RayK

Military Cuts!

77 posts in this topic

So you believe that the US protecting Australia from Japan in 1942, and thus stopping me and my ancestors from becoming slaves to imperial Japan, was evil?

I believe FDR manufacturing Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was immoral.

You believe the Pearl Harbour attack was "manufactured"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think too highly of the Nazis--they wouldn't be able to accomplish anything because they were a socialist country, so expanding their territory and manpower wouldn't allow them to create the wealth that only the free mind can create.
This rationalization does not explain nor address how it is that many totalitarian-dictatorships have been spectacularly successful in conquering and holding power over continents for hundreds of years ever since the dawn of man.

The fact is that at that time German military technology was rivaling ours, and this goes without mentioning the rich history of scientists and technologists that Germany boasted leading up to and during that time period. Germany was the scientific powerhouse of the world, and we are damn lucky that they didn't develop the nuclear weapon first (though they did develop the jet fighter plane first).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 50 years prior to WWI most of Europe was slipping into statism. In other words, most of Europe was accepting the idea that the government should provide and or extend social services. Most European governments were also building up their militaries as a means of employing people and creating factories to feed their war machines. European government's were paying for all of this by creating huge debts which at some point would overwhelm, and which it did. When the resources run out, as they always do, statist governments invade other countries and take their resources which is exactly what Austria did in WWI and Germany did in WWII. The invasions were not the root cause of war, they are the effect of governments accepting statist ideas that make attacks, invasions and war inevitable

So, There is a difference between a government that builds a military for conquest and one that defends rights which seems to have been overlooked by some.

After WWI the League of Nations allowed Germany to get out of most of the reparations that had been put on them as a punishment for their part in WWI. Of course WWI did not end the statist slide and after the war most countries in Europe just continued on their paths of increasing statist controls. After years of increasing social services and immense debts which Germany had no intentions of paying back they invaded Poland. But the Treaty of Versailles had been thrown out long before Germany invaded Poland. If one looks at the history of Europe in the 20th centruy they will see that invasion by countries from other countries would have come whether Germany lead the way or not, Italy, Greece and Russia were already deep into their statist path by the start of WWII.

I also offer as evidence that FDR was not the one that lead us into war as he was one of the main people, along with Senator Nye that were behind the Neutrality Acts creation and passing. Quoting FDR soon after the Neutrality Act went into affect; "The Congress of the United States has given me certain authority to provide safeguards of American neutrality in the case of war." FDR sounds more like an appeaser than an aggressor as he let our allies fight for quite sometime without us before finally standing up after Pearl Harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you pasting all these quotes about WW1, Vietnam, Korea when I was asking you about one specific war, WW2?

Because all of those quotes had some mention of WWII, even though other wars are also mentioned. None of the quotes contain nothing about WWII, which would give your question validity in my mind.

So essentially, your answer is that it is in Americas interests for its enemies to get more material and manpower so they become stronger. That is insane.
I don't consider it a concern of America's to fight wars that other nations are involved in. For example, although Sudan is an enemy of America I don't think young American men should be sacrificed there.
Enemies who wish your destruction are meant to be weakened or destroyed.

You have to define what you mean by "enemy" here. Just because a nation is aggressive against other nations does not mean America must involve itself in wars with it. America's guiding policy should be self-interest, which means the protection of the rights of its citizens. Sending a hundred thousand citizens to die for Russians who would go on to murder 20 million of their people and Chinese who would go on to murder 55 million of their people is not in America's self interest. They should have left that continent to rot. Contrary to what many believe, socialism is not economically strong or productive. You can't maintain an empire for long with slavery. You might be able to finance a war for a few years with socialism but Germany would have collapsed.

In my ethical code, actions that strengthen my enemies are not ethical and are evil. That is not altruistic or aggressive, it is called wanting to survive.
Care to elaborate further? Actions taken by whom? You're saying if Germany were to strengthen, that would be evil? Normally I would just say the Nazis were already evil, and if they strengthened their empire that would be bad.
How can any sane person want a stronger enemy? How can they let their allies be destroyed so when it is their own time to face the enemy, the enemy is at its strongest and they are at their weakest for they have no allies left to fight the enemy with?
You mean allies like China and Russia? Those are worse enemies than Germany and Japan.

I suppose you're making the case that America should sacrifice young men for the sake of the British. I think that's the only argument that makes sense. Or are you really saying that if Italy takes North Africa, for example, American soldiers should be sent to die in Europe?

I am not giving Nazi germany too much credit, it was the USSR which developed nukes and the capacity to destroy all of America under their socialist system. There is no reason why Nazis couldn't do the same if they survived a few more years. They had the research programs to develop the technology to do so.
Then it would be time to tell them to end their nuclear program or we would do it for them. But I question the idea that they could independently develop them. The Russians used spies to steal important scientific data involved, and their scientists were always portrayed as something special too. The truth is that these countries couldn't operate technology very well. Germany had military power not because it became socialist and inflated the currency in the two decades preceding WWII, but because it was a Westernized industrial powerhouse rivaling Britain before WWI. Don't underestimate how fast socialism could have destroyed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This rationalization does not explain nor address how it is that many totalitarian-dictatorships have been spectacularly successful in conquering and holding power over continents for hundreds of years ever since the dawn of man.
You may view it as a rationalization but can I ask you not to mind read? And yes, it "does not explain nor address" an issue of history that was never explicitly brought up. I suppose I really have to cover all of my bases when I post here and think of every possible logical ramification of my post into every facet of history and explain it in order to make a proper post.

Dictatorships, such as monarchies for example, are a step above anarchy. That's why they can hold power over continents for so long. When you have feudal lords and chieftains disputing over little parts of territory, with endless conflict, it tends to drain the society of human lives a bit faster than the stability of a large dictatorship. Eventually when one group solidifies and centralizes power across a large area, they form a nation. If their power is centralized enough they are able to hold onto their dictatorship, although often (as in the case of feudal times) the power becomes decentralized and you get long periods of war and conflict between small towns and tribes. I think, where present day Germany is, during the Holy Roman Empire, there was this problem for a few hundred years.

But I would charge that none of this is relevant to the discussion we were having. We were talking about a free capitalist country in comparison to a socialist dictatorship, not anarchic townships and chieftains in comparison to centralized monarchies. Societies where people are free are much more powerful, but unfortunately through history there are not many examples of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you believe that the US protecting Australia from Japan in 1942, and thus stopping me and my ancestors from becoming slaves to imperial Japan, was evil?

I believe FDR manufacturing Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was immoral.

You believe the Pearl Harbour attack was "manufactured"?

I think Peikoff does too, although I'm having a hard time finding the podcast in which he mentioned it. It was an offhand comment about FDR he made and he recommended a book on this exact subject. I'd recommend you search this topic on the internet and come to your own conclusions. I think it's believe that some of FDR's provocative actions leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbour were intended to allow him to take complete control of the economy, unite behind him, and forget the 8 years of poverty he had forced them to endure with his policies.

----

On another topic, I just remembered that somewhere I heard Operation Overlord (the amphibious invasion to mainland France) was launched because of fears that the Soviets were set to take all of Europe. The allies wanted to gain as much as possible in the West so the continent was not painted red. I think that provides a good case that had there been no American involvement at all, the Germans may have overextended themselves battling with the Soviets, and whoever eventually won would be on the brink of collapse. I think that at that point France could have been liberated if we really wanted to, if they hadn't accomplished it already with internal resistance. However, the cost of lives in those invasions was high and I would personally be against sacrificing so many American lives for French people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke, if you are going to quote Ayn Rand you should at least quote her in the proper context. So, here is a quote starting with the third paragraph of Ayn Rand,'s Roots of War:

"Men are afraid that war might come because they know consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has cuased the wards of the past and can do it again - the doctrine that is is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it. It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies.

Observe one of the ugliest characteristics of today's world: the mixture of frantic war preparations with hysterical peace propaganda, and the fact that both come from the same source - from the same political philosophy. The bankrupt, yet still dominant, political philosohy of our age is statism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So essentially, your answer is that it is in Americas interests for its enemies to get more material and manpower so they become stronger. That is insane.
I don't consider it a concern of America's to fight wars that other nations are involved in. For example, although Sudan is an enemy of America I don't think young American men should be sacrificed there.

Politics flow from ethics and Objectivist along with most Americans act on self-interest. So, if we take the above political statement backwards to it's ethics I can ask the question if you are willing to stand with your friend if he is being attacked by thieves? Or are you stating that you would choose to sit by and watch your friend get raped while also trying to claim it is not in your best interest to defend your values?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enemies who wish your destruction are meant to be weakened or destroyed.

You have to define what you mean by "enemy" here. Just because a nation is aggressive against other nations does not mean America must involve itself in wars with it. America's guiding policy should be self-interest, which means the protection of the rights of its citizens. Sending a hundred thousand citizens to die for Russians who would go on to murder 20 million of their people and Chinese who would go on to murder 55 million of their people is not in America's self interest. They should have left that continent to rot. Contrary to what many believe, socialism is not economically strong or productive. You can't maintain an empire for long with slavery. You might be able to finance a war for a few years with socialism but Germany would have collapsed.

Let us just use the simple dictionary definition of enemy so that we do not get caught up in linguitic games.

Enemy is defined as: 1) a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent, 2) an armed foe; an opposing military force, 3) a hostile nation or state, 4) a citizen of such a state.

So, with that understanding of enemy and keeping the context of the political situation before America entered WWII it is irrational to claim that Americans fought WWII for no reason than to support the Russian government's murders of 20 million of their citizens.

There is also no guarantee that Germany "would have collpsed" within "a few years" as there were a lot more productive, pacifist countries to be conquered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my ethical code, actions that strengthen my enemies are not ethical and are evil. That is not altruistic or aggressive, it is called wanting to survive.
Care to elaborate further? Actions taken by whom? You're saying if Germany were to strengthen, that would be evil? Normally I would just say the Nazis were already evil, and if they strengthened their empire that would be bad.

It seems here is another attempt at linguistic manipulation as "evil" and "bad" as evil is defined as: something morally bad, harmful of injurious to life.

Ayn Rand, of course, is more specific in her definition of what evil is: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."

And in a different context, Ayn Rand is once again very specific on evil: "Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us."

For evil, people or nations, to grow in power it requires that the good take no actions against it and actually feed it through their non-action, in other words appeasement. And it is evil for people to evade the actions that evil regimes are taking by stating that "as long as it is not us, then who cares who they invaded." That is like stating, that I do not care that the evil person rapes, kills or steals from my friends as long as it is not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can any sane person want a stronger enemy? How can they let their allies be destroyed so when it is their own time to face the enemy, the enemy is at its strongest and they are at their weakest for they have no allies left to fight the enemy with?
You mean allies like China and Russia? Those are worse enemies than Germany and Japan.

I suppose you're making the case that America should sacrifice young men for the sake of the British. I think that's the only argument that makes sense. Or are you really saying that if Italy takes North Africa, for example, American soldiers should be sent to die in Europe?

I do not think anyone here is making a case to support our enemies but that is what happens with a mixed up foreign policy. I will point out that it is in a countries self-interest to defend their allies which China and Russia are not, but the British are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you believe that the US protecting Australia from Japan in 1942, and thus stopping me and my ancestors from becoming slaves to imperial Japan, was evil?

I believe FDR manufacturing Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was immoral.

You believe the Pearl Harbour attack was "manufactured"?

I think Peikoff does too...

Peikoff's views are irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion is what you think, not Peikoff.
I think it's believe that some of FDR's provocative actions leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbour were intended to allow him to take complete control of the economy, unite behind him, and forget the 8 years of poverty he had forced them to endure with his policies.
Do you, or do you not, believe that the Pearl Harbor attack was "manufactured"? Does "manufactured" in this context mean that the attack was faked by Americans, or that FDR skillfully chose actions to cause the Japanese to attack the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not giving Nazi germany too much credit, it was the USSR which developed nukes and the capacity to destroy all of America under their socialist system. There is no reason why Nazis couldn't do the same if they survived a few more years. They had the research programs to develop the technology to do so.
Then it would be time to tell them to end their nuclear program or we would do it for them. But I question the idea that they could independently develop them. The Russians used spies to steal important scientific data involved, and their scientists were always portrayed as something special too. The truth is that these countries couldn't operate technology very well. Germany had military power not because it became socialist and inflated the currency in the two decades preceding WWII, but because it was a Westernized industrial powerhouse rivaling Britain before WWI. Don't underestimate how fast socialism could have destroyed them.

And do not underestimate how fast Germany was conquering Europe as that is what statist regimes do. So, it does not matter whether or not they developed the most powerful weapons themselves as Germany was outpaced by France's war technology, yet Germany still conquered France and almost without a fight.

When it comes to Russia's military technology one cannot overlook that FDR approved the "lend and lease" program. This so called program gave Russian tons of our advance technology without a contract which is why the whole program is a lie as there was nothing agreed upon in a contract, FDR just gave it away to "Uncle Joe." Yes, Russia had spies, but they had an even bigger weapon, the American President backing them. How disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This rationalization does not explain nor address how it is that many totalitarian-dictatorships have been spectacularly successful in conquering and holding power over continents for hundreds of years ever since the dawn of man.
You may view it as a rationalization but can I ask you not to mind read?
There's no need for mind-reading when you've laid out your arguments in the posts.

The argument under discussion

You think too highly of the Nazis--they wouldn't be able to accomplish anything because they were a socialist country, so expanding their territory and manpower wouldn't allow them to create the wealth that only the free mind can create.
is a chain of reasoning that is disconnected from reality at it's base.
And yes, it "does not explain nor address" an issue of history that was never explicitly brought up. I suppose I really have to cover all of my bases when I post here and think of every possible logical ramification of my post into every facet of history and explain it in order to make a proper post.
One doesn't intrude into a discussion with proclamations that he is right and everyone else is wrong, then expect to be able to retreat under the blanket of "but I haven't thought it all through so you can't argue with me in detail on this". If you are going to argue for a controversial point with fervor you should be prepared for detailed discussion, otherwise leave it unsaid.
Dictatorships, such as monarchies for example, are a step above anarchy. That's why they can hold power over continents for so long. When you have feudal lords and chieftains disputing over little parts of territory, with endless conflict, it tends to drain the society of human lives a bit faster than the stability of a large dictatorship. Eventually when one group solidifies and centralizes power across a large area, they form a nation. If their power is centralized enough they are able to hold onto their dictatorship, although often (as in the case of feudal times) the power becomes decentralized and you get long periods of war and conflict between small towns and tribes. I think, where present day Germany is, during the Holy Roman Empire, there was this problem for a few hundred years.

But I would charge that none of this is relevant to the discussion we were having. We were talking about a free capitalist country in comparison to a socialist dictatorship, not anarchic townships and chieftains in comparison to centralized monarchies. Societies where people are free are much more powerful, but unfortunately through history there are not many examples of that.

This rambling, incomprehensible discussion confuses the only distinction which matters, which is free nations vs dictatorships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the military budget is definitely bloated but the amount of bloat is minor in comparison to the rest of the budget which is 90% bloat. The preventable waste that does occur is in the form of projects that get green light due to the ability to rationalize big dollars on projects that are marginally useful at best and worthless at worst. Then there is also the tendency to treat sunk costs as relevant. Also I think there is necessarily going to be at least minor waste due to military/industrial complex effects. One good example is the Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. does it provide some significant tactical advantage? No. Is it cool? Yeah. Cost? 27 billion as of 2008. Another recent news item was when Gates admirably argued against spending an extra 2 billion dollars so you can have a second manufacturer for the Joint Strike Fighters' engines it seems as if that would likely be a complete waste given its current inferiority(at least according to Sec. Gates). Reformation of the necessarily bureaucratic structure that makes these decisions is what is need to improve the situation but improvements of that nature will surely come slowly.

Here are some links about the Osprey and JSF engine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1990951,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the military budget is definitely bloated but the amount of bloat is minor in comparison to the rest of the budget which is 90% bloat. The preventable waste that does occur is in the form of projects that get green light due to the ability to rationalize big dollars on projects that are marginally useful at best and worthless at worst. Then there is also the tendency to treat sunk costs as relevant. Also I think there is necessarily going to be at least minor waste due to military/industrial complex effects. One good example is the Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. does it provide some significant tactical advantage? No. Is it cool? Yeah. Cost? 27 billion as of 2008. Another recent news item was when Gates admirably argued against spending an extra 2 billion dollars so you can have a second manufacturer for the Joint Strike Fighters' engines it seems as if that would likely be a complete waste given its current inferiority(at least according to Sec. Gates). Reformation of the necessarily bureaucratic structure that makes these decisions is what is need to improve the situation but improvements of that nature will surely come slowly.

Here are some links about the Osprey and JSF engine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1990951,00.html

The Osprey actually came out to be a very useful aircraft, and other than a few dramatic crashes that destroyed its publicity, it's crash statistics are supposedly no worse other experimental military aircrafts. The B-26 Bomber was called "the widowmaker" for all the accidents that occurred when testing the plane.

The Osprey had 4 crashes (which I think were ruled to be caused by part failures, not some failure in overall design) which resulted in a large, dramatic number of fatalities as the aircraft carried many people. The resulting publicity firestorm from a non-objective media that exploits hysterics took care of the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you, or do you not, believe that the Pearl Harbor attack was "manufactured"? Does "manufactured" in this context mean that the attack was faked by Americans, or that FDR skillfully chose actions to cause the Japanese to attack the USA?

I haven't done enough research to say it with full certainty, but my lean is toward "yes" and of course the answer is the latter--that FDR intentionally provoked the Japanese so he could gain further economic and political control of the US as well as get political support to help the British. In any case, he could have made much smarter decisions that were less risky. Maybe he was just an idiot and didn't realize what he was doing, but I don't believe he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This rambling, incomprehensible discussion confuses the only distinction which matters, which is free nations vs dictatorships

Well you asked why dictatorships were able to hold power for thousands of years. I gave you the answer. Are you implying that there was a United States parked next to Ancient Egypt or Ming China? I assumed you did not have that fantasy, and that is why I answered your question instead of ignoring it. I now see that it was worthy of ignoring.

As we all know, dictatorships are impotent in comparison to free countries. They only survive through the sanction and support of free countries. Germany was impotent as well, and the Soviets were about to walk all over them and paint Europe Red if it weren't for Patton. Ray is right, part of that is because of the lend-lease program. But the Germans did poorly against the USSR even early on when winter arrived, and the USSR's only technique was to throw mountains of untrained human fodder at them. And the USSR was a complete joke as evidenced in their war with the Finns. Basically, the only countries the Germans could take were those who came to the battlefield riding cavalry against their tanks like the Poles. All the while, Germany was lasting on its legacy of industrialization from decades prior, not the economic socialism that can destroy a country rather quickly. Whoever took the mainland of the continent would have collapsed in massive famines within 5 years if there was no foreign aid. Socialism cannot rebuild a country after a devastating war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Germany was impotent as well, and the Soviets were Basically, the only countries the Germans could take were those who came to the battlefield riding cavalry against their tanks like the Poles. All the while, Germany was lasting on its legacy of industrialization from decades prior, not the economic socialism that can destroy a country rather quickly. Whoever took the mainland of the continent would have collapsed in massive famines within 5 years if there was no foreign aid. Socialism cannot rebuild a country after a devastating war.

Last I checked the Germans barely lifted a hand and France surrendered, so they could have taken a lot more of Europe and they did. Also, Hitler's desire to exterminate as many Jews as possible is one of the possible reasons for why he changed his tactics against the British. There is enough evidence to support a claim by some military/war historians that Hitler could have taken Britian at earlier times during WWII but needed the war to keep going to hide his/Germany's actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This rambling, incomprehensible discussion confuses the only distinction which matters, which is free nations vs dictatorships

Well you asked why dictatorships were able to hold power for thousands of years. I gave you the answer. Are you implying that there was a United States parked next to Ancient Egypt or Ming China?

Nothing is implied beyond what is directly stated in the post.

I assumed you did not have that fantasy, and that is why I answered your question instead of ignoring it. I now see that it was worthy of ignoring.
These statements are irrelevant.
As we all know, dictatorships are impotent in comparison to free countries.
No, don't speak for others. Dictatorships have walked all over many free countries since the dawn of man. You can't deduce a statement so broad and sweeping like this from the top-down.
They only survive through the sanction and support of free countries. Germany was impotent as well, and the Soviets were about to walk all over them and paint Europe Red if it weren't for Patton.
The Soviets (much exaggerated) achievements in the war against the NAZI's probably came primarily from the NAZI's risking an invasion and being decimated by the frigid winter, not the actual Soviets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we all know, dictatorships are impotent in comparison to free countries.
No, don't speak for others. Dictatorships have walked all over many free countries since the dawn of man. You can't deduce a statement so broad and sweeping like this from the top-down.
They only survive through the sanction and support of free countries. Germany was impotent as well, and the Soviets were about to walk all over them and paint Europe Red if it weren't for Patton.
The Soviets (much exaggerated) achievements in the war against the NAZI's probably came primarily from the NAZI's risking an invasion and being decimated by the frigid winter, not the actual Soviets.

And the fact that we gave them many, many millions of dollars of supplies to fight the Germans. As a matter of fact Stalin was so irrationally bold that after the allies beat the Germans he sent a letter to Truman stating how much more his military required from us if his country was going to help us defeat Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, don't speak for others. Dictatorships have walked all over many free countries since the dawn of man.

Do you want to name some instances?

The Soviets (much exaggerated) achievements in the war against the NAZI's probably came primarily from the NAZI's risking an invasion and being decimated by the frigid winter, not the actual Soviets.

Right, which is exactly my point. Both socialist countries were fairly impotent. The US should have allowed them to fight each other and collapse, not treasonously expend American lives to free Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last I checked the Germans barely lifted a hand and France surrendered, so they could have taken a lot more of Europe and they did.

Probably. Most of Europe was a dump full of agrarian monarchies and communists. Let them take it. Young American men shouldn't have been sacrificed for the sake of those dumps, just like we didn't send American men to defend Tibet from China or Uzbekistanis from the Soviets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last I checked the Germans barely lifted a hand and France surrendered, so they could have taken a lot more of Europe and they did.

Probably. Most of Europe was a dump full of agrarian monarchies and communists. Let them take it. Young American men shouldn't have been sacrificed for the sake of those dumps, just like we didn't send American men to defend Tibet from China or Uzbekistanis from the Soviets.

Have you ever read about the plans and actions Russia was taking in an attempt to expand their power into large amounts of Europe pre-WWII?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of Europe was a dump full of agrarian monarchies and communists. Let them take it.

Not true. The British Empire, whilst in rapid decline thanks to Keynes' Bloomsbury bunch and other diseases of civilisation that only the US seems equipped to deal with, still led the world intellectually (see Kipling, etc.) and economically (in the 1940s sterling was, if I am not mistaken, still the leading currency, with the reserve status now attributed to the USD). The French were powerful enough to influence the decision making ability of the Federal Reserve chief of the time (see The Great Crash by Galbraith), and controlled most of Africa (which at the time was very productive). On a per head basis, there were definitely more agrarians in the US (not a bad thing in my view, considering the writings of that great agrarian Thomas Jefferson - the farmer is an entrepreneur confronted to reality on a daily basis). As for monarchies, well, the US revolution led to a wave of revolutions across the globe, the most famous one out of the US being the French, but let's not also forget that since Cromwell the UK has been a monarchy by name and show only, even if Victoria made a name of herself. As for communism, I'll grant you that the period was particularly fertile for the beasts.

Statism was a disease of civilization and those countries were not equipped to deal with it as the US is (via the Constitution and a productive mindset and philosophy which comes naturally to rough entrepreneurial pioneers and a nation based entirely on immigration of talent, without any monarchial roots - indeed, with anti-monarchial roots). They went down like all civilizations from the Ancient Egyptians to the Persians went down, as a result of the weakening that allows the cockroaches to take over after the peak of productivity is achieved. The US got pretty close, too, with FDR and the gloomy "peak" of statism that was Jimmy Carter. The UK proved with Thatcher that revival from a fall was possible for a European state too. As I am just back from London I can testify it feels almost like you are 20 years ahead from the continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites