Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'm really confused.....I hope I'm not sounding stupid.

I say it happened because of ww2. ww2 basicly destroyed europe while america was basicly untouched.

actually, no. it was in world war one. us came in at the end, turned the tide, effectively won the war. this became lotsa prestige, and then the reparations came from germany and austro-hungary.
in ww2, we also won, but we didnt get any reparations. you could argue that america got where it is now from ww2.

I should rephrase my question, how did the US become an economic superpower?

At 3/22/06 05:52 PM, pt9_9 wrote: I should rephrase my question, how did the US become an economic superpower?

Freedom of choice, which led to technological breakthroughs that could be bought and sold and traded around the world, which led to us becoming an extremely wealthy nation. That, and we're a fairly big country if you didn't notice.

yup, what snark said plus what i said about ww1 and 2.

At 3/22/06 05:57 PM, Sir_Snark wrote:
Freedom of choice, which led to technological breakthroughs that could be bought and sold and traded around the world, which led to us becoming an extremely wealthy nation. That, and we're a fairly big country if you didn't notice.

How about slavery?

At 3/22/06 06:03 PM, pt9_9 wrote:

How about slavery?

long enough ago so that it doesn't matter now. that money was either phased out, or has been in circulation for so long that it no longer amounts to anything.

Yeah, we profited heavily from WW2.

At 3/22/06 06:05 PM, Joodah wrote: long enough ago so that it doesn't matter now. that money was either phased out, or has been in circulation for so long that it no longer amounts to anything.

That's not true at all. Any success that we had in the past is built upon. You think we would have profited from WW2 if we had been some backwards poor nation? Not nearly enough. We owe a great deal to slavery, it's dumb to downplay it.

We're a big country with plenty of resources, so we make a lot of money.

At 3/22/06 06:11 PM, red_skunk wrote:

That's not true at all. Any success that we had in the past is built upon. You think we would have profited from WW2 if we had been some backwards poor nation? Not nearly enough. We owe a great deal to slavery, it's dumb to downplay it.

true, but not what i meant. i think i phrased it badly. i meant that there would be no money now that is left over from slavery. but yes, yuo are right.

At 3/22/06 05:52 PM, pt9_9 wrote: I should rephrase my question, how did the US become an economic superpower?

There are several deciding factors; The use of slavory in the 16th and 17, WWI and WWII both generated massive profits for American weapon manufactorers, and the cold war creating massive amounts of jobs, to name a few.

It wasn't just one move.

At 3/22/06 07:01 PM, Captn_r wrote: slavory in the 16th and 17

Somehow I cut out the word century, in editing it. So that should read:

slavory in the 16th and 17th century

Sorry 'bout that.

At 3/22/06 07:05 PM, Captn_r wrote: slavory in the 16th and 17th century

I didn't know that America existed in the 1500's and 1600's.
Anyways. I'd go with the early isolationism. When the rest of the world was going nuts, Americans were tidying the house up. That sorta gave them a head start at the 20th century.

America is powerful becaus of alot of things.

During the 1800s, they rapidly expanded their terriritory (lousinaia purchase, indian/mexican/spanish wars, etc). They also used slavery long after most of the european powers had stopped. And, they used the "american dream", to instill a sort of sense to make people work to death in hopes of getting rich.

Then, the US made gains from the first 2 world wars. Competion from the soviet union further spurred their economy, and so on.

One could say that slavery was the catalyst in the success of America then.

thanks

At 3/22/06 07:24 PM, pt9_9 wrote: One could say that slavery was the catalyst in the success of America then.

thanks

I'd say it was "a" catalyst, but not "the" catalyst.

Radioactive spider bite.

At 3/22/06 06:03 PM, pt9_9 wrote: How about slavery?

If anything slavery was a hinderance to the economy.

I will join the chorus and say that it was really WWII that catapulted the US to super power status.

At 3/22/06 07:34 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 3/22/06 06:03 PM, pt9_9 wrote: How about slavery?

If anything slavery was a hinderance to the economy.

Reason being?

At 3/22/06 07:39 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Reason being?

It is simple really, just think about it.

Slavery is an inefficient system of labor. First, there are no incentives for the laborers. The only incentive slaves have is survival, the therefore they will do only what they have to do to survive. Second, slaves are expensive. To buy a slave one had to pay a considerable amount of money in the first place. Then one had to train the slave, possibly wait for the slave to grow old enough to be of real use, feed it, clothe it, build additional facilities to house the slave, et cetra. Third, slaves are not consumers. Everything a slave needs has to be provided by the owner, and what are the chances of that? Fourth, a slave system stifles technological growth. Just look at the difference between the North and South in antebellum America.

At 3/22/06 08:12 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 3/22/06 07:39 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Reason being?

It is simple really, just think about it.

Slavery is an inefficient system of labor. First, there are no incentives for the laborers. The only incentive slaves have is survival, the therefore they will do only what they have to do to survive.

Not neccesarilly surival, but not getting kicked in the ass. Because of oppression, fear, and other acts of coercion, slaves were given an incentive to work. Just like sweatshop workers.

::Second, slaves are expensive. To buy a slave one had to pay a considerable amount of money in the first place. Then one had to train the slave, possibly wait for the slave to grow old enough to be of real use, feed it, clothe it, build additional facilities to house the slave, et cetra.
i do believe slaves were expensive, but due to the fact that there were 4 million of them in pre-civil war times, there was obviously some sort of revenue made from slaves, no one would just buy them. About training, what training? I thought slaves did labor jobs, requiring little expertise but lots of work. And about buying them, were slaves sold as children? i assumed otherwise. Of course you had to feed a slave, but very miniscule portions, and not so good shelter

::Third, slaves are not consumers. Everything a slave needs has to be provided by the owner, and what are the chances of that?
Well, bare neccesties.

::Fourth, a slave system stifles technological growth. Just look at the difference between the North and South in antebellum America.
North had slaves as well.....or atleast i assumed.

Just showing how i feel....I have a major portion of my essay dealing with success of the US via slavery and i want it to be validated.

Put simply and blunt, America was an industrial powerhouse before WWI. They were one among a multitude of the world powers. The war came, however, and America made a killing selling goods to the Entente powers and the loans given. After the war, America was no longer a debtor nation but was instead a creditor nation with the most powerful nations in the world owing them money. Thats where it all changed.

At 3/22/06 05:50 PM, Joodah wrote: actually, no. it was in world war one. us came in at the end, turned the tide, effectively won the war.

Load of crap. America added the extra manpower to help stabilize the front but the French and British breakthroughs didnt need America to work.

this became lotsa prestige, and then the reparations came from germany and austro-hungary.

Reperations? Lol.

In "American Reparations to Germany 1919-33", Stephen Schuker says that 'the Weimar Republic ended up paying no net reparations at all, employing the proceeds of American commercial loans to discharge its reparation liability before defaulting on its foreign obligations in the early thirties.'
Link

At 3/22/06 08:43 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Load of crap. America added the extra manpower to help stabilize the front but the French and British breakthroughs didnt need America to work.

bullshit. america supplied men, machines, weapons, materiel, and new tactics.
without the new tactics, the french and british may have won, but they would have lost a hell of a lot more men. without the american intervetion, the allies may not have won.

At 3/22/06 08:31 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Not neccesarilly surival, but not getting kicked in the ass. Because of oppression, fear, and other acts of coercion, slaves were given an incentive to work. Just like sweatshop workers.

That is why it is called wage slavery. Both of these are inefficient for the same reasons.

i do believe slaves were expensive, but due to the fact that there were 4 million of them in pre-civil war times, there was obviously some sort of revenue made from slaves, no one would just buy them. About training, what training? I thought slaves did labor jobs, requiring little expertise but lots of work. And about buying them, were slaves sold as children? i assumed otherwise. Of course you had to feed a slave, but very miniscule portions, and not so good shelter

If one did not take care of a slave it would become weak and sick, and obviously a weak and sick person is of no use in a field. Also, if a slave died it meant a huge loss of profit, since each slave could be seen as an investment.

North had slaves as well.....or atleast i assumed.

Many Northern states outlawed slavery. Those that did not had few slaves. The difference was that the North centered its economy on technology and innovation rather than slavery. If you study the tactical advantage of the North over the South during the Civil War you would find that the North was far more developed than the South.

Just showing how i feel....I have a major portion of my essay dealing with success of the US via slavery and i want it to be validated.

I think you will find that difficult. There are really just no positive things to say about slavery.

At 3/22/06 08:49 PM, Joodah wrote: bullshit. america supplied men, machines, weapons, materiel, and new tactics.
without the new tactics, the french and british may have won, but they would have lost a hell of a lot more men. without the american intervetion, the allies may not have won.

You wont ever find any documentated support of this load of crap. Wanna know why?

Thats a load of bullshit. New tactics? What new tactics could an untested army in an unfamiliar war give? Material and machines? Standard issue American machinegun. FRENCH. Army Air Force planes. FRENCH. Tanks. FRENCH.

At 3/22/06 09:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

You wont ever find any documentated support of this load of crap. Wanna know why?

i've got a book, but i can't find it now. i'll get it tomorrow for ya.

Thats a load of bullshit. New tactics? What new tactics could an untested army in an unfamiliar war give? Material and machines? Standard issue American machinegun. FRENCH. Army Air Force planes. FRENCH. Tanks. FRENCH.

tactics besides sending all of your troops into the blender? besides spending years fighting over the same inches of ground? gee, i dunno.
and thoug the designs may be french or british, america supplied the production power of a much larger workforce, relatively untapped by the war on the home front.

How about you tell us some of these tactics?

At 3/22/06 08:12 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: It is simple really, just think about it.

If slavery was not a successful economic model, then the South would not have been using it. Therein lies the proof of it's economic viability. Your posts are just uneducated guesses. You have no idea about the difference in cost of slave or wage labor. I fail to understand why some people try to downplay the economic success of slavery.