From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:38:52 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov16.230855.11796@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>I guess we have different understandings of the term, but the words aren't
>>too relevant: Unions are non-government, competitive organizations that
>>exist to put pressure on other organizations, in order to benifit union
>>members. They work quite well to assure good pay, working conditions
>>and benifits for employees. However, this also seems to be the kind
>>of thing you are arguing against: Non-governmental resolution of problems
>>through competition between ogranizations interested only in thaking
>>care of their own members.

>I'm interested as to what your definition of unions is.

A group of workers organised to collectively put pressure on their
employers (presumably to benefit the members of the union.)

>You make them
>sound capitalist eventhough they are widely considered socialist (no hidden
>meanings intended). 

I think the lable "socialist" was (at that time) appiled to any organizing
by workers. However, today, it suggests a level of government involvement.
Unions are socialist in a "workers of the world, unite" (e.g. purely Marxist)
sense, but not especially so in terms of government controls.

>>>If you want me to I can produce numbers to back up my statement.
>>>The growth during WWII in every measure was substantially higher
>>>than this country has seen before, during, or after.

>>Please.

>I anticipated this and spent several hours pouring over books at the library
>this weekend in order to respond. However since the quantity of statistics
>is quite large it will require a seperate post under the title of
>"Pre/Post New Deal". I will be interested to hear your response.

Thanks for looking it up. The post hasn't, however, reached me yet.
(Actually, given the level of cross posting, its worth asking where
you posted it...)

(As part of an irrelevant asside:)

>>They never tried the invade Hawaii. Your are refering to the Midway
>>invasion attempt, and Midway isn't really one of the Hawaiian islands.

>It is on the same island chain and was part of American property. The Midway
>invasion was going to be used as a staging point to invade the larger
>Hawaiins. For all intents and purposes, this was a planned invasion of
>Hawaii. (But we are getting of track)

Midway wasn't a prelude to an invasion of Hawaii: The Japanese wanted
it as a defensive base. The campaign was launched in response to the
Doolittle raid on Tokyo (where two American carriers slipped within
100 (? might have been 200) miles of the Home Islands and launched a
one-way raid by B-25s. The bombs landed within sight of the Imperial
Palace and greatly disturbed the Japanese military: Protecting
the Emperor was supposed to be their first duty...) The Japanese
didn't detect and intercept the carriers, because of a lack of 
bases/listening posts in the north Pacific. Midway and the simultanious
capture of a few islands off Alaska, was intended to correct this.
American public reaction to the capture of Alaskan islands was quite
severe. If Midway had been considered to be part of Hawaii, I suspect
public reaction to the battle would have been different (e.g. an invasion
of the United States prevented, instead of a increadible naval victory.)

(End of asside.)

>>I believe the original assertion was that American industry didn't 
>>grow significantly during the era of "dog-eat-dog" capitalism (1965-1929)
>>and that most of the growth up to the end of the Second World War 
>>occured happened after the New Deal.

>Firstly, someone else asserted that we didn't grow during the industrail
>revolution (I believe you meant 1865 not 1965). As for your second assertion,
>over that large of time span, I must disagree.

Because of the different time span, it might be best to look at growth
rates. However, this is complicated by the recovery from the Depression:
Growth during a recovery is typically large, regardless of the economic
policies of the government. So seperating the two factors would be
difficult.

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder