Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
After studying this historical episode, we conclude the following:
(1) Conventional wisdom is correct on one thing: there was no
depression in 1946, or anything resembling one.
(2) Accordingly, aggregate economic statistics need to be viewed with a skeptical eye, particularly in periods such as this, when there are pronounced governmental interventions in markets.
(3) The failure of the nation to enter a depression after 1944,
however, reflected not pent-up consumer demand so much as the dramatically ameliorative effects of changing relative prices on the macroeconomy.
(4) The smooth transition to peace was accomplished despite the existence of a fiscal policy that was the very antithesis of Keynesian economic prescriptions to deal with falling aggregate demand. The most dramatically contractionary fiscal policy in modern American history, failed to materially alter the pace of economic activity.
(5) Keynesian economics triumphed in politics and among aca demic economists at the very time that empirical evidence was
clearly exposing its explanatory weaknesses. The very empiricist his is not to deny, however, that there was a fair amount of economic discontent in the period. Because of continuing price controls into 1946, there were shortages of many consumer goods; labor strife ran high, with days missed because of work stoppages reaching a new peak.
(6) A market-Austrian interpretation of this historical episode is
very much more in keeping with the evidence.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiS2OSDyZb0AhVClGoFHZvDDy8QFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.mises.org%2Frae5_2_1_2.pdf%3Ftoken%3Ds0L9_TOt&usg=AOvVaw3EO55LAElOVwhXQ6s_qhyj
4
-
@Gvjrapiro collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.
collectivism | sociology | Britannica
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution also : a system marked by such control. 2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity.
Collectivism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Collectivist cultures emphasize the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and desires of each individual. In such cultures, relationships with other members of the group and the interconnectedness between people play a central role in each person's identity.30 avr. 2021
Understanding Collectivist Cultures - Verywell Mind
The German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies described an early model of collectivism and individualism using the terms Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society).[5] Gemeinschaft relationships, in which communalism is prioritized, were thought to be characteristic of small, rural village communities. An anthropologist, Redfield (1941) echoed this notion in work contrasting folk society with urban society.[6]
Max Weber (1930) contrasted collectivism and individualism through the lens of religion, believing that Protestants were more individualistic and self-reliant compared to Catholics, who endorsed hierarchical, interdependent relationships among people.[7] Geert Hofstede (1980) was highly influential in ushering in an era of cross-cultural research making comparisons along the dimension of collectivism versus individualism. Hofstede conceptualized collectivism and individualism as part of a single continuum, with each cultural construct representing an opposite pole. The author characterized individuals that endorsed a high degree of collectivism as being embedded in their social contexts and prioritizing communal goals over individual goals.[8]
Hofstede insights describes collectivism as: "Collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular ingroup to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty."[9]
Collectivism was an important part of Marxist–Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union, where it played a key part in forming the New Soviet man, willingly sacrificing his or her life for the good of the collective. Terms such as "collective" and "the masses" were frequently used in the official language and praised in agitprop literature, for example by Vladimir Mayakovsky (Who needs a "1") and Bertolt Brecht (The Decision, Man Equals Man).[10][11]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjt2ISFrqP0AhVum2oFHfRLCugQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCollectivism&usg=AOvVaw3dVNk-XiEB4gUtk9Ux_OkB
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Not everyone who was in the German hierarchy, committed war crimes. Also, while the Cold War was descending and until Solzhenitsyn and the Gulag Archipelago, the massive crimes of the USSR were largely ignored and large segments of the West were actively pro Communist.
You spend the first 15 minutes not answering the question and dealing with a tangent.
The Soviets also waged a war of aggression, Finland, Poland, Baltic States, Bessarabia and of course the Nazi Soviet Pact, in the first place enabled the war.
Smolensk in 41 was not a turning point. That is a ridiculous claim and to say so, ignores the basic definition of what a turning point means. Also, throughout this video, I think the term turning point is misapplied. Perhaps what you mean to say is DECISIVE, meaning without this event or situation X could not have happened. Turning points are when the strategic balance switches, meaning the momentum of the war. Clearly the Germans were on the Strategic offensive up to Kursk. Even Stalingrad did not reverse this fact. In the East the balance shifted after Midway, so much earlier. Nothing before Stalingrad, at a minimum, can be considered a turning point in the war for Germany.
There are a dozen different means by which the Nazis could have won the war, even with continued conflict with Britain. And the answer given by TIK, basically that, not going to war in the first place, is a bad answer.
Also, oil was not a debilitative or crucial component to the prosecution of the war until 44, when the war was already lost. The war could have been won without massive oil supplies before then, especially in 41 or 42.
The French definitely did not want to go to war over Poland and without strong British pressure to do so, would never have declared war over this issue. France was far too traumatized by WWI to do it again, sans the British determination to do so.
2
-
Churchill was not complicit
in the Bengal famine, this is a faux charge. Churchill was not a military genius, far from it but he was a great politician and strategic master and in WWII, was clearly the preeminent leader of the time. No other, comes close to him.
Churchill engaged in real politique and maintaining the empire. The neutrality of minor countries in an existential conflict with Nazi Germany, was not important. If Britain had taken Norway ahead of the Germans, could the latter have plausibly pulled off an invasion? Likely not. What consequences then? Well, for the U boat war, a significant one. German U boats were significantly enhanced in their operations because of Norway's conquest. Also, Germany was quite dependent on Scandanavian iron ore and with a British force near, might the Swedes have been reluctant to sell as much to the NAZIs? Likely not. So, of course you can invade a neutral country to protect yourself or them, from the likes of the Nazis or whomever.
Violating neutrality, does not make you like Hitler. That is a dumb thing to say. Hitler is not despised because he invaded neutral countries.
There was no UN, no international law, no, court of human rights, no nothing. Your thinking is based upon assumptions, that presuppose a post WWII mentality and one substantially created by the USA and Pax Americana.
2
-
2
-
Being in the military, as with any govt. job, though a negative on the economic balance sheet, is absolutely not the same as being unemployed. No economy will function without security, basic govt. and obviously freedom from being pillaged by enemies. Essential govt. workers are employed by the rest of society, to fight for, protect and provide basic service for the rest. Your assertion is not correct.
You assume the natural state is one of peace and productivity. History clearly demonstrates the opposite. Nasty, brutish and short is the actual reality through most of history, so having military defense, is essential to create the environment for economic growth, beyond looting your enemies.
Yes govt. spending is all consumption but that is not the economic equivalent of unemployment. It is guns vs. butter. Employing 16 million men in WWII is an economic cost but employing millions more that were formally unproductive, is an economic positive. Producing guns, though non edible, is economic production and as long as this is not the only thing you produce, does increase real GDP, especially when it prevents your country from being conquered and or allows you do expand your markets by force. Which is exactly what happened at the end of WWII, when the US occupied fully 50% of world GDP, as opposed to 24% today.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aidanb.315 No, I reject your thinking here. The market is not a thing to which anyone or thing belongs. The market is an idea and in practice merely the free exchange of goods between at least two willing participants.
Also, there are no owners necessarily in capitalism. There are people who have capital but the idea that they constitute a class, working in tandem rather than what actually happens, competing against one another, is simply bizarre and incorrect.
Those who have capital also work. They may or may not work with their hands but they still work. They are the ones who organized, take risk, borrow capital, create factories, contract labor, train that labor, sell and advertise products, innovate, etc...etc...
If markets are rarely, absolutely open or free, it is due to the interference of govt. which inhibits the market via law and bureaucracy.
Capitalism is tied to statism? Curious assertion. Certainly, capitalists existed before the creation of the modern state, rather emerging when kingdoms were the norm or city states. Also, depending on your definition of statism, I would say that, you have a problematic concept going on there. So, give me your precise definition, so I know what you are thinking exactly.
Are people packed into factories like sardines? I don't believe you have worked or visited a factory in some time. Most factories today, are highly automated, with machines doing the majority of the work. It is no longer 19th century. Warehouses also are not overly packed with humans. I have worked in a warehouse and this was certainly not the case.
People who work sign a contract and are paid wages, which they agree to. There is nothing wrong with this. Most people acquire skills and advance in both responsibility and wage throughout their careers. There is also nothing wrong with this.
Housing may look similar to you but few houses actually are in most suburbs. If you live in an apartment block then sure, lots of similarity but it all depends on each person, how much money they have, what they want, where they want to live, what country, state etc... There are tremendous differences and opportunity abounds.
Most people don't work in cubicles either. Some do, but not most. Cars are highly variable. Also, we have millions of companies, all quite different from each other. There are some 31.7 million small businesses in the USA; mom and pop stores and startups, those with less than 500 workers, which employs about half of all the employed in the country. Big business employs the rest.
The dream of most people is to be free and control their own lives as much as possible, to achieve as much as their talents, skills and hard work will allow. Capitalism is the best vehicle, within a democratic political system, to achieve those ideals.
Capitalism is not meant to be individualist per se. It is simply the ability to trade freely and use capital/money to enable that trade.
Modern society is many things, depending on the country. Economic systems differ.
However, capitalism is not a collectivist idea or reality.
To be collectivist, you need a controlling group authority and identity which subordinates the individual.
Marxism attempts to create such identities via class, as if these are static, identities, which they obviously are not. Since individual rights are emphasized and encoded into law with in our nations but also within business contracts, which are freely entered into and can be ended by either party, collective terminology does not fit this paradigm.
Capitalism is not collectivism.
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Nope, I'm not engaged in fantasy at all but what actual capitalism entails. You on the other hand, seem captivated by Marxist thinking and class politics.
I think in the early days of capitalism, you would have a stronger case, especially in Europe but today, the entire class struggle motif is no longer present.
Any capable individual can rise or fall depending upon choices made and life in general. There is no real class struggle any longer and everyone is prospering, who is not constantly involved in self destructive decision making.
the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a *social class.
You seem to be hanging your hat on the last two words. In the Middle Ages and up to the French Revolution, progression between birth classes was quite rare but with the Industrial Revolution, less so and with the coming of democracy far less so or not at all. Today in all advanced economies and capitalist systems, men of merit rise regardless of their birth. So, the idea that an individual is subordinate to a class, simply no longer holds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Assuming you know the truth is problematic and yet to be determined. The market, in a free society encompasses all economic activity but not all of my or anyone's life. It does not exist in anything other than the economic sphere. It is by nature free and willing because it is the natural state of man and has nothing to do with a utopia. Utopias are realms of existence where all is well, conflict is over and all live in harmony. Capitalism and the free market make no such claims and indeed are necessarily confrontational and say nothing as to all being well. The free market is merely exchange based upon a willing buyer and a willing seller, coming to a mutually agreed price for an exchange of goods and services. This happens billions of times each day and has nothing in common with utopian thinking.
If you lived on an island alone and then one day encountered another human, who had something you wanted, you have a couple of choices. A. Do nothing and retreat. B. Attack and seize the thing by force C. Engage in conversation and attempt to barter for the thing.
The last option is proto capitalism and demonstrates a free market.
Owners are not a block but merely individuals. They exist as people just as any others do. To assume conspiracy and group think or group identity or a massive assumption. Owners compete with one another and are often antagonistic towards other owners. The class idea is dated. In that owners want profit is no different than workers wanting higher wages. Owners are as different from each other as all humans are from each other. All want to prosper but pursue prosperity along many different paths. If a movement or policy threatens anyone or any group, they all work against it. This is dept of redundancy dept stuff you are spouting.
I gave you a laundry list of tasks that owners do and all of it is work. If you have ever been an executive, manager, entrepreneur, you would readily admit this. Not all work is manual. No, those who own generally are those who take risks. Most wealthy people in the US were not born into their positions. And many who become wealthy, do not stay that way. There is a great deal of fluctuation. A 2019 study published by Wealth-X found that around 68% of those with a net worth of $30 million or more made it themselves. Further, a second study by Fidelity Investments found that 88% of all millionaires are self-made, meaning they did not inherit their wealth.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi45o2tyKj0AhWRl2oFHagPA3sQFnoECA0QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessnewsdaily.com%2F2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html&usg=AOvVaw0d3jbGua9hAxzpuibaHQ6N
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi45o2tyKj0AhWRl2oFHagPA3sQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2019%2F09%2F26%2Fmajority-of-the-worlds-richest-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html&usg=AOvVaw20RQ6WOKAVGIG-PDdJKDeI
I'm not sure how you justify this comment, "the majority of the owning class is in their position as a result of the organization or risk-taking of others, including their workers". Borrowing money is work and often very difficult to achieve, especially if your credit rating is nil or less than stellar. And of course, borrowing money is the essence of risk taking. As the borrower you are responsible for paying the money back with interest and failure to do so means bankruptcy and in the past prison and depending who you borrow from, death.
Most entrepreneurs are very hands on detail-oriented people, who especially in the beginning stages of an enterprise, are involve in every aspect of the business, its creation and daily management. This includes hiring and training of staff, marketing, ordering materials, supplies, pay schedules, work schedules etc...I think you are only thinking of the 1% of all business in the USA which would be classified as Big Business. The other 99%, something less than 32 million businesses, are small bus and necessitate the owners being very involved with daily ops. You seem to assume what you have no experience in and instead rely on Marx to do you thinking for you.
Govt. can be a hinderance or an ally of a capitalist system. In history we have very few examples of businesses assuming state like power. The best examples would be the Dutch and then English East India Company and perhaps Mr. Rhodes in Africa. Of course, both of these were overtaken by actual governments.
Life, by its nature removes freedom from all but a vast minority. This is a Pareto distribution and is about as near to a natural law as imaginable.
The market in its raw form, is neither law nor bureaucracy as in our island example or say a fur trader in the Americas as a real-world example. Law and bureaucracy derive directly from govt. imposing its will on a market. How much of each depends on the govt.
Sure, capitalists existed at the time of city states. The most famous of which were Genoa and Venice. Capitalist traders ventured out all over the world engaging in business and trade, to the enrichment of themselves and their cities. You can say modern capitalism began in the 19th century but not capitalism per se. You can trace proto capitalism back very far to gold smiths in ancient Rome, who used the capital of the metal to become quasi bankers. Also the Templers, Hospitallers and Jews operated similarly beginning in the Crusades. All used capital to finance business. So, I don't think a state is necessary for capitalism to exist or flourish.
Since the Revolution, we have believed that states are only legitimate in so far as they derive their power through the consent of the people. We reject the idea that a state or govt. is legit. as an end in itself. Tyranny in the American view, is always illegitimate.
I have defined capitalism for what it is. A system of exchange in a free market, between willing buyers and sellers, using capital/money, as a means to make those exchanges. I said nothing about bad results because by the nature of the system, both parties are willing participants.
Private property can be enforced by the individual, family, clan, tribe etc... or through mutually agreement between parties, perhaps because coexistence is better than conflict.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro The purpose of govt. is first and foremost the defense of the citizens.
People working like machines? Treated like mass produced goods? You are using hyperbole, which is really no longer true in any advanced economy in general. As I stated, factories today are overwhelmingly run by machines and robots. What used to require thousands of workers on an assembly line, now only need a few engineers to manage the rows of machines. However, your statement could be considered correct in the beginning of the industrial era. You should also recognize that even in these conditions, people willingly submitted themselves to them because they made more money, usually, than working on a farm. This is equally true today in the developing world and is the great reason people abandon rural life, for a chance in the cities and work in a factory.
Your assertions are anecdotal and not borne out in the modern-day economy.
Individualism is manifest by each person who decides for themselves, what job they will work in, where, when, for how much, for how long etc... Individuals care for themselves and the system guarantees their natural rights. No one is forced to work or forced to work for, a specific wage, time, employer etc... all of these things are determined by each person. And of course, tens of millions (25 million) decide to be their own boss and open their own business, further demonstrating their own individualism. The Gig economy is another facet of individualism within a capitalist system. This group equals about 60 million workers, 30% of all workers, in the USA.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjj3rGP0qj0AhVOlmoFHaaSBXAQFnoECAwQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smallbizgenius.net%2Fby-the-numbers%2Fentrepreneur-statistics%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3DIn%25202016%252C%2520there%2520were%252025%2Cmillion%2520entrepreneurs%2520in%2520the%2520world.&usg=AOvVaw0t5VZvRHffEYcewP1vV1G_
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwigsMra0aj0AhX2kWoFHWQOAOsQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffortunly.com%2Fstatistics%2Fgig-economy-statistics%2F&usg=AOvVaw07YXPkzPT8dWf4jcyngp1a&cshid=1637469800410134
Obviously if you want to live, you need to work for your daily bread. So, you are right, there is no other choice. This is the nature of life. Food is not free, nor is housing, health care, protection, clothing, sanitation, everything we need requires labor, time, talent, thought, risk reward. You sound like a Marxist utopian bemoaning reality.
The massive, brutalist housing of the USSR and Communism in general were extremely similar and not comparable to suburban housing. Generally in a given housing development a buyer who is building a house, will select a floor plan, of which there are dozens to thousands depending. The only constraint being your wealth and possibly HOA limitations. If you think modern housing is bland, that is a personal reaction, you are entitled to but no one is forcing you or anyone else to live in a suburb you don't like. Identical living quarters? I think not. Living in 800 sq foot house on 1/8 an acre, compared to a 6000 sq foot home on 5 acres, is not similar at all. You can live in the valley, abutting the golf course, in the mountains, next to a lake, in a cabin, or a tiny home, in a trailer or an apartment, a condo, a duplex, an estate, in the country on a farm or ranch or in a cabin. The list is endless. I really don't know what you are talking about.
If surrendering your individuality means obeying work place rules, yes, I guess that is correct, depending on the person and how poorly they are socialized. All humans sacrifice individuality for social belonging. This is true in families, neighborhoods and any social setting. Those who cannot are ostracized or in extreme cases placed in prisons or executed. It's the nature of human existence. We are social animals.
If you don't like working in a cubicle or warehouse, don't. Go work construction or lifeguard or teach or join the military, learn to fly etc..etc.. The choices are infinite.
There is nothing dehumanizing working for and representing a company. You don't have to do this but if you do, it is honorable work. Fast food work is extremely hard and can teach a great deal to those entering the labor market. There is nothing wrong with working fast food or any job actually. All work has dignity.
A few small businesses? 32,000,0000, fully 50% of all workers are engaged with small business. 99% of all bus. in the USA are small businesses. Owning a successful, small business can make you quite wealthy. You don't need to work for or compete with the giants to be successful. Again, the reason there are giant companies is because of the Pareto distribution. It is how nature works. Also, the individual is everywhere as I laid out above in numerous ways. What is lost is your perspective. You seem to think that a person is diminished if they are not a captain of industry or some similar status. This is incorrect.
Engaging in hobbies and interests requires enough wealth to enable such a life style. Since the beginning of time 99.9% of all mankind never had such an opportunity. Life was nasty, brutish and above all short. It is only since the rise of modern capitalism, specifically in the last 250 years, that mankind has become ever richer and had ever more leisure time. We are currently living in the Golden Age of humanity. Never have things been so good for so many, as now.
Work is necessary for survival. This is reality. You don't get paid for breathing.
No, I would not say the vast majority of talents and skills are unprofitable. This is a very dubious statement. If a person has a talent or skill which is not profitable, they likely have another one that is. People generally have many skills and many talents and can develop and or unleash new ones all the time.
Capitalism is the only economic system where you can be free or control your own life. This is basic history. There is no better system and definitely no system which has produced so much prosperity for the masses as capitalism. If you don't acknowledge this, you don't know history or you are an ideologue, or both.
No, capitalism is not collectivist at all. No, owners/capitalists don't subordinate anyone. They employ folk who voluntarily and readily seek such employment, are paid according to the scarcity of their skills and education/talents and if they don't like it, they quit and go somewhere else.
Of course, Marxists believed in a static class, which is why they could punish en masse the bourgeoisie, march them out to the killing fields or re-education camps punish based off of association with such or starve the Kulaks or execute the aristocrats or lionize the 'workers' as comrades only to shoot them in the back of the head at the first sign of individuality.
All people have shared interests and needs. Saying that owners also have shared interests and needs is circular thinking and also a huge generalization, which really means nothing, since there is no nationwide cabal of the owners/capitalists.
Of course, individual rights apply to the vast majority of individuals. You sound as if you are living in Stalinist Russia, with no experience outside the gulag. We don't have slaves anymore and no one owns the workers. Each is free to pursue his own interests and no one is trying to stop him.
Hyperbole does not help your case. Working and signing a contract and accepting a wage or salary are nothing like getting raped. Perhaps you should experience these things before making such ludicrous comparisons.
l have a great deal of experience in the real world, working all over the world as a lowly bus boy at a restaurant, washing dishes and cleaning tables, to working in a warehouse, and at a nursery, as a teacher, as a manager of a multimillion-dollar business, to being in the military, working with the IRC, working in war zones, in capitalist countries, dictatorships, monarchies and communist nations. The worse by far were the Communists.
Capitalism is not collectivism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Could the Russians have won the war without Lend Lease? It seems by 43, the USSR was badly bled and depended more and more on Western/US food stuffs, trucks, chemicals, medicines, factories, radios, trains etc... basically everything except for oil, artillery, tanks and planes. Without all of this STUFF, it seems extremely problematic that the USSR could have really gone on the offensive and or even survived in a protracted struggle sans Lend Lease.
It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line. "The five Lend-Lease routes to Russia". Engines of the Red Army. Archived from the original on December 12, 2003. Retrieved July 12, 2014.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1