161–170 of 249 posts
One of the ideas that seems to be missed from the study of history and economy, was the effect on the total destruction of the Japanese and German industrial base - during WWII. Britain and USA, were left with their archaic industrial systems. After WWII, the Japanese and the German steel industry had to be completely reborn. (At the cost of primarily USA financing.) Those two countries had no more relics of the past…
Can we set up a system to occasionally bomb our industrial base to get these benefits? Your point is mostly irrelevant. US steel could have innovated or even copied - but it didn't. The idea that poor US steel couldn't compete because other startups had an advantage is assinine. That is a core message of the article itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…
The government of North Korea did not fall or surrender. You can argue that it was a political win if the goal was defending South Korea, but militarily, it was a stalemate. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam after we withdrew. It was in no way a victory for the United States. Afghanistan was arguably pretty similar, although we did install a new government while we were there. Germany and Japan, on the other hand…
Japan was firebombed pretty ruthlessly. McNamara openly stated that he would have been tried as a war criminal had the US lost the war. Here is a list of 67 Japanese cities that were firebombed with their destruction % and their US size equivalent:
http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html#google_vignette
Source: The Fog of War (Documentary)
I guess this all depends on one’s definition “bombed back into the Stone Age”. I’m sure descendants of those that lived in Dresden might argue that they, in fact, were indiscriminately bombed to the point of ruin.
One of the ideas that seems to be missed from the study of history and economy, was the effect on the total destruction of the Japanese and German industrial base - during WWII. Britain and USA, were left with their archaic industrial systems. After WWII, the Japanese and the German steel industry had to be completely reborn. (At the cost of primarily USA financing.) Those two countries had no more relics of the past…
It is an interesting narrative but largely untrue. As the article points out, US Steel (and the US steel industry in general) was making enough profit, what they were not doing was re-investing those profits into upgrading their steel making. Instead, the "People in Charge" were giving themselves large bonuses and pay upgrades for being bosses of the "big steel." This was especially true through the 80's and 90's in…
Once those matured, the new stuff quickly caught up. But it needed time.
What makes you think it was the increase in executive or shareholder comp that caused the degradation in quality? Do we even know if there was a degradation between a 1960 ford and 1985, or is it because the Japanese and German automakers raised our standards?
This is a situation where a lot of narratives fit the evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"with political goals, and military means" True "If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age." Putin probably thought the same about Ukraine. Military objectives were achieved in Afghanistan, but not in Korea and Vietnam. And based on Clausewitz: "War is politics by other means" And our politics changed....
> Military objectives were achieved in Afghanistan, but not in Korea Hard disagree on Korea. South Korea is a hell of an ally, very inconvenient for the PRC.
The objective of the US once they pushed back the initial invasion in the Korean War was to destroy the DPRK, force communism out of Korea, and unify the country. They failed. The war became a stalemate once China got directly involved.
If Vietnam becomes a stalwart ally of the US over the next 20 years that won’t mean the Vietnam War was a success just because the US ended up eventually having a useful interest in the region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solution for the future of American industry: Bomb US Steel? Maybe this would also be an effective way of clearing out NIMBYs blocking the routes for high-speed rail lines?
> Solution for the future of American industry: Bomb US Steel? Plenty of places are bombed into oblivion. What makes the rebirth is the rebuilding. The marshalling of public resources. You can replicate that without the bombs with a public-spending initiative.
Indeed, something like a Marshall Plan!
> You can replicate that without the bombs with a public-spending initiative.
You can, but the challenge isn't in the implementation as much as gathering the political will to do that. Since the New Deal and WWII, that has rarely happened in the US, and only recently: The ACA, the 2021 Infrastructure Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act. All of those barely had enough support to pass and both are at risk if there is a significant shift in power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an interesting narrative but largely untrue. As the article points out, US Steel (and the US steel industry in general) was making enough profit, what they were not doing was re-investing those profits into upgrading their steel making. Instead, the "People in Charge" were giving themselves large bonuses and pay upgrades for being bosses of the "big steel." This was especially true through the 80's and 90's in…
I’m not sure that narrative on “forgetting how to build quality cars” is fair. Germany and Japan introduced a lot of new technologies and processes that would naturally be a little rocky from time to time. It is the nature of immature services. Once those matured, the new stuff quickly caught up. But it needed time. What makes you think it was the increase in executive or shareholder comp that caused the degradation…
The cost difference is small but it's indicative of a larger issue of disposability. One of the reasons Japanese vehicles started to dominate was that they lasted longer. This is due to better tolerances, more efficient engines, and more robust component design.
The Toyota production method, lean and just-in-time were mostly methods for rationalizing better systems to eliminate waste within production and to minimize inventory. Such methods don't inherently make a better car though they leave more io the table to spend on coatings, quality parts etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, the US hasn't fought any wars since WWII -- as a declaration of war is a Congressional function. All of the other things people think of or refer to wars were technically "conflicts".
I'm unsure the US can unilaterally decide if it's in a war or not. Do the opposite side consider it a war? Do the international community consider it a war? Semantic games internal to a single side do not matter much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They "win" the war by accidentally kidnapping a scientist with a powerful new nuclear weapon. No actual fighting happens. It's an excellent movie though.
A satirical movie involving nuclear weapons and Peter Sellers plays three roles? Where have I heard that one before? (actually, it looks like it is five years older than Dr. Strangelove? This looks like it could be turned into a very mean pubquiz trivia question, hahaha)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Comedies involving diamonds and/or nuclear weapons"
Also one movie with him in brownface that oddly enough is actually extremely popular in India and Pakistan (to the point where I was introduced to it on a New Year's Eve party hosted by a friend from Pakistan). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Party_(1968_film)#Racial_c...