Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.
This is just something I grabbed quickly. If you don't understand where I am coming from I could give you something more graphic and direct?
Bison skull pile
Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.
This is just something I grabbed quickly. If you don't understand where I am coming from I could give you something more graphic and direct?
That's from post #71.
Bison skull pile
Completely ahistorical. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's policies, and Roosevelt actually campaigned on the fact that Hoover was too much of an interventionist.
I think we did this? In any case, Hoover used the trickle down idea and FDR the trickle up. Loaning to corporations was nuts, if they couldn't sell their product they quit producing, and loans to them went where, maybe under the mattress? Couldn't trust banks. Yet if government puts money into the hands of common citizens the money is spent at once.
The problem with the New Deal was it didn't put enough money into the hands of the common citizens, it took the spending of WWII to do that deed. So far no one has come up with a better system to handle depression/recessions. Both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes.
Both FDR and Hoover operated under the assumption that prices needed not to fall, which is exactly what does need to happen in a correction. Their policies sought to keep prices stable or let them rise.
This is just something I grabbed quickly. If you don't understand where I am coming from I could give you something more graphic and direct?
That's from post #71.
Bison skull pile
I didn't know we had a statute of limitations here.
That's from post #71.
I didn't know we had a statute of limitations here.
Are you talking about the Robber Barons and their crimes?
I didn't know we had a statute of limitations here.
Are you talking about the Robber Barons and their crimes?
Are you?
I think we did this? In any case, Hoover used the trickle down idea and FDR the trickle up. Loaning to corporations was nuts, if they couldn't sell their product they quit producing, and loans to them went where, maybe under the mattress? Couldn't trust banks. Yet if government puts money into the hands of common citizens the money is spent at once.
The problem with the New Deal was it didn't put enough money into the hands of the common citizens, it took the spending of WWII to do that deed. So far no one has come up with a better system to handle depression/recessions. Both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes.
Both FDR and Hoover operated under the assumption that prices needed not to fall, which is exactly what does need to happen in a correction. Their policies sought to keep prices stable or let them rise.
Ever wonder why we can see pictures of dairy farmers dumping their milk rather than selling it? It cost more to produce the milk than the farmers could sell it for, so it was cheaper to dump the milk than take it to market. One of the first moves of FDR was to try and figure out a way for businessmen to make at least a small profit on their labor. With no profit, their was no need for labor and more unemployment. FDR was a firm believer in capitalism and sought to keep it alive during a period when other economies were changing.
We took away the Indians land, burned their villages, took away their source of food, and desecrated their burial grounds. But we did give them smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague, pneumonia, and land that no white wanted. Some might consider this a reason to kill every white man they laid their eyes on but not the settlers.
Claims of the Indians? Try to follow my logic. That's why you are not understanding me. The point was that the Indians killed as many white folk as they could with the point of their arrows. Without the military, there never would have been a sense of security in the West.
Both FDR and Hoover operated under the assumption that prices needed not to fall, which is exactly what does need to happen in a correction. Their policies sought to keep prices stable or let them rise.
Ever wonder why we can see pictures of dairy farmers dumping their milk rather than selling it? It cost more to produce the milk than the farmers could sell it for, so it was cheaper to dump the milk than take it to market. One of the first moves of FDR was to try and figure out a way for businessmen to make at least a small profit on their labor. With no profit, their was no need for labor and more unemployment. FDR was a firm believer in capitalism and sought to keep it alive during a period when other economies were changing.
Well your example doesn't make sense. If they were dumping the milk that means they had already produced it, which means that taking it to market was the only way to get back anything. What really happened was that they were paid by FDR to plow under crops and dump milk in an effort to restrict supply and keep prices higher than they should have been. All while people were starving.
Furthermore, capitalism is about profit and loss, not just profit. By propping up farmers FDR was being an anti-capitalist, because the market was saying that prices needed to go down and some farmers needed to be put out of business.
I think we did this? In any case, Hoover used the trickle down idea and FDR the trickle up. Loaning to corporations was nuts, if they couldn't sell their product they quit producing, and loans to them went where, maybe under the mattress? Couldn't trust banks. Yet if government puts money into the hands of common citizens the money is spent at once.
The problem with the New Deal was it didn't put enough money into the hands of the common citizens, it took the spending of WWII to do that deed. So far no one has come up with a better system to handle depression/recessions. Both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes.
Both FDR and Hoover operated under the assumption that prices needed not to fall, which is exactly what does need to happen in a correction. Their policies sought to keep prices stable or let them rise.
Ever wonder why we can see pictures of dairy farmers dumping their milk rather than selling it? It cost more to produce the milk than the farmers could sell it for, so it was cheaper to dump the milk than take it to market. One of the first moves of FDR was to try and figure out a way for businessmen to make at least a small profit on their labor. With no profit, their was no need for labor and more unemployment. FDR was a firm believer in capitalism and sought to keep it alive during a period when other economies were changing.
Whenever libturds talk about the "evils of capitalism," they never fail to bring up the so-called "robber barons." Most of what they believe is pure horseshit. The fact is that many of the men maligned with this label made this country great. They grew the industries that produce the wealth we enjoy today. They became rich because they provided consumers with abundance, not because they "robbed" anyone. You can read the truth in the following book.
The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America: Burton W. Folsom, Forrest McDonald: 9780963020314: Amazon.com: Books
The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated.
The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products. The author describes this clash of the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs.
In the Mellon chapter, the author describes how Andrew Mellon an entrepreneur in oil and aluminum became Secretary of Treasury under Coolidge. In office, Mellon was the first American to practice supply-side economics. He supported cuts on income tax rates for all groups. The rate cut on the wealthiest Americans, from 73 percent to 25 percent, freed up investment capital and led to American economic growth during the 1920s. Also, the amount of revenue into the federal treasury increased sharply after tax rates were cut. The Myth of the Robber Barons has separate chapters on Vanderbilt, Hill, Schwab, Mellon, and the Scrantons. The author also has a conclusion, in which he looks at the textbook bias on the subject of Robber Barons and the rise of the U. S. in the late 1800s. This chapter explores three leading college texts in U. S. history and shows how they misread American history and disparage market entrepreneurs instead of the political entrepreneurs. This book is in its fifth edition, and is widely adopted in college and high school classrooms across the U. S.
Both FDR and Hoover operated under the assumption that prices needed not to fall, which is exactly what does need to happen in a correction. Their policies sought to keep prices stable or let them rise.
Ever wonder why we can see pictures of dairy farmers dumping their milk rather than selling it? It cost more to produce the milk than the farmers could sell it for, so it was cheaper to dump the milk than take it to market. One of the first moves of FDR was to try and figure out a way for businessmen to make at least a small profit on their labor. With no profit, their was no need for labor and more unemployment. FDR was a firm believer in capitalism and sought to keep it alive during a period when other economies were changing.
Utter horseshit. The reason farmers dumped milk is the New Deal which required them to dump it. Everything else you posted is equally wrong.
I'm amazed at the ignorance liberals constantly display about the New Deal.
FDR despised capitalism. His administration was infested with communists. Harry Hopkins, his closest aid, was in the pay of the KGB.
Ever wonder why we can see pictures of dairy farmers dumping their milk rather than selling it? It cost more to produce the milk than the farmers could sell it for, so it was cheaper to dump the milk than take it to market. One of the first moves of FDR was to try and figure out a way for businessmen to make at least a small profit on their labor. With no profit, their was no need for labor and more unemployment. FDR was a firm believer in capitalism and sought to keep it alive during a period when other economies were changing.
Utter horseshit. The reason farmers dumped milk is the New Deal which required them to dump it. Everything else you posted is equally wrong.
I'm amazed at the ignorance liberals constantly display about the New Deal.
FDR despised capitalism. His administration was infested with communists. Harry Hopkins, his closest aid, was in the pay of the KGB.
Well of course we can all create our own version of history, but most historians seem unable to go that route, preferring to stay in the boundaries of facts and historical research. During the FDR years some of the better attacks on FDR were made by quite creative people, one high ranked person writing that FDR belonged to a secret society founded in Bavaria in 1776 that led to Karl Marx. Probably the best rumors were the FDR is insane stories, today the best are, FDR was a communist.
The FDR attacks today are pretty tame, but it would be interesting to write a small history of FDR attacks, and why they continue even now after all these years and why historians ignore them.
Whenever libturds talk about the "evils of capitalism," they never fail to bring up the so-called "robber barons." Most of what they believe is pure horseshit. The fact is that many of the men maligned with this label made this country great. They grew the industries that produce the wealth we enjoy today. They became rich because they provided consumers with abundance, not because they "robbed" anyone. You can read the truth in the following book.
The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America: Burton W. Folsom, Forrest McDonald: 9780963020314: Amazon.com: Books
The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated.
The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products. The author describes this clash of the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs.
In the Mellon chapter, the author describes how Andrew Mellon an entrepreneur in oil and aluminum became Secretary of Treasury under Coolidge. In office, Mellon was the first American to practice supply-side economics. He supported cuts on income tax rates for all groups. The rate cut on the wealthiest Americans, from 73 percent to 25 percent, freed up investment capital and led to American economic growth during the 1920s. Also, the amount of revenue into the federal treasury increased sharply after tax rates were cut. The Myth of the Robber Barons has separate chapters on Vanderbilt, Hill, Schwab, Mellon, and the Scrantons. The author also has a conclusion, in which he looks at the textbook bias on the subject of Robber Barons and the rise of the U. S. in the late 1800s. This chapter explores three leading college texts in U. S. history and shows how they misread American history and disparage market entrepreneurs instead of the political entrepreneurs. This book is in its fifth edition, and is widely adopted in college and high school classrooms across the U. S.
Actually they didn't.
This country didn't become "great" until after WWII.
Prior to that it was the "dumping ground" for Europe.
The market crashed in the first year of the Hoover administration and there was no recovery until the last few months before Roosevelt took over. During Hoover's rein the stock market lost nearly 90% of the value.
Herbert Hoover believed in free markets and less government, an ideology that ultimately led to the Great Depression. The Depression only got worse under his watch, and his callous Administration did nothing to assist those who were suffering.
Completely ahistorical. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal was based on Hoover's policies, and Roosevelt actually campaigned on the fact that Hoover was too much of an interventionist.
I think we did this? In any case, Hoover used the trickle down idea and FDR the trickle up.
Loaning to corporations was nuts, if they couldn't sell their product they quit producing, and loans to them went where, maybe under the mattress? Couldn't trust banks. Yet if government puts money into the hands of common citizens the money is spent at once.
The problem with the New Deal was it didn't put enough money into the hands of the common citizens, it took the spending of WWII to do that deed. So far no one has come up with a better system to handle depression/recessions. Both Republicans and Democrats now use Keynes.
Ever wonder why we can see pictures of dairy farmers dumping their milk rather than selling it? It cost more to produce the milk than the farmers could sell it for, so it was cheaper to dump the milk than take it to market. One of the first moves of FDR was to try and figure out a way for businessmen to make at least a small profit on their labor. With no profit, their was no need for labor and more unemployment. FDR was a firm believer in capitalism and sought to keep it alive during a period when other economies were changing.
Well your example doesn't make sense. If they were dumping the milk that means they had already produced it, which means that taking it to market was the only way to get back anything. What really happened was that they were paid by FDR to plow under crops and dump milk in an effort to restrict supply and keep prices higher than they should have been. All while people were starving.
Furthermore, capitalism is about profit and loss, not just profit. By propping up farmers FDR was being an anti-capitalist, because the market was saying that prices needed to go down and some farmers needed to be put out of business.
Yes farmers were overproducing from WWI and are still overproducing.
So government still pays them for not growing. Milk producers usually sell to companies they don't bottle and sell the milk themselves. If the milk buyers aren't buying milk what alternative do they have?
But America is more than a capitalistic nation it is a democracy and people vote, and for politicians to get that vote they have to come up with programs or lose votes. As some politicians rely on votes other politicians rely on money which can be turned into votes, so our capitalistic system is only somewhat capitalistic it is a mixed system as are most economies in the world. Since the Constitution was ratified, America has never been a pure capitalistic or pure economic anything. But capitalism is one of the major mixes and the arguments are does it have enough capitalism or enough of the other mixes.
Well your example doesn't make sense. If they were dumping the milk that means they had already produced it, which means that taking it to market was the only way to get back anything. What really happened was that they were paid by FDR to plow under crops and dump milk in an effort to restrict supply and keep prices higher than they should have been. All while people were starving.
Furthermore, capitalism is about profit and loss, not just profit. By propping up farmers FDR was being an anti-capitalist, because the market was saying that prices needed to go down and some farmers needed to be put out of business.
Yes farmers were overproducing from WWI and are still overproducing.
You have the cart before the horse. Farmers overproduce because the government pays them more than the market price. During the 20s food prices were low, so farmers whined about it constantly. However, all the food produced was consumed, so they didn't "overproduce." After FDR came to power, however, the government tried to raise the price of farm products artificially. One way to do that was reduce supply, so the government paid some farmers to destroy their product. That's who we get pictures of dairy farmers dumping milk and hog farmers slaughtering their animals and then burying them.
So government still pays them for not growing. Milk producers usually sell to companies they don't bottle and sell the milk themselves. If the milk buyers aren't buying milk what alternative do they have?
There is no case of a dairy farmer not being able to sell his milk. It's just a matter of what price he wants to sell it at. The claim that they couldn't sell it is utterly bogus.
But America is more than a capitalistic nation it is a democracy and people vote, and for politicians to get that vote they have to come up with programs or lose votes. As some politicians rely on votes other politicians rely on money which can be turned into votes, so our capitalistic system is only somewhat capitalistic it is a mixed system as are most economies in the world. Since the Constitution was ratified, America has never been a pure capitalistic or pure economic anything. But capitalism is one of the major mixes and the arguments are does it have enough capitalism or enough of the other mixes.
Our system has only been "mixed" since the reign of FDR. You are confusing two things: capitalism, an economic system, and democracy, a political system.
Yes farmers were overproducing from WWI and are still overproducing.
You have the cart before the horse. Farmers overproduce because the government pays them more than the market price. During the 20s food prices were low, so farmers whined about it constantly. However, all the food produced was consumed, so they didn't "overproduce." After FDR came to power, however, the government tried to raise the price of farm products artificially. One way to do that was reduce supply, so the government paid some farmers to destroy their product. That's who we get pictures of dairy farmers dumping milk and hog farmers slaughtering their animals and then burying them.
There is no case of a dairy farmer not being able to sell his milk. It's just a matter of what price he wants to sell it at. The claim that they couldn't sell it is utterly bogus.
But America is more than a capitalistic nation it is a democracy and people vote, and for politicians to get that vote they have to come up with programs or lose votes. As some politicians rely on votes other politicians rely on money which can be turned into votes, so our capitalistic system is only somewhat capitalistic it is a mixed system as are most economies in the world. Since the Constitution was ratified, America has never been a pure capitalistic or pure economic anything. But capitalism is one of the major mixes and the arguments are does it have enough capitalism or enough of the other mixes.
Our system has only been "mixed" since the reign of FDR. You are confusing two things: capitalism, an economic system, and democracy, a political system.
So has America ever had a pure capitalistic system or a pure democratic system?
You have the cart before the horse. Farmers overproduce because the government pays them more than the market price. During the 20s food prices were low, so farmers whined about it constantly. However, all the food produced was consumed, so they didn't "overproduce." After FDR came to power, however, the government tried to raise the price of farm products artificially. One way to do that was reduce supply, so the government paid some farmers to destroy their product. That's who we get pictures of dairy farmers dumping milk and hog farmers slaughtering their animals and then burying them.
There is no case of a dairy farmer not being able to sell his milk. It's just a matter of what price he wants to sell it at. The claim that they couldn't sell it is utterly bogus.
Our system has only been "mixed" since the reign of FDR. You are confusing two things: capitalism, an economic system, and democracy, a political system.
So has America ever had a pure capitalistic system or a pure democratic system?
What difference does it make if the country was only 98% pure rather than 100% pure?
