Saxman · « **Reply #46 on:** October 04, 2007, 07:29:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack

We may have a two-party system, but at least we have a choice of which Party tells the sheeple what to think, who to associate with, and what to do.

Fixed.

lazs2 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 04, 2007, 08:08:15 AM »

ack ack and mcfarland... you are in good company for thinking FDR was the bestest pres ever... baroda agrees with you!

baroda.. I guess toad and ack ack answered your question about commies here.. we hate em but we let em run.

FDR did nothing to pull us out of a depression except somehow get the japs to attack us. A "war time ecomomy" is when there is no unemployment and the workforce is about double (counting soldiers) what it was previous... it is the doubling of production and it is the innovation that necessity breeds.

Ack ack... I care nothing about slavery except that it was unconstitutional. Lincoln did damage to the the constitution that has never been repaired... he destroyed states rights and the very idea of a union of states.. it is not a union if it is forced. we are not free states anymore as was intended by the founders.

The south should not have been able to be part of the union if they wanted to enslave men... they most certainly should have had the right to leave the union tho.

lazs

Boroda · « **Reply #48 on:** October 04, 2007, 09:06:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
baroda.. I guess toad and ack ack answered your question about commies here.. we hate em but we let em run.

It's so funny I don't even want to comment. I only advise you to read a Wiki article on Gus Hall and Angela Davis.

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
FDR did nothing to pull us out of a depression except somehow get the japs to attack us. A "war time ecomomy" is when there is no unemployment and the workforce is about double (counting soldiers) what it was previous... it is the doubling of production and it is the innovation that necessity breeds.

In my opinion a "war time economy" is when all the resources, human and material, are switched to winning a war, abandoning anything that isn't vital for the victory.

I still didn't see any suggestions of what had to be done instead of a "New Deal".

Boroda · « **Reply #49 on:** October 04, 2007, 09:09:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saxman
Fixed.

I second that. In some way Soviet system was more honest, and, in fact, more democratic then what we have now.

BTW both American parties have the same name, one - in Latin, another - in Greek. Isn't it funny?

lazs2 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 04, 2007, 09:17:49 AM »

boroda... not sure I understand... our whole economy was switched to a war time economy.. for better or worse.. we supplied the world and built up our country.. not because of FDR but because the japs were dumb enough to attack us and the germans had no choice but to support em.

lazs

Chairboy · « **Reply #51 on:** October 04, 2007, 09:27:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
but because the japs were desperate enough to attack us and the germans had no choice but to support em.

lazs

I fixed your text. It was pure desperation.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 04, 2007, 09:40:46 AM »

Uh, this blatant misunderstanding of history is quite funny. The military buildup didn't start at pearl harbor, but several years earlier. At the time, it was up for grabs whether or not we'd actually enter the war (even before it started), but we'd be able to supply the world with everything they'd need.

Boroda · « **Reply #53 on:** October 04, 2007, 09:58:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
boroda... not sure I understand... our whole economy was switched to a war time economy.. for better or worse.. we supplied the world and built up our country.. not because of FDR but because the japs were dumb enough to attack us and the germans had no choice but to support em.

Compare it to Soviet effort. Even German chemical industry produced perfumes until 1944 instead of war materials. I'm sure US business didn't have to employ 12-year old kids.

And you are quite right: both world wars were quite good for the US business. Giant profits. "War economy" as you see it was a great chance to make money, see my post about capitalism above. Capitalism in "war economy" as I see it is useless and dangerous, Russia in WWI showed it. Even placing weapon contracts in the US miserably failed.

Any ideas of an alternative to a "New Deal"?

Chairboy · « **Reply #54 on:** October 04, 2007, 10:13:02 AM »

Boroda, war as an economic tool is a poor strategy. Yes, you can see big business development and industrialization and realize short term benefits, but it suffers the same weaknesses that centralized control of production (Soviet style) has. When demand must be artificially created, there's an inherent instability. Keeping that demand at the correct level is almost impossible in a system as complicated as a national economy.

Free enterprise can provide better long term growth. Wartime economy is good for short term growth, but like an energy drink or candy bar, there's a crash when you stop consuming.

This is one of the many reasons the Soviet Union failed, their economy was so heavily invested in specific military and state planned objectives that the heterogeneity that brings strength could never appear. In the US, we had a big military industrial complex too during the cold war, but we also developed lawn darts, toasters, an automotive industry, and all the other "non-essential" things demanded through free enterprise that can never prosper in a planned economy.

The end result was an economy better suited to handling change. Think monoculture.

Yeager · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2007, 11:11:59 AM »

heterogeneity
====
Consisting of dissimilar elements or parts; not homogeneous.

Boroda · « **Reply #56 on:** October 04, 2007, 11:18:19 AM »

Chairboy, there is several differences between US and USSR. You didn't have wars for almost 150 years, you don't have 65% of the territory in permafrost zone.

"Free market" simply doesn't work when you are limited with resources and have to run several super-expensive projects to simply survive. XX century showed it. More to say, modern "free market" isn't free any more, when monopolies control mass consciousness through mass-media.

Look, now we have "free market", with a handfull of crooks selling oil and gas from the fields discovered and developed in Soviet times. This resource is extremely limited, because NO privately-owned company can afford such development in that harsh conditions, only the USSR could do it, with the whole country working on planned goals. We are now eating up what remains from Soviet times, and I wonder what will happen when Soviet heritage will be finally finished. That's why I think we need FDR now, it's still not too late, but soon we'll need JVS or simply disappear.

Chairboy · « **Reply #57 on:** October 04, 2007, 11:43:31 AM »

Yeager: Yep.

Boroda: The Market is driven by demand. Right now, there's a demand that can be met by plundering. When that resource is depleted, the demand will still exist, and the people smart enough to figure out a way to leverage Russia's massive resource potential will respond, prosper, and fill the need.

The difference between us, Boroda, is that you operate from a perspective that assumes that individuals need to be controlled and cannot be trusted. I operate from the perspective that smart people can do great things, and the best environment for them to do that is one where their skills are absolutely necessary and cannot be ignored.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 04, 2007, 11:52:27 AM »

Boroda, the only thing that guy will do for you, is cull out the surplus population. The guy was a friggin' genocidal maniac on par with Hitler. There's NOTHING in him that modern russia could benefit from.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #59 on:** October 04, 2007, 12:27:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Uh, this blatant misunderstanding of history is quite funny. The military buildup didn't start at pearl harbor, but several years earlier. At the time, it was up for grabs whether or not we'd actually enter the war (even before it started), but we'd be able to supply the world with everything they'd need.

Yes, your blatant misunderstanding of history is funny.

The US started to mobilize before Pearl Harbor as we had already known that war with Japan was inevitable, we just didn't know when it would come. The only way war would have been avoided with Japan is if we had continued our non-interventionist policies and gave in to Japanese demands and lifted our embargo against them. Since that wasn't going to happen, war was just a matter of time.

ack-ack