Japan had no interest in invading Africa, they knew that UK had that on lockdown and they didn’t have the resources to do it. I am 100% sure that Japanese High Command would of double down on invading Australia over that. The idea behind controlling Indian ocean was to do two jobs. First: Close Burma Road since the Chinese were getting heavy equipment from the US. People forget the bulk of the IJA was in China and China was always the end goal for Japan. Two: Cutting the Persian trade route was more of a request from Germany. People forget that the Battle of Madagascar was the only battle during WWII that had both Germany and Japan in the same battle.
Pre-war Japanese options
-
I voted other, because They need all of that and alot more to beat the us in a war.
Why:
US had way more money than them.
US had more war materials than them!
US men had a battle harden heart because of Pearl harbor. -
@Red:
#1 seems rather simple. Russia had to be kept in the war in order to beat both Germany and Japan. It’s a twofer. Actually it’s a threefer because if Russia goes, most likely Great Britain does as well. And that doesn’t include the many European nations already lost that would not be coming back if Germany prevailed.Â
Let’s not forget, without the USSR’s deal with Hitler, he would have posed less of a threat to Europe. So it’s hard to make a strong case that Germany would have been less of a threat with Russia completely out of the picture.
I would make the opposite case: that if the U.S. was going to enter the war at all, it should have entered it to fight communism and the Soviet Union. A victorious Soviet Union represented a far greater existential threat to the U.S.'s long-term existence than a victorious Germany would have.
I disagree. Fascism is not the answer to communism and never has been. (Although today’s conservatives often consider and propose it as such, a rather disturbing notion.) Some choice, Hitler (with Imperial Japan and Mussolini thrown in) or Stalin. Neither is in any way appealing. Both were mad men bent on world domination and elimination of others.
And the proof of the strategic soundness of the decision that was made is that both Japan and Germany were defeated, Western Europe was liberated, and the threat from the USSR was contained. The most likely result of the other scenario is the U.S. alone standing. It’s a far worse position to start from even if the U.K. somehow survived.
There were two methods by which communist conquest could be achieved. The first was revolution. During the 20th century, communists gained Russia, China, Cuba, and other places primarily through this method.
And why did these nations turn communist? Because of the excesses that encourage communism. Corrupt self-serving strongmen and/or feudal type systems swing hard in the direction of communism whenever the opportunity arises. Propping up bad/autocratic regimes that are allies has short term appeal, but has major negative long term consequences.
The second was military conquest–conquest which added Poland, eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, eastern Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and North Korea to the communist sphere. Having had success with both methods, communists were perfectly willing to use either method against the Western democracies.
All of of these were under the brutal control of Nazis, the Japanese or USSR anyway early in the war, so there is no loss shown from the path taken!
Stalin appears to have made the decision to go forward with his plans to invade Western Europe. However, he died in 1953, before putting those plans into effect.
His successors proved more cautious men. They did not abandon the goal of conquering the Western democracies. But they chose to pursue this goal through revolution, rather than risking an outright war.
This illustrates the problem once again, Hitler was no less ambitious or ruthless than Stalin.
And the thing about communism is that it is run by committee, and that puts limits on what it can accomplish. As long as all out war posed a likely existential threat, it was unwilling to risk it.
How do you kill communism? Contain it and let time take its course. You out compete it economically. (Why do you think China is doing so well today? They are converting to capitalism…a managed form of capitalism reminiscent of Singapore.)
I would argue that the U.S. is far better able to deal with military threats than it is with long-term efforts to weaken its existing social order.
I would agree, but with the opposite conclusion as to what constitutes the worst threat. I don’t fear the idea of workers getting living wages and health care as much as I’m concerned by the strategic ineptitude of the oligarchy, the 0.1% that own and control nearly everything and operate above, beyond, and outside the law with near term greed as the only motivator. We’ve had two depressions in the last century as the result of unfettered canabalistic capitalism and are setting up for a worse one to come because we’ve done nothing to address the problems of the most recent one–unlike in FDR’s time. Regulated free markets work, unregulated ones fail…spectacularly. Even Greenspan had to admit that his operative economic theory (the same one still espoused by the majority of economists) doesn’t work.
p.s. Before anyone starts theorizing about my nomme de guerre it has nothing to do with politics. It was a play on the “grim reaper” theme that I adopted for ACW gaming back in the 90’s. I’ve had Soviet supporters accuse me of being anti-Russian using the name as “evidence”, and Right wingers accuse me of being communist for the same reason.
-
Hm -
enjoying, for the most part -
I voted for Japan to enlarge it’s pilot training program (which was really run more like a pogrom with its treatment of pilots) but in reality I doubt it would have one them the war but made it a closer contest for longer.
I agree with this. I see it as more of an extension than a win. However, extending the war creates opportunity for a win by other means (collapse of the USSR, failure of U.S. invasions in Africa, Italy, etc.) Carriers would work to Japan’s advantage except for the shortage of pilots (as the 2nd half of the war showed.)
The severity of the IJN pilot training program was not a problem in peacetime, the failure was in not relaxing it in preparation for war–failure to adapt. (For comparison, a university will recognize that when many graduates in a given field are needed it is time to relax standards compared to when few are needed–something I’ve witnessed first hand in highly cyclical industries. Early “flunk out classes” become normal prereqs during times of increased demand.)
The Japanese preparation for war is impressive on many levels. The % of GDP they committed to the effort in the years leading up to war is staggering by western standards. I’m an amateur astronomer who appreciates night vision adaptation, so I also am impressed by their extensive preparation for naval night fighting. They were so far ahead of the U.S. that it is embarrassing how ignorant U.S. commanders were of the basic principles. As a visual astronomy buff, I find the pre-war/early war ignorance of basic night vision bewildering. It is second nature to me and I’ve given some basic instructions about it to modern soldiers.
-
@Red:
Carriers would work to Japan’s advantage except for the shortage of pilots (as the 2nd half of the war showed.)
Yes indeed. By late 1944, the shortage of planes and of trained pilots had reduced Japanese naval aviation to such an extent that, at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese Navy used its remaining carriers as a decoy force. And it was widely regarded as a mistake for Halsey to take the bait and pursue the decoy force (which left the American task force at Leyte open to attack by a Japanese battleship force). In mid-1942, at Midway, sinking four Japanese fleet carriers was rightly considered a turning point of the war. In late 1944, sinking four Japanese carriers (including a fleet carrier) didn’t have the same importance because those carriers were essentially like guns without bullets (which is one reason why the Japanese were willing to expend them on a decoy action).
-
@Red:
I disagree. Fascism is not the answer to communism and never has been. (Although today’s conservatives often consider and propose it as such, a rather disturbing notion.) Some choice, Hitler (with Imperial Japan and Mussolini thrown in) or Stalin. Neither is in any way appealing. Both were mad men bent on world domination and elimination of others.
I have not proposed fascism as “the answer” to communism. But given a choice between the two–which is what things boiled down to, at least for Eastern and Central Europe–fascism was less bad than communism.
I also disagree with the assertion that either Hitler or Stalin were insane. To me, insanity implies a basic disconnect with reality. I would argue that having some awareness of reality is useful in rising to power–as both Hitler and Stalin did–just as it’s necessary to remain in power. Both men were brutal, and Stalin was bloodthirsty. Neither were insane.
It is also false to assert that either Hitler or Mussolini were bent on world domination. Hitler had no desire for an overseas empire, which is why German naval spending was never much more than 10% of the overall military budget; and why in 1940 Hitler made no real effort to conquer Africa or the Middle East. The desire for world domination and one world government is one of the basic tenets of Marxism. This is an important point of difference between Marxism and Nazism.
@Red:
And the proof of the strategic soundness of the decision that was made is that both Japan and Germany were defeated, Western Europe was liberated, and the threat from the USSR was contained. The most likely result of the other scenario is the U.S. alone standing. It’s a far worse position to start from even if the U.K. somehow survived.
“Still standing” being a relative term here. I would argue that both the U.S. and Western Europe are on a path of long-term decline; and that internal sources of strength which may have existed a century ago are slowly slipping away. I would also argue that WWII represented a war in which we sided with the one nation which represented the greatest long-term threat (the Soviet Union) and against the nation with the most willingness and ability to contain that threat (Germany).
The only reason this policy did not result in Europe being overrun by communists was because of America’s nuclear arsenal. That same arsenal could have been just as effective at supplying a deterrent to a victorious Germany or Japan. It’s also worth noting that in the postwar era, a new breed of Republicans strongly favored an anti-communist foreign policy. (As opposed to the old breed of Republicans, who were isolationists, or the Democrats, who like FDR were often pro-communist.)
The second was military conquest–conquest which added Poland, eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, eastern Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and North Korea to the communist sphere. Having had success with both methods, communists were perfectly willing to use either method against the Western democracies.
@Red:
All of of these were under the brutal control of Nazis, the Japanese or USSR anyway early in the war, so there is no loss shown from the path taken!
This is false. Finland, for example, was a German ally, but not under German control. I realize this may seem like I’m quibbling about details, but bear with me. The loss of Finland’s eastern territory to the Soviet Union resulted in 12% of the Finnish population fleeing westward to escape the brutality of Soviet occupation.
Another example is the Baltic States. “10% of the entire adult Baltic population was deported or []sent to labor camps](http://[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union#Ethnic_operations).” “It is estimated that Lithuania lost almost 780,000 citizens as a result of Soviet occupation, of which around 440,000 were war refugees.[29]” In contrast, the Nazis regarded non-Jewish Balts as being fairly similar to Germans; and had intended to add the Baltic States to Germany.
But the ultimate example occurred in Germany itself.
Fleeing before the advancing Red Army, large numbers of the inhabitants of the German provinces of East Prussia, Silesia, and Pomerania died during the evacuations, some from cold and starvation, some during combat operations. A significant percentage of this death toll, however, occurred when evacuation columns encountered units of the Red Army. Civilians were run over by tanks, shot, or otherwise murdered. Women and young girls were raped and left to die (as is explored firsthand in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Prussian Nights).[51][52][53] In addition, fighter bombers of the Soviet air force penetrated far behind the front lines and often attacked columns of evacuees.[51][52]
The Red Army’s violence against the local German population during the occupation of eastern Germany often led to incidents like that in Demmin, a small city conquered by the Soviets in the spring of 1945. Despite its surrender, nearly 900 civilians committed suicide, fueled by instances of pillaging, rape, and executions.[citation needed]
Although mass executions of civilians by the Red Army were seldom publicly reported, there is a known incident in Treuenbrietzen, where at least 88 male inhabitants were rounded up and shot on May 1, 1945. The incident took place after a victory celebration at which numerous girls from Treuenbrietzen were raped and a Red Army lieutenant-colonel was shot by an unknown assailant. Some sources claim as many as 1,000 civilians may have been executed during the incident.[notes 1][54][55] . . .
Following the Red Army’s capture of Berlin in 1945, one of the largest incidents of mass rape took place. Soviet troops raped German women and girls as young as eight years old.
@Red:
And the thing about communism is that it is run by committee, and that puts limits on what it can accomplish. As long as all out war posed a likely existential threat, it was unwilling to risk it.
I don’t think very many committee members would have been willing to oppose something Stalin or Mao wanted. Or if they did, they would not live to make that mistake twice.
It’s also worth noting that the type of person who proved very good at the committee-based infighting proved, at least in the case of Stalin and Mao, to be the most execrable type of human being imaginable.
@Red:
How do you kill communism? Contain it and let time take its course. You out compete it economically. (Why do you think China is doing so well today? They are converting to capitalism…a managed form of capitalism reminiscent of Singapore.)
Had they chosen it, the Soviets could have done what communist China has done. Namely, to employ a capitalist economic structure while retaining an authoritarian regime. Pro-communists like FDR, working in the '40s, had no way of knowing that the Soviet system would collapse in the late '80s. Or if FDR did know that, then one has to wonder why so many of his own policies were so akin to communism.
I would argue that the U.S. is far better able to deal with military threats than it is with long-term efforts to weaken its existing social order.
@Red:
I would agree, but with the opposite conclusion as to what constitutes the worst threat. I don’t fear the idea of workers getting living wages and health care as much as I’m concerned by the strategic ineptitude of the oligarchy, the 0.1% that own and control nearly everything and operate above, beyond, and outside the law with near term greed as the only motivator. We’ve had two depressions in the last century as the result of unfettered canabalistic capitalism and are setting up for a worse one to come because we’ve done nothing to address the problems of the most recent one–unlike in FDR’s time. Regulated free markets work, unregulated ones fail…spectacularly. Even Greenspan had to admit that his operative economic theory (the same one still espoused by the majority of economists) doesn’t work.
I agree with a portion of what you’ve written in the above paragraph, while strongly disagreeing with other portions. First, I’ll address the causes of the Great Depression. I agree that one contributing factor was inadequate regulation in one specific area. Namely, there was nothing to prevent inaccurate corporate reporting. People had to guess how much of corporate reports were accurate, and how much were fiction. During times of optimism people assumed the best, and during pessimistic times they assumed the worst. Another source of the Great Depression was bank failure. This was not a case of absent regulation, so much as it was of misguided regulation which made banks more likely to fail. A third source was the Federal Reserve. Its monetary policy was far too pro-growth during the Roaring Twenties. Conversely, the Fed had tightened credit far too much in the months leading up to the crash. A fourth (and very important) source of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and the resulting trade barriers which were erected around the world. The collapse of free trade was devastating to the world economy. Of the four main sources of the Great Depression, one involved the government taking too little action; the other three involved it taking misguided actions.
This is not to say that an unfettered free market is perfect; because it clearly is not. But if the government becomes involved, politicians ought not to act like economic idiots! Unfortunately, the average Washington politician does not understand the fundamentals of economics, and is not qualified to tamper with the economy. This makes it difficult for the government to engage in enlightened economic involvement where necessary (for example by requiring accurate corporate reporting) while refraining from involvement in cases where doing so would cause more harm than good.
Incidentally, FDR’s administration did not solve the problem of non-enlightened government interference in the economy. On the contrary: his administration’s actions represented misguided government interference the like of which has never been seen in the U.S. either before or since.
It is incorrect to imply (as you seem to have done above) that communist influence in this country has been exerted to guarantee workers a living wage or healthcare. Their end objective is the destruction of the existing social order as a precursor to revolution. Their positions on issues should be examined with that goal in mind.
For example, wages are the result of supply and demand. A relatively small workforce + high demand for labor = high wages. Demand for labor increases as individual workers become more productive. If an average worker can produce 20 widgets an hour instead of ten, that makes corporate owners eager to hire more workers! Communists have supported high paperwork requirements, complex regulations, and other burdens which greatly lower worker productivity. They have also formed an unholy alliance with American corporations in an effort to increase immigration rates. Communists favor high immigration as a means of eliminating Western Civilization in the U.S. and Europe. Corporations (correctly) see high immigration as a means by which to drive down wage rates. The measures communists favor lead to a large labor force + low worker productivity. Together, these factors imply a low free market wage rate. If one then attempts to artificially boost the wage rate through high minimum wages, the result will be a high unemployment rate. A high unemployment rate is not necessarily unwelcome to communists, because it increases the number of people who have to depend on government handouts for their next meal.
-
But given a choice between the two–which is what things boiled down to, at least for Eastern and Central Europe–fascism was less bad than communism.
Hmmmm… I’ll take death by firing squad. No, wait. Lethal injection. No, firing squad. You know what? I really don’t want either one. RUN!
-
I also disagree with the assertion that either Hitler or Stalin were insane. To me, insanity implies a basic disconnect with reality. I would argue that having some awareness of reality is useful in rising to power–as both Hitler and Stalin did–just as it’s necessary to remain in power. Both men were brutal, and Stalin was bloodthirsty. Neither were insane.
Agree. Demon possessed, maybe, but not insane.
-
Really enjoyed that post, Kurt.
-
I have not proposed fascism as “the answer” to communism. But given a choice between the two–which is what things boiled down to, at least for Eastern and Central Europe–fascism was less bad than communism.
No, it pretty much reads that way unfortunately. So I will repeat: Fascism is no more the answer and no less dangerous than communism. Given the remoteness/lack of immediacy of the communist threat compared to Germany and Japan, the decision is an easy one.
I also disagree with the assertion that either Hitler or Stalin were insane. To me, insanity implies a basic disconnect with reality. I would argue that having some awareness of reality is useful in rising to power–as both Hitler and Stalin did–just as it’s necessary to remain in power. Both men were brutal, and Stalin was bloodthirsty. Neither were insane.
There moral compass and behaviour are both so far outside the realm of normal that insane seems the appropriate descriptor. Completely self-absorbed, paranoid, and exceedingly brutal. (And Hitler seems to have been less in touch with reality as things progressed.)
The only reason this policy did not result in Europe being overrun by communists was because of America’s nuclear arsenal. That same arsenal could have been just as effective at supplying a deterrent to a victorious Germany or Japan.
Except that the arsenal might very well not have existed in your scenario. And certainly it would not have been demonstrated in advance so the deterrent really didn’t exist.
It’s also worth noting that in the postwar era, a new breed of Republicans strongly favored an anti-communist foreign policy. (As opposed to the old breed of Republicans, who were isolationists, or the Democrats, who like FDR were often pro-communist.)
That is crossing over into the extreme right wing revisionist form of history with the “pro-communist” assertion. It’s a rehash of the same bunk that McCarthy was spewing.
One could make a far stronger argument to say that FDR and the Democrats of the 1930’s are why the U.S. did not end up with a communist revolution. Providing jobs programs and a social safety net is not communism as much as you try to make it so. The alternative would have been a far greater number of unemployed young and middle-aged men with only a worsening economic future on the horizon…this is how revolutions occur.
This is false.
No, it is not false. I’m aware of the history. And as I recall Hitler sold out the Finns in 1939 (as well as the Baltic States).
Generalplan Ost was Hitler’s solution. He was only able to implement a portion of it, because much of it was to be conducted after military conquest of the USSR. So the argument about relative Nazi benevolence lacks merit. However, it would understandably be more appealing to Germans than Soviet domination.
Pro-communists like FDR, working in the '40s, had no way of knowing that the Soviet system would collapse in the late '80s. Or if FDR did know that, then one has to wonder why so many of his own policies were so akin to communism.
This “pro-communist” bit is fiction most often stated by the fringe right wingers who make the birther & secret muslim arguments today. It isn’t credible.
First, I’ll address the causes of the Great Depression. I agree that one contributing factor was inadequate regulation in one specific area. Namely, there was nothing to prevent inaccurate corporate reporting. People had to guess how much of corporate reports were accurate, and how much were fiction. During times of optimism people assumed the best, and during pessimistic times they assumed the worst. Another source of the Great Depression was bank failure. This was not a case of absent regulation, so much as it was of misguided regulation which made banks more likely to fail.
I’m sorry, are you talking about the Great Depression or the present day? Because the problems then and now are largely the same. What caused the stockmarket bubbles in 2000 and the housing crash later in the decade: Intentionally misleading corporate reports (hiding debt off books), improper risk analysis by lenders, investors, industry and regulators (who operated then and now as an organ of the industry rather than as a referee.) The difference is that many of the issues were addressed in the 30’s. Those regs were removed and/or unenforced in recent decades. Misleading/false financial reporting is the norm–which is why I’ve stopped investing in U.S. companies despite the government’s best efforts to make it the only option (by eliminating any sort of reasonable interest return.)
The banks failed in the Great Depression because there was no safety net for them and they were overleveraged. The ONLY reason this didn’t repeat as fully this time around is because there is the FDIC and govt. to prop up insolvent institutions. The banks again got heavily over leveraged. This time derivatives had a large hand in forcing failures of some kinds of institutions–but of course we have not regulated them. No, we left the implement of destruction untouched–the one that rewards faulty risk analysis and provides no benefit to the economy or society. The CDS swaps actually took individual risk and made it capable of destroying the entire system in one fell swoop. Privatizing profits and socializing losses has been the “solution” that the corporate conservatives pulling the strings have agreed upon (and yes, I include the current administration in that group of corporate conservatives.)
third source was the Federal Reserve. Its monetary policy was far too pro-growth during the Roaring Twenties. Conversely, the Fed had tightened credit far too much in the months leading up to the crash.
There is a major problem with simply blaming the Great Depression on the Fed, major recessions/depressions occurred before the Fed existed. Things have been actually more stable since its creation. Although that doesn’t excuse obvious mistakes. But it was the lack of effective oversight of the credit/monetary policy that created the problem.
Same basic thing happened again this time around with regards to loose credit, with no risk analysis or oversight. Greenspan saw to it that actual regulation didn’t exist. And when the developing problem was brought to his attention he didn’t believe it.
The overarching problem over the past 11+ years is that supply siders (who can’t operate a calculator or read a graph from what I’ve seen), supported by Greenspan’s testimony cut our govt. revenue during good times driving us into deficit then, and resulting in deficits that are enormous now. (The result of all this supply siding excess that was supposed to be so stimulative has been the lowest economic growth rate of the modern era–a complete refutation of the whole premise.) They blew a massive bubble. Now in the aftermath we are stuck with exceptionally low interest rates trying to keep the economy from going into a Great Depression mode. We’ve got a consumer debt overhang that will take decades to work off. Meanwhile, we refuse to restore the lost govt revenue and at the same time won’t do the needed actual economic stimulus because it is so expensive. Tax cuts are very ineffective economic stimulus, and are ironically weakest stimulus for the highest tax brackets…so that’s all that we can get through with the supply siders in control. The economy needs to lift itself up by the bootstraps, but we won’t spend the money to do it.
Ironically, it isn’t the communists who endanger capitalism and drive us toward athoritarian rule, it is the short term thinking of capitalists that seems to pose the most threat today. As economic conservative Herbert Hoover said, “The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They’re too damned greedy.”
A fourth (and very important) source of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and the resulting trade barriers which were erected around the world. The collapse of free trade was devastating to the world economy.
It was already well underway by the time that bit of Republican folly was passed. Appears to be another manifestation of agricultural conservative policies.
Of the four main sources of the Great Depression, one involved the government taking too little action; the other three involved it taking misguided actions.
Actually the count is about 4 to 1 or perhaps 3 to 2 the other way as I’ve pointed out. (You didn’t include the lack of effective stimulus early on. That was the primary missing action that produced the death spiral.)
This is not to say that an unfettered free market is perfect; because it clearly is not. But if the government becomes involved, politicians ought not to act like economic idiots! Unfortunately, the average Washington politician does not understand the fundamentals of economics, and is not qualified to tamper with the economy. This makes it difficult for the government to engage in enlightened economic involvement where necessary (for example by requiring accurate corporate reporting) while refraining from involvement in cases where doing so would cause more harm than good.
The average economist rarely gets it right. Sorry, but it’s a social science about people’s behaviour with money, and it has more than its share of quackery. It’s relationships are largely empirical constructs to describe general theories and the primary theories are divergent. Unfortunately the field is heavily overweighted by economic/corporate conservatives who have been the primary causes of the Great Depression, this Great Recession, and massive deficits.
And who has proven least competent at running the economy or budget? Business types (Dubya, Hoover) and economists like Greenspan!
Recently I’ve had a ringside seat for watching local govt. pick up the tab for the repeated failures of private enterprise and it has greatly undercut faith I had in private sector decision making/competence. Unlike business, local govt. can’t just shut down and walk away from its debts and commitments and let somebody else pay to clean up its mistakes. It’s costing jobs and services to pay for those businesses mistakes, because the budget has to balance.
Incidentally, FDR’s administration did not solve the problem of non-enlightened government interference in the economy. On the contrary: his administration’s actions represented misguided government interference the like of which has never been seen in the U.S. either before or since.
There were aspects of overreach and trying to control portions of the economy that produce the opposite of the intended effect. However, he got more right than wrong. By comparison any conservative approach would have been catastrophic. The one contraction that occurred was when conservatives forced FDR to adopt some austerity measures for 1937…
It is incorrect to imply (as you seem to have done above) that communist influence in this country has been exerted to guarantee workers a living wage or healthcare.
Uh, I never implied that, you did when you equated having a party stand up for the little guy as being “pro-communist”. Communist influence in the U.S. is about nil.
For example, wages are the result of supply and demand. A relatively small workforce + high demand for labor = high wages. Demand for labor increases as individual workers become more productive. If an average worker can produce 20 widgets an hour instead of ten, that makes corporate owners eager to hire more workers! Communists have supported high paperwork requirements, complex regulations, and other burdens which greatly lower worker productivity. They have also formed an unholy alliance with American corporations in an effort to increase immigration rates. Communists favor high immigration as a means of eliminating Western Civilization in the U.S. and Europe. Corporations (correctly) see high immigration as a means by which to drive down wage rates. The measures communists favor lead to a large labor force + low worker productivity. Together, these factors imply a low free market wage rate. If one then attempts to artificially boost the wage rate through high minimum wages, the result will be a high unemployment rate. A high unemployment rate is not necessarily unwelcome to communists, because it increases the number of people who have to depend on government handouts for their next meal.
I’ve got no idea what you are going on about in this paragraph (or what country you area applying it to), but it isn’t valid or real world economics and it is self refuting from many angles. I sense some xenophobia as well.
If fewer workers can produces more widgets, then the employer uses fewer workers to supply the market…and pockets the additional profit from reduced labor cost. See record corporate profits, little reinvestment, and high unemployment that have characterized this “recovery.” Our low capital gains tax and negligible effective estate tax discourages reinvestment/hiring and encourages wealth accumulation.
We have very high worker productivity in the U.S. and yet we have also had have high immigration. (Or take a look at Singapore very high immigration.) As a result of the recession our unemployment has risen and immigration has fallen off… Actually, one of the issues to consider is that it takes a certain amount of immigration growth to keep the economy healthy. Everything they are paid goes right back into it…unlike the top 1% who accumulate but don’t spend or reinvest or create jobs for the most part. For the past ~20 years real wages have declined, and the vast majority of the population has not gained net worth, while the wealthiest have done extremely well, basically capturing all of the wealth growth over the same period.
Companies aren’t closing because of overregulation…actually quite a few collapses occur because of lack of regulation (crooks in charge and resulting in company destroying disasters.) They are closing plants to relocate in the cheapest labor markets (because there are no economic barriers such as tariffs and they can offshore their earnings.) They are closing/failing because they refuse to anticipate and adapt (see Kodak.) They want to produce decades old tech that is not in demand/or only in our regional markets, and ignore future demand drivers. You can lead the world or you can follow. If you follow your standard of living will suffer.
Companies that fail typically are in shrinking markets burdened with a large overhead for health care and retiree benefits, plant investment, other obligations. They can’t survive shrinkage. So when they fail to anticipate or adapt, they collapse. Ironically, if the nation controlled its health care costs and had universal coverage like others do, this would be less of a problem…but until recent years the corporate types opposed this.
-
Thank you red for doing that, I agree with you 100% but this is getting way to political and we really need to get back on topic, as none (or rather very little) has anything to do with Japan’s pre-war options
-
Seconded. Stay on Topic.
-
Objection your honor!
-
@Imperious:
Seconded. Stay on Topic.
I didn’t want to go there, but I’ve noticed the person I responded to going down this same extreme right wing/xenophobic sales pitch several times in history threads lately.
I have a difficult time with the premise of the Hitler-was-really-a-misunderstood-teddy-bear/commies-are-everywhere-in-the-US and are destroying the “social order” theory.
-
My comment was entirely directed at the writer of posts as long as a magazine article having no bearing on the topic.
-
@Red:
@Imperious:
Seconded. Stay on Topic.
I didn’t want to go there, but I’ve noticed the person I responded to going down this same extreme right wing/xenophobic sales pitch several times in history threads lately.
I have a difficult time with the premise of the Hitler-was-really-a-misunderstood-teddy-bear/commies-are-everywhere-in-the-US and are destroying the “social order” theory.
I have done my best to avoid misrepresenting anything you have written. Why, then, have you chosen to misrepresent, distort, and exaggerate what I have written?
-
Hehe, assuming he won’t really answer that, I’ll answer the question.
Because he wants to make his opinions known by whatever means necessary, and to the extent that you disagree with him, you are an obstacle to his goal. :-) That’s normally why any of us misrepresents, distorts, and exaggerates….
Realizing, of course, that that was probably just a rhetorical question you asked, to communicate your displeasure with his tactics… :-)
-
So in closing…
The best pre-war option for the JapanAPES was NOT to go to war?
-
Hehe, assuming he won’t really answer that, I’ll answer the question.
Oh, I’ll gladly answer. I’ve not misrepresented anything. Kurt’s posts are disturbing in that they employ political dog whistles and disinformation to promote the same sort of sentiment, and race/ethnicity/religion based view I’ve heard expressed by the the Klan. (And I heard it directly, because some of the imbeciles tried to recruit me when I moved South…they ain’t the sharpest pencils in the box.) Repeating the McCarthyite accusations is unacceptable and brings one’s judgement into question. When I see that sort of crap posted, I will respond.
-
I’ve heard expressed by the the Klan. (And I heard it directly, because some of the imbeciles tried to recruit me when I moved South…
What were you doing hanging out with KLAN members - so much so that they asked you to join?
If that’s NOT disinformation then that’s Disturbing! Â Do you have a membership with them? Â
Quick! Someone dial 1-800-FBI! or ATF? CIA? FCC!
And you know what else?
Repeating the McCarthyite accusations is unacceptable
Clamping down on FREEDOM OF SPEECH is unacceptable, despite however WRONG KurtGodel may be. Â He is entitled to his position and understanding, and we are entitled to agree or disagree, and have our own positions. Â With the only exception being, that this forum is regulated by it’s own set of rules to prevent discussions like this from getting out of control.
And WHO ARE YOU to question judgments! Â Is your judgment somehow superior to the rest of everyone elses? Â Do you have a membership to some kind a priveledged club we’re not allowed to be part of? Â :P
You’re right, you haven’t misrepresented anything, especially not bigotism.
Suggested Topics
