If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[code1211]

Actually, during the 70's, our economy started to feel the pressure from the rebuilding of the countries that were bombed to rubble in WW2.

Wrong. First, as I pointed above, most of the world WASN'T "bombed to rubble," and the two countries that were (Germany and Japan) were fully recovered by the mid 1950s.

No, the cause of the postwar prosperity was completely different from that, and so was the cause of its failure in the late 1970s. That failure lasted ten years, from 1973 through 1982. Know what else happened in those same ten years?

Real Price of Oil and Major Disruptions in World Oil Supply, 1950-2008

It was all about oil.

You must be right. And the Marshall Plan was a blue print to educate law enforcement officials.

 

[Dragon]

You must be right. And the Marshall Plan was a blue print to educate law enforcement officials.

I am right, and smartass one-liners won't substitute for arguments. Check the stats on industrial production in Great Britain and France pre- and post-World War II. After is higher than before, even though France was occupied by the Germans and Britain bombed by the Luftwaffe. The severe damage of the war was confined to the losers, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union -- hard to get good information from the Stalinist period.

The reason for the Martial Plan was mainly that railroads were plastered and there was famine due to the inability to deliver food. The U.S. fed hungry people and helped repair the infrastructure. That took all of a year or two. It's something we can be proud of as a nation, but rebuild the entire economy of Europe at our expense we did not -- it wasn't necessary.

Even the losers, as I said, were fully recovered, with economic production higher than before the war, by the late 1950s. And that's even though Germany lost a lot of people and territory, too. West Germany by itself had a stronger economy in 1960 than Nazi Germany did in 1939.

To use this as an explanation for our postwar prosperity, which lasted decades, falls into the "clutching at straws" category. It's nonsense.

 

[Brutus]

Japan was not exporting cars to the USA until late 1970's!

 

[code1211]

You must be right. And the Marshall Plan was a blue print to educate law enforcement officials.

I am right, and smartass one-liners won't substitute for arguments. Check the stats on industrial production in Great Britain and France pre- and post-World War II. After is higher than before, even though France was occupied by the Germans and Britain bombed by the Luftwaffe. The severe damage of the war was confined to the losers, with the possible exception of the Soviet Union -- hard to get good information from the Stalinist period.

The reason for the Martial Plan was mainly that railroads were plastered and there was famine due to the inability to deliver food. The U.S. fed hungry people and helped repair the infrastructure. That took all of a year or two. It's something we can be proud of as a nation, but rebuild the entire economy of Europe at our expense we did not -- it wasn't necessary.

Even the losers, as I said, were fully recovered, with economic production higher than before the war, by the late 1950s. And that's even though Germany lost a lot of people and territory, too. West Germany by itself had a stronger economy in 1960 than Nazi Germany did in 1939.

To use this as an explanation for our postwar prosperity, which lasted decades, falls into the "clutching at straws" category. It's nonsense.

I don't know everything that you don't know, but you're embarrassing yourself on this. The plan was named after the general, not a fighting style from Enter the Dragon.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dragon]

I don't know everything that you don't know, but you're embarrassing yourself on this. The plan was named after the general, not a fighting style from Enter the Dragon.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, a smartass wisecrack can't substitute for an argument. Neither can a source that doesn't conflict with what I said in any way.

"By 1952 as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in 1938.[8] Over the next two decades, Western Europe enjoyed unprecedented growth and prosperity, but economists are not sure what proportion was due directly to the ERP, what proportion indirectly, and how much would have happened without it.. . .

"Especially damaged was transportation infrastructure, as railways, bridges, and docks had been specifically targeted by air strikes, while much merchant shipping had been sunk."

There you go. Just what I said: the main damage was to railroads and other transportation infrastructure, the U.S. contributed to rebuilding the same while providing food aid for the hungry, the job was essentially completed within a year or two (although the Marshall Plan extended for four years total), and the economies of all participants exceeded prewar production by very shortly after the war ended. (I had read elsewhere that the German and Japanese economies did not fully recover until the mid to late 1950s, while this article seems to suggest that it was earlier -- it doesn't really matter, though.)

The idea that postwar prosperity in the U.S. was due to the wartime destruction has no basis in fact. Actually, it has no basis in theory, either. You don't believe in that "beggar-thy-neighbor" reasoning yourself, I daresay, in any other context; for example, I suspect you don't approve of mercantilism or of protectionism. But if the U.S. really did become prosperous because the rest of the world was in ruins, then logically both mercantilism and protectionism are sound ideas, since they flow from exactly the same basis.

No. It's as I said before: most participants in the war had stronger industrial bases after the war than before it, once the transportation infrastructure had been repaired the economy of Europe was stronger than ever, and competition from foreign sources did not wait until the 1970s to start. It began within a few years of the war's end, and after that the U.S. economy did not go into decline but became even more wealthy -- which is exactly what we should expect as our foreign trading partners have stronger economies and can afford to buy more of our exports.

The reason for our unprecedented prosperity in the DECADES (please note once more) after World War II lies elsewhere.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reason for our unprecedented prosperity in the DECADES (please note once more) after World War II lies elsewhere.

There a lot of reason that come to mind:

1) Europe China India Japan England were not competitive

2) FDR was dead

3) new war technology was put to use in consumer goods for which there was pent up demand

 

[code1211]

I don't know everything that you don't know, but you're embarrassing yourself on this. The plan was named after the general, not a fighting style from Enter the Dragon.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, a smartass wisecrack can't substitute for an argument. Neither can a source that doesn't conflict with what I said in any way.

"By 1952 as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in 1938.[8] Over the next two decades, Western Europe enjoyed unprecedented growth and prosperity, but economists are not sure what proportion was due directly to the ERP, what proportion indirectly, and how much would have happened without it.. . .

"Especially damaged was transportation infrastructure, as railways, bridges, and docks had been specifically targeted by air strikes, while much merchant shipping had been sunk."

There you go. Just what I said: the main damage was to railroads and other transportation infrastructure, the U.S. contributed to rebuilding the same while providing food aid for the hungry, the job was essentially completed within a year or two (although the Marshall Plan extended for four years total), and the economies of all participants exceeded prewar production by very shortly after the war ended. (I had read elsewhere that the German and Japanese economies did not fully recover until the mid to late 1950s, while this article seems to suggest that it was earlier -- it doesn't really matter, though.)

The idea that postwar prosperity in the U.S. was due to the wartime destruction has no basis in fact. Actually, it has no basis in theory, either. You don't believe in that "beggar-thy-neighbor" reasoning yourself, I daresay, in any other context; for example, I suspect you don't approve of mercantilism or of protectionism. But if the U.S. really did become prosperous because the rest of the world was in ruins, then logically both mercantilism and protectionism are sound ideas, since they flow from exactly the same basis.

No. It's as I said before: most participants in the war had stronger industrial bases after the war than before it, once the transportation infrastructure had been repaired the economy of Europe was stronger than ever, and competition from foreign sources did not wait until the 1970s to start. It began within a few years of the war's end, and after that the U.S. economy did not go into decline but became even more wealthy -- which is exactly what we should expect as our foreign trading partners have stronger economies and can afford to buy more of our exports.

The reason for our unprecedented prosperity in the DECADES (please note once more) after World War II lies elsewhere.

You are free to believe what ever you may want to. You said you are 55 and at that age you should remember pretty clearly the number of imported cars that were in the USA in the 60's. There were Volkswagons and they were quirky and odd little cars with no real creature comforts and no real power, either.

Toyotas, Datsuns, Mercedes, Beamers were all still in the future of our imports. If you recall, you are comparing post war production to the Great Depression and this is where we came in on this little debate. Something beats nothing every time and that is what the post war production was compting against.

Remember that Hitler took power and his primary campaign promise was that if he was elected, everyone would have bread the following day. In Europe, people were literally starving in the street.

The post war USA dominance of the world was not just in manufacturing. It was in everything from Olympic competition to per capita income. The PR story was something about our better diet and Mom, Apple Pie and the American way.

Probably had a little more to do with the fact that one entire generation of young men in the USA had not been killed as they were throughout Europe.

There was a time when fully half of the world's GDP was American made and that time was the 60's. We're down to about 30% of the whole right now which is still quite enviable.

I don't know exactly what you are trying to argue here, but I do know you are not using facts to do it.

 

[Dragon]

You are free to believe what ever you may want to.

No, being a rational person, I am not. I am only free to believe what the evidence, and sound reasoning on the basis of the evidence, show me to be true. And that is why I don't believe the myth that our postwar prosperity was based on the devastation of the rest of the world by World War II. I don't believe that, because I know that the rest of the world was not devastated by World War II, and I know that those countries which were, had fully recovered long before our prosperity hit a bump in the road.

You said you are 55 and at that age you should remember pretty clearly the number of imported cars that were in the USA in the 60's.

Right. That's evidence: competition did grow more stiff for the AUTO INDUSTRY in the 1970s. But your reasoning from the evidence is faulty. Please consider that the problems of the mid to late 1970s did not continue past 1983: inflation came down, economic growth went up, but foreign competition did not decline. If foreign competition were the reason for the slump of the '70s, that slump should have been intractable and Ronald Reagan should have lost his reelection bid in 1984.

Whatever caused the problems of 1973-1982, it must have been something that STOPPED in 1982. Competition, therefore, cannot be the right answer.

Probably had a little more to do with the fact that one entire generation of young men in the USA had not been killed as they were throughout Europe.

Are your referring to the World War I soldiers or those of World War II? Either way, your reasoning again does not consider the facts correctly. The generation that fought in World War I was, by 1950, middle-aged going on old and their losses, which were severe in France, Britain, and Germany (though not in most other combatant nations), had been fully replaced. For those that fought World War II, the only countries with truly awful casualties were Germany and the Soviet Union. I already noted that Germany was an exception to the "not devastated" truth and that the Soviet Union might be another, although the USSR under Stalin was such a Byzantine lair of deception that there's no way to know for certain.

France was defeated so quickly that neither long casualty lists nor massive damage ensued; France actually suffered worse in the Allied bombing prior to D-day than in 1940. The same was true for the other countries conquered by the Nazis in the Blitzkrieg: Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. More Poles were killed in the death camps of the Holocaust than in combat. Between Dunkirk and the invasion of Italy, Great Britain fought mostly a sea and air war, which by the nature of things involves relatively lower casualty lists. The majority of the British troops in France escaped from Dunkirk even if they did leave their equipment behind, and in the campaigns from 1942 on, they and we were winning, so that the greater portion of casualties were enemy.

What am I trying to argue here? I am arguing that the changes to our economic system put in place in the 1930s were a huge success. Those changes included Social Security, regulation of the financial industry, protection and encouragement of labor unions, and a steeply graduated income tax that imposed an effective cap on personal income at a bit under two million dollars in today's money. This created broadly shared gains from economic growth, which in turn generated high levels of consumer demand, and that boosted sales and profits and hence, investment in productive enterprises. I am further arguing that the problems the system encountered beginning in 1973 and ending in 1982 were due to the temporary price surge in oil due to politically-motivated machinations by OPEC, and ended when new non-OPEC oil production came on line in the early 1980s to drive the price down. And finally, I am arguing that the shift away from that New Deal economic policy set beginning in the 1980s is a very large part of why we are in economic difficulties today -- although not the entirety of the reason.

I am certainly arguing from facts; unlike yourself, however, I am arguing from all of them rather than from a select few that fit preconceptions. It does make a difference.

 

[regent]

ok?

as long as you agree that Democrats have no place at America's founding and that the Republican philosophy is America's philosophy I'm happy. Thank you.

Perhaps you would cope with history better if you used the terms conservative or liberal rather than political parties. Political parties change names, purposes and even philosophies and are not a good guide.
This nation was built on the ideas put forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason, might check them out, and then see if you can find those concepts in the Declaration of Independence and even go beyond that and see if you can find any in the Constitution.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Political parties change names, purposes and even philosophies and are not a good guide.

Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to promote freedom or liberty from big liberal government. Modern Republicans have an identical philosophy

This nation was built on the ideas put forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason, might check them out, and then see if you can find those concepts in the Declaration of Independence and even go beyond that and see if you can find any in the Constitution.

yes, history evolved toward the Republican idea of individual liberty from big liberal government. Those who oppose the basic concept of America are called liberals today. Hope you understand now?

 

[regent]

Political parties change names, purposes and even philosophies and are not a good guide.

Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to promote freedom or liberty from big liberal government. Modern Republicans have an identical philosophy

This nation was built on the ideas put forth in the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason, might check them out, and then see if you can find those concepts in the Declaration of Independence and even go beyond that and see if you can find any in the Constitution.

yes, history evolved toward the Republican idea of individual liberty from big liberal government. Those who oppose the basic concept of America are called liberals today. Hope you understand now?

Well the founders had the perfect conservative government, it was almost no government it was so small, it had no authority, could not tax, coin money, regulate commerce it was totally helpless, and guess what, the founders changed it to a stronger, powerful larger government. So who changed it to the bigger, stronger government of today, was it liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well the founders had the perfect conservative government, it was almost no government it was so small, it had no authority, could not tax, coin money, regulate commerce it was totally helpless, and guess what, the founders changed it to a stronger, powerful larger government.

yes all agree from the Articles to Constitution govt got bigger

So who changed it to the bigger, stronger government of today, was it liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats?

Welcome to your first lesson in American History. Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to keep the government small. Republicans have been slowly losing the battle for 200 years.

 

[regent]

So do historians consider Jefferson to be a liberal or a conservative, and is the size of government the factor that determines that?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So do historians consider Jefferson to be a liberal or a conservative, and is the size of government the factor that determines that?

historians are liberal so can't be trusted to even acknowledge that he founded the Republican Party in 1792 to fight for freedom from big liberal government .

WiKi:The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.

 

[regent]

So do historians consider Jefferson to be a liberal or a conservative, and is the size of government the factor that determines that?

historians are liberal so can't be trusted to even acknowledge that he founded the Republican Party in 1792 to fight for freedom from big liberal government .

WiKi:The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.

Historians write our history books teach our young and you don't trust them because their history is different than yours. So you get your history from Wiki?
Why don't you check out Wiki and see if there is more to liberalism and conservatism than the size of government?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Historians write our history books teach our young and you don't trust them because their history is different than yours. So you get your history from Wiki?

dear I gave you the quote from wiki which shows that historians refuse to use the name Republican when all agree it was the name used at the time based on letters newspapers speeches and even the Congressional Record. Can you grasp that? Is it really over your head? Can't you discuss with your parents before you post?

Why don't you check out Wiki and see if there is more to liberalism and conservatism than the size of government?

there is nothing to history besides the size of government!!
History is the struggle against liberal government.

 

[regent]

Historians write our history books teach our young and you don't trust them because their history is different than yours. So you get your history from Wiki?

dear I gave you the quote from wiki which shows that historians refuse to use the name Republican when all agree it was the name used at the time based on letters newspapers speeches and even the Congressional Record. Can you grasp that? Is it really over your head? Can't you discuss with your parents before you post?

Why don't you check out Wiki and see if there is more to liberalism and conservatism than the size of government?

there is nothing to history besides the size of government!!
History is the struggle against liberal government.

OK then the only thing that defines liberal and conservatism is the struggle against liberal government, right? So using that definition has America become more liberal or more conservative since 1789?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

OK then the only thing that defines liberal and conservatism is the struggle against liberal government, right?

yes, right

So using that definition has America become more liberal or more conservative since 1789?

why do you act like a 5 year old?? A child knows that our government is 100 times bigger than it was. Do you parents know you do this??

 

[regent]

You switched definitions of liberal conservative on me again, from size of government to the struggle against liberal government and now back to size of government. If you can't answer or don't know, why not just evade the post instead reverting to insults.

 

[Brutus]

You switched definitions of liberal conservative on me again, from size of government to the struggle against liberal government and now back to size of government. If you can't answer or don't know, why not just evade the post instead reverting to insults.

Too stupid . Conservatives since Jefferson have battled against big liberal government.