Crisis: Don't we care? - page 62
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1. to timbo, the toilet paper was mentioned so that you wouldn't look up or you might fall down.
2.
My analysis is based on Bismarck's formula - "You need three things for war - money, money and money again."
-Prussia found the money and united into Germany.
Germany started World War I.
The result of WWII was that the League of Nations put Germany down for money with reparations and indemnities,
so that 40% of Germany's GDP went to pay for its guilt in WWII.
I.e. the payment of 40% of GDP to Germany according to the League of Nations was according to the Bismarck formula the guarantor of non-resumption of war in Europe.
-In the throes of the Great Depression, the United States pumped Hitler's regime with 39 billion dollars of spare cash.
As a result, the Third Reich had three things it needed for war, i.e. military revenge.
In particular, here the U.S. overturned the decision of the League of Nations (and got the U.N.)), and with that came out of its internal crisis.
Next, skipping many years.
we see a technical victory for the USSR in the arms race, the '80s.
But again, everyone knows that the USSR collapsed ostensibly for economic reasons (and from where - they know who explained it)))
i.e. financial weapons were used.
What happened after the collapse is easy to understand from the history of Native Americans,
one only has to wonder about the trajectory the Indians took to the reservations.
Namely the treaty with the Indians as sovereigns, the impoverishment of the Indians, the war, the defeat in the war, the treaty of relocation on the reservation.
Now compare it to the privatization of the base assets of the Russian Federation which was done without market mechanisms.
the transfer of control of strategic industries to foreign investors
and then the disobedient behaviour of the Russian Federation, manifested in the events of August 2008.
How does all this negate the fact that China is the largest grain importer in the world?
And what does this have to do with the Russian Federation? We are talking here about superpowers that have an impact on the world economy. The Russian Federation is not one of those. It is clear that the Russian Federation is screwed in terms of food. That is unfortunate but it has no impact on the global crisis. As a last resort, the U.S. will plant leftovers from its table again so the Russians don't die out as they have done before.
It has been explained to you above and before that Russia paid for the "second front" stew with gold, and I would add that the gold was paid for with lives.
And later, the question "don't you have anything to eat?" was always answered with a price list.
- you can calm down. no one in russia or the cis has ever eaten american food for nothing.
And anyway, who told you so much about eating American leftovers for free?
...
-The United States , in the throes of the Great Depression, pumped Hitler's regime with $39 billion in free money.
...
As for Hitler's fascism,
1. Between 1934 and 1939 the Third Reich received credits worth 39 billion dollars.
By comparison, the export price of a DC3 (Li2) metal plane was only USD 50,000.
=$39bn from a country suffering the Great Depression.
I have never been interested in this issue, but something tells me that there is a "Dulles plan" involved - i.e. urban legend. Can I have a link to the facts?
First of all, the great depression ended in 33. From 34 to 39 there was a period of rapid growth, i.e. the U.S. was not in any particular torment.
Secondly, the communist USSR was a clear and active ideological opponent of the USA. Not only the USA, but also the countries of Europe were feeding Hitler to pit him against the USSR. Supporting the enemy of your enemy is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
It has been explained to you above and before that Russia paid for the "second front" stew with gold, and I will add that the gold was paid for with lives.
and later the question "don't you have anything to eat?" was always answered with a price list.
In my historical reference to "feeding" I was referring to a much closer history - the "Bush legs" and other loans that actually saved Russia from starvation. Price Prescurant? Nothing in this world is free. Especially for the rich, and Russia is a rich country.
to timbo
The conclusion that the USA came out of the crisis as a result of the World War II is well known and is not disputed in Europe or in the USA.
It is worth re-reading from the point of view of 2009 to look for special references about it.
to timbo
The conclusion that the US came out of the crisis as a result of WWII is common knowledge and is not disputed in Europe or in the US.
I'll look for a special reference on this - I think it is worth re-reading it from the position of 2009.
No one is arguing that the war helped the US economy, but to claim that the recovery is the result of the war is at least one-sided. Here is a graph of US GDP:
We have the common mistake of considering the start of World War II to be 22.06.41.
start of World War II = 09.1939.
We have the common mistake of considering the start of the World War II as 22.06.41.
I am aware of that. The exit from the depression, i.e. the beginning of GDP growth, was in 34.
In 36, the GDP exceeded the pre-depression GDP, i.e. the depression has been forgotten. The thesis that the U.S. was in the throes of a depression, but financed Germany, can be considered disproved.
On the contrary, from 34-36 the USA starts to swell from excess funds (this is my hypothesis, not fact) and they can afford the "luxury" of fighting on the ideological front. Before and after the war, the USSR did the same thing - funded absolutely bastard regimes, for their promise not to be friends with America.
Yes, the US made good money from that war, as opposed to the countries that suffered terrible losses, from Germany itself, through France-England, to the USSR. But you could say it was their own fault, they raised Hitler on their own head. And everyone had a hand in his development. The USA and Europe planned to set it against the USSR, the USSR saw Hitler as an ideological brother and believed that Hitler would be limited to devouring Europe. And only Hitler was on his mind, he at once ate from all feeding troughs, and then he killed everybody whom he could reach.
The main question is: what does this have to do with the current financial crisis?
Now that we're getting off the subject, I'm reminded for some reason, maybe you haven't heard/read it:
The former might of his homeland was lost. A country that was once
a great power, was now being laughed at by the world. There was political,
economic and social chaos. Respect for authority was lost and everyone
did what they wanted. The economy had been crippled by a monstrous inflation
and the destruction of industry.
In his first eight years in power, this man lifted his country from its knees
from its knees. He stopped inflation, restarted production, revived the power
of the army. He restored his people's trust and respect for authority. He
he has restored and in some sectors surpassed
in some sectors. Many other powers were very unhappy with this revival, but this
overcame their resistance and got the world to recognise anew
the power of his country.
It is also true that not everyone was happy with his reforms. Many freedoms
have been destroyed. This man centralized power in his country, and
and effectively restricted many rights. The liberals were particularly unhappy about this.
liberals, but also many ethnic minorities. But instead of freedom.
came stability and law. The vast majority of the people in his country
approved of his actions, and who would listen to the rest?
In his first eight years in power, the man restored the greatness
and made his country reckon with the rest of the world.
And that man's name was Adolf Hitler. What did you think?