From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
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!
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:08:55 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov14.174733.3319@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                      writes...
>In article <1992Nov14.055517.16599@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>>I take "dog eat dog" to include every _group_ for itself, as well as
>>>every man for himself. The key point is the lack of government
>>>controls and the competition between groups.
> 
>>Dog-Eat-Dog also implies that to eliminate the competition is
>>benificial.
> 
>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. You make them
sound capitalist eventhough they are widely considered socialist (no hidden
meanings intended). BTW, I don't believe in the government stepping into
a dispute between a union and a company unless they cannot resolve their
differences without violence and economic upheavel. Please don't group
me. 
> 
>>>>BZZZZZZT! Sorry. World War II was responsible for the increased industrial
>>>>capacity.
>>>"Increases"? Probably. But increased by how much? The claim was that 
>>>American industry didn't grow significantly until World War Two. I
>>>don't even think industrial growth during the war was exceptionally
>>>great (relative to growth, say, around the turn of the century.)
> 
>>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.

>>Also, the Pearl Harbor strike force
>>wasn't an invasion force. They didn't try to invade the Hawaiin
>>islands until June of 42', after they had taken most of South-East
>>Asia as well as the South Pacific.
> 
>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)
> 
>>I'm not saying that the industrial
>>capabilities of America didn't scare the Japanese, I'm saying that 
>>our natural resource capacity COMBINED with the industry was what
>>really scared them.
> 
>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.
> 
>                                              Frank Crary
>                                              CU Boulder