Learning from History

[CuteOldGuy]

There are lessons to be learned from the past...

"When economic distress reaches a certain point, the individual citizen no longer uses his political power to serve the public weal, but only the help himself. His ideal of political liberty pales before his ideal of economic equality. Once this sentiment has eaten its way into the hearts of the majority of a nation, any political system is doomed to failure. It is useless to tell the embittered masses that their political and economic rulers are not responsible for their misfortunes. It is equally useless to point out to them that a revolution with its attendant disorders would not improve their situation, but would hopelessly compromise it. The world is not ruled by reason, but by passion, and when a man is driven to despair he is ready to smash everything in the vague hope that a better world may arise out of the ruins....The number of those who are beginning to think in terms of socialism is increasing. The adherents of the middle parties, who oppose this development, are dwindling in the same proportion that the number of independent, progressive and self-reliant citizens is being diminished through the increasing pauperization."

- Erich Koch-Weser, Minister of Justice of the German Republic
1931

[Whirlaway]

Sad depressing pontification written in the depth of a German depression while Nazism was on the rise; America chartered a different course thru the same depression and came out better, stronger, and proud of it's actions to save the world from European crazies (Hitler, Stalin et al)......Weser's words might ring true for today's European future, but not ours. History has told us so.

Put me in the "America's Future is Brigther, Not Bleaker" camp.

[Texas Contrarian]

Even when people think they've learned from history, they often draw the wrong conclusions and simply tell themselves what they want to believe, or what others tell them to believe.

Many of our friends who are supporters of big-government interventions and expensive "stimulus packages" ought to take a look at the severe recession of 1920-21. By most measures, the first year of that downturn was actually worse than the first year of the Great Depression ten years later.

How did the government respond? Here's your answer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...sEQ_story.html

Too bad Paul Krugman wasn't around to tell eager, vote-buying politicians what they needed to do!

[Whirlaway]

True CM; and what happened? The American public, thru the Tea Party movement emerged.....good Americans stepping up to fight back against the wrong polcies coming out of Washington.............The OWS movement (and Wisconsin) looked more like the streets of 1930s Europe, while the Tea Party gatherings looked more like colonial America c 1776. I'll throw in with the Tea Party patriots everyday. The TP got all the political traction and OWS was resoundly rejected and has faded.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

True CM; and what happened? The American public, thru the Tea Party movement emerged.....good Americans stepping up to fight back against the wrong polcies coming out of Washington...

Well, for a while.

But then "progressive" forces manage to strengthen their hand just as they did in the 1930s, when their actions worsened and prolonged the Great Depression. One thing a lot of people don't realize is that Herbert Hoover was a big part of that. He crammed through big tax and spending increases, and in the 1932 campaign FDR actually lambasted his administration for excessive deficit spending!

What's amazing is that a lot of people think Hoover was some sort of conservative, laissez-faire type who "did nothing" while the economy was sinking. If only that had been the case! The problem was that he did a lot, and most of it was very bad.

Now the obvious problem is that a rapidly growing number of people see themselves as beneficiaries of the federal government, not contributors to it. I'm afraid it's going to be pretty hard to reverse that trend, but if it's not reversed soon we'll be in far more trouble than many people can possibly imagine.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, for a while.

But then "progressive" forces manage to strengthen their hand just as they did in the 1930s, when their actions worsened and prolonged the Great Depression. One thing a lot of people don't realize is that Herbert Hoover was a big part of that. He crammed through big tax and spending increases, and in the 1932 campaign FDR actually lambasted his administration for excessive deficit spending!

What's amazing is that a lot of people think Hoover was some sort of conservative, laissez-faire type who "did nothing" while the economy was sinking. If only that had been the case! The problem was that he did a lot, and most of it was very bad.

Now the obvious problem is that a rapidly growing number of people see themselves as beneficiaries of the federal government, not contributors to it. I'm afraid it's going to be pretty hard to reverse that trend, but if it's not reversed soon we'll be in far more trouble than many people can possibly imagine.

If the economy crashes completey, so that the welfare programs can't be funded, the big cities will be war zones. It will make the Great Depression seem like nothing. If we stay on the current course, of runaway spending, the dollar will be worthless in a few years.

[Fast Gunn]

Damn!

You guys are total downers!

Can't you downbeat pessimists find at least something to feel good about in the entire universe?

. . .Have you so soon forgotten that humans have great capabilities too?

[Texas Contrarian]

Fast Gunn, I'm optimistic about the long term!

It's just that we're now sort of like an alcoholic that has to hit bottom before he sees a need to seek treatment and recovery. That's what happens when you put together a decade's worth of excesses overseen by the two most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history. Although the hole looks impossibly deep, I think we will eventually begin charting a prudent course. Don't count on robust economic growth anytime soon, though. It's likely to be a difficult slog for years to come.

What I think will bail us out in the long run is technological advancement, the only real driver of economic growth!

Now more than ever, we are in desperate need of a collection of innovative breakthroughs.

All of you would-be Thomas Edisons and Nikola Teslas, let us hear from you!

[Fast Gunn]

Well, (ahem), did I mention that I was a

. . . renowned rocket seismologist!

[nevergaveitathought]

"the individual citizen no longer uses his political power to serve the public weal, but only the help himself. His ideal of political liberty pales before his ideal of economic equality. Once this sentiment has eaten its way into the hearts of the majority of a nation, any political system is doomed to failure."

this is where we are, we are at a tipping point

the left loves equality, much more than prosperity,much more than jobs, and certainly much more than liberty.

give a liberal a job and he will be embittered at your success and ability to provide that job.. he will dream up theories of how he or those like him built the nation and its roads for example, how people became rich at the cost of of anothers labor.

a liberal's zeal is in leveling and not building

why does the left extoll the miserable nation of cuba or the dictatorial power of hugo chavez? because things are equal. well in reality the rulers are above everyone,but the people's prosperity (or lack therof) is equal. why does sean penn support chavez? because chavez equalizes.

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

why does the left extoll the miserable nation of cuba or the dictatorial power of hugo chavez? because things are equal. well in reality the rulers are above everyone,but the people's prosperity (or lack therof) is equal.

How exactly is this different from what America is quickly becoming?

The rulers above everyone - a limited number of mega-wealthy, mega banks, executive class

People's prosperity - vast majority of people with very little wealth, all at about the same level

Small and shrinking number of people in the middle.

America is an oligarchy. Is that really any different from a dictatorship or communist state?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Submodo

How exactly is this different from what America is quickly becoming?

The rulers above everyone - a limited number of mega-wealthy, mega banks, executive class

People's prosperity - vast majority of people with very little wealth, all at about the same level

Small and shrinking number of people in the middle.

America is an oligarchy. Is that really any different from a dictatorship or communist state?

You can complain or become a Buffet, Soros, Trumph or the owner of a Chick fil A. It's up to you. Do you understand?

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Well, (ahem), did I mention that I was a

. . . renowned rocket seismologist!

Well, what the hell?

That rocket seismology might just be the technological driver this struggling economy needs. Who can say with certainty that it is not?

Don't just stand there, Fast Gunn, get out there and run with this thing!

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You can complain or become a Buffet, Soros, Trumph or the owner of a Chick fil A. It's up to you. Do you understand?

So, all 300,000,000 of us Americans, who do not have the wealth of Warren Buffet, can all have the wealth of Warren Buffet if we just worked hard enough? Would that be possible?

Or just 1 of us can do so? Or maybe 74,234 of us?

Tell me how many people can attain the asset level of Buffet?

[Submodo]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You can complain or become a Buffet, Soros, Trumph or the owner of a Chick fil A. It's up to you. Do you understand?

Oh, you're correct, Because there are Buffets, Soros, Trumphs and owners of Chick fil As, and it's up to me... then America is not an oligarchy.

How stupid of me.