Friday, December 16, 2011
The Conspiracy Widens
"The bill really satisfied no one and raised a storm of protest when President Hoover signed it in June, 1930. With Tariffs at an all-time record high, there came an unexpected wave of retaliatory actions from America's customers abroad, with the result that U.S. foreign trade took a sharp turn downward and the depression worsened worldwide."............"The Reader's Digest Family Encyclopedia of American History" (enter theme tune from the "Twilight Zone" LOL)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Readers Digest isn't part of a conspiracy, dummy. They've simply bought into the Conservative myth about Smoot Hawley. All one has to do is look at the facts to see how laughably ridiculous the Smoot Hawley fairy tale is.
For the truth on the matter see my blog. I'm not saying I'm the only one who knows the truth... but the misinformation is quite widespread (as Will's post shows)... LOL!
Don't be a gullible dummy like Will and buy into it.
Oh, they bought into the conservative myth. LOL Again, the unemployment rate never hit double digits in the 12 months subsequent to the stock market crash and the rate was actually coming down UNTIL President Hoover signed that idiotic measure. I mean, my God, dude, read an ACTUAL history text for a change (as opposed to puerile, propagandist web-sites, etc.).
Cambridge Economics professor Ha-Joon Chang disagrees with "The Reader's Digest Family Encyclopedia of American History".
According to Chang, "The threat that protectionism could spark a trade war is simply nonsense. It DIDN'T HAPPEN in the 1930s..."
Cambridge Economics professor Ha-Joon Chang says that it COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH that there was an "unexpected wave of retaliatory actions from America's customers abroad" in response to Smoot Hawley.
This narrative you're pushing is pure fantasy.
I'm not pushing any "narrative", dick. I'm simply addressing your palpably absurd assertion that Smoot-Hawley contributing to the Depression is strictly a conservative myth. It ISN'T and I've proved it. If you had simply said, "myth", it probably wouldn't have bothered me. But you had to get that idiotic little partisan dig in, knowing full well ( or maybe not, maybe you're ignorant on this as well) that trade has consistently been an issue that has cut across ideological markers (Smoot-Hawley was passed predominantly by REPUBLICANS and predominantly OPPOSED by Democrats, and since then supported by individuals such as Buchanan and Perot). And of course you're going to find an economist who supports your point of view. It's economics, for Christ's sakes, not controlled experimentation.............And let me ask you something. How do you and your hand-picked expert explain the fact that unemployment was actually going DOWN prior to Smoot-Hawley and went up far more strenuously after?
it took from the crash in October 2008 til March before the market hit bottom. Shit oozes out of the economy's ass Will. We're in a recession at least two wuartetrs before we can technically say we're in a recession.
Nobody is against trade as long as it's fair.
Truth, in all honesty, I actually wouldn't mind hammering the Chinese a little. But we already pissed them off with that tire tariff (to which they've retaliated with a 21% tariff of their own on American made autos - 4 billion a year we sell them and with the growing economy over there it will only get bigger) and the fact that they own so much of our current debt even makes THAT a dicey proposition.............If it makes you feel any better, I read somewhere that, with the rising cost of fuel, taxes, and labor in these emerging countries, manufacturing eventually WILL return to America. It's just not going to return tomorrow.
Will: Yes, as your example shows, tariffs are a lose lose lose lose situation.
How about a perfect compromise? Let the people choose. Instead of the ruling elites kicking the average American in the teeth with a financial penalty for informed economic decisions, let each person choose whether or not to pay a tariff.
Then the jingoists who are so afraid of foreigners can pay it to their hearts content.
Will said: "manufacturing eventually WILL return to America. It's just not going to return tomorrow."
It won't return if the UAW, the AFL-CIO, and similar organizations keep having their way.
What I think might happen, dmarks, is that smaller manufacturing plants will spring up and maybe even more Japanese car plants (which aren't U.A.W.) could emerge. That's what I'm hoping for anyway.
dmarks: It won't return if the UAW, the AFL-CIO, and similar organizations keep having their way.
That's because their "way" is for member workers to be paid a decent wage. dmarks' "way" is for workers to be paid slave wages.
In addition to paying workers LOW LOW wages, Will Hart wants foreign companies to own all the manufacturing in the US??!
Both of you guys have fantastic plans... fantastic if your goal is to destroy the middle class, impoverish America and further enrich the already rich wealthy elites.
I categorically reject both dmarks and Will Hart's "way"... and my reason has absolutely nothing to do with "jingoism". It isn't the responsibility of the US government to see to it that workers in low wage countries have jobs! That's the responsibility of their own governments!
I'm with Cambridge Economics professor Ha-Joon Chang and Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America Ian Fletcher in opposing free trade. People who support this "free trade" nonsense do so because they [1] hate American workers [2] Love the wealthy elites, and/or [3] are just too stupid to see how destructive to America the trade policies they favor are.
dmarks: How about a perfect compromise? Let the people choose. ...let each person choose whether or not to pay a tariff.
That would be as dumb as abolishing all the rules in professional sports... and then telling the players they can follow the rules if they want to, but the most important thing is winning. Obviously nobody would follow the rules.
Truth: Nobody is against trade as long as it's fair.
I'm with you Truth, but people like Will and dmarks strongly oppose trade that is fair. In their minds the only way to make trade fair is to dramatically drive down the wages of American workers. What they forget is that the cost of living in the low wage countries they love is also lower... American workers simply cannot subsist on similar wages!
In the end, what people like Will and dmarks really support is the elimination of the middle class. They want everyone to be poor except for a few wealthy elites. I vehemently oppose their fascism... and say "screw it" if that makes me less "affable".
WD said; "That's because their "way" is for member workers to be paid a decent wage. dmarks' "way" is for workers to be paid slave wages."
These organizations have nothing to do with a decent wage And you are flat-out lying by claiming that I want slave wages. Slaves aren't paid wages.
"In addition to paying workers LOW LOW wages, Will Hart wants foreign companies to own all the manufacturing in the US??!"
I'm pretty sure Will wants everyone paid a fair wage. Is that right Will?
"I categorically reject both dmarks and Will Hart's "way"..."
By rejecting a system where people are paid a fair amount for the real value of work, and supporting instead the government interfering in ways that results in the average American's pocketbook being plundered by the government and massive job losses. You oppose the people and favor fascism.
"and my reason has absolutely nothing to do with "jingoism".
It has everything to do with jingoism, and the hatred of Chinese workers, for example, is just a modern echo of the 'yellow peril' paranoia.
"It isn't the responsibility of the US government to see to it that workers in low wage countries have jobs!"
Actually, it isn't the government's business at all to meddle in matters it has no business meddling in, such as wage levels.
"People who support this "free trade" nonsense do so because they [1] hate American workers [2] Love the wealthy elites, and/or [3] are just too stupid to see how destructive to America the trade policies they favor are."
The opposite is true. People who support free trade (which is fair trade) do so because they respect American workers and feel that they can and will compete well in a level playing field without tariffs and other fascist interventions. And they are informed enough to see how beneficial free and fair trade is.
Again: WD, by all means feel free to choose what countries you buy stuff from. But don't have the government force your personal choices on us..
Letting each individual choose whether or not to pay a tariff is the smarted solution: it leaves the decisions in the hands of the average person, not ignorant and destructive ruling elites.
I strongly support free AND fair trade. In free trade, each person involved decides what is fair. Instead of powerful ruling elites forcing their decisions on us. Decisions that only fit a few of us.
"In the end, what people like Will and dmarks really support is the elimination of the middle class."
Your arguments have nothing to do with the middle class. However, time after time you ARE arguing in favor of the ruling class. They are the ones who get rich off tariffs, while average working class people get money directly robbed from them.
"They want everyone to be poor except for a few wealthy elites."
Not true at all. You have no evidence.
"I vehemently oppose their fascism"
Actually, Will and I are arguing against fascism. Yet you argue again and again for it... for the ruling elites making decisions that should belong to us only
"and say "screw it" if that makes me less "affable"."
Never mind affable. Your consistent opposition for the rights of the people (mostly middle class) to make their own decisions and keep their own hard earned money, and your consistent support for having those who rule over us crush us like bugs only makes me hope that you stay home on any election day.
Nrever
You're only concern is the welfare of the rich and powerful Dmarks.
I value the contribution to our Nation by Working Americans. I believe they deserve a fair wage and benefit package. When you're in your car or on that plane the person that tightened the bolts is far more important than the CEO who you think deserves 99% of the wealth.
You consistently adopt a position that shows hostility towards Working Americans. You're a dupe for the wealthy Dmarks.
dmarks: ...you are flat-out lying by claiming that I want slave wages. Slaves aren't paid wages.
Gee, I wonder, if it doesn't exist, then why is there an entry on Wikipedia for it? According to the online encyclopedia, wage slavery "refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate".
Perhaps dmarks should immediately edit this Wikipedia entry and replace all the text there with, "something that does not exist".
I am not flat out lying about you wanting workers to be paid slave wages... everything you've said here proves that slave wages is exactly what you want.
Truth: You [dmarks] consistently adopt a position that shows hostility towards Working Americans. You're a dupe for the wealthy Dmarks.
Indeed. He argues otherwise, but he isn't fooling us.
There's a lot of nutty stuff in Wikipedia. Including attaching "slavery" to something to make up a bogus concept to somehow make it look outrageous that people need to work for a living, in a situation that does not involve slavery in any way at all.
"I am not flat out lying about you wanting workers to be paid slave wages"
You are, and you are lying again.
1) Slaves are not paid wages. Slaves are typically given a place to live and some rags and some good.
2) I want ALL workers to be paid for the fair value of the work. Which also has nothing to do with slavery.
"everything you've said here proves that slave wages is exactly what you want."
Again... let me call your bluff. Show ONE place.
You can't, you won't. This will be just like your recent claim of me bashing Michael Moore in some unbalanced fashion.
As for Truth's claim "You're a dupe for the wealthy Dmarks."
that is a lame insult, As all of my arguments are for the rights of the average American.
You know, the 90%. Those of us who say "union no".
Is there also a lot of "nutty" stuff in the dictionary dmarks? According to dictionary.com a wage slave is "a person who works for a wage, especially with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from such labor".
Merriam-Webster online says a wage slave is "a person dependent on wages or a salary for a livelihood".
Oxford Dictionaries online, which bills itself as "The world's most trusted dictionaries" says a wage slave is "a person who is wholly dependent on income from employment, typically employment of an arduous or menial nature".
MY GOD dmarks, how incredibly STUPID is it to disagree with the EXISTENCE of a word because you don't like it?!
dmarks: This will be just like your recent claim of me bashing Michael Moore in some unbalanced fashion.
I made no such claim. You're confused, as is often the case.
dmarks: You know, the 90%. Those of us who say "union no".
This is a "factoid" you've pulled out of your ass. It is completely false. The truth is that "nearly 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006. But when workers try to gain a voice on the job by forming a union, employers routinely respond with intimidation, harassment and retaliation".
Those are 60 million who would join a union if they could... that figure doesn't include people already in a union. With a US workforce of approximately 154,731,000 people, I'd say it is probably in excess of 50 percent of America's workers who say "union YES".
Also, the 154,731,000 figure I cited is the civilian workforce. If you add in government workers that assuredly pushes the total of workers who say "union yes" well above 50 percent.
First off, wd, I never said that I wanted ALL U.S. manufacturing to be foreign owned. That was either a mistake on your part or you're lying. Secondly, I very much WANT Japanese car companies to open plants in America. You don't? You want them to open them elsewhere? Really?
As for the harassment argument, I'm sure that there are employers who do do that. But if you don't think that the unions DON'T do it, then you really haven't gotten out much. At my facility, for example, the pro-union people were thoroughly obnoxious. Most of the people who ended up signing those silly cards did so simply to get these people off of their backs. Hell, they even came to my house, for Christ.
Post a Comment