American Politics

[Tiny 12]

You are denying history.

Historian and author Edward E. Baptist explains how slavery helped the US go from a "colonial economy to the second biggest industrial power in the world. ".
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...edward-baptist

History shows slavery helped build many USA Colleges and universities.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2...hackled-legacy

How the Slave Trade Built America. The New York Times. The economic engine of the slave trade helped to fuel America's prosperity.
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...built-america/

I'm not denying history. I'm denying that slavery is a reason why the USA is wealthier, per capita, than most other countries today. And in fact believe the USA would be a slightly more prosperous place if there had never been a slave trade.

I quickly scanned your articles and they don't appear to offer any economic statistics that would back up your claim.

Cotton accounted for 5% of the USA Economy on the eve of the Civil War, and 87% of that cotton was exported. Admittedly, some slaves were not engaged on cotton plantations. But then without slavery, there would still have been cotton production from the South, just not as much. And to produce that 5% of GDP, slave labor wasn't the only input. There was land, agricultural equipment, infrastructure, etc. Anyway, I don't think you can attribute any more than 5% of US GDP to slavery just before the Civil War. I got the 5% from here:

See https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2600103_1.html.

Furthermore, note that,

"The reality is that cotton played a relatively small role in the long-term growth of the US economy. The economics of slavery were probably detrimental to the rise of US manufacturing and almost certainly toxic to the economy of the South. In short: The US succeeded in spite of slavery, not because of it."

Now, see Figure 1 here:

https://www.theigc.org/reader/the-co... so%20 costly.

The Civil War reduced USA GDP by around 18%, and this reduction was maintained for years after the end of the war. The Civil War would not have occurred if slavery never existed. The decline in GDP from the Civil War far exceeded the % of GDP attributable to cotton.

[Tiny 12]

This is a ridiculous claim. The USA would NOT exist if it hadn't genocided the native Americans. I don't know what North America would look like now if it had respected the land rights of its original settlers, it would make for an interesting read.

But certainly the USA would not be what it is.

Here's what you wrote before.

Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order...

Genocide of indigenous population.

I understood you to say that the USA wouldn't be as wealthy if not for the genocide of the indigenous population.

If you actually intended to say the wealth of the people in the lands comprising the present day USA would be higher if European settlers hadn't emigrated to North America and pushed aside the natives, I again have to strongly disagree. I've tried to identify a large country that's sparsely populated, has mineral wealth, and has little or no colonial history. The best I can come up with is Mongolia. GDP per capita in Mongolia is $4500 per year in nominal terms and $12,000 adjusted for purchasing power. Similarly, I don't see any way America, north of the Rio Grande, would be as wealthy as it is today without the settlers of European origin.

I'll reply to your other points later. Maybe to Ram's post on this issue too. He's got a point. We shouldn't have been using the word "genocide" to describe the subjugation of Native Americans in the USA. The word doesn't fit. Here's the definition:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"

I believe most of the deaths were from disease, that is, they weren't intentional killings. And the USA was a piker compared to the Spanish in the New World. I imagine Portugal and Belgium were responsible for a lot more deaths of native peoples than the USA too.

[RamDavidson84]

Oh my word. I never thought I would see the day when I see someone try to deny the genocide. . And then you claim its me that needs to educate myself. Really, I am stunned. Lost for words.

LOL, my bad- Let me word it better, Technically it was borderline genocide as most of them lost their land and way of life and I do see where you are coming from.

Here is a different perspective to consider. Both Jamestown and Plymouth and most early settlements were started as financial investments mainly by the Virginia Company. There goal was to obtain raw materials to be sold back in England- Timber, Tobacco, etc. From the very beginning there was conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans. The Wampanoags in Plymouth and Powhatans in Jamestown. Small violent conflicts escalated into all out wars between the English and the Natives. In Jamestown, the Powhatans raided Jamestown and killed 1/2 of the Colonists in an ambush attack. This lead to a war against them which they lost. In Plymouth, for an entire winter the Wampanoags lead by Chief Massasoit raided village after village killing dozens, men-women-children. This lead to a final showdown between the Plymouth Colonists and the Natives in a battle known as the Swamp Battle, the Natives lost and were brutally slaughtered.

These conflicts continued for the next 100 years until the French and Indian War in which the Natives allied with the French against the English. French lost, but Natives lead by Chief Pontiac kept fighting until the English agreed to give them all lands past the Appalachian Mountains. When colonists lead by Daniel Boone started to settle past the Appalachians, this further angered the Native Americans and when the Revolution broke out, the Natives mostly sided with the British, as the British promised them those same lands. British and Natives lost. They lost all land up to the Mississippi River over the next few years at the hands of American Frontier General William Henry Harrison.

Then when the War of 1812 broke out, again the Natives now being lead by Chief Tecumseh of the Shawnee sided with the British. This war ended in a draw for the British and Americans, but the Shawnee were defeated in the present day midwest and the Creek were defeated by Andrew Jackson and his militia in the South. Following the War of 1812, the Native Americans were far too weak to ever wage a significant war against the United States again. They tried several times to win lands, but each time they failed, until they were too weak to fight.

Andrew Jackson would eventually become president, and he hated Native Americans as he fought against them in two wars. He strongly advocated for the policy of Indian Removal in the 1830's and the five great tribes of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, and Chickasaw were forced to sign treaties which relocated them west. This was basically the end of any real threat from Native Americans after this. Geronimo would lead Apache raids in the Southwest and Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse would lead the Lakota Sioux in small rebellions in the late 1800's, but they never posed any real threats.

This is the real history of what transpired between America and the Native Americans. A very brief one, but I hope I pointed that time and again, Native Americans tried to defeat the Colonists / Americans and unfortunately for them, they never succeeded.

Ask yourself this, Would the Native Americans have treated the colonists or British any different had they won? I doubt it. And yes, technically you could argue this was a genocide, but I would argue this is just one group of people who refused modernize and unite and fought multiple losing wars to the point they were so weak they had no room to negotiate to keep their lands against an enemy they had shown deadly aggression towards for generations.

Now if you are going to claim genocide, please just back it up. Explain your reasoning as to why you consider this a genocide.

[EihTooms]

Don't take this personal, but guys like you are the problem. Your blind loyalty to your party is destroying the country. You refuse to hold representatives accountable for their failures. Do you actually approve of Biden and the Democratic Party's performance?

He has failed on Immigration, Transportation, Inflation, Foreign Affairs, Trade / supply chain issues, high crime rates, promoting agendas which take away funding from law enforcement when we need it most. The list of failures for his administration is astounding, I was shocked the democrats did so well in the midterms and it showed me that sadly, people no longer care about job performance and results. They just blindly vote for candidates who yell things into a microphone that make them feel good in the moment. All the while the ship is slowly sinking and taking us all down with it..

Don't take this personally, but you haven't explained how on earth Biden and the Dems caused any of the spectacular problems Trump and his Repubs left in their typically disastrous Repub economic and national security stewardship wake.

Or, taken from the other view, how a lower unemployment rate, millions of new jobs created at higher wages, millions fully vaccinated and no longer flooding hospitals with Trump's Pandemic virus, paying down Trump's deficit by 100's of billions per year, passing truly historic bipartisan infrastructure legislation, ensuring we will have the advantage and edge on chips production and sales in the future as well as autonomy and independence on our needs, reducing the cost of healthcare for millions in terms of price caps and drug price negotiations, etc, etc, etc and all in less than two years after the worst Repub to Dem hand off in history is "no improvement" and "failure."

$90 billion to Ukraine? Well, at least that's a bit better than the usual pro Repub Bothsider insistence that WE are at war with Russia in Ukraine. You know, as WE were at war in Afghanistan for every second of Trump's so-called presidency from Noon on January 20,2017 to Noon on January 20,2021. But no longer. Thanks, Joe.

$90 billion is a small price to pay to help shore up worldwide democracy to unprecedented heights, also less than two years after Trump and his Repubs spent 4 years doing everything possible to weaken it while Trump sucked Putin's dick on the world stage. Thanks again, Joe.

Highest inflation since Repub Economic Hero Reagan's second year in office when his unemployment rate was in the midst of ten consecutive months of 10%+ after inheriting month over month declines in both for almost a year before he took office vs 3. 7% today? And while Repub Economic Hero Reagan took us from no recession to one of the worst downturns of all time vs the teeny tiny recession today, if any, that nobody can seem to find in the data and can't even be artificially induced by the Fed?

I assume you are aware that laying the groundwork to create and exacerbate Trump's Pandemic and the global supply-chain destruction hyper-inflation it triggered and is still producing had zero to do the Biden and the Dems but plenty to do with a so-call potus from a different Party. But maybe I assume too much.

Your sense of what constitutes "failure" by Biden and the Dems vs any Repub Economic Hero from Hoover to Eisenhower to Reagan to Either Bush to Trump appears to be, nothing personal, showing a bit of bias toward Repubs.

Immigration crisis? In what way? I mean, since Trump decimated the legal immigration system as some kind of "own the libs" prank on his way out and left otherwise legal immigrant refugee candidates little choice but to cross illegally, are they taking any of those two jobs for every unemployed USA citizen available today? I hope so. We need those jobs filled.

How about illegal crossing immigrants' contribution to those Repub-beloved automatic weapon killings in high crime Red States that began to skyrocket again in 2020? Would you say they are a sizable percentage of them? How about likely not even 1% of them.

[Elvis 2008]

Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order:

Relatively new country, previously unexploited / developed.

A large landmass can accommodate large population.

2 expansive coastlines ideal for shipping to several continents.

Temperate climate and fertile land.

Abundant fresh water.

Huge reserves of oil and coal.

That is a good list to start with. I would add navigable river ways, the cheapest way to transport goods. Think I read we have more of them than rest of the world combined. Oil is a weird one. It has been a huge boon for us but a lot of times countries fight over who controls the oil and autocracy follows like Venezuela. That is why some call oil, the Devi's excrement.

Slave trade.

Genocide of indigenous population.

Nah, neither are unique to the USA. USA's greatest economic booms were after slave trade was ended. And indigenous populations were fighting wars prior to our getting here. We just happened to win them.

Lack of participation in 2 world wars.

Long way from Europe and therefore too far to bomb.

I agree the USA is in a very defensible position, and only country that rivals us defense wise is Japan I think. The nonparticipating notion is ridiculous. We did leave the world wars unscathed though while Europe, our principal competitor, was put in a horrible position.

Lots of small countries nearby to invade and exploit.

When you consider a company to United Fruit which did exploit Latin American countries, there was a benefit to doing this but it was peanuts compared to the overall economy. United Fruit took these nations over for bananas. Hence, the term banana republic but if you look at the whole market, bananas are a very, very small part of it.

And I think you are looking at this as a one way street versus the two way street it is.

Millions of unpeople not recorded in stats.

It depends what those people are doing. If they are working, they are helping. If they are on welfare, and many are, they are not. My guess is they are a net positive but I have not seen any data on that subject.

But I think you are missing some big ones unique to the USA. There were so many places in the world where wars over religion were fought. We have had nothing like that and we have put religious freedom in our constitution.

Then there was coming into a nation as an equal. States did not have to do some kind of an internship. And this applied to immigrants as well. With the exception of running for president, immigrants pretty much have the same rights as everyone else when they become citizens. The noble class in Europe was by blood. In the USA, the noble class was the most productive. You can argue whether that is true today or not, but that is how the system was set up.

And although the USA has had its issues with corruption and graft in politics, it is nowhere near as bad as elsewhere. After Hugo Chavez died, I read an article about his daughter and how her father stashed $8 billion in her name in an account. There is nothing on that scale here in the USA.

With the disgusting exception of Bill Clinton, who might be the worst ex-president we have ever had, our ex-presidents live comfortable but not grandiose lives.

[JustTK]

You need to truly study the history of the United States.
It's a dirty move to try and paint a nation as commiting genocide when you clearly have no understanding of the events which transpired. They lost, America won. Numerous times assimilation was tried and Native Americans mostly refused to adopt a European lifestyle. Yes, they were forced to move west, but they were not lined up and gunned down to the point they no longer existed.
Funny how you don't see France and England cry genocide for the wars they lost to America and former colonists.
Please TK, you will thank me later, truly educate yourself on this subject and you will see it as it actually occured. Try to look at historical events from all perspectives without bias.

Oh my word. I never thought I would see the day when I see someone try to deny the genocide. . And then you claim its me that needs to educate myself. Really, I am stunned. Lost for words.

[JustTK]

90 billion to Ukraine? Highest inflation in 40 years? Supply chain crisis? He wants to forgive 200 billion in student loans at the expense of working Americans?

If you are going to make that argument, just back it up with some substance.

I was replying for ET. I wasnt giving my opinion. I was just repeating what he always says in his blinkered view.

[RamDavidson84]

Allow me to answer for ET. Its all the fault of Trump and the Rep Party. Just look at the great history of economic policy during the past century under Dem Party leadership, and the calamities made by the Rp Party. I am not sure we can allow the Rep Party to gain power again otherwise they will destroy our great economy.

90 billion to Ukraine? Highest inflation in 40 years? Supply chain crisis? He wants to forgive 200 billion in student loans at the expense of working Americans?

If you are going to make that argument, just back it up with some substance. I genuinely would like to be proven wrong, because I don't see the American public voting Republican any time soon and my faith in his administration is very low based off the performance of the last 2 years.

[JustTK]

Don't take this personal, but guys like you are the problem. Your blind loyalty to your party is destroying the country. You refuse to hold representatives accountable for their failures. Do you actually approve of Biden and the Democratic Party's performance?

He has failed on Immigration, Transportation, Inflation, Foreign Affairs, Trade / supply chain issues, high crime rates, promoting agendas which take away funding from law enforcement when we need it most. The list of failures for his administration is astounding,

Allow me to answer for ET. Its all the fault of Trump and the Rep Party. Just look at the great history of economic policy during the past century under Dem Party leadership, and the calamities made by the Rp Party. I am not sure we can allow the Rep Party to gain power again otherwise they will destroy our great economy.

[RamDavidson84]

This is a ridiculous claim. The USA would NOT exist if it hadn't genocided the native Americans. I don't know what North America would look like now if it had respected the land rights of its original settlers, it would make for an interesting read.

But certainly the USA would not be what it is.

You need to truly study the history of the United States.

The indigenous population of the present day United States had no land rights because they did not even have a concept of land ownership or even a written language. Are you stating that humans do not have the right to migrate to different lands to increase their quality of life?

This is the law of that time period that decided those decisions. No land is yours unless you can defend it. That was the law of the time period which the civilized nations of the world recognized, "and Indigenous people". If there was a land dispute, it was settled by war and the winner decided who gets what.

It's a dirty move to try and paint a nation as commiting genocide when you clearly have no understanding of the events which transpired. From Jamestown to Plymouth to the French and Indian War to the Revolution and even War of 1812, Native Americans fought against the Colonists and then later on allied with the British against the Americans. Thousands of settlers, men-women-children were brutally slaughtered by Native American raids. These attacks spurred greater conflicts which lead to war. They lost, America won. Numerous times assimilation was tried and Native Americans mostly refused to adopt a European lifestyle. Yes, they were forced to move west, but they were not lined up and gunned down to the point they no longer existed. Even today, 10% of all land in the United States is Native American reservations and their population is in the millions.

Funny how you don't see France and England cry genocide for the wars they lost to America and former colonists.

Please TK, you will thank me later, truly educate yourself on this subject and you will see it as it actually occured. Try to look at historical events from all perspectives without bias.

[JustTK]

As to the genocide of Native Americans, our economy would be larger with the extra population from the descendants of indigenous people.

This is a ridiculous claim. The USA would NOT exist if it hadn't genocided the native Americans. I don't know what North America would look like now if it had respected the land rights of its original settlers, it would make for an interesting read.

But certainly the USA would not be what it is.

[JustTK]

The south is WORSE off today because of slavery. I also suspect the North would be a little better off today if the Civil War would never had occurred. And if there had been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War.

You are denying history.

Historian and author Edward E. Baptist explains how slavery helped the US go from a "colonial economy to the second biggest industrial power in the world. ".
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...edward-baptist

History shows slavery helped build many USA Colleges and universities.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2...hackled-legacy

How the Slave Trade Built America. The New York Times. The economic engine of the slave trade helped to fuel America's prosperity.
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...built-america/

[JustTK]

Invading and exploiting central American and Caribbean countries was probably either a net drain or not meaningful to the USA economy, just like invading nearby countries is a net drain on Putin's Russia.

Absolutely WRONG. Here is a video explanation on US involvement in the Americas since WW2, when the USA told all other Western countries to leave it all alone bcos it was USA hemisphere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwJI9axblQ

Just think of the control of Panama, think about all the South American countries that wer couped so that US indutsrty would dominate. Think about all those islands and countries that were forced to buy USA products. Think about all those wars that were fought using USA weapons. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.

[RamDavidson84]

Which of those factors do you presume were triggered by or exacerbated by Biden and the Dems in "the last few years" while the well-meaning and noble-intentioned Trump and Repubs were trying hard to legislate and steward the ship of country from harms way and into better conditions?

Seriously.

Don't take this personal, but guys like you are the problem. Your blind loyalty to your party is destroying the country. You refuse to hold representatives accountable for their failures. Do you actually approve of Biden and the Democratic Party's performance?

He has failed on Immigration, Transportation, Inflation, Foreign Affairs, Trade / supply chain issues, high crime rates, promoting agendas which take away funding from law enforcement when we need it most. The list of failures for his administration is astounding, I was shocked the democrats did so well in the midterms and it showed me that sadly, people no longer care about job performance and results. They just blindly vote for candidates who yell things into a microphone that make them feel good in the moment. All the while the ship is slowly sinking and taking us all down with it.

When Bush fucked up in Iraq, he didn't get my vote. When economy crashed from Repub. Policies, Romney didn't get my vote. Trump's unprofessional rhetoric and form of politics will have me advocate for any other republican candidate over him. I won't support failure from leaders.

Personally, I believe Biden and the Democratic party have not earned the right to continue their administration as of right now due to their ineffective performance.

Please feel free to enlighten me and elaborate on where I am wrong here.

[PVMonger]

Anybody else here strictly partisan in favor of economic boom times, historic jobs creation, rising wages, paying down deficits, producing all of those notable results of the past 100 years and none of the Great Recessions, Massive Jobs Losses or any other "unprecedented" disasters and along the way passing all, not some, of the most effective and now revered legislation in history?

If you are, please cite all of the political parties who made that happen over the past 100 years and be specific how and when. I will gladly vote for whichever one has done it and just as gladly avoid voting for all the rest.

By my research and easily observable reality, only one political party comes close; the Democratic Party. So they get my proudly partisan vote..

That's the thing about the stupid Repubs. They spew BS and then try to cover it up by saying that all reports of their BS come from "lamestream media" and, therefore, can't be trusted. Mainstream media can't be trusted. Fact check sites can't be trusted. Your own eyes can't be trusted. The only sources that can be trusted, according to dumber-than-dogshit Repubs, are Donnie the Dumbass, Fucker Carlson, FUX Snooze talking heads, "Q", Alex Jones, etc. Sources that, combined, don't have the IQ of the deuce I dropped this morning!

Dems aren't perfect, but at least they try. Repubs don't try. In fact, their only legislative policy is to "own the libs". Here's just the tip of the iceberg https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...term-elections The Repubs campaigned, among other things, about how bad crime was. Unsurprisingly, once the election was over and they lost "bigly", crime wasn't so much of an issue. I have said before that stupid Repubs would begin investigating every Dem whose name they could spell and they have already indicated as much. They have already indicated that they will use the debt ceiling to extract promises from Dems or shut down the government if they don't get those promises. But I won't bother to post any sources because the dumber-than-dogshit Repubs will trash the sources.

[Deleted by Admin]