Are Americans less-evolved?

[tjm190]

The internet makes an excellent research tool.

This makes sense, given that your views of US foreign policy seem to come from conspiracy theorists will no concept of reality- or economics.

 

[tjm190]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm

I can actually see where this jingoistic unilateralism comes from, from the rubbish taught in your very schools.

Ahhhh this story- while it is a swing towards bad history (dropping Thomas Jefferson from a list of enlightenment thinkers?) it doesn’t seem to be a big “USA! USA!” shift.

I still believe they should teach the Atlantic triangular trade, since it captures not onlt the slave trade but also the colonial-UK trade relations.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ahhhh this story- while it is a swing towards bad history (dropping Thomas Jefferson from a list of enlightenment thinkers?) it doesn’t seem to be a big “USA! USA!” shift.

What it is, is revisionist history. History revised to suit a certain interest group at the expense of the truth and the expense of other people.

I still believe they should teach the Atlantic triangular trade, since it captures not onlt the slave trade but also the colonial-UK trade relations.

Quite. The difference is that I can admit that many of the actions of my country are reprehensible and impossible to morally justify.

Frankly though, I think the slave trade, and every party involved in it, should be spoken of in history in the harshest possible of terms, not in nice politically correct euphamisims. Let us at least call a spade a spade.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The straight lines represent a fixed exchange rate- where the government names a price and the government sells its own currency for foreign currency when demand is greater then supply at that price and the opposite using its stores of foreign currency. The jump downward in 1968 represents the British government deciding that it could not maintain the pound at that value- and please, that jump is easily dwarfed by the 1950 jump- and for the US to ‘crash’ the pound it would have had to have a significant store of pounds in the first place and then flood the market with them- I see no evidence of this. Further more Britain’s GDP saw no decline during that period. Furthermore, Britain repaying it’s debt to America should have resulted in a decline in the value of the pound anyway-
Britain had to pay the US in dollars. Britain had pounds. So, Britain goes to the market and buys some dollars with pounds to pay the US. This increases the supply of pounds and decreases the supply of dollars- so, the value of the pound with respect to the dollar decreases

So are you blaming the United States for Britain’s decision to devalue, Britain’s repayment of its debt, or the recession that didn’t happen?

I would put it to you that if you read history books that were written by British authors and then read history books that were written by US authors, the perspective on who the nice guy is often seems very different.

If Britain has to pay the US in dollars, and the pound suddenly becomes less valuable vis a vis the dollar, that puts us in a very unfortunate position. This is also why I object to the UK having to trade for oil in dollars. We would not be trading for oil in dollars if I were the prime minister of Britain.

I would suggest that if you think it was a choice the British Goverment made willingly, to devalue the pound against the dollar by around fifty cents, you have a very naive view of global economics. There are actually older people of a political bent over here who are still angry with the USA to this day for punishing us in that way, just because we didn’t want to go into Vietnam.

You understand that Allende had all but become a dictator himself, right? He all but abolished the countries courts and took over more then a few industries.

With an overwhelming mandate from his people, who could have voted him out at the next election had they wished. The companies he took over tended to be US companies. As a socialist who is sick of seeing my money being used to prop up rich share holders, I myself would vote for a policy of nationalization of private companies. Nationalization is not a bad thing, unless you’re a multi millionaire.

When Allende started nationalizing copper mines, that was when the US Government decided to use whatever means to neutralize him. In fact, destroying Chilean democracy was so profitable that the US extended the policy to most of the Southern Cone.

Because the lend-lease debt totaled over 3/4 of the UK’s GDP initially, it was negotiated down in exchange for forgiven royalties on some patents and the the patents. A 50 year payment plan (with an interest rate of 2%, well below inflationary expectations mind you) was arranged- had we asked for a reasonable interest rate or faster payment, or nor reduced the debt by 50% in exchange for those patents the UK would have had a major issue.

I would say that there were ways the USA, being Britains good friend with a “special relationship” could have palliated these payments for us without forcing us to hand over our patents, which now gives the USA a guaranteed income built on British work for the foreseable future.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This makes sense, given that your views of US foreign policy seem to come from conspiracy theorists will no concept of reality- or economics.

You don’t seem stupid to me. I have a hard time believing that you are incapable of seeing that what is good for the US is not necessarily good for other countries.

Do you seriously think the people of the USA would support the forced relocation of thousands of indigeonous people in Sri Lanka after the 2004 Tsunami if the US Governement told the truth, that the land was “needed” to build hotel complexes that only millionaires would be able to afford to stay in?

Do you think that the people would have supported the US invasion of Iraq if they had been told it was to steal oil to make a few barons richer while simultaneously using the instablility for scaring up domestic gasoline prices?

These aren’t conspiracy theories, they simply run counter to what you want to hear. Now, if I was to start talking about green men in area 51, I could see your point there, that I’m clearly a bampot. All I am talking about is a simple political truth about US foreign policy, that the vast majority of the World’s people don’t like it.

That’s a fact. If everyone in the World could vote on US foreign policy, there would have to be a very radical shakeup.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

What is good for the USA IS good for the world.

Atheists like to claim the moral high ground and cast Christians and Jews as villains.

Watch this if you dare.

The World Turned Upside Down

 

[Moonstruck888]

What is good for the USA IS good for the world.

Atheists like to claim the moral high ground and cast Christians and Jews as villains.

Watch this if you dare.

The World Turned Upside Down

The USA is not a Christian country, nor has it been in any way a force for good in the last six decades.

 

[tjm190]

I would put it to you that if you read history books that were written by British authors and then read history books that were written by US authors, the perspective on who the nice guy is often seems very different.

And how would a British history book claim that writing off massive debt, giving a interest rate and payment plan that could only have been called charitable, and the entire lend-lease act in the first place make it appear as if the US was doing wrong to the UK.

If Britain has to pay the US in dollars, and the pound suddenly becomes less valuable vis a vis the dollar, that puts us in a very unfortunate position. This is also why I object to the UK having to trade for oil in dollars. We would not be trading for oil in dollars if I were the prime minister of Britain.

The UK had to the pay the US dollars because that’s what the US uses- it would be silly to expect the American government to expect payment in pounds. And until recently, the dollar has been quite weak on the Euro and the Pound.

I would suggest that if you think it was a choice the British Goverment made willingly, to devalue the pound against the dollar by around fifty cents, you have a very naive view of global economics. There are actually older people of a political bent over here who are still angry with the USA to this day for punishing us in that way, just because we didn’t want to go into Vietnam.

They chose to because their current foreign currency reserves were insufficient to meet supply at that price level. You have yet to provide any evidence that there was any punishment whatsoever, let alone that anything bad happened during that time. The devaluation you point to is much much smaller that happened in 1949 (a devaluation of over a dollar)- surely if the 1968 devaluation hurt Britain ‘for decades’ then Britain is still hurting from that first one.

With an overwhelming mandate from his people, who could have voted him out at the next election had they wished. The companies he took over tended to be US companies. As a socialist who is sick of seeing my money being used to prop up rich share holders, I myself would vote for a policy of nationalization of private companies. Nationalization is not a bad thing, unless you’re a multi millionaire.

When Allende started nationalizing copper mines, that was when the US Government decided to use whatever means to neutralize him. In fact, destroying Chilean democracy was so profitable that the US extended the policy to most of the Southern Cone.

So the US went in and stopped theft from US companies. How DARE they!

I would say that there were ways the USA, being Britains good friend with a “special relationship” could have palliated these payments for us without forcing us to hand over our patents, which now gives the USA a guaranteed income built on British work for the foreseable future.

Yes, we could have written off billions of dollars (1940 dollars mind you) in debt just for fun, or we could have made a sound decision.

 

[tjm190]

You don’t seem stupid to me. I have a hard time believing that you are incapable of seeing that what is good for the US is not necessarily good for other countries.

Agreed.

Do you seriously think the people of the USA would support the forced relocation of thousands of indigeonous people in Sri Lanka after the 2004 Tsunami if the US Governement told the truth, that the land was “needed” to build hotel complexes that only millionaires would be able to afford to stay in?

So some hotels were built on some land that people used to live on and we assume malice.

Do you think that the people would have supported the US invasion of Iraq if they had been told it was to steal oil to make a few barons richer while simultaneously using the instablility for scaring up domestic gasoline prices?

Just so everyone remembers, Saddam himself claimed to have WMD’s.

These aren’t conspiracy theories, they simply run counter to what you want to hear. Now, if I was to start talking about green men in area 51, I could see your point there, that I’m clearly a bampot. All I am talking about is a simple political truth about US foreign policy, that the vast majority of the World’s people don’t like it.

You look at the news or history. You see the official story but posit, with no evidence, that there is something else going on and a story with the same outcome is invented. That, by definition, is a conspiracy theory. There’s no evidence for them, there’s no evidence against them but doesn’t it seem more likely that blah, blah, blah. It’s fallacy- I don’t like it from glenn beck, I don’t like it from the internet.

That’s a fact. If everyone in the World could vote on US foreign policy, there would have to be a very radical shakeup.

Yes.

 

[tjm190]

What it is, is revisionist history. History revised to suit a certain interest group at the expense of the truth and the expense of other people.

That’s Texas for you.

Quite. The difference is that I can admit that many of the actions of my country are reprehensible and impossible to morally justify.

Frankly though, I think the slave trade, and every party involved in it, should be spoken of in history in the harshest possible of terms, not in nice politically correct euphamisims. Let us at least call a spade a spade.

I mean when someone says ‘triangular trade’ they are speaking of a much broader system than the slave trade. You’d still have to learn about the slave trade.

And if you go through history calling a spade a spade, you really won’t get far, particularly if a class that starts before the 1700’s.

 

[tjm190]

That’s Texas for you.

I mean when someone says ‘triangular trade’ they are speaking of a much broader system than the slave trade. You’d still have to learn about the slave trade.

And if you go through history calling a spade a spade, you really won’t get far, particularly in a class that starts before the 1700’s.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And how would a British history book claim that writing off massive debt, giving a interest rate and payment plan that could only have been called charitable, and the entire lend-lease act in the first place make it appear as if the US was doing wrong to the UK.

Writing off a massive debt?

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me. We had to pay the lend lease debt back in full. It’s true that the US Government provided some financial aid to shore up the pound in return for our continued involvement in certain military hot spots, but this again was not charitable, the US Government feared that at a time when their own military resources were stretched, the UK would cut the defence budget and withdraw from certain areas “East of the Suez” and from West Germany.

The UK had to the pay the US dollars because that’s what the US uses- it would be silly to expect the American government to expect payment in pounds. And until recently, the dollar has been quite weak on the Euro and the Pound.

Well, you would elect a president who wasn’t intelligent enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. Oh, wait a minute! That’s right. It turns out you didn’t elect him. Good old Jeb delayed the counting of a few thousand votes.

They chose to because their current foreign currency reserves were insufficient to meet supply at that price level. You have yet to provide any evidence that there was any punishment whatsoever, let alone that anything bad happened during that time. The devaluation you point to is much much smaller that happened in 1949 (a devaluation of over a dollar)- surely if the 1968 devaluation hurt Britain ‘for decades’ then Britain is still hurting from that first one.

I would say that’s a fair assessment given that we had a large global empire before 1949 and now have a small smattering of Islands.

Robert Mcnamara certainly believed that the UK was threatened with a punative response.

So the US went in and stopped theft from US companies. How DARE they!

Theft is such a wonderful word. So malleable. How did the oil come to belong to US corporations instead of the Chilean people in the first place?

Yes, we could have written off billions of dollars (1940 dollars mind you) in debt just for fun, or we could have made a sound decision.

I’m not suggesting the debt should have been written off…

 

[Moonstruck888]

So some hotels were built on some land that people used to live on and we assume malice.

What part of “forceably removed” was it that you misunderstood?

Just so everyone remembers, Saddam himself claimed to have WMD’s.

True, but we knew he didn’t… If any of the weapons we (the US and UK) had sold him were still viable, we could just have dug out the receipts…

You look at the news or history. You see the official story but posit, with no evidence, that there is something else going on and a story with the same outcome is invented. That, by definition, is a conspiracy theory. There’s no evidence for them, there’s no evidence against them but doesn’t it seem more likely that blah, blah, blah. It’s fallacy- I don’t like it from glenn beck, I don’t like it from the internet.

That is an unwarranted assumption on your part. I only ever use internet sources that have citations. One place I acquired considerable knowledge of US foreign policy, for example, was from Robert McNamara…

 

[tjm190]

Writing off a massive debt?

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me. We had to pay the lend lease debt back in full. It’s true that the US Government provided some financial aid to shore up the pound in return for our continued involvement in certain military hot spots, but this again was not charitable, the US Government feared that at a time when their own military resources were stretched, the UK would cut the defence budget and withdraw from certain areas “East of the Suez” and from West Germany.

The anglo-ameircan loan ring a bell? The UK owed a good bit more initially, but the amount has negotiated down in exchange for, as I sad, several British owned patents.

Well, you would elect a president who wasn’t intelligent enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. Oh, wait a minute! That’s right. It turns out you didn’t elect him. Good old Jeb delayed the counting of a few thousand votes.

/sigh This is an old one- There was initial confusion because the panhandle of Florida, which is overwhelming conservative, votes later then the rest of Florida.

I would say that’s a fair assessment given that we had a large global empire before 1949 and now have a small smattering of Islands.

Right. America did that. Of course.

Theft is such a wonderful word. So malleable. How did the oil come to belong to US corporations instead of the Chilean people in the first place?

Agreements between the government and those companies. The new government didn’t like those agreements.

I’m not suggesting the debt should have been written off…

The debt was reduced in exchange for several patents- if you wanted the debt to be removed by some other manner I must have missed it.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I mean when someone says ‘triangular trade’ they are speaking of a much broader system than the slave trade. You’d still have to learn about the slave trade.

And if you go through history calling a spade a spade, you really won’t get far, particularly if a class that starts before the 1700’s.

The slave trade is not an area I can claim any expertise on. I was shocked by the attempt to write out one of the men behind the constitution.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The anglo-ameircan loan ring a bell? The UK owed a good bit more initially, but the amount has negotiated down in exchange for, as I sad, several British owned patents.

Another word for that is loan sharking, which is illegal in this country. The practice involves inflicting a loan on a desperate party in no position to refuse and then blackmailing them when they can’t make the payments.

In fact, the IMF has been set up now to do this on a global scale.

Right. America did that. Of course.

I never said America did that. The question you posed was whether the 1949 crash of the pound is still hurting the UK now. The answer looking in a post war context is yes.

Agreements between the government and those companies. The new government didn’t like those agreements.

Nor did the Chilean people. Countries have the right to nationalize these kinds of commodities.

The debt was reduced in exchange for several patents- if you wanted the debt to be removed by some other manner I must have missed it.

Extending the repayment period would be an example of another method that could have been used.

 

[tjm190]

The slave trade is not an area I can claim any expertise on. I was shocked by the attempt to write out one of the men behind the constitution.

No, no- they weren’t going to exclude teach him. You can’t really skip Thomas Jefferson- rather just not call him an ‘enlightenment thinker/author.’

 

[tjm190]

That is an unwarranted assumption on your part. I only ever use internet sources that have citations. One place I acquired considerable knowledge of US foreign policy, for example, was from Robert McNamara…

Let’s test this then on the idea that I object the most to-

First we need evidence that the UK entered a recession in the 1960’s or some other major decline in the standard of living in Britain. (might as well stop here)
Then that said recession was caused by the falling value of the pound on the international market.
And then proof that the falling value of the pound was not due to payments on the anglo-american loan, but rather a ‘run’ on the pound orchestrated by the US government.

 

[tjm190]

Another word for that is loan sharking, which is illegal in this country. The practice involves inflicting a loan on a desperate party in no position to refuse and then blackmailing them when they can’t make the payments.

The UK owed a massive debt and had an economy in shambles, with over 50% of GDP dedicated to a now useless industry (the war)- and so a payment plan was worked out. First the principal was reduced, through negotiation, and then an incredibly long repayment schedule was created a with a low interest rate. Had the US wanted to take advantage of the UK, we would have set the interest rate to, say, 15%, or 10%- but certainly not below the inflation rate. Every (slight exaggeration) year we weren’t getting our money back, we were loosing money (in terms of real value) rather then earning it.

In fact, the IMF has been set up now to do this on a global scale.

Smaller countries with weak economies have high probabilities of defaulting on loans, so they pay high interest rates.

I never said America did that. The question you posed was whether the 1949 crash of the pound is still hurting the UK now. The answer looking in a post war context is yes.

So despite a strong economy, a weak pound killed the British empire? A weak currency offers as many benefits as it does draw backs- the strength of the dollar is hurting our ability to export to Europe at the moment for example, and China is believed to be keeping it’s currency down to give it an edge.

Nor did the Chilean people. Countries have the right to nationalize these kinds of commodities.

So if America decided BP should hand over its oil platforms, that’d be fine?

Extending the repayment period would be an example of another method that could have been used.

… past 50 years?

 

[Moonstruck888]

So if America decided BP should hand over its oil platforms, that’d be fine?

I don’t have time to go continue this debate in detail at the moment, I have a heavy work schedule this week, and fascinating as this is, I have to give making a living priority.

But this, yes, that is what I would love to see. To my shame, it was Scotsman who came up with the idea that money should be used as leverage to steal other people’s resources.

If the USA notionalized all the BP rigs, then every country in the World would follow suit and nationalize assets belonging to US companies.

The world would be rid of a great evil, global capitalism, in one fell swoop.