Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. -TIK This is sustained idiocy. By your own chart the US GDP after the war at the bottom of the trough you're complaining about is HALF AGAIN that of the GDP before the war and twice that of the real bottom just over a decade earlier. The wartime GDP does not represent wealth creation. We were busting a gut working everybody including for the first time women overtime and then some to create war materiel for ourselves and our allies. No durable goods were being laid up, as is usually the case, no long lasting houses were being made. This was going into bases with strategic value during the war, worthless in peacetime. Almost all of the manufactured goods that was not fired off or destroyed by the enemy was turned into razor blades after the war. Working our whole population at that pace for decades would have killed workers in droves. We were grinding our workforce and infrastructure into the dust. You are representing Hell as Heaven and Heaven as Hell. You are calling a postwar peak unemployment of about 6% as worse than the Great Depression which saw unemployment rise as high as 25%. During the Kennedy administration economists were calling 4% unemployment "structural" and normal. The peak of the Carter "stagflation" saw simultaneous double digit inflation and unemployment. You compare the 50s, with an average annual GDP growth of 4.2% unfavorably with the 60s, with average annual GDP growth of 3.6%. You obviously don't know your ass from applesauce. I have no opinion on whether WW2 got us out of the Great Depression, but it an indisputable fact that when the war ended, we were out of it! Econometrics are supposed to be a measure of PROSPERITY, and we were more far more prosperous after the war than during or before. The war was not a boom (except in the literal sense). It was a suspension of productive activity for a survival crisis. The end of the war may have been bad for the military/industrial complex, but it was good for Americans, and not just because of the lives saved. The real economy resumed at last after a long hiatus.
    4
  2.  @julioz2900  "There is a large diference between a Soviet style of planned economy where there is no private property of the means of production, and a "Capitalist" economy where the State controls certain prices. Tha majority of european and latin American countries had such price controls, and were anti comunists, had nothing to do with Soviet Union. " This makes sense only if you equate "socialism" with "communism".
    1
  3. Ignazio Silone relates this anecdote from the Cold War era. Silone was at the time of the incident a member of the Italian Communist delegation to the Communist International. During a meeting in Moscow, the English delegate was describing a problem that the British Communist Party was encountering with the British trade unions. His statement was interrupted by the Russian delegate, Piatnisky, who offered the obvious solution — that the British Communists should simply tell the trade unions one thing, but then do exactly the opposite. Silone continues: The English Communist interrupted, "But that would be a lie." Loud laughter greeted this ingenuous objection, frank, cordial, interminable laughter, the like of which the gloomy offices of the Communist International had perhaps never heard before. The joke quickly spread all over Moscow, for the Englishman's entertaining and incredible reply was telephoned at once to Stalin and to the most important offices of State, provoking new waves of mirth everywhere. (In "The God That Failed," edited by Richard Crossman, Bantam, 1949, p. 92)
    1