Posted on 07/17/2011 5:32:01 PM PDT by izzatzo
!945-1948 started to look ok as people started buying cars after the war, but it soon stumbled, which was one of the reasons that congress allowed us to be dragged into Korea.
By 1955 it was clear that we were headed down at a constant rate. Foird and Chrysler were in trouble, and Studebaker/Packard, as well as wyllys were essentially done. Aerojet dropped the Crosley line, and Kaiser also bailed out.
Taxes kill economies, and the 90+% taxes on producers were a huge anchor dragging everyone down.
Exactly!..especially what we know now about them...I don't think any Central bankers wanted competition!
Wow. Now that's a quote! Sounds like something Reagan would say.
You have made no argument as to why Harding should be considered not only bad, but the worst of all time. Why do you feel that he is so bad?
Do you feel that his adulterous ways and appointments of a few corrupt individuals trump the accomplishments of reducing the budget by half, reducing the debt by a third, reducing unemployment by half, reducing the top marginal tax rate from 73% to 24%, and setting up for a doubling of the GDP?
Now I understand that corruption mus be considered intolerable, but in light of what he accomplished in such a short period, there's no way I would rate him as the worst, or even in the bottom half. If it wasn't for his corrupt appointments, I think he would be in the top ten.
Thanks for the correction,meant Potsdam.
I have never heard that post war America was a period of economic despair.
“As the Cold War unfolded in the decade and a half after World War II, the United States experienced phenomenal economic growth. The war brought the return of prosperity, and in the postwar period the United States consolidated its position as the world’s richest country. Gross national product, a measure of all goods and services produced in the United States, jumped from about $200 thousand-million in 1940 to $300 thousand-million in 1950 to more than $500 thousand-million in 1960. More and more Americans now considered themselves part of the middle class.
The growth had different sources. The automobile industry was partially responsible, as the number of automobiles produced annually quadrupled between 1946 and 1955. A housing boom, stimulated in part by easily affordable mortgages for returning servicemen, fueled the expansion. The rise in defense spending as the Cold War escalated also played a part.
After 1945 the major corporations in America grew even larger. There had been earlier waves of mergers in the 1890s and in the 1920s; in the 1950s another wave occurred. New conglomerates — firms with holdings in a variety of industries — led the way. International Telephone and Telegraph, for example, bought Sheraton Hotels, Continental Baking, Hartford Fire Insurance, and Avis Rent-a-Car, among other companies. Smaller franchise operations like McDonald’s fast-food restaurants provided still another pattern. Large corporations also developed holdings overseas, where labor costs were often lower.
Workers found their own lives changing as industrial America changed. Fewer workers produced goods; more provided services. By 1956 a majority held white-collar jobs, working as corporate managers, teachers, salespersons and office employees. Some firms granted a guaranteed annual wage, long-term employment contracts and other benefits. With such changes, labor militancy was undermined and some class distinctions began to fade.”
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/ECO/1991/ch3_p12.htm
Losing five or six long standing auto manufacturers was quite a boom.
You've got a point. But Harding and Coolidge were maligned so long that the liberal view is the conventional wisdom and putting in a good word for them is revisionist.
Post war America was not a dark period economically for the United States, it was a glorious period for us, we became fabulously wealthy, and the envy of the world.
Kennedy was a mixed bag -- to the point where it was hard to say just exactly what he would have done if he'd lived.
Carter was awful all the way through.
How do you cite a negative? Read the Wikipedia article posted in your original posting. There’s no mention of him being a priest, let alone a Jesuit priest. Where’s YOUR citation that he was a Jesuit priest? You’re the one who made the assertion.
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.