• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Milestones

Go to CruxDreams.com
Frank Petrexa said:
That's what I think happened, anyway. It always takes a long time after a shock of this magnitude for companies and investors and ordinary citizens to start spending again. Everybody crawls in a hole with their money in the bottom and tries to preserve what they have.
Click to expand...
I recall heaving read that there has also been an external trigger, Britains decision in 1925 to return to the gold standard, restoring the pre-war parity. It was deemed a disastrous decision (particularly by American economists such as Galbraith), since the war had wiped out Britain's financial stability. London had been the world's leading financial centre before the war, but the latter had left Britain with debts (aprticularly to the US). Returning to the gold standard at pre-war parity, was seen as a sort of 'keeping up appearance' by Britain, that it could rule the finacial markets again, which in fact distorted these financial markets, in a way that facilitated the easy purchase of stocks with borrowed money.
The British Minister of Finance who had lead the return to the gold standard, was Winston Churchill.
After an electoral defeat of his party, he travelled to the US, and, incidentally, he visited New York and the Stock Exchange in the week of the crach. Some cynical observers said Churchill hence could watch the consequences of the mess he had created from nearby.
 
FrankO said:
Which saw the rise of racism, nazism and other racist expansionist nationalist parties

Which slowly (over about 8 years) triggered the Second World War

Cue the Great Financial Crisis ... which is STILL with us.

We live in interesting times.
Click to expand...
Other views say that the the great depression and the 2008 financial crisis are very much the same with some differences. In the 30s the US government tried to revive the economy with 'public work plans'. Some gave work and may have eased the pain and my home town of St. Louis has many footprints off its attempts it did not break the depression. World War II was not the caused by the depression but you will not find many economists from the the time (or today) that would disagree the war single-handedly broke the depression.
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
The GFC was great, but it is disingenuous to compare with the depression where the depth of human suffering, the widespread effects and the length of time before significant recovery was far greater in the 30's,
Click to expand...
Tree's parents (really) grew up in northwest Arkansas during the great depression. They were never rich- nor were we as children- but they never were close to staving and never had to beg for food or clothing. In the late 50s and early 60s I wore hand-me-down clothing from my older brother and cousins. I wasn't a fashion hawk yet never lacked a damn thing. Cell phones didn't exist back then and Tree doesn't have one now...
 
Rias said:
Philippines they told in discovery channel and in school general mac Arthur was there and flee from there and later back and reliese philippines people from japan soldiers but they kill many citizens before usa americans back and very not nice they treated americans soldiers who not have time to flee and become prisoners and they dont give they eat :oops: :cat:
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of MacArthur. He had done a good job as commandant of the military academy at West Point, but even there it was always about him.
He was ORDERED to flee the Phillipines (in a submarine bound for Australia) and awarded the medal of honor. He left General Wainwright to surrender in the end. He was not prepared for the Japanese assault (which wasn't that large)--he assumed he could fend it off on the beaches and didn't stockpile supplies in defensible places in case he couldn't. He was supplied with new fighters which were destroyed on the ground in a daring Japanese attack (the planes came from Formosa at almost the limits of their range) that his air commander worried about but he didn't. Even in 1944 (see the well-researched academic book Implacable Foes, for example, and the book MacArthur's Ultra) on his "return" he dismissed accurate intelligence (as he did later in the Korean War) and made premature announcements of victory that flabbergasted his underlings. In short, he was high on theater. Some say that in 1944 the United States should have by-passed the Philippines (in the end the fighting there caused huge casualties both military and civilian despite his promise to Roosevelt that it wouldn't, and MacArthur insisted on retaking every major island). The famous picture of him walking through the surf to the beach at Leyte was staged--there was a dock he could have used, but it wouldn't have had the same theatrical effect. He wasn't totally incompetent, but he was very egotistical and all his objectives had political motives. He was appointed commander for the land invasion of Japan (which was his goal) and then dismissed accurate intelligence (the Americans could read the Japanese codes, including the diplomatic codes that effectively let them listen in to the planning of the Cabinet in Tokyo through communication to the Japanese Ambassadors in Moscow and Berlin--this lead to the conclusion that the Army with its cabinet veto would never surrender and that the atomic bomb was necessary) that the Japanese Army would match in number (certainly not in equipment, but in a landing that is not the crucial element) that of the American invaders (already stressed from the fighting in the Philippines). The Japanese were moving "Kwantung Army" divisions from China back to Japan. He always underestimated the enemy, and dismissed any data that didn't fit his objectives. General Marshall in Washington gave him enough resources to keep him relatively quiet, even when his plans didn't fit the overall strategy.
By the way, Wainwright spent the war in a prison camp. MacArthur opposed a medal for him because it would call attention to his defeat. I read in one place that he had to be ordered to invite Wainwright and the British commander Percival who had surrendered in Singapore to the Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri. He always argued for more resources for HIS plan of attack on Japan, and less for the Nimitz island-hopping plan that provided the bomber bases that won the war, and destroyed the Japanese Navy.
It is fair to say that the United States had the resources to attack Japan through China, through the Philippines, and the route Nimitz took. Giving resources to all three kept the Japanese--especially the Army--spread out and guessing. The Japanese even occupied some fog-shrouded American islands in Alaska (Attu and Kiska) to prevent an American attack on that "northern route" (which really wasn't very feasible and was never seriously considered). So, MacArthur's war wasn't totally ineffective.
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
I would disagree in part.
All of these were well established and rising before 1929 - Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922, the Pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers' Party, was founded on 5 January 1919. Hitler renamed it the National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1920 and became the führer, in 1921. From 1925 to 1933, though always a minority (few know that Hitler never won a majority in a free election) it was a powerful influence on German politics. It is true that the suffering coming in the 30's from the global depression helped him increase his base. Japan had a fascist, racist government from 1924 onward with no economic distress.
The GFC was great, but it is disingenuous to compare with the depression where the depth of human suffering, the widespread effects and the length of time before significant recovery was far greater in the 30's,
Click to expand...
The Treaty of Versailles caused World War II, really. The reparations caused inflation in Germany. The war debts of the Powers caused problems in all the European economies. Keynes argued vehemently against the terms of Versailles, and wrote a blistering book condemning it, but after the horror of the war no one (Central Powers or Allies) was in a mindset of building a peace. No one had expected it to be as bad as it was--everybody remembered the Franco-Prussian War and thought it would be more like that except that France would win. The United States (which got off comparatively lightly but still paid a price--the casualty figures were not released until 1926) followed public sentiment and withdrew from most international politics.
The Allies of World War II learned lessons. There would be unconditional surrender, Germany would be occupied, no one would claim there had been a "DolchStoss". The Marshall Plan was designed to rebuild Europe (after the terrible winter of 1947) and reparations were not imposed (except by the Soviets, and only in their occupied territory). There is still resentment of Germans (in Greece, for example), and after the war it was of course worse, but it was not official and NATO was a major force in restoring peace and prosperity.
 
Frank Petrexa said:
The Treaty of Versailles caused World War II, really.

NATO was a major force in restoring peace and prosperity.
Click to expand...
NATO is viewed by objective viewers as a 'treaty' to allow the US European bases to keep the USSR in the eastern bloc. The US supplies (and has) the largest funding and the most military might.
 
thehangingtree said:
NATO is viewed by objective viewers as a 'treaty' to allow the US European bases to keep the USSR in the eastern bloc. The US supplies (and has) the largest funding and the most military might.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it had the effect of bringing Europe together (even if France withdrew from the military portion). The Soviets did indeed do a lot to force the West to come together. The original "European Union" (Italy, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark--I think) was an attempt to economically integrate and build a peace.
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
The GFC was great, but it is disingenuous to compare with the depression where the depth of human suffering, the widespread effects and the length of time before significant recovery was far greater in the 30's,
Click to expand...

Different times, different responses.

For the GFC, governments elected to support banking and finance and the share markets. They did so by massive loans to the banks (with taxpayer monies) reducing the cost of money (interest rates) and flooding the speculative and financial markets with cheap funds (printing money) by way of bond issues which failed to alleviate the problems in the producing (rather than speculative) economy and bailed out those whose speculations in banking and the market had got us until the GFC in the first place.

So, the average Joe is left there in the street to pay his debts, but the banks and share market investors have their debts cleared. Austerity sets in, economies slow as the indebted consumer can no longer invest in capital and consumer goods, unemployment becomes a persistent feature ... but thank God, the banks and the speculators are OK.

And the austerity gets worse.

Joe Public sees this happening, sees the mainstream political parties going along with it (even falling over themselves to to outdo one another in catering to the vampires rather than Main Street and producers fo real product and wealth)) and starts looking at political alternatives to the major parties.

Donald Trump presents himself as the ANTI-POLITICIAN and gets elected.

Far right parties become ever bolder, populism and simple (completely unfeasible) solutions abound.

In Europe it's worse than the US, or Canada, or my Australia ... especially when you look at countries like Hungary, Poland and the like where extremism seems to be coming mainstream.

Mind you, I'm typing all this as a retired bloke living on his investments speculating away like crazy ... so I guess I could go down as Hypocrite of the Year 2019. :)
 
Loxuru said:
Not Denmark, but Luxemburg. Denmark only joined in 1972, together with the UK and Ireland.
Click to expand...
And (West) Germany was in the EEC from the beginning, surely the most important consideration!
 
Hundred years ago, on October 28th 1919 : US Congress approves the Volstead Act.

The Act eneabled execution of the 18rh Amendment of the US Constitution about a ban on alcohol manufacturing and sales.

Beginning of Prohibition.

No more Seagram's in the stores !:eek:

In 1933, the 21st Amendement would withdraw the 18th, ending Prohibition. The only time in history so far, that an amendment was withdrawn.
 
Loxuru said:
Hundred years ago, on October 28th 1919 : US Congress approves the Volstead Act.

The Act eneabled execution of the 18rh Amendment of the US Constitution about a ban on alcohol manufacturing and sales.

Beginning of Prohibition.

No more Seagram's in the stores !:eek:

In 1933, the 21st Amendement would withdraw the 18th, ending Prohibition. The only time in history so far, that an amendment was withdrawn.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the post.

There are those of us still hoping for the repeal of the 16th Amendment :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom