6 ms·

What has failed are completely "collectivist" or "individualist" societies. Societies that balance the two (like the post WWII US) are the ones that have advan

by danans 3y ago

What has failed are completely "collectivist" or "individualist" societies. Societies that balance the two (like the post WWII US) are the ones that have advanced their standard of living the most.

waihtis 3y ago
such as?
- danans 3y ago
  Read my post, I said the US in the post-WWII period, and really reaching back to the New Deal. Also, most Western European societies.
  - waihtis 3y ago
    yes apologies, morning grogginess
WalterBright 3y ago
The US became a superpower long before WW2. The US was the deciding factor in WW1, and the Germans were shocked at how well-fed and well-equipped the US soldiers were, even with having to ship everything across the ocean. The US saw the most spectacular rise in the standard of living from 1800 up to WW2 the world had ever seen. This was all due to the free market, not collectivism. During WW2, the US supplied its allies England and the USSR, and also fought across both oceans and buried the opposition, a truly spectacular feat. Again, through the free market.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The US were much less a factor in WW1 than WW2. If anything, the US entry forced the Entente's hands to start the planned 1919 offensive early in 1918 and ending the war. The USA did not contribute a large amlint of troops, relative to the armies already deployed, nor did they contribute significant amounts of gear. Lend-Lease was a WW2 thing, in WW1 the majority of US tanks for example were actually French. The US were a economic power prior to WW1, they only became a true super power during WW2, in particular after Pearl Habour. The full mobilization of society, industry and science made sure of this. This, and the fact the US won the Pacific. I know it is a popular view of WW1, that it was only the US entry that won it for the Entente. Simply not true, WW1 is not WW2. And even WW2 was not won by the US alone. Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free, is was a complete structured war eceonomy with production goals set by the government. The implementation of those goals was capitalistic, but not free.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Britain would have lost WW1 and WW2 without massive US support. The WW1 Germans were not amazed by British soldiers' supplies and health. They were amazed by the US soldiers' supplies and health. > Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free FDR mobilized existing free market businesses to convert to war production. It was not a collective, nor was it forced labor. For example, Ford switched from producing cars to producing tanks and airplanes. After the war, Ford switched back to making cars. Ford was paid to do this by the government. FDR's State of the Union Address of 1945 proposed switching the economy to forced labor. Apparently, he was an admirer of Stalin. Fortunately, he was not able to make that happen.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      This is basically all wrong, except the Ford switching to planes and tanks bit. And you are aware, that France was a major biligerent in WW1, stopped Germany at Verdun and held more than half the Western Front, sucessfully after the race to the sea ended, together with Britain, for years before the US showed up? Or that the Ententene, without significant US participation, won the strategic victory that defeated Germany during the Kaiserschlacht, the last German offensive in the West? This victory allowed Franch and Britain to start the 1919 offensive already in 1918, the one that ended with German surrender. In fact, they started early, in part, to avoid the impression that it was the US who "won" WW1. Little did they know how WW2 would play out and influence puplic opinion. Also, being impressed by something doesn't mean being defeated by it... I know the meme, and that is all it is, a meme. And a lazy one at that. During WW2, economies in the UK, the US and the USSR had a lot in common. Mainly them being not free to choose what they produced. The degrees of freedom regarding how it was produced differed, but that is not what defines an economy as free or not. And please tell me you don't think the USSR functioned without money? People were paid to produce stuff, they didn't have the likes of Ford getting rich building war material so. Edit: I forgot one theatre in WW1, the Ottoman Empire. Arguably at least as important for Britain than the Western Front, and there the US didn't participate at all. And still Britain won. This is not to downplay the role the US played in WW2, far from it. Projecting this role to WW1 is just plain wrong so, and only feeds into a whole bunch of wrong preconceptions about WW1. I partialy blame Cold War propaganda for this, that downplayed the Soviet role in WW2, for obvious reasons, and over played the US one. Regarding WW2, this narrative is finally changing, for WW1 not so much. And I don't like factually wrong narratives for historical events. Edit 2: Just read the first half of FDRs 1945 State of the Union during my lunch break. Not sure how you can consider a national service obligation, in parallel to the normal recruiting of workers, to be equal to forced labour... You really should look up what real forced labour looked, and looks, like. Also, the same guy, FDR, who called for "forced labour" and was a "friend of Stalin" was in charge of the war economy. And yet, you claim the war economy led by him was a free market. One of those things is not true, I'd say.
- lupire 3y ago
  The primary source of superiority in a war is "not being within reach of a enemy munitions". US does great in European wars for that reason, and is historically mostly free from North American wars because US dominates the whole continent.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    Dominating the whole continent isn't enough, or Britain would have won WW1 much earlier due to the support of Australia - who dominate the whole continent.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The continent, not a continent. As in, the continent the war is fought on, not a continent on the other side of the planet.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The US dominates the whole continent because it is more free market.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The US dominates North America because after the war of independance no other power on the continent was left to oppose them. Militarily, that is.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        I'd say the War of Independence is too early for that, at that point they still had the French, the Spanish, and quite a lot of the Native American tribes as relevant military opposition. Even the British were still on the continent as Canada didn't follow the 13 colonies, and war between the two did result in the White House getting burned down by British-Canadian forces prior to Canadian independence.
        3y ago
- throw4847285 3y ago
  There are other free market economies. And America reached the apex of its power under the New Deal and during wartime, when the "free market" was carefully constrained to meet the needs of the state. It's funny to watch people try and analyze what made the US the world's dominant global empire when in reality it was a series of complex and contingent factors that can't be replicated because they could have only occurred in their exact historical circumstances. For example, other countries have tried to replicate American dairying culture, buying into the propaganda put out by the dairy industry that milk drinking is the secret to America's success. So China started up loads of American-style dairies to provide drinking milk for a population... without the gene for lactase persistence. That's what the free market talk feels like to me. America is at the top and that can't be replicated. There's only room for one at the top. When it collapses, we'll see what circumstances lead to the next great empire. It might be collectivism!
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The New Deal was a welfare system. Welfare has never made a country prosperous. The success of free markets has been replicated many times: 1. the US 2. Japan after WW2 3. Germany after WW2 4. Hong Kong 5. China after it abandoned the cultural revolution It has nothing to do with geography. > America is at the top and that can't be replicated It can be replicated. > It might be collectivism! Yet collectivism always fails. No country has managed to feed itself with collective farms, for example. And it isn't for lack of trying.
    - danans 3y ago
      > The New Deal was a welfare system. Welfare has never made a country prosperous. > The success of free markets has been replicated many times: > 1. the US > 2. Japan after WW2 > 3. Germany after WW2 > 4. Hong Kong > 5. China after it abandoned the cultural revolution 4 of those 5 countries have significant welfare programs (Japan and Germany being the most generous among those on your list).
      - WalterBright 3y ago
- mhh__ 3y ago
  I think Hegel (not sure) commented that the next century would be that of the USA and Russia on his deathbed (i.e. early 1800s) or something to that effect

by danans 3y ago

What has failed are completely "collectivist" or "individualist" societies. Societies that balance the two (like the post WWII US) are the ones that have advanced their standard of living the most.

waihtis 3y ago

such as?

danans 3y ago
Read my post, I said the US in the post-WWII period, and really reaching back to the New Deal. Also, most Western European societies.
- waihtis 3y ago
  yes apologies, morning grogginess

WalterBright 3y ago

The US became a superpower long before WW2. The US was the deciding factor in WW1, and the Germans were shocked at how well-fed and well-equipped the US soldiers were, even with having to ship everything across the ocean. The US saw the most spectacular rise in the standard of living from 1800 up to WW2 the world had ever seen. This was all due to the free market, not collectivism. During WW2, the US supplied its allies England and the USSR, and also fought across both oceans and buried the opposition, a truly spectacular feat. Again, through the free market.

hef19898 3y ago
The US were much less a factor in WW1 than WW2. If anything, the US entry forced the Entente's hands to start the planned 1919 offensive early in 1918 and ending the war. The USA did not contribute a large amlint of troops, relative to the armies already deployed, nor did they contribute significant amounts of gear. Lend-Lease was a WW2 thing, in WW1 the majority of US tanks for example were actually French. The US were a economic power prior to WW1, they only became a true super power during WW2, in particular after Pearl Habour. The full mobilization of society, industry and science made sure of this. This, and the fact the US won the Pacific. I know it is a popular view of WW1, that it was only the US entry that won it for the Entente. Simply not true, WW1 is not WW2. And even WW2 was not won by the US alone. Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free, is was a complete structured war eceonomy with production goals set by the government. The implementation of those goals was capitalistic, but not free.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Britain would have lost WW1 and WW2 without massive US support. The WW1 Germans were not amazed by British soldiers' supplies and health. They were amazed by the US soldiers' supplies and health. > Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free FDR mobilized existing free market businesses to convert to war production. It was not a collective, nor was it forced labor. For example, Ford switched from producing cars to producing tanks and airplanes. After the war, Ford switched back to making cars. Ford was paid to do this by the government. FDR's State of the Union Address of 1945 proposed switching the economy to forced labor. Apparently, he was an admirer of Stalin. Fortunately, he was not able to make that happen.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    This is basically all wrong, except the Ford switching to planes and tanks bit. And you are aware, that France was a major biligerent in WW1, stopped Germany at Verdun and held more than half the Western Front, sucessfully after the race to the sea ended, together with Britain, for years before the US showed up? Or that the Ententene, without significant US participation, won the strategic victory that defeated Germany during the Kaiserschlacht, the last German offensive in the West? This victory allowed Franch and Britain to start the 1919 offensive already in 1918, the one that ended with German surrender. In fact, they started early, in part, to avoid the impression that it was the US who "won" WW1. Little did they know how WW2 would play out and influence puplic opinion. Also, being impressed by something doesn't mean being defeated by it... I know the meme, and that is all it is, a meme. And a lazy one at that. During WW2, economies in the UK, the US and the USSR had a lot in common. Mainly them being not free to choose what they produced. The degrees of freedom regarding how it was produced differed, but that is not what defines an economy as free or not. And please tell me you don't think the USSR functioned without money? People were paid to produce stuff, they didn't have the likes of Ford getting rich building war material so. Edit: I forgot one theatre in WW1, the Ottoman Empire. Arguably at least as important for Britain than the Western Front, and there the US didn't participate at all. And still Britain won. This is not to downplay the role the US played in WW2, far from it. Projecting this role to WW1 is just plain wrong so, and only feeds into a whole bunch of wrong preconceptions about WW1. I partialy blame Cold War propaganda for this, that downplayed the Soviet role in WW2, for obvious reasons, and over played the US one. Regarding WW2, this narrative is finally changing, for WW1 not so much. And I don't like factually wrong narratives for historical events. Edit 2: Just read the first half of FDRs 1945 State of the Union during my lunch break. Not sure how you can consider a national service obligation, in parallel to the normal recruiting of workers, to be equal to forced labour... You really should look up what real forced labour looked, and looks, like. Also, the same guy, FDR, who called for "forced labour" and was a "friend of Stalin" was in charge of the war economy. And yet, you claim the war economy led by him was a free market. One of those things is not true, I'd say.
lupire 3y ago
The primary source of superiority in a war is "not being within reach of a enemy munitions". US does great in European wars for that reason, and is historically mostly free from North American wars because US dominates the whole continent.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  Dominating the whole continent isn't enough, or Britain would have won WW1 much earlier due to the support of Australia - who dominate the whole continent.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The continent, not a continent. As in, the continent the war is fought on, not a continent on the other side of the planet.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The US dominates the whole continent because it is more free market.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The US dominates North America because after the war of independance no other power on the continent was left to oppose them. Militarily, that is.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I'd say the War of Independence is too early for that, at that point they still had the French, the Spanish, and quite a lot of the Native American tribes as relevant military opposition. Even the British were still on the continent as Canada didn't follow the 13 colonies, and war between the two did result in the White House getting burned down by British-Canadian forces prior to Canadian independence.
      - 3y ago
throw4847285 3y ago
There are other free market economies. And America reached the apex of its power under the New Deal and during wartime, when the "free market" was carefully constrained to meet the needs of the state. It's funny to watch people try and analyze what made the US the world's dominant global empire when in reality it was a series of complex and contingent factors that can't be replicated because they could have only occurred in their exact historical circumstances. For example, other countries have tried to replicate American dairying culture, buying into the propaganda put out by the dairy industry that milk drinking is the secret to America's success. So China started up loads of American-style dairies to provide drinking milk for a population... without the gene for lactase persistence. That's what the free market talk feels like to me. America is at the top and that can't be replicated. There's only room for one at the top. When it collapses, we'll see what circumstances lead to the next great empire. It might be collectivism!
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The New Deal was a welfare system. Welfare has never made a country prosperous. The success of free markets has been replicated many times: 1. the US 2. Japan after WW2 3. Germany after WW2 4. Hong Kong 5. China after it abandoned the cultural revolution It has nothing to do with geography. > America is at the top and that can't be replicated It can be replicated. > It might be collectivism! Yet collectivism always fails. No country has managed to feed itself with collective farms, for example. And it isn't for lack of trying.
  - danans 3y ago
    > The New Deal was a welfare system. Welfare has never made a country prosperous. > The success of free markets has been replicated many times: > 1. the US > 2. Japan after WW2 > 3. Germany after WW2 > 4. Hong Kong > 5. China after it abandoned the cultural revolution 4 of those 5 countries have significant welfare programs (Japan and Germany being the most generous among those on your list).
    - WalterBright 3y ago
mhh__ 3y ago
I think Hegel (not sure) commented that the next century would be that of the USA and Russia on his deathbed (i.e. early 1800s) or something to that effect