2 ms·

Already, there's deeply untrue parts of this: We don't really know why the US emerged on top after WWII. There wasn't an A/B test that proves it. An argument ca

Already, there's deeply untrue parts of this: We don't really know why the US emerged on top after WWII. There wasn't an A/B test that proves it. An argument can easily be made that the US came out ahead because it was the largest country which hadn't been substantially bombed and/or invaded. It's not well founded to say it was because the US was a mix of capitalism and socialism. There's not enough evidence for that.

erichocean 13y ago
An argument can easily be made that the US came out ahead because it was the largest country which hadn't been substantially bombed and/or invaded. Until this guy's speech, it hadn't occurred to me that anyone made any argument but that one. Despite the lack of A/B testing, it's seemed obvious to me, although I'd lump in reserve status for the dollar, and a couple of other political things that—again—the US were able to force through thanks to being last man standing after WWII is a huge force in US prosperity since WWII.
- bane 13y ago
  It doesn't hurt to have jacked up the taxes to astronomical levels to raise funds and then use those funds to make substantial public infrastructure (Highways, Rail etc.), manufacturing (Tanks, Planes and Ships) and education (engineering, management science, logistics and planning) investments with that money resulting in an economy with a massive manufacturing base, the logistics and infrastructure to support it and the people to run it -- followed by huge numbers of men returning back home needing jobs (and getting free or heavily subsidized education if they wanted it as it was needed by this new industrial machine). It was virtually a second industrial revolution, but now instead of tanks, cars were churned out. It's no mistake that other countries (Germany, Japan) that made similar investments came to dominate the economies of their respective regions. It's only now as other countries (China, South Korea, etc.) make the same style of public investments that they're realizing the tremendous economic gains.

erichocean 13y ago

An argument can easily be made that the US came out ahead because it was the largest country which hadn't been substantially bombed and/or invaded. Until this guy's speech, it hadn't occurred to me that anyone made any argument but that one. Despite the lack of A/B testing, it's seemed obvious to me, although I'd lump in reserve status for the dollar, and a couple of other political things that—again—the US were able to force through thanks to being last man standing after WWII is a huge force in US prosperity since WWII.

bane 13y ago
It doesn't hurt to have jacked up the taxes to astronomical levels to raise funds and then use those funds to make substantial public infrastructure (Highways, Rail etc.), manufacturing (Tanks, Planes and Ships) and education (engineering, management science, logistics and planning) investments with that money resulting in an economy with a massive manufacturing base, the logistics and infrastructure to support it and the people to run it -- followed by huge numbers of men returning back home needing jobs (and getting free or heavily subsidized education if they wanted it as it was needed by this new industrial machine). It was virtually a second industrial revolution, but now instead of tanks, cars were churned out. It's no mistake that other countries (Germany, Japan) that made similar investments came to dominate the economies of their respective regions. It's only now as other countries (China, South Korea, etc.) make the same style of public investments that they're realizing the tremendous economic gains.