American Politics

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;2765976]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?[/QUOTE]1. Putin + Covid.

2. Putin + Covid + Trump.

3. Putin + Covid + Trump.

4. Stop it. A huge part of these "billions" is purely political, like the loans that have been defaulted on and won't be repaid anyway.

But enough of that foolishness.

I wonder why no one mentions that genius Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that promised to usher in a new era of economic prosperity. Remember that?

I can't help but notice how no Repubs who decry "Biden's inflation" ever even mention that $3. 5 trillion Trump's unconditional billionaire tax cuts that have done nothing to help the economy.

Has it added any jobs? In the long term. No.

How about renewed investment? In the long term. No.

Did it grow the wages? No.

Has it repatriated jobs back from the overseas? No.

Can we file taxes on a "on a postcard-sized form"? (Remember that joker Paul Rayan?) Hell, no!

No kidding, the Repubs never mention that grandiose failure nowadays like it's never happened.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2766122]Here's what you wrote before.

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

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.

We shouldn't have been using the word "genocide" to describe the subjugation of Native Americans in the USA. 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"

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.[/QUOTE]I don't see why you are disagreeing with me here. It seems we both agree that the extermination of the natives was an important step in the development of the USA and that if it hadn't taken place then the USA would not be what it is today. Indeed the USA would not comprise of the lands that it currently holds. Then why did you initially pick this item from my list to disagree with?

The word 'genocide' - debating the use of the word is a deflection. There are many definitions of words. Let's not play linguistic prescriptivism. We both know what we refer to here. The mass ethnic cleansing of the natives by the soon-to-be USAns.

Also claiming the USA was not as bad as other countries is plain whataboutism and irrelvant to the point. We can debate that at another time if you like. My African history is pretty good. :)

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2766138]Chomsky's about as biased a source as you can find, and he doesn't know any more than you or me about anything except linguistics.
[/QUOTE]Chomsky is one of the most knowledgable US historians of the 20th and 21st century. Read any book or formal document that he has written and you will see that each point he makes is spuuported by official documents. he doesn't just pull stuff out of his arse. He is a true USA patriot and should go down is hiistory as one of the greatest sons of the USA.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2766138]That's over an hour long. I don't have time to watch it. Furthermore, Chomsky's about as biased a source as you can find, and he doesn't know any more than you or me about anything except linguistics.

I think I was probably wrong. The USA Invasion of Mexico in 1846 resulted in Mexico ceding California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming to the USA. That did contribute substantially to American wealth. As to all the other South American, Central American and Caribbean countries, I don't accept that invasion and exploitation by the USA had a significant effect on the USA's current wealth.[/QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE=JustTK;2766218]I don't see why you are disagreeing with me here. It seems we both agree that the extermination of the natives was an important step in the development of the USA and that if it hadn't taken place then the USA would not be what it is today. Indeed the USA would not comprise of the lands that it currently holds. Then why did you initially pick this item from my list to disagree with?

The word 'genocide' - debating the use of the word is a deflection. There are many definitions of words. Let's not play linguistic prescriptivism. We both know what we refer to here. The mass ethnic cleansing of the natives by the soon-to-be USAns.

Also claiming the USA was not as bad as other countries is plain whataboutism and irrelvant to the point. We can debate that at another time if you like. My African history is pretty good.[/QUOTE]The Americans at the time of Manifest Destiny were all recent immigrants from Europe of mostly Western WASP countries as was the same in Africa. You know, the former Colonial Powers who once ruled the world and where most problems today exist. 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.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2766136]
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.
[/QUOTE]There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
[URL]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/americas-first-big-business-railroads-slavery[/URL]
[URL]https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/when-cotton-was-king/[/URL]
[URL]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/[/URL]

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.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2766224]There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
[URL]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/americas-first-big-business-railroads-slavery[/URL]
[URL]https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/when-cotton-was-king/[/URL]
[URL]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/[/URL]

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

[QUOTE=ChuchoLoco;2766229]I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=ChuchoLoco;2766222]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2766245]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2766248]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=ChuchoLoco;2766229]I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JustTK;2766248]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=ChuchoLoco;2766220]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?[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2766319]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2766224]There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
[URL]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/americas-first-big-business-railroads-slavery[/URL]
[URL]https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/when-cotton-was-king/[/URL]
[URL]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/[/URL]

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.[/QUOTE]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.

[URL]https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm[/URL]

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."