7 ms·

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

by mrpopo 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago
The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. In WW1, for example, the German soldiers knew they had lost when the Americans arrived, well equipped, tall, and fat with food. The Japanese soldiers had a similar reaction when facing GIs in WW2. Of course, with free markets and prosperity, the Germans and Japanese have since caught up. (In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them.)
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Note that you're talking in the past tense.
- whateveracct 5y ago
  > In WW2, the US was able to.. This even understates it. WW2 resulted in the US being the major world power due to everything you list and more. A true historical turning point.
- FranzFerdiNaN 5y ago
  The US could do all that because they removed the free market from the economy. Everything was turned into a planned economy to feed the war effort. Free markets would have completely failed in this case.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Um, the government contracted with and paid private companies to produce armaments, because B-17s are of no use to consumers.
- mulvya 5y ago
  > In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them. The US nationalized many industries during WWII. From 'U.S. not always averse to nationalization, despite its free-market image'[1] "In times of war and national emergency, Washington has not hesitated. In 1917, the government seized the railroads to make sure goods, armaments and troops moved smoothly in the interests of national defense during World War I. Bondholders and stockholders were compensated, and railroads were returned to private ownership in 1920, after the war ended. During World War II, Washington seized dozens of companies including railroads, coal mines and, briefly, the Montgomery Ward department store chain." [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-nationalize.4.16915416.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13... Edit: this appears to be a definitive account of wartime nationalization. Industrialists in Olive Drab https://www.amazon.com/Industrialists-Olive-Drab-Operations-Industries/dp/1507664699 https://www.amazon.com/Industrialists-Olive-Drab-Operations-... "the individual most closely involved with this effort, recounts the unique story of Ohly and his compatriots who were charged with the mission of guaranteeing that private companies sustained the vital war production of weapons, munitions, and other materiel needed by America's fighting men and the Allies to achieve victory overseas" Full PDF: https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-32-1/CMH_Pub_70-32-1.pdf https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-32-1/CMH_Pub_70-3... ------- Rather, it was having access to 1) continent-wide natural resources and 2) no combat theatre domestically which would have disrupted manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, not to mention civilian life and morale.
  - thu2111 5y ago
    The book you cite doesn't seem to support your argument. Firstly, you say they nationalized many industries but the book talks about individual companies. Nationalizing an industry means nationalizing every company within that industry. Secondly, this does not appear to have been motivated by the failure of capitalism but rather the opposite. It was done in response to union strikes. Unions are usually understood as being against capitalism and free markets; they want to replace individuals "voting with their wallet" by collectively taking control from management via committees of (frequently communist leaning or outright communist) representatives of the workers. Thirdly, it says quite clearly that as late as 1943 the War Department had done so few of these seizures that it amounted to "barely a dozen". By the end of the war they had seized around 60. That's a drop in the ocean of the US economy, which is why it's not well known. So this example doesn't really seem to argue against the notion that the US won because of free market capitalism. The only places where they had to step in and become authoritarian (very briefly) were places where capitalism was breaking down thanks to communist agitation.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  That's all nice and rosy but current picture is veering from this away more and more. Class mobility in US is largely a self-perpetuating myth. And US, say compared to Europe is clearly class-based social system where divider is your wealth. So when you come in poor, you stay relatively poor, and can hope your children will fare better (and most don't). Your WWI remarks are not correct (any fresh joining recruits would compare well to starved demoralized decimated trench troops). Read some german WWI literature, they didn't care much US specifically joining the fight, it was just more enemies. If Australians would come, it would be the same.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Class mobility in US is largely a self-perpetuating myth. I personally know several millionaires who arrived in America with a suitcase and a dream. > class-based social system where divider is your wealth. The usual definition of a class is legal privilege based on your parents. This does not exist in the US. > So when you come in poor, you stay relatively poor, and can hope your children will fare better (and most don't). People aren't desperately trampling 1000 miles and throwing their kids over the wall just to be poor. In America, they have freedom and a darn good chance to do well. Communist countries are different, they have to build walls to keep their citizens from escaping Utopia. > Read some german WWI literature I've read about WW1 from actual historians. What do think the beaten down German soldiers would have thought encountering masses of American troops better equipped and far better fed than they ever were?
- mrpopo 5y ago
  > The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. This is not true, historians collectively agree that Korea has seen the most spectacular rise. Also, your comment was spectacularly off-topic and anachronistic. A country being a manufacturing powerhouse during WW2 doesn't mean that immigrants have a fair chance today. First they need to be able to enter, then they need to be able to succeed. That's the topic.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > historians collectively agree I'm not buying that. S. Korea's population is 51 million. The US elevated far more. Besides, SK's economy is free market, not communism. > First they need to be able to enter, 100,000 per month are flooding over the border. > then they need to be able to succeed. Evidently they believe they can, or they wouldn't come. As for around here in Seattle, there are immigrants everywhere. I jog through the park most days, and I hear languages from all over the world. They have their stereos blasting away, and large families with kids running around, and parked cars line the street. The smells coming from their cooking are delightful, I wish they'd offer me a bite :-) Looks to me like they're doing very well. I have no idea how you can conclude that the American door to immigration is shut, or that they are doing badly.
    - gverrilla 5y ago
      Ask them for a bite. There's a collective spirit to food in a lot of cultures - particularly the poor ones.
    - mrpopo 5y ago
      > S. Korea's population is 51 million. The US elevated far more. You can't talk about countries with relative sizes and use absolute numbers. If you want to use this fallacy, I can tell you that the US is dwarfed by the whole of Asia. Anyway, the original argument was that the USA isn't a country where everyone has a fair chance, but you absolutely want to turn it into anti-communist, pro-free-market propaganda.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Emphasis here is on the past tense. There are several reasons to challenge this: 1. The USA had (and still has) unprecedented resources per population. Why is your claim not still the case? 2. Immigrants tend to be people with the means to immigrate. That's rarely people in relative poverty, unless you intended to mean slaves.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    In the past, a lot of (non-slave) people immigrated to the USA precisely because they were impoverished -- for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, among many others. > "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Whether those words are as appropriate today may be another matter, of course.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Something like 100,000 people per month are flooding into America via the southern border. What are they fleeing from?
      - mellavora 5y ago
        crime fueled by America's War on Drugs.
      - jfk13 5y ago
        I'm curious if that's a figure for the number who enter and remain long-term, or does it include those who are quickly detained and expelled? I.e. does the Mexican border account for a million-plus annual increase in overall US population?
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      > for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, I understand this example to be of historical note because it was exceptional. Many people came over for the promise of farmland or gold or something that they could capitalise on.
- maest 5y ago
  > The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. China has arguably beaten (or is close to beating) that in very recent history.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Perhaps - but they're doing it with free markets, not communism.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      It’s funny that you are getting downvoted, what you are saying is not controversial and well accepted. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-secret-document-that-transformed-china https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-...
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        If karma points meant anything, I'd probably write what people wanted to hear :-)
- adrianN 5y ago
  China is also seeing large numbers of people rising from abject poverty to a "western" more affluent lifestyle. I don't think that this is a terribly good yardstick for fairness and freedom in a society.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    This rising is due to China turning away from communism and towards economic freedom. Communism utterly failed at making China affluent. Free markets succeeded.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Sure, that's probably an important reason. But free markets can exist in an unfree and unfair society.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        I was careful to write economic freedom.
    - crispyambulance 5y ago
      > China turning away from communism... If you were to ask the Chinese Communist Party, whether or not they "turned away" from Communism, I think the answer would be a hard "NO". China has a complicated economy. If anything, China demonstrates that Communism and Capitalism can be made to co-exist in a weird disconcerting way. I don't think it's a particularly good model for how to run things, especially when mixed-in with authoritarian leadership. Let's not forget, however, that China is far from an "affluent" country. If your definition of affluent is focused on measurements like income and net worth of the population, China as a whole still falls well outside of affluent. Yes, there's a sliver of population that is wealthy even by international standards, but the bulk of the population has income in the low $100's of dollars per month. That's what enables China to be the factory to the world. Is it going to stay that way? I don't know, but I think the CCP wants to keep it like it is.
- onion2k 5y ago
  The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. You won't get very far turning up to the US with nothing but a suitcase today. If you don't have significant assets or a confirmed job offer you'll be turned around and sent back to where you came from, and sometimes that'll happen even if you do have those things. Holding on to an outdated view of what America is like is ... unhelpful.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > If you don't have significant assets or a confirmed job offer you'll be turned around and sent back to where you came from How do you then explain the existence of sanctuary cities?
    - eythian 5y ago
      To me at least, they seem like the exception that proves the rule. The fact that they exist with a name means that in general things aren't like that.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Have you been following the news on what's been happening at the southern border? 100,000 people a month coming through, some of them throwing their children over the wall to get here.
    - cjrp 5y ago
      Coming through successfully, or arriving at the border?
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      One of the reasons Mexico is poor is because it had a disproportionately strong elite class dedicated to maintaining huge disparities in wealth through monopolies and more or less obvious slave labour. When the industrial revolution rolled through town Mexico couldn't take advantage of it. Back then the US used to welcome anyone from anywhere with ambition and an interesting idea. The contemporary US might want to take note.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  just think in just 24 more years WW2 will have been over for a century.
collyw 5y ago
Large parts of the world would love the chance to have the opportunities provided in the US despite this unfairness.

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

by mrpopo 5y ago

And the US isn't a good example of a country where people have a fair chance at success in life IMO.

The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. In WW1, for example, the German soldiers knew they had lost when the Americans arrived, well equipped, tall, and fat with food. The Japanese soldiers had a similar reaction when facing GIs in WW2. Of course, with free markets and prosperity, the Germans and Japanese have since caught up. (In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them.)

CRConrad 5y ago
> The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Note that you're talking in the past tense.
whateveracct 5y ago
> In WW2, the US was able to.. This even understates it. WW2 resulted in the US being the major world power due to everything you list and more. A true historical turning point.
FranzFerdiNaN 5y ago
The US could do all that because they removed the free market from the economy. Everything was turned into a planned economy to feed the war effort. Free markets would have completely failed in this case.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Um, the government contracted with and paid private companies to produce armaments, because B-17s are of no use to consumers.
mulvya 5y ago
> In WW2, the US was able to fight two major wars simultaneously, and supply the allies, and move all that stuff overseas. An incredible achievement, only possible from free markets and the wealth produced by them. The US nationalized many industries during WWII. From 'U.S. not always averse to nationalization, despite its free-market image'[1] "In times of war and national emergency, Washington has not hesitated. In 1917, the government seized the railroads to make sure goods, armaments and troops moved smoothly in the interests of national defense during World War I. Bondholders and stockholders were compensated, and railroads were returned to private ownership in 1920, after the war ended. During World War II, Washington seized dozens of companies including railroads, coal mines and, briefly, the Montgomery Ward department store chain." [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-nationalize.4.16915416.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13... Edit: this appears to be a definitive account of wartime nationalization. Industrialists in Olive Drab https://www.amazon.com/Industrialists-Olive-Drab-Operations-Industries/dp/1507664699 https://www.amazon.com/Industrialists-Olive-Drab-Operations-... "the individual most closely involved with this effort, recounts the unique story of Ohly and his compatriots who were charged with the mission of guaranteeing that private companies sustained the vital war production of weapons, munitions, and other materiel needed by America's fighting men and the Allies to achieve victory overseas" Full PDF: https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-32-1/CMH_Pub_70-32-1.pdf https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-32-1/CMH_Pub_70-3... ------- Rather, it was having access to 1) continent-wide natural resources and 2) no combat theatre domestically which would have disrupted manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, not to mention civilian life and morale.
- thu2111 5y ago
  The book you cite doesn't seem to support your argument. Firstly, you say they nationalized many industries but the book talks about individual companies. Nationalizing an industry means nationalizing every company within that industry. Secondly, this does not appear to have been motivated by the failure of capitalism but rather the opposite. It was done in response to union strikes. Unions are usually understood as being against capitalism and free markets; they want to replace individuals "voting with their wallet" by collectively taking control from management via committees of (frequently communist leaning or outright communist) representatives of the workers. Thirdly, it says quite clearly that as late as 1943 the War Department had done so few of these seizures that it amounted to "barely a dozen". By the end of the war they had seized around 60. That's a drop in the ocean of the US economy, which is why it's not well known. So this example doesn't really seem to argue against the notion that the US won because of free market capitalism. The only places where they had to step in and become authoritarian (very briefly) were places where capitalism was breaking down thanks to communist agitation.
saiya-jin 5y ago
That's all nice and rosy but current picture is veering from this away more and more. Class mobility in US is largely a self-perpetuating myth. And US, say compared to Europe is clearly class-based social system where divider is your wealth. So when you come in poor, you stay relatively poor, and can hope your children will fare better (and most don't). Your WWI remarks are not correct (any fresh joining recruits would compare well to starved demoralized decimated trench troops). Read some german WWI literature, they didn't care much US specifically joining the fight, it was just more enemies. If Australians would come, it would be the same.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Class mobility in US is largely a self-perpetuating myth. I personally know several millionaires who arrived in America with a suitcase and a dream. > class-based social system where divider is your wealth. The usual definition of a class is legal privilege based on your parents. This does not exist in the US. > So when you come in poor, you stay relatively poor, and can hope your children will fare better (and most don't). People aren't desperately trampling 1000 miles and throwing their kids over the wall just to be poor. In America, they have freedom and a darn good chance to do well. Communist countries are different, they have to build walls to keep their citizens from escaping Utopia. > Read some german WWI literature I've read about WW1 from actual historians. What do think the beaten down German soldiers would have thought encountering masses of American troops better equipped and far better fed than they ever were?
mrpopo 5y ago
> The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. This is not true, historians collectively agree that Korea has seen the most spectacular rise. Also, your comment was spectacularly off-topic and anachronistic. A country being a manufacturing powerhouse during WW2 doesn't mean that immigrants have a fair chance today. First they need to be able to enter, then they need to be able to succeed. That's the topic.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > historians collectively agree I'm not buying that. S. Korea's population is 51 million. The US elevated far more. Besides, SK's economy is free market, not communism. > First they need to be able to enter, 100,000 per month are flooding over the border. > then they need to be able to succeed. Evidently they believe they can, or they wouldn't come. As for around here in Seattle, there are immigrants everywhere. I jog through the park most days, and I hear languages from all over the world. They have their stereos blasting away, and large families with kids running around, and parked cars line the street. The smells coming from their cooking are delightful, I wish they'd offer me a bite :-) Looks to me like they're doing very well. I have no idea how you can conclude that the American door to immigration is shut, or that they are doing badly.
  - gverrilla 5y ago
    Ask them for a bite. There's a collective spirit to food in a lot of cultures - particularly the poor ones.
  - mrpopo 5y ago
    > S. Korea's population is 51 million. The US elevated far more. You can't talk about countries with relative sizes and use absolute numbers. If you want to use this fallacy, I can tell you that the US is dwarfed by the whole of Asia. Anyway, the original argument was that the USA isn't a country where everyone has a fair chance, but you absolutely want to turn it into anti-communist, pro-free-market propaganda.
teachingassist 5y ago
> The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Emphasis here is on the past tense. There are several reasons to challenge this: 1. The USA had (and still has) unprecedented resources per population. Why is your claim not still the case? 2. Immigrants tend to be people with the means to immigrate. That's rarely people in relative poverty, unless you intended to mean slaves.
- jfk13 5y ago
  In the past, a lot of (non-slave) people immigrated to the USA precisely because they were impoverished -- for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, among many others. > "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Whether those words are as appropriate today may be another matter, of course.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Something like 100,000 people per month are flooding into America via the southern border. What are they fleeing from?
    - mellavora 5y ago
      crime fueled by America's War on Drugs.
    - jfk13 5y ago
      I'm curious if that's a figure for the number who enter and remain long-term, or does it include those who are quickly detained and expelled? I.e. does the Mexican border account for a million-plus annual increase in overall US population?
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    > for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, I understand this example to be of historical note because it was exceptional. Many people came over for the promise of farmland or gold or something that they could capitalise on.
maest 5y ago
> The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. China has arguably beaten (or is close to beating) that in very recent history.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Perhaps - but they're doing it with free markets, not communism.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    It’s funny that you are getting downvoted, what you are saying is not controversial and well accepted. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-secret-document-that-transformed-china https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-...
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      If karma points meant anything, I'd probably write what people wanted to hear :-)
adrianN 5y ago
China is also seeing large numbers of people rising from abject poverty to a "western" more affluent lifestyle. I don't think that this is a terribly good yardstick for fairness and freedom in a society.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  This rising is due to China turning away from communism and towards economic freedom. Communism utterly failed at making China affluent. Free markets succeeded.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Sure, that's probably an important reason. But free markets can exist in an unfree and unfair society.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      I was careful to write economic freedom.
  - crispyambulance 5y ago
    > China turning away from communism... If you were to ask the Chinese Communist Party, whether or not they "turned away" from Communism, I think the answer would be a hard "NO". China has a complicated economy. If anything, China demonstrates that Communism and Capitalism can be made to co-exist in a weird disconcerting way. I don't think it's a particularly good model for how to run things, especially when mixed-in with authoritarian leadership. Let's not forget, however, that China is far from an "affluent" country. If your definition of affluent is focused on measurements like income and net worth of the population, China as a whole still falls well outside of affluent. Yes, there's a sliver of population that is wealthy even by international standards, but the bulk of the population has income in the low $100's of dollars per month. That's what enables China to be the factory to the world. Is it going to stay that way? I don't know, but I think the CCP wants to keep it like it is.
onion2k 5y ago
The US raised scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class. Poor people immigrated to the US, people with nothing but a suitcase. The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. You won't get very far turning up to the US with nothing but a suitcase today. If you don't have significant assets or a confirmed job offer you'll be turned around and sent back to where you came from, and sometimes that'll happen even if you do have those things. Holding on to an outdated view of what America is like is ... unhelpful.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > If you don't have significant assets or a confirmed job offer you'll be turned around and sent back to where you came from How do you then explain the existence of sanctuary cities?
  - eythian 5y ago
    To me at least, they seem like the exception that proves the rule. The fact that they exist with a name means that in general things aren't like that.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Have you been following the news on what's been happening at the southern border? 100,000 people a month coming through, some of them throwing their children over the wall to get here.
  - cjrp 5y ago
    Coming through successfully, or arriving at the border?
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    One of the reasons Mexico is poor is because it had a disproportionately strong elite class dedicated to maintaining huge disparities in wealth through monopolies and more or less obvious slave labour. When the industrial revolution rolled through town Mexico couldn't take advantage of it. Back then the US used to welcome anyone from anywhere with ambition and an interesting idea. The contemporary US might want to take note.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
just think in just 24 more years WW2 will have been over for a century.

collyw 5y ago

Large parts of the world would love the chance to have the opportunities provided in the US despite this unfairness.