The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Surprised this never got posted here. What do you guys think about its validity? I mean we have people saying the current recession is by the numbers just as bad as the Great Depression was. But if this is true, 7 million starved then compared to basically none today, which makes you wonder why that happened. Sure there's better technology now, but that's not going to reduce 7% of the population dying to zero.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/105255-0/

Quote:
Another online scandal has been gathering pace recently. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, deleted an article by a Russian researcher, who wrote about the USA’s losses in the Great Depression of 1932-1933. Indignant bloggers began to actively distribute the article on the Russian part of a popular blog service known as Livejournal. The above-mentioned article triggered a heated debate.

The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia.

The researcher, Boris Borisov, in his article titled “The American Famine” estimated the victims of the financial crisis in the US at over seven million people. The researcher also directly compared the US events of 1932-1933 with Holodomor, or Famine, in the USSR during 1932-1933.

In the article, Borisov used the official data of the US Census Bureau. Having revised the number of the US population, birth and date rates, immigration and emigration, the researcher came to conclusion that the United States lost over seven million people during the famine of 1932-1933.

“According to the US statistics, the US lost not less than 8 million 553 thousand people from 1931 to 1940. Afterwards, population growth indices change twice instantly exactly between 1930-1931: the indices drop and stay on the same level for ten years. There can no explanation to this phenomenon found in the extensive text of the report by the US Department of Commerce “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” the author wrote.

The researcher points out the movement of population at this point: “A lot more people left the country than arrived during the 1930s – the difference is estimated at 93,309 people, whereas 2.960,782 people arrived in the country a decade earlier. Well, let’s correct the number of total demographic losses in the USA during the 1930s by 3,054 people.”

Analyzing the period of the Great Depression in the USA, the author notes a remarkable similarity with events taking place in the USSR during the 1930s. He even introduced a new term for the USA – defarming – an analogue to dispossession of wealthy farmers in the Soviet Union. “Few people know about five million American farmers (about a million families) whom banks ousted from them lands because of debts. The US government did not provide them with land, work, social aid, pension – nothing,” the article says.

“Every sixth American farmer was affected by famine. People were forced to leave their homes and go to nowhere without any money and any property. They found themselves in the middle of nowhere enveloped in massive unemployment, famine and gangsterism.”

The then state of affairs in the US society can be seen in Peter Jackson’s movie King Kong. The movie starts with scenes of the Great Depression and tells the story of an actress who did not eat for three days and tried to steal an apple from a street vendor. There is food in the city, but many people had no money to buy it in unemployment-paralyzed New York. People starve in the streets against the background of stores selling a variety of foodstuffs.

At the same time, the US government tried to get rid of redundant foodstuffs, which vendors could not sell. Market rules were observed strictly: unsold goods should always be categorized as redundant and they could not be given away to the poor because it could cause damage to businesses. A variety of methods was used to destroy redundant food. They burnt crops, drowned them in the ocean or plowed 10 million hectares of harvesting fields. “About 6.5 million pigs were killed at that time,” the researcher wrote.

The consequences of those policies were predictable, the author of the article wrote. “Here is what a child recollected about those years: “We changed our usual food for something for available. We used to eat bush leaves instead of cabbage. We ate frogs too. My mother and my older sister died during a year.” (Jack Griffin).”

So-called public works introduced by President Roosevelt became a salvation for a huge number of jobless and landless Americans. However, the salvation was only a phantom, Boris Borisov wrote. The works conducted under the aegis of the Public Works Administration and the Civil Works Administration were about building channels, roads or bridges in remote, wild and dangerous territories. Up to 3.3 million people were involved in those works at a time, whereas the total number of people amounted to 8.5 million, not to count prisoners.

“Conditions and death rate at those works are to be studied separately. A member of public works would make $30, and pay $25 of taxes from this amount. So a person could make only $5 for a month of hard work in malarial swamps.”

The conditions, under which people were working for food, could be compared to Stalin’s GULAG camp.

“The Public Works Administration (PWA) bore a striking resemblance to GULAG. The PWA was chaired by “American Beria,” the Secretary of Interior Affairs, Harold Ickes, who threw about two million people into camps for the unemployed youth,” Borisov wrote. “Harold LeClair Ickes (1874–1952) later interned USA’s ethnic Japanese in concentration camps. The first stage of the operation took only 72 hours (1941-1942).

“In 1940, the US population was supposed to make up at least 141.856 million people upon the preservation of previous demographic trends. As a matter of fact, the USA had the 131.409-strong population in 1940, of which only 3.054 million can be explained with changes in migration dynamics. Thus, 7.394,000 people simply do not exist as of 1940. There are no official arguments to explain the phenomenon,” Boris Borisov wrote.

It is worthy of note that modern-day Russian patriotic historians reject methods of research based on the general estimation of demographic losses. They believe that demographic processes are not linear and depend on a number of factors. Such historians think that victims of communism estimations made on the base of demographic research works by Stephan Kurt and Richard Pipes, which George Bush and Helen Bonner announced at the opening of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, are false.

On the other hand, these methods are widely used in contemporary science of history. Ukrainian historian Stanislav Kulchitsky used the method to calculate the number of victims of the Ukrainian Holodomor (famine), which was subsequently officially recognized. Parliaments of eleven countries that recognized Holodomor use those numbers in their research works. To crown it all, the US Congress and the European Union also use Kulchitsky’s numbers considering the problem.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:14 am 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
We aren't taught this in the schools because no one in power wants to face the fact that the country let millions of Americans starve because they didn't know what to do or have the resources to do so.

It is one of those things you start to understand by reading between the lines and realizing no one kept track of those numbers.

Do I think the Russian numbers are real? I don't know, but it seems obvious there might be some validity to them. No one over here is going to open that bowl of dust though.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:23 am 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
The country didn't let millions of Americans starve, it caused them to starve in the name of monetary and economic experimentation. Those who write the "official histories" are careful not to include that which might take the luster off the stars of those they have elevated.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
I don't see wiki deleting the post 'cause it's controversial. Also, using a Peter Jackson film about a 50 ft gorilla as reference material? Sheesh!

The accuracy of the quoted article is questionable. I suppose folks can believe what they want, but some random assertion made using language describing statistically valid methodology is still a random assertion.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:49 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
I'd question anything from a Russian researcher on topics like that. Russia has a vested interest in making its own past during that period look better than it actually was by comparison. Not only that, but there is a segment of the Russian population that remembers Communism with rather rose-colored lenses and would like to make it seem "not all that bad", thinking they can return to it without the repression of the first go-round.

That's especially true when it's posted as original research on Wikipedia, and, like Taskiss pointed out, uses rather questionable source material.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Yeah, Wikipedia's purpose isn't to publish original research or conclusions. That's not its mission, and thus I can see and agree with the deletion of the article. The Russian guy should get his article published on his own, and then perhaps a Wikipedia article could source some of his work in existing articles.

As much as I give Wikipedia a hard time on some topics, it does have a place and a purpose, and this guy was not supporting or contributing to that. Beyond that, I don't know enough about historical research practices to really comment on the validity of the guy's work.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:26 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Some people starved during the Great Depression. The question is how many. Seven million sounds high, but I'm not sure anyone kept track. At this late date are there records still around listing the deaths, and we know not all of them would be reported.

It would be an inter

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Quote:
“According to the US statistics, the US lost not less than 8 million 553 thousand people from 1931 to 1940.

Curious where he got his numbers, since I found the following for US population:

1930 - 122,775,046
1940 - 131,669,275

Based on his comment, the US would have to have had a 18 million increase in population from 1930 to 1931, to have lost 8.5 million between '31 and '40 and still met those target numbers of population.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:45 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Ladas wrote:
Quote:
“According to the US statistics, the US lost not less than 8 million 553 thousand people from 1931 to 1940.

Curious where he got his numbers, since I found the following for US population:

1930 - 122,775,046
1940 - 131,669,275

Based on his comment, the US would have to have had a 18 million increase in population from 1930 to 1931, to have lost 8.5 million between '31 and '40 and still met those target numbers of population.
That's actually pretty easy to do: take average population growth over a short enough sample (say 1927-1928) and extend it out through the time period in question. Then, you subtract the Census data from your projection and made a bold claim. The Obama Administration does it all the time with Tax Revenues.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Micheal wrote:
We aren't taught this in the schools because no one in power wants to face the fact that the country let millions of Americans starve because they didn't know what to do or have the resources to do so.


It's a lot more insidious than that, Micheal. Not only did we know what to do, we had the resources to do it. We listened to free-market "leave it be" ideologues who said it would all just work itself out naturally, and for 10 years we suffered. It didn't start getting better until the New Deal was passed. Not only did the pain not work itself out, it actually deepened and got worse. Keynes observed that reality back in the day, and suggested the proper response.

To Xeq - it's no longer a recession. Unemployment is high, but we have had consistent GDP growth for six months. I know the free market "leave it be" ideologues on the board beg to differ, but they're simply and plainly wrong. We are not in a recession anymore. Government spending got us off that path. We have high unemployment, which means we needed to spend more, and still need to spend more. Some sort of massive public works project would do nicely. We could build a massive network of super trains, for example. Or, we could tackle the energy crisis like we tackled the moon landing. This all costs money, mind you, but unlike tax breaks for the upper income brackets, spending on efforts like the ones I mentioned above really does stimulate GDP growth and domestic hiring.

Inc Khross.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:42 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Monte wrote:
It's a lot more insidious than that, Micheal. Not only did we know what to do, we had the resources to do it.
That's a pretty groundbreaking assertion. So, I'm curious as to what resources you think the United States has in 1929 and 1930 to avert the Great Depression. More to the point, I want you to explain to me why the Great Depression occurred in the first place and why the U.S. banking system was facing a massive liquidity crisis in 1929.
Monte wrote:
We listened to free-market "leave it be" ideologues who said it would all just work itself out naturally, and for 10 years we suffered.
You seem to think the Great Depression ended in 1939. I would like sources on this claim, because the Demand-Shifted Wartime Economy simply left the United States in its worst debt position of all time prior to the Obama Administration. More to the point, what happened during the Truman Presidency to invalidate claims of a recovery? And how did the United States finally "right the ship" as you like to say?
Monte wrote:
It didn't start getting better until the New Deal was passed. Not only did the pain not work itself out, it actually deepened and got worse. Keynes observed that reality back in the day, and suggested the proper response.
You really need to stop invoking a source you don't understand. You also need to read his responses to the Treaty of Versailles and the debts foisted upon the German State. While I might disagree with a great number of things he has said, he claims NOTHING similar to the responses you are giving here. Indeed, it is a great misprision of idiots like Tyler Cowen and Paul Krugman to state that Keynes was for the massive bailout and stimulus spending mechanisms you're so enamored of protecting.

But, since you think you know Keynes so god damned well, start giving me passage and page number citations from A Treatise on Money. You might also want to refer to The Economics of War in Germany and The Economic Consequences of Peace in your response. Because, honestly, you're so far from the source you're claiming that it's embarrassing I feel the need to reply to your tripe on this subject.
Monte wrote:
it's no longer a recession. Unemployment is high, but we have had consistent GDP growth for six months. I know the free market "leave it be" ideologues on the board beg to differ, but they're simply and plainly wrong.
Well, let's see what the generic definition of a recession is ...
Quote:
In economics, a recession is a business cycle contraction, a general slowdown in economic activity over a period of time.[1][2] During recessions, many macroeconomic indicators vary in a similar way. Production as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), employment, investment spending, capacity utilization, household incomes, business profits and inflation all fall during recessions; while bankruptcies and the unemployment rate rise.
Recessions are generally believed to be caused by a widespread drop in spending. Governments usually respond to recessions by adopting expansionary macroeconomic policies, such as increasing money supply, increasing government spending and decreasing taxation.
Hmmmms ...

Bankruptcies are still on the rise. The Unemployment Rate continues to stagnate while the Institutional Non-Farm Workforce Contracts; or, in other words, employment is still contracting. Household incomes have been dropped for the last 14 years (mirroring a Japanese Deflationary Growth Trend). Business profits are dropping when adjusting for inflation. Inflation itself, if measure relative to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) is down. Capacity Utilization if way down. And the only claims of GDP growth comes from inventory accumulation of currently immobile durable goods. Sure, the factories still working are making cars, but those cars AREN'T SELLING. Commercial construction is through the floor; commercial lending and leveraging is currently imploding in Europe. The United States is not far behind.
Montegue wrote:
We are not in a recession anymore. Government spending got us off that path.
Really? Every normative indication of a recession being in place is still true. Even if I allow you to claim positive GDP growth (based on inventory accumulation), that's still 5 out of 6 way in the negative. We are still in a recession. Any discussion otherwise is nothing more than shilling for the failed policies of two presidents on this issue (George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama, in case you're wondering).
Monte wrote:
We have high unemployment, which means we needed to spend more, and still need to spend more.
That's not what it means at all, since the United State is well past the equilibrium point on employment and has been for at least 20 years. Declining Household Incomes through the 1990s and 2000s indicates that the labor supply exceeded demand in almost all markets despite the 5.25% average unemployment over the same time period. Consequently, if you think increasing employment NOW is going to help, you're simply delusional. The market couldn't sustain the sheer numbers of employed individuals and domestic demand for employment was shrinking over the long term BEFORE the recession. All that happened when the liquidity crisis hit was an acceleration of an existing pattern. Those people were going to be out of work sooner or later anyways. More to the point, since their jobs were primarily funded by leveraged capital, those people weren't actually contributing to GDP in the first place.
Monte wrote:
Some sort of massive public works project would do nicely.
Really? Haven't you paid attention to the last two Demand-Shift Exercises of the Obama Administration? Cash for Clunkers further depressed the domestic car market; hence, we're dealing with false claims of GDP growth on domestic inventory accumulation. And the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit? Oh that worked out brilliantly didn't it? Record level first year defaults and foreclosures; rising foreclosures nationwide; shrinking demand for both new and existing housing; shrinking funding for unsecured development projects ...

Did you know that in some markets, even assuming peak demand, there are still 4 houses for every available family? You really need to think this out, because all a public works project will achieve is further depression of wages and labor values.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Last edited by Khross on Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Quick! Mez him!

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:09 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Quote:
We could build a massive network of super trains, for example.


What exactly is a network of super trains? Why would this be beneficial to build? How much would it cost? How long would it take to get it working? Are "super trains" really big trains, really fast trains, or what?

I don't think you know. You just have tis vague idea that because building interstates revolutionized transportation, that embarking on some major rail project would somehow create major economic benefits just because. Never mind that we already have a rail network that transports freight, and passanger trains are not very popular for transportation; you just don't seem to get that making newer, better, faster, and more of what we already have isn't the same as providing the system in the first place. You get considerable diminishing returns.

Why don't we build a bunch of super airliners and cargo planes that fly at mach 2? That should really boost the economy, right? People could build, fly, maintain, and work aboard the planes and mail, cargo and people could get places faster and be more productive, right? What could be better?

Oh wait. People tried that, and the Tu-144 was a failure and the Concorde a hell of a lot less succesful than people wished. Why? Well, because while making a transoceanic jetliner cuts crossing the atlantic or the continent from weeks or days to hours, making it supersonic only makes it take a few less hours. The advantage you gain is pretty small. On the other hand, it takes a hell of a lot more fuel to make an airliner go at mach 2 (about 1200-1400 miles per hour depending on altitude) than it does to make it go at 550 miles per hour. It costs more to build such a high performance airplane, and it's harder and more expensive to maintain.

A large network of bigger, faster, better trains would have their own problems. They would obviously be different problems than those that supersonic transports face, but they would exist. For example, where will the tracks go? Over existing ones? What happens to freight transport between when you close the old tracks and open the new ones? Will it use existing track? Well, that's a major limitation to be addressed in designing the new trains. Will we lay all new track? How will we acquire the land?

Don't get me wrong, supersonic airliners are great, and so are newer, faster trains, but they have to have a benefit that exceeds the cost, and it has to be demonstrable in hard numbers that it's likely to before we would embark on any such endeavor. Just saying "but.. but.. Interstates!" isn't good enough. That's just demonstrating that you hope it will work.

Quote:
Or, we could tackle the energy crisis like we tackled the moon landing.


No you can't. The moon landing was easily approached in that way because it had a defined, easily quantified end goal. When Neil Armstrong stepped off the ladder into Lunar dust we could say "okay, we met the goal - man on the moon."

The energy crisis, on the other hand.. what energy crisis? What do you mean by that? What exactly is "tackling it"? How will we know when it's finished?

Those things must be defined in considerable detail unless you're loking for an energy "crisis" that perpetually evolves so that it's never solved. That's what you get if you can't define your terms better, and actually set out on any sort of major project.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
The problem with "supertrains" is they would steal market share from the airlines, so... what do we do then? Prop up the airlines like we did the auto manufacturers?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:02 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Monte... for some reason you have this strange idea that a job doesn't actually have to produce wealth to be of any value, and the point of the job is simply to put more money into circulation and build the economy from the bottom up.

If this is so what is the importance of the job itself? Wouldn't it just make more sense to print money and simply give it away, saving the resources otherwise consumed from destruction? What exactly are the merits of working over hand-outs in your proposed "massive expansion of public works" in an economic sense?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 328 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group