Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: How did the US pay off WW2 debt?

Posted on 09/26/2009 2:00:32 PM PDT by tired1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last
To: ketsu
You're making two assumptions, one that unionized American workers "broke" value by unionizing and two that "overpaying" workers inflated the prices of goods and services.

They are not assumptions. They are observations. The unions used the government to force employers to pay their members more than the fair market value of their labor. Consumers had to pay for that.

61 posted on 09/26/2009 6:36:07 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

Realistically you are looking at a window of maybe as little as 24 months or less.


Aw, don’t say that. I’m not ready to kick the bucket yet.


62 posted on 09/26/2009 8:14:22 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey (bigger government = smaller people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

check out this site and read on a daily basis:
the market ticker.org
You will then have an idea of what is really going on.


63 posted on 09/26/2009 8:26:59 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dancusa

My 77 year old father just told me the same thing. He feels that he lived a good life and reaped its sows and were stuck with the bill.


The war years were not so fun (WWII) and a pretty big price was paid then by so many citizens and those sacrifices allowed many more citizens who followed a pretty good life. Like so many sacrifices they are soon forgotten, especially by those who are ignorant or dismissive of history. I think we’re experiencing that now and it is so sad to see this happen. The photo of Obama, Hillary, and The Governor of New Mexico, when Obama was the only one not crossing his heart while the national anthem was being played, says it all about our leader and what his thoughts are for our nation. I printed that picture and have it on my desk as a reminder of Obama’s total disregard and disrespect of our nation, it’s symbols and it’s institutions.


64 posted on 09/26/2009 8:59:09 PM PDT by Joan Kerrey (bigger government = smaller people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

So then, I have to ask ... What would the value of our dollar be, compared to other currencies, if we had no national debt whatsoever?


65 posted on 09/26/2009 9:22:51 PM PDT by Daniel II (I'm Jim Thompson, this is my brother Jimmy, and this is my other brother Jimmy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
They are not assumptions. They are observations. The unions used the government to force employers to pay their members more than the fair market value of their labor. Consumers had to pay for that.
If a cartel is price-fixing anyway, consumers will pay either way. Consumers actually paid *less* for goods and services(proportional to their income) during Union's heyday. So your argument doesn't work.
66 posted on 09/27/2009 12:37:18 AM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Daniel II
So then, I have to ask ... What would the value of our dollar be, compared to other currencies, if we had no national debt whatsoever?
Whatever gold it was pegged to?
67 posted on 09/27/2009 12:37:51 AM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Consumers actually paid *less* for goods and services(proportional to their income) during Union's heyday. So your argument doesn't work.

I don't know where you're getting that but it doesn't matter. What matters is that they still paid more then than they would have if there had been no union. The money to pay higher wages had to come from somewhere.

68 posted on 09/27/2009 12:50:36 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
I don't know where you're getting that but it doesn't matter. What matters is that they still paid more then than they would have if there had been no union. The money to pay higher wages had to come from somewhere.
I don't think the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Fords missed it that much.
69 posted on 09/27/2009 1:21:17 AM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
I don't think the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Fords missed it that much. What about their stockholders?
70 posted on 09/27/2009 1:28:45 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
What about their stockholders?
Let's just say they did okay.
71 posted on 09/27/2009 1:34:58 AM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tired1

We had factories then.

Remember factories?

You know, jobs? “Free trade” fixed that...


72 posted on 09/27/2009 1:37:41 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (PALIN / BECK 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
"Sure, but if *too much* goes into capital you're just as screwed."

It would be nice if you used more precise terms than "sc--d."

More importantly, you did not talk about capital. You made a nonsensical statement istead about wages vs. consumption. No need to substitute the topic and pretend the conversation was about something else.

" You can't have supply without demand,"

To get out of one nonsense you now produce another. Who on earth told you that one cannot have supply without demand or vice versa? Total nonsense.

"which is exactly where the US economy is today."

I'll stop here. Your remarks sound like those of an undergraduate that just completed one half of an introductory course on economics and misunderstood most of it.

73 posted on 09/27/2009 1:56:51 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
It would be nice if you used more precise terms than "sc--d."
I'd say deflation, but that lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.
More importantly, you did not talk about capital. You made a nonsensical statement istead about wages vs. consumption. No need to substitute the topic and pretend the conversation was about something else.
Capital was implied mr Pendant.
To get out of one nonsense you now produce another. Who on earth told you that one cannot have supply without demand or vice versa? Total nonsense.

I'll stop here. Your remarks sound like those of an undergraduate that just completed one half of an introductory course on economics and misunderstood most of it.

Yawn... says someone who lacks the most rudimentary rhetorical skills.

Now, imagine the phrase "you can't have supply without demand" was a rhetorical device used to imply that an overabundance of one or the other was a bad thing.

Are you autistic? That would explain your inability to understand context and the implied aspects of argumentation.

74 posted on 09/27/2009 2:46:08 PM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Lib-Lickers 2

That raises the issue of the “lend-Lease” and all the aid we gave the allies durning the war. Did they pay any of it back?


75 posted on 09/27/2009 6:05:58 PM PDT by Yorlik803 ( Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803

I believe the only country to pay us back in full was Finland


76 posted on 09/27/2009 6:28:58 PM PDT by Lib-Lickers 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

Well I did some checking at the U.S. Treasury direct website, and
get *this* —

“...Originally issued for a fixed term of 10 years, E bonds were granted interest extensions that brought their interest-bearing lives to 30 or 40 years, dependent upon the issue date of the bond. Millions of Series E bonds continue to earn interest today, although the last E bonds will stop earning interest in 2010. Series E bonds were replaced by the Series EE bond in 1980.”

That’s pretty cool. Savings bonds are nice, for one thing, if they are lost or stolen they can be returned. That’s tough to do with cash. So in that sense they are better than cash in some ways. The trend is towards complete electronic registration of securities, but there’s something to be said for analog money, if it is secure. I personally opened one of the treasury direct accounts a while back so it would be open for business so to speak. But I still keep a stack of good ole US bonds. Interestingly they cannot be sold on the secondary market either...


77 posted on 09/28/2009 9:22:08 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

“If we got rid of Medicaid, Medicare, and disassembled our welfare state, the government would be in good shape in pretty short order.”

I wish this were true... but if you look at the numbers, it is not. The national debt is now $14 trillion. In 2009, medicare and medicaid cost us $676 billion dollars. If the government somehow diverted all of this money to paying off the debt, it would take 20 years. These services are disproportionately used by the elderly, the blind, and the disabled. They also fund the majority of residencies (doctor training programs) in the US. Social Security is also around this size. And the department of defense is even larger. And even if the budgets of these services were cut, it would not fix the root of the problem. We simply spend too much and make to little. It would be a step in the right direction, though.


78 posted on 12/31/2010 4:43:16 PM PST by mports1888
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mports1888

At some point we’re going to have admit that the Federal Government can’t take care of people and is not supposed to. IF we don’t we’ll be bankrupt and defenseless.

The job of the Federal government is to defend the nation, negotiate with foreign nations, resolve internal issues between the states, and coordinate law enforcement between states for interstate cases. That’s it. We need to return the Federal Government to those functions and let the rest devolve back to the states and the people.


79 posted on 01/01/2011 8:07:43 AM PST by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

Well, it helped that were last, undamaged industrial nation in the world...


80 posted on 01/01/2011 8:08:58 AM PST by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson