Political Roundtable Part IX

[payitforward]

I came across this article today. It was really an eye-opener:



Putin has somehow become known as the incarnation of evil in the world today. This is because globalists run the media and they want to discredit nationalism. In reality, Putin's nationalist regime has done a remarkable job in turning Russia around - at least economically. I did some personal research to verify this article. Here's what I found. (Note that Putin took over in 1999):












(Lower is more corrupt. Higher is less corrupt.)


Life Expectancy at Year of Birth




Sometimes you need to research these issues before believing everything the media has spoon-fed you. The media is dishonest and they have an agenda. Don't ever forget it.

The actual data pretty clearly shows that Putin's nationalist regime has been very good for Russia. Certainly, the situation in Russia in 1999 is different than the situation in America in 2016; but clearly, this idea that nationalism is universally a failed economic strategy is hogwash. It might not be good for international bankers, but it has proven to be quite effective for at least one nation in recent history. There is reason to believe that it could be good for the U.S.

I posted this in September, its still true. This is their perspective:

The nationalists in Russia have wet dreams about the sanctions, being removed from the financial system as well.

It's a declaration of economic war, and the opportunity to get rid of the straight jacket of rules and regulations forced on Russia in 1991 during the Yeltsin years.

Putin as a lawyer likes to do things by the book methodically so he has been slow to move even though he is clearly sympathetic to the nationalist camp. He hadn't nationalized the central bank and if he does that, then things get really interesting.

Advisor Sergie Glazyev is one such nationalist and he holds the West in utter contempt, has zero respect for them and would love a full blown economic war not the current scuffle we have today. He was one of the first people put under U.S. sanctions during the Ukraine crisis by the Obama administration.

The Kommersant National Security Committee had a debate about the budget for 2016 and to troll the West they invited Glazyev to the debate to present his ideas.

Russia's Budget Debate Takes an Unexpected Turn

THIS is basically the message.

Russia welcomes a full scale economic war, because its in its long term interest to free itself from western rules and regulations and control over its currency and banking system. The sanctions fit in with their long term plan because they are actively looking for alternatives and partnerships. The Eurasian strategists are giddy about the China being Russia's BFF and the Iran Deal is a huge victory because it is at the heart of it all.

Also because the damage done to the EU will be far greater than Russia.
It will kill the EU, give the US a bloody nose, and Russia will be bruised and battered with black eye, but will be free to grow at very high rates in the future.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/eirv41n18-20140502/21_4118.pdf

Half of this plan have already been put into action. The alternative to SWIFT is online, and a new credit card issuer payment system from Visa and Mastercard is coming online and will work with Chinapay.

The Ruble has stabilized and the government did not waste its hard currency trying to prop up the Ruble, but let it slide.

They even raised interest rates sharply to 17%. A lot of Pro-Western politicians have even started to pretend to be more nationalistic and produce MORE anti-Western rhetoric than Putin but these are the same oligarchs that benefitted from the Yeltsin years. Examples of these people are Navalny, Liminov and Kasparof.

It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist, as was Pinochet's, and Putin is yet another example - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.

Huh. I'm sort of shocked by this dialogue. Just for starters, why doesn't somebody name me one innovation on the global market that reflects Soviet or post-Soviet economic capabilities.

Russia takes up a big part of the planet and possesses lots of natural resources. That's it. Period. As to "the dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships," ummm, no. And to support it by citing Hitler! All he did to German capitalism is completely destroy it in a dozen years; other than that, yeah, great.

Respectfully, I suggest reading the Economist every week for about a decade and then turning back to the subject of Russia's economic future with another comment.

[payitforward]

Exactly, you make my point - but that is my point - we had to give those tax breaks to counter high rates and double taxation. To do otherwise would be silly and would drive out businesses.

Without a doubt, the tax code -- business and personal -- is a complicated pain in the a*s. There's plenty there to fix. But the idea that there was intention ("we had to give those tax breaks to counter...") is ludicrous.

Just look at core facts, please. It's easy to start a business the US. It's complicated and difficult to start a business in most European countries. You a private citizen w/o connections? Forget starting a business in Russia or China.

This country continually spawns enormous economic growth out of new business entities. Where's the Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. of any other region? Where's the Cisco? The entire global economy is driven by the US and has been since the end of WWII. There appears to be no reason for that to end any time soon -- though of course, it will end someday; nothing lasts forever.

[Wizardspride]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html?_r=0

Donald Trump Suggests Khizr Khan’s Wife Wasn’t ‘Allowed’ to Speak


Donald J. Trump belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention, saying that the soldier’s father had delivered the entire speech because his mother was not “allowed” to speak.

Mr. Trump’s comments, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that will air on Sunday, were his most extensive remarks since Khizr Khan delivered on Thursday one of the most powerful speeches of the convention in Philadelphia. In it, Mr. Khan spoke about how his 27-year-old son, Humayun Khan, an Army captain, sacrificed his life in a car bombing in 2004 in Iraq as he tried to save other troops.

He criticized Mr. Trump, saying he “consistently smears the character of Muslims,” and pointedly challenged what sacrifices Mr. Trump himself had made. Mr. Khan’s wife, Ghazala, stood silently by his side.

Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a “nice guy” and that he wished him “the best of luck.” But, he added, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.”

The comment implied that she was not allowed to speak because of female subservience that is expected in some traditional strains of Islam. Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times on Friday night, “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”

In the same interview, when Mr. Stephanopoulos said that Mr. Khan had pointed out that his family would not have been allowed into the United States under Mr. Trump’s proposed ban, the candidate replied, “He doesn’t know that.”

And when asked what he would say to the grieving father, Mr. Trump replied, “I’d say, ‘We’ve had a lot of problems with radical Islamic terrorism.’”

Mr. Stephanopoulos also noted that Mr. Khan said that Mr. Trump had “sacrificed nothing,” and had lost no one.

“Who wrote that? Did Hillary’s scriptwriters?” Mr. Trump replied. “I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I’ve worked very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs.”

[Zonkerbl]

Did you seriously just tell a Ph.D. economist that you're smarter than him because you read the Economist?

You're hilarious! Tell me more about how dumb I am! I'm fascinated! You should hire yourself out to parties!

[montestewart]

Did you seriously just tell a Ph.D. economist that you're smarter than him because you read the Economist?

You're hilarious! Tell me more about how dumb I am! I'm fascinated! You should hire yourself out to parties!

Morpheus and Neo are fighting!

Watch on YouTube

[payitforward]

Do I love Trump? No. He is the lesser of two evils here, though. Policy-wise, he is center-right. I have no doubts he will get the economy going again. Socially, I think he will do just enough to appease the center-left. The ultra-libs were scared to death and thought the sky was going to fall when Reagan won the White House. Didn't happen. What did happen was 8 years of prosperity. Yes, Trump is an a-hole... But that a-hole will most likely get stuff done.

You know... I very rarely check in here. But I'm glad I did on this occasion. The idea that a no-nothing blowhard like Trump would "get the economy going again" is hard to let pass.

Trump inherited his wealth. Born on third base; thinks he hit a triple. He hasn't done much by way of creating a multiple based on the nut his daddy gave him. Our whipping boy Ted Leonsis has certainly done a lot more than Trump by way of wealth-creation for himself. Why aren't you calling for him to be President? So has Bill Gates, and at a much much greater scale.

If Ted Leonsis and Bill Gates were both against Trump would you still think of him as "the lesser of two evils?" When they come out against him, will that change your mind?

I see you are eager to give Reagan the credit for the economic expansion of the 1980s, during which the new personal computer industry created on the order of 35 million jobs globally. Don't you think the immigrants who created Intel ought to get some of the credit for that? If not, I look forward to your explanation of Reagan's part in creating all those jobs, driving that growth.

I'm curious as well why you don't mention the colossal rise in economic prosperity of the 1960s through a series of Democratic Presidents. Or the prosperity and growth of the '90s in the Clinton era. Or, to look at the other side of the medal, the enormous recession of the Bush2 years.

I'd be interested: are you a supporter of Obama? Nah.

As to Trump being an a-hole but an a-hole who "will most likely get stuff done," or better yet the fact that you "have no doubts he will get the economy going again" -- I'd love some actual and empirical support for these certainties you harbor between your ears.

Btw, did the economy stall entirely, so that it has to "get... going again?" Is the American economy at a standstill? Isn't it actually growing? Or is it motionless, drumming its fingers for the guy who can't even identify the Vice Presidential candidate of the opposing party(!!) to supply... what? Vision? You're kidding, right? "Center-right policy"??? What policy has he announced of any kind? Or ever given any indication of having for that matter?

Man, I can't wait for nasty dimwit to exit the political stage! Which he will soon.

[payitforward]

Did you seriously just tell a Ph.D. economist that you're smarter than him because you read the Economist?

You're hilarious! Tell me more about how dumb I am! I'm fascinated! You should hire yourself out to parties!

Actually, Zonker, the argument from authority isn't usually given much weight, or did you maybe miss that day in logic class?

Your having an economics Ph.D. is great; I'm glad. What's your area of specialty I'd love to know? Did your studies stop w/ the memorization trick you performed on the collected works of ludwig von mises?

All the same, I didn't tell you I was smarter than you in my last post. I responded to an idiotic piece of argumentaton on your part. Here's what you wrote:

It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist... - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.

Rather than hire me out at parties, you might actually want to support these claims. You might, in other words, respond to my comment that in fact Hitler destroyed German capitalism in a dozen years, which somewhat undercuts the claim to which you want adduce his regime as evidence, no? Not to mention the colossally dopy idea that after "these competent dictators" (i.e. Hitler) there usually comes along "some idiot who messes everything up."

Please do support your claim, Zonker -- and I don't mean by saying it's true because you can quote Kenneth Arrow at length. Obviously, German capitalism pre-existed Hitler. Equally obviously, despite his "competence" (? you really want to use that word about him?), he destroyed it in a dozen years -- having no need to wait for the next guy, your "idiot who messes up everything."

Still, is that what happened? After German capitalism flourished under Hitler, did "some idiot" come along and "mess everything up?" Please do answer that, btw. Unless you'd prefer to rely on another another argument from authority -- do you want to tell me about how you were your high school valedictorian? Did Gary Becker pat you on the head? Is that it?

I'll say this: if somehow you can support your claim about Hitler being great for German capitalism, I'll readily agree that you are smarter than I am. OK? Can't wait to hear from you.

[payitforward]

...Oh, one thing I forgot: you're probably wondering whether I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Chicago and have a string of graduate degrees as well, have taught at three universities, worked for some large international organizations, started or helped start a number of technology companies and am the author of something between a dozen and twenty books. I'm sorry, Zonker, but I'm unable to reveal any of that to you, as I have been sworn to secrecy.

Look forward to the Hitler defense.

[dckingsfan]

Exactly, you make my point - but that is my point - we had to give those tax breaks to counter high rates and double taxation. To do otherwise would be silly and would drive out businesses.

Without a doubt, the tax code -- business and personal -- is a complicated pain in the a*s. There's plenty there to fix. But the idea that there was intention ("we had to give those tax breaks to counter...") is ludicrous.

Sheesh, maybe you should read the start of the thread. I was positing that double taxation is a bad thing.

But as long as we are switching subjects

Let's take the lower tax rate on capital gains the reason for the lower rate is it not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption.

Basically, we lowered the rate because it was too high to continue to induce our corporations to spend that money on investment. A great example of where we haven't done that is overseas income - hence why the money doesn't come back into the US coffers and isn't used for investment in the US.

[dckingsfan]

It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist... - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.

Actually, Zonk's general argument is solid - but not his example. A better example would be China. And Zonk should say that capitalism = competition in his example.

But I think Niall Ferguson has done the best research on the matter.
https://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity?language=en

Competition - European decentralization fostered the growth of political and economic competition, birthing the nation-state and the rise of capitalism.

Science - While eastern Muslim powers slowed scientific progress in their own region, the Christian West advanced militarily and academically.

Property - Widespread land ownership and its ties to the democratic process gave the United States a more productive, stable footing than its neighbors to the south.

Modern Medicine - Developed and shared throughout colonial outposts in Africa and elsewhere, Western medicine has the power to double life expectancy.

Consumerism - The 20th century witnessed a new model of civilization centered around consumption, as American goods and fashion carried the message of Western freedom.

Work Ethic - Protestantism in America stressed hard work, saving, and literacy. Yet today while Americans save less and fewer Europeans attend church, there are around 40 million or more Protestants in China.

[dckingsfan]

...Oh, one thing I forgot: you're probably wondering whether I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Chicago and have a string of graduate degrees as well, have taught at three universities, worked for some large international organizations, started or helped start a number of technology companies and am the author of something between a dozen and twenty books. I'm sorry, Zonker, but I'm unable to reveal any of that to you, as I have been sworn to secrecy.

Look forward to the Hitler defense.

Welcome to the political thread!

[dckingsfan]

And let's look at (through DCKingsfan's eye) how the US is doing.

Competition - One of the most important places to bring competition is to our learning processes to compete in the age of the web. We have failed and need to rip apart our current system.

Science - Our current budget squeezes other spending and one of the biggest losers is our ability to invest in the sciences.

Property - We almost screwed this up big time - think housing bubble.

Modern Medicine - Obamacare took a stab at this - but alas, a swing and miss due to an over complicated law.

Consumerism - We are having a tough time screwing this up. Of course, we could screw it up with overly protectionist trade laws.

Work Ethic - Well, Europe is getting killed by this and we seem to be following that path. Look at the percentage of the US that is actually working. And look at the number that are working really big number of hours.

[montestewart]

DECISION 2016 -- TODAY'S HEADLINES

Trump rescued from stalled elevator

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/trump-elevator-rescue/

"This is why our country doesn't work," Trump said as he slammed the Colorado Springs fire marshal during the rally, moments after the department's firefighters rescued him.

You can make **** like this up, but thanks to Trump, you don't have to.

[payitforward]

It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist... - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.

Actually, Zonk's general argument is solid - but not his example. A better example would be China. And Zonk should say that capitalism = competition in his example.

But I think Niall Ferguson has done the best research on the matter.
https://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity?language=en

Competition - European decentralization fostered the growth of political and economic competition, birthing the nation-state and the rise of capitalism.

Science - While eastern Muslim powers slowed scientific progress in their own region, the Christian West advanced militarily and academically.

Property - Widespread land ownership and its ties to the democratic process gave the United States a more productive, stable footing than its neighbors to the south.

Modern Medicine - Developed and shared throughout colonial outposts in Africa and elsewhere, Western medicine has the power to double life expectancy.

Consumerism - The 20th century witnessed a new model of civilization centered around consumption, as American goods and fashion carried the message of Western freedom.

Work Ethic - Protestantism in America stressed hard work, saving, and literacy. Yet today while Americans save less and fewer Europeans attend church, there are around 40 million or more Protestants in China.

Zonk's "argument" *was* his examples -- he presented them to support a *position,* and what you may be saying is that his position is sound, i.e. that "capitalism can work very well under dictatorships." Is that right? I.e. are you supporting the claim that capitalism can work well under a dictatorial government?

Had Zonk not reacted with a dismissive wave of the hand, wanting to "rent me out at parties," I wouldn't have bothered to put him in the obvious corner he's now in, having to explain all the ways Hitler was "good" for German capitalism or else say, "yeah that was my fingertips outrunning my synapses when I wrote that" (which happens to us all of course).

You seem to want to support the same position, but your example is China. Obviously, loosening the dictatorial stronghold on the nation's economy led to enormous economic growth. But... 1) is that a point in your favor, really: how come no enormous growth in the first 50 years of Chinese Communism? Your answer will inevitably rely on a description of... "dictatorial government" !! and 2) I wouldn't say the last word is in on capitalism in China.

In any case, if you look at countries at totally different developmental moments (China in the last decades vs. Germany in the '30s) you might want to stop before drawing conclusions based on them at the extraordinarily "macro" level of e.g. "what I see is that capitalism works well in 'this' kind of environment." The environments aren't actually similar at all.

I think it's fair to say about China that the last word is by no means in on how well "capitalism" can work there -- a different question, obviously, from one that asks "how fast can the economy of this country develop if capital is allowed a free hand in its development". The answer to that is easy -- fast!

I don't want to argue w/ you or with Zonk about any of this. I checked in here last night to see whether my link to Khizr Khan's speech, which I posted @ an hour after I saw it, had been picked up. Watching Mr. Khan, I realized that his address would likely be one of the most powerful weapons against Trump, and I was curious whether/how it had been picked up here.

But, once I checked in I saw the "lesser of two evils" post about Trump, and I found it hard to let that go by w/o comment. Whereupon I was hooked and also responded to Zonk's claim about capitalism flourishing under the Nazis.

It would have been better not to respond, and in that sense I should and do apologize to Zonk. No one would *publish* such a claim w/o any number of re-readings, and I'm sure in an academic context Zonk would suppress that off-hand example of thinking with one's fingertips!

Sorry, Zonk -- no offense intended. And a Ph.D. in Economics is a significant accomplishment & indicator that, yes, you've thought about economics most of your life.

Anyway, everybody knows -- I certainly should! -- that responding to online references to Hitler always and only derails a conversational train. My bad!

[nate33]

Russia takes up a big part of the planet and possesses lots of natural resources. That's it. Period. As to "the dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships," ummm, no. And to support it by citing Hitler! All he did to German capitalism is completely destroy it in a dozen years; other than that, yeah, great.

Respectfully, I suggest reading the Economist every week for about a decade and then turning back to the subject of Russia's economic future with another comment.

Hitler administered one of the greatest economic turnarounds of all time. In 1933, his country was bankrupt, the currency destroyed, and unemployment was 30%. Within 10 years, they were on the verge of global domination. Hitler was an awful man, but let's not disregard his economic success.

But the comparison between Hitler and Putin is pretty pointless. Their policies are different and they were operating in a different eras.

Putin had the advantage of taking over at a fortuitous time, just after a banking collapse and the resulting bankruptcies that wiped a lot of debt off the books. But Putin then instituted some shrewd economic polices. He abolished the progressive tax (peaking at 30%) and instituted a flat tax of 13%; and he lowered corporate tax rates from 36% to 24%. The previous regime had trouble taxing the ultra-rich oligarchs who often had more power than the state. With lower tax rates on the rich, the rich finally stopped evading taxes and tax revenues increased. I'm sure Putin's authoritarian streak helped to encourage the oligarchs to pay their taxes as well.

Russians economy received a boost during the mid 2000's because of a rise in oil prices. But that benefit ended in 2008 when the oil prices collapsed again. As the trade surplus declined and unemployment started to rise, Putin wisely instituted a package of tariffs to protect their manufacturing economy. The tariffs worked, unemployment started falling again, and the trade surplus increased. Currently, Russia has a fantastic debt to GDP ratio, low unemployment, a rising birth rate, a rising life expectancy, and increasing gold reserves.

They're a long way from achieving Western European levels of economic success, but that's likely impossible because nobody outside of Western Europeans and the Japanese have the societal trust and low corruption necessary to produce vibrant free market economies. The Eastern Europeans (and Latin Americans and Middle Easterners, and Central Asians) will always need a whiff of authoritarianism to keep economic actors in line.

[dckingsfan]

I don't want to argue w/ you or with Zonk about any of this.

I don't see it as an argument per se - more of a discussion. Your points are good and thought provoking - I hope you keep posting

and what you may be saying is that his position is sound, i.e. that "capitalism can work very well under dictatorships." Is that right?

Almost, what I am saying is that they can have success by using some of the 6 killer aps. I would also say that we can "lose it" by repressing those same aps. The Chinese got some of the below right, hence there recent growth:

Competition - Somewhat - they still have companies that are protected by the state - and ultimately that will set them back.

Science - They have progressed very quickly on that front - more patents coming out of China than the US at this point.

Property - Well, okay - the government can seize your land. Ultimately this should set them back as well.

Modern Medicine - The Chinese have made solid strides here. Lifespan is increasing nicely. Up to around 75 now.

Consumerism - They are all about consumer spending.

[closg00]

Trump has tipped his hand that he will try to get out of the debates with his fake complaint about the debate schedule. Book-it, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

[payitforward]

...Hitler administered one of the greatest economic turnarounds of all time. In 1933, his country was bankrupt, the currency destroyed, and unemployment was 30%. Within 10 years, they were on the verge of global domination. Hitler was an awful man, but let's not disregard his economic success....

Forgive me, Nate, but that's not true or even close to true. I note that in support of your (really quite astonishing) claim that he "administered one of the greatest economic turnarounds of all time" (reread that phrase) you mention not even one aspect of Hitler's economic policy nor even one action the regime undertook on the economic front. Not a single one.

It is certainly true that Germany in 1933 certainly suffered -- as pretty much all developed countries did -- from the global economic depression. It is true as well that German GNP went up substantially in the first years of Hitler's reign. In fact by 1937 it had actually reached the level of 1927.

But, unfortunately for the case you seem to want to make, I don't know why, German GNP declined in '38, and it continued to decline in '39.

Are you familiar with "Mefo bills"? If so, you know they were (in effect) a fake currency created to allow Hitler to re-arm. They led by the end of the '30s to the greatest deficit in the country's history -- a level of deficit exceeding any other European country to that point in history.

Hitler nationalized altogether many key industries and pursued "autarky" (national self-sufficiency w/o trade -- i.e. attempt to get along without importing any product of any kind). By the end of the '30s there were severe restrictions on how often a person could drive a car (rubber shortage, etc.). There was as well rationing of many foodstuffs throughout the 30s.

There was very little room in those years for new business creation or innovation in Germany. In fact, investment decisions were made as a matter of government policy; banks had no role in decision-making or capital allocation -- all they did was provide mechanisms to execute the decisions of a totalitarian regime.

Indeed, the whole of German economic policy under Hitler had one goal and one goal only -- to prepare for a global war against what he called "Bolshevism" and defined as a worldwide conspiratorial attempt to replace all the worthy kinds of human beings that had provided leadership throughout history with Jews.

You know, I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell insane maniacs rarely provide useful economic leadership -- you may view the world differently.

Indeed, one could argue that the defining acts of military aggression Hitler undertook (and which led with utter inevitability to the complete destruction of Germany) -- namely the invasion first of Czechoslovakia and then of Poland, along with the Anschluss in which Austria was taken over -- reflected a need for military victories to provide external capital and and slave labor (whole external economies, really) to make up for the unsalvageable mess the German economy had become under his regime.

Well... not just the "German economy" but all of Germany, which he destroyed. Had the US not decided we needed a powerful German economy as a bulwark against the "domino theory" fall of Europe into Soviet hands, Germany would have been at an end as an economy. Among earlier proposal for post-war Germany, one of the best known drafts discussed by Roosevelt and Churchill called for "converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character."

With this post, I plan to conclude my participation in this thread. Not because it lacks interest, but because -- basically -- it's not something I can stomach.

"Hitler" is not an abstraction to me; he killed most of my family. As to Donald Trump, I don't find him amusing, I find him an abomination. His afterbirth should have been turned over him when he emerged from the womb so that no one would have to listen to his improvised sequence of ugly stupidities. Sorry if that sounds harsh; it didn't happen, so in fact we will have to listen to him for a few more months after which he will retreat again to his own special atavistic rat hole.

[AFM]

Well don't dip out of the thread like that. Your pedantry is more suited for this thread than anywhere else (and I really mean that as a compliment).

[Wizardspride]

I can't even describe how I feel about Trump.....

Read on Twitter