American Politics

[Tiny 12]

Now you guys know why I try to limit my American Politics references to "in the past 100 years", within a reasonable timeframe where the topic, you know, matters.

And even then some who hated the irrefutable data durung that timeframe claimed I was talking about ancient irrelevant history! LOL.

No problem. It's all good.

Hey, if I were a winger and after that possibly gloat-worthy "Red Tsunami" diminished to barely a Red Tinkle, and only that much because Repubs got to redraw district lines to create a handful of new ridiculously gerrymandered Repub House seat "wins", I'd want to change the subject ASAP too.

Maryland (blue state) may have the most ridiculously gerrymandered Congressional districts in the USA. New Mexico (blue state) may be second, and Illinois (blue state) and California (blue state) deserve honorable mentions. New York this year would be way up there too if Democrat controlled courts hadn't forced the state to redraw the districts.

Basically both sides do it, gerrymandering.

This year, Republicans won the total popular vote in all Congressional districts by 51% to 47%. The % of actual House seats won by Republicans was 51%, compared to 49% for Democrats, so if anything it would appear the Democrat gerrymanders worked out a tiny bit better than the Republican gerrymanders this year.

The reason I quit arguing with you about your so called "irrefutable data" is because we're going through the same old stuff, over and over. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. And if for some reason I do, you'll probably cry, like the Mormon missionary who debated the foundations of his religion with me 20 some odd years ago. You're like a shaman who has determined that sacrifice of virgins is correlated with better harvests. He may be right as a result of coincidence, but it's not the sacrifice of the virgins that caused the good harvests.

I'll give Roosevelt and the Democrats credit for trying everything and the kitchen sink to get us out of a depression. But other than that, other conditions, like improvements in technology, globalization, demographic changes, the business cycle, what's going on in the rest of the world, wars (which mostly started during Democratic administrations), Congress, and a pandemic had much more influence on the state of the economy than which party the president belonged to.

I do like you Tooms, honestly. I know you live more on the edge than most of us. But as to this red winger stuff, please realize that cunnilingus performed during a woman's period is a great way to get Hepatitis C, especially if you've got open sores in your mouth.

[PVMonger]

Although you raise some interesting point Tiny, I think you are making some giant strides in illogic. You are comparing apples and oranges, and adding 2+2 to =5.

Sure, GDP always goes down during war. But it nearly always recovers. Take UK after WW2. I dunno by how much WW2 damaged UK GDP, but it would have been huge. By your logic, the UK should have been taken back to being a 3rd world country because the war wiped out the benefits of the industrial revolution. Obviously not, the 'damage had already been done', meaning the UK had already benefited from its industrial past and had become a developed country. No amount of war was going to prevent it from becoming a leading power again. In the same way, USA had benefited from slave economics that fired its development in to being one of the world's leading economies at that time. The war did not take that away.

Also, who pays for the war? The weak suffer what they must the south mostly paid for it and it helped lay the economic landscape that we see today mostly more affluent north and poorer south. The war did not stop the rich from being rich..

Your claim that "GDP always goes down during war. " certainly does not apply to the US. But the folks who wrote the following paper are economists, so what do they know. https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp...-Economy_0.pdf.

And the fact that Lincoln received no votes from the South has absolutely no bearing on which political party Lincoln belonged to as you intimate. It is well known (or should be) that the Republican party during the 1860's was very liberal. In fact, they even advocated for a strong federal government! It wasn't until the 1960's that the parties essentially switched positions. The South, which had long been a bastion of Democrats became Republican during the Civil Rights movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ublican_Party_(United_States) and https://www.essentialcivilwarcurricu...y-to-1865.html.

[EihTooms]

Now you guys know why I try to limit my American Politics references to "in the past 100 years", within a reasonable timeframe where the topic, you know, matters.

And even then some who hated the irrefutable data durung that timeframe claimed I was talking about ancient irrelevant history! LOL.

No problem. It's all good.

Hey, if I were a winger and after that possibly gloat-worthy "Red Tsunami" diminished to barely a Red Tinkle, and only that much because Repubs got to redraw district lines to create a handful of new ridiculously gerrymandered Repub House seat "wins", I'd want to change the subject ASAP too.

[JustTK]

Without a doubt, slavery helped the United States build wealth from its days as a colony up until the end of the Civil War.
The USA was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. That being said, I don't think you can attribute the modern wealth of the United States to slavery.

Right. Agreed. I am not arguing that it is the only reason. I put fwd 10 reasons, and slaverry was one of them. No doubt I missed some other good reasons from my 5 minute list. .

In no way is it a unique story. Likewise the industrial revulotion in UK and Europe was fired by child labour, in sweatshops, mines, and cotton mills. In South Africa, the country was transformed in to the richest country in the world (for white people) by the use of rightless blacks in the gold and diamond mines and indentured Indian labour in the sugar plantations. Indeed, not only did the blacks have no rights, they were also forced to work in incredibaly dangerous conditions, where thousands died.

[JustTK]

Again, as I noted before, there was a long term drop in USA GDP of 18% attributable to the Civil War. The costs of the Civil War to the USA Economy were greater than the value of slavery to the economy.

Your third source also estimates the costs of the Civil War to be $10.4 billion, and the value of slaves at the time of the start of the war to be about $3.3 billion.

Although you raise some interesting point Tiny, I think you are making some giant strides in illogic. You are comparing apples and oranges, and adding 2+2 to =5.

Sure, GDP always goes down during war. But it nearly always recovers. Take UK after WW2. I dunno by how much WW2 damaged UK GDP, but it would have been huge. By your logic, the UK should have been taken back to being a 3rd world country because the war wiped out the benefits of the industrial revolution. Obviously not, the 'damage had already been done', meaning the UK had already benefited from its industrial past and had become a developed country. No amount of war was going to prevent it from becoming a leading power again. In the same way, USA had benefited from slave economics that fired its development in to being one of the world's leading economies at that time. The war did not take that away.

Also, who pays for the war? The weak suffer what they must – the south mostly paid for it and it helped lay the economic landscape that we see today – mostly more affluent north and poorer south. The war did not stop the rich from being rich.

You also compare an evaluation of the cost of the war to a market value of slaves – false equivalency. The value of the slaves in an estimate of their economic worth going forward (to the potential buyer) . It has no relation to the value that past slaves had provided to owners and the economy.

You also claim that the war would not have happened if there had been no slave trade. I don't believe that claim stands – the final national election before war led to Rep Abraham Lincoln being elected without a single electoral vote from the south (my, how times have changed). The south felt they had no influence in the running of their country and wanted secession. I believe those same sentiments would have led to war anyway – you can see it happening again now. War may have happened regardless, either then or later. I don't think it is clear cut. Regardless, even if I give you this last point, my other points above stand on their own merit.

[RamDavidson84]

Yes, right CL. I agree. But it is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing reasons why the USA got wealthy, not allocating blame for it, nor discussing the morlaity of it all. Thats another discussion.

Without a doubt, slavery helped the United States build wealth from its days as a colony up until the end of the Civil War. After that, I am not educated enough on the topic to say with certainty that it helped create wealth within the United States into the 20th Century.

Here are some things to consider.

1. All the money spent on former slaves to help them transition into society as full fledged citizens. A whole Federal organization known as the "Freedman's Bureau" was started to achieve this goal. Millions of former slaves suddenly needed housing, food, education, and career training. This was a monumental task considering the economic and human cost of the Civil War. The USA had to station soldiers in the South until 1877 to protect former slaves and keep the South from rebelling again which cost another fortune. The USA also had to rebuild the infrastructure of the South because it had been completely decimated during the end of the War as part of a "scorched Earth policy" adopted by the North in order to break the will of the Confederates and force them to surrender. It couldn't have been cheap to rebuild Atlanta and all those towns they burned, buildings they cannoned, and railroads they tore up.

2. All the money spent on former slaves and their descendants. As we all known, the Jim Crow laws in the South prevented former slaves and their descendants from ever gaining economic success on par with other racial groups. These laws were designed to impoverish southern African Americans. Basically, it kept a significantly larger percentage of African Americans economically dependent upon the state when compared to other racial groups. Yes, this enriched whites by creating a class of people whose only chance for work was low paying jobs, but it also cost the Government a lot of money in the form of well-fare to make sure their basic needs were met.

All things considered, it would have absolutely been much harder to settle the United States during its days a Colony and its' early history without slavery. The USA was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. That being said, I don't think you can attribute the modern wealth of the United States to slavery. Look at Brazil. It had far more slaves than the USA and today it is on par with other nations in Latin America, not the Western Nations of Europe. Nations can crumble quite quickly, just look at the German Empire from WW1, or the fall of the Soviet Union. A nation can fall in as little as a generation, or even quicker in times of war. Countries do not magically become rich and successful, it is due to a multitude of factors- the most important being geography, abundance of natural resources, and work ethic and ingenuity of its' citizens.

One thing I can say for sure, is that the United States is no accident and the success of the Nation is by no means guaranteed.

[Tiny 12]

There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...lroads-slavery
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...tton-was-king/
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-econ...the-civil-war/

Cotton accounted for more than 50% of exports. It was this that brought much needed capital in to the country and fueld its early development.

Furthermore, the use of slaves allowed USA to clothe the world bcos it could produce cheaper. This fueled development and created a constant demand for import labour. The labour rates were higher than elsewhere in the world due to the use of slaves to do the grunt jobs. And this made the USA an attractive place to settle. And fuel further growth. Its all related.

The population of the USA at the time of the Civil War was as follows.

Union: 18.5 million.

Confederacy: 5. 5 million free men.

Enslaved: 3. 5 million.

https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm

From your third source, income per person in the North (Union) was $150/year. In the South it was $135 year, and of that $135, and of that $135, 25.9%, or $35 per free white, was derived from the earnings of slaves.

Put the numbers together, and you'll see that the researchers would attribute about 5.5% of USA Income to slaves.

Again, as I noted before, there was a long term drop in USA GDP of 18% attributable to the Civil War. The costs of the Civil War to the USA Economy were greater than the value of slavery to the economy.

Your third source also estimates the costs of the Civil War to be $10.4 billion, and the value of slaves at the time of the start of the war to be about $3.3 billion.

Please also note from your source.

"Whatever the effects of the war on industrial growth, economic historians agree that the war had a profound effect on the South. The destruction of slavery meant that the entire Southern economy had to be rebuilt. This turned out to be a monumental task; far larger than anyone at the time imagined. As noted above in the discussion of the indirect costs of the war, Southerners bore a disproportionate share of those costs and the burden persisted long after the war had ended. The failure of the postbellum Southern economy to recover has spawned a huge literature that goes well beyond the effects of the war.

By the end of the century, Southern per capita income had fallen to roughly two-thirds the national level, and the South was locked in a cycle of poverty that lasted well into the twentieth century."

[ChuchoLoco]

I don't have an argument with what you're saying. I'm not a fan of American imperialism. I just don't believe any of that had a significant effect on the wealth of the USA today. Please note that American investment in Venezuela, Mexico and Cuba, among other places, was expropriated. It's possible the Americans ended up losing more money in those countries than they made. And the amount the USA made off of all of Latin America, sans Mexico, is a drop in the bucket compared to size of the current USA Economy.

With respect to Mexico, the descendants of the people living in places like California in 1846, before the Mexican American war, are more prosperous than they would be if Mexico hadn't ceded the land to the USA. And Mexico is more prosperous than it would be otherwise because of trade with and investment by Americans.

Good points. I just wish that I was smarter and made more money probably would have been better self employed but who knows. Selling drugs started when I had just started college and missed some opportunities but too many guys ended up in prison or died young for different reasons so no loss really. I'm fine on my pensions and SS but am not rich. Interesting discussion though.

[Tiny 12]

Have you ever heard of the United Fruit Company and the Dulles brothers and Ike and the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1952 or 53? Just one obvious example. There is also the Monroe Doctrine which gives USA "rights" to the area. Bush 1 invaded Panama and kidnapped Noriega shows that we will do anything to maintain control. It was a totally illegal act. There's so much more too but the abuse started with the Conquest and Spain and Portugal's Colonial years. South America is very rich in natural resources including obviously Venezuela and its oil. China has been down there making friends for the last few years by building stadiums and other public projects and supplying new police cars as in Costa Rica. If it's not about profit, and it usually is, it is about controlling.

The mob controlled Cuba and its wealth. A few rich and most others poor. And guess what happened?

I don't have an argument with what you're saying. I'm not a fan of American imperialism. I just don't believe any of that had a significant effect on the wealth of the USA today. Please note that American investment in Venezuela, Mexico and Cuba, among other places, was expropriated. It's possible the Americans ended up losing more money in those countries than they made. And the amount the USA made off of all of Latin America, sans Mexico, is a drop in the bucket compared to size of the current USA Economy.

With respect to Mexico, the descendants of the people living in places like California in 1846, before the Mexican American war, are more prosperous than they would be if Mexico hadn't ceded the land to the USA. And Mexico is more prosperous than it would be otherwise because of trade with and investment by Americans.

[Tiny 12]

I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.

Yes, right CL. I agree. But it is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing reasons why the USA got wealthy, not allocating blame for it, nor discussing the morlaity of it all. Thats another discussion.

Well, we got here because I maintained that smaller government, as measured by government revenues or expenditures as a % of GDP, is correlated with higher GDP per capita in developed countries. I threw out the USA, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Ireland as examples. You zeroed in on the USA and provided a list of reasons, including slavery, why you believe the USA Is wealthier than other places. You can correct me if I'm wrong -- my memory is a little hazy on this, and I'm too lazy to go back and check.

As to slavery, yes, ChucoLoco is correct. Based on a quick internet search, the Dutch transported at least 500,000 Africans to the New World. In 1800, the population of Holland was about 2 million. So that's about one slave for every Dutch family. It's possible that the Netherlands is slightly more prosperous today than it would be otherwise because of slavery. Dutch slaveowners in Surinam, Curacao and Guyana made lots of money on plantations and shipped some of it back to Holland. While there were insurrections in the Dutch colonies, there was no Civil War in Holland proper, which would have, like the United States, wiped out more than all the wealth that was created through the institution of slavery.

[ChuchoLoco]

Yes, right CL. I agree. But it is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing reasons why the USA got wealthy, not allocating blame for it, nor discussing the morlaity of it all. That's another discussion.

Part of what I see was and is still in existence. It may sound idealistic but immigrants who come here, come for what they see as an opportunity for a better life. In their homeland they have to bust ass just to get by. They come here with the same work ethic and do more than get by. Many learn enough to start their own business. I live in an area that was very industrial and with many early to mid 1900's immigrants from Eastern Europe and that's what many did. Now the immigrants here are mostly Latin Americans who do the same. Some go back to the "old country" and live well on their pensions but most stay here as the now have kids and grandkids that they don't want to leave. I guess that South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are wealthy for similar reasons.

I was just responding to what seemed to me as a bash Americans for success. Also many entrepreneurs from all over the world come here. I ask many immigrants if they could make a decent living at home whether they would stay here or go home. Most would go home.

[ChuchoLoco]

Not sure how aportioning blame jas anytihng to do with it. I am arguing it was an important factor. Doesn't matter who did it.

Just added it because everyone profited except the slaves in one way or another. What gets me is that slavery in South America was primarily for sugarcane and sugar / molasses.

[JustTK]

The French were in Southeast Asia before USA. When I was in grade school it was called French Indo China! Great Britain in the Mideast and India / Pakistan. The USA is no angel but we are not alone or the first bad guys.

Yes, right CL. I agree. But it is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing reasons why the USA got wealthy, not allocating blame for it, nor discussing the morlaity of it all. Thats another discussion.

[JustTK]

I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.

Not sure how aportioning blame jas anytihng to do with it. I am arguing it was an important factor. Doesn't matter who did it.

[ChuchoLoco]

There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...lroads-slavery
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...tton-was-king/
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-econ...the-civil-war/

Cotton accounted for more than 50% of exports. It was this that brought much needed capital in to the country and fueld its early development.

Furthermore, the use of slaves allowed USA to clothe the world bcos it could produce cheaper. This fueled development and created a constant demand for import labour. The labour rates were higher than elsewhere in the world due to the use of slaves to do the grunt jobs. And this made the USA an attractive place to settle. And fuel further growth. It’s all related.

I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.