Teddy Roosevelt And World War I: An Alternative History by Jeff Nilsson
- Thread starter nick_crenshaw82
- Start date
USN will at least show up with shells that actually work and they will listen to Jellicoe. Not so much to Beatty though.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
The USN didn't have any battlecruisers at the time, so they will probably be safe from Beatty's... 'tactics'.
The New York and Nevada battleships as an ATL "early Sixth Battle Squadron" would make an interesting addition to Jutland...
Disagree. The need for central bank was already there since the Panic of 1907. The OTL Federal Reserve itself was a compromise between Nelson Aldrich's version and William Jennings Bryan's one.
Two wrongs do not equal a correct solution to the 1907 Panic as 1929 demonstrated.
I'm curious what you think was the correct answer here. Because most economists generally agree that the American need some sort of central bank as every other modernized country in the world had by that time.
The central bank question is current politics, but to keep the answer in the realm of acceptable discussions in this Thread has one ever heard of Alexander Hamilton?
Alexander Hamilton, for all of his flaws, was a visionary in economics. He recognized the importance of industrialization and modernization, and the role of the federal government in facilitating the process. His vision of economic policies were eventually realized by the Lincoln Administration and their Republican successors (Morrill Tariffs, federal subsidies of railroads...).
Jefferson, OTOH, was economically idiotic and reactionary who advocated the interests of Southern slavers. Guess who were the biggest opponents to central banking - Southern slavocrats.
As for central banks' role, European central banks, notably Bank of England, were pretty good at their goals of stabilizing the economy/ financial system, providing a uniform currency, and controlling inflation. Perhaps the problem was the one who headed the Fed in 1929-1933, not the institution itself.
Last edited:
He may have been all those things, but what bearing has that on the tariff or income tax?
BTW, the Income Tax (16th) Amendment was already ratified before Wilson came into office.
Note that TR supported it as well, and he actually had no problem working with Congressional Democrats in domestic policies.
And? How does that alter the corrupting influences of the system?
And? What has that got to do with an inbuilt system in 1910 supported and engineered by that rat bastard Wilson and his stooge Underwood where there is no public transparency or public accountability or economic checks or regulation that leads to the 1929 disaster. Does one see where this leads?
They were not the Americans, and as for that...1847 ring a bell? There have been a lot of "minor" ones. A lot of them "British".
Panic of 1825
Panic of 1866
Long Depression
Australian banking crisis of 1893
Putting his regional interests, personal biases and prejudices, and class interests ahead of the economic well being and interests of the whole body politic.
Who cares? Underwood was a Wilson stooge and part of the unreconstructed Confederate democratic party system. They wanted to take income from factory workers and laborers instead of having the propertied classes fund the federal government.
Roosevelt was a REALIST.
Well, that has to do more with Harding and Coolidge.
Do you notice that bank failures were way more prevalent in US panics than in British panics? In fact, the Panic of 1890 in your link was actually an example of BoE's timely intervention.
Btw, Long Depression also included the US as well.
I still think the "Great Embargo" might hold the record for the single most utterly moronic policy any US POTUS ever put in place. Not necessarily the single most destructive (Probably Buchanan doing a modern version of Fiddling while Rome Burned/dousing the flames with gasoline) but the single most utterly moronic in the sense that it made no sense and failed completely and totally in it's stated objective. Stupid and terribly thought out from start to finish.
"Hmm two nations are preying on our countries foreign trade and merchant fleet. I know we'll teach them a lesson by not only stopping trade with those two nations but stopping trade with every other nation at the same time."
What? it makes perfect sense; they can't prey on what's' not there! For a follow up I'll shoot-myself in the foot... As soon as I can get the musket ball to stop rolling out of the barrel before I can fire it...
Randy
That would be a very interesting TL. There are a lot of contingencies in the outbreak of WWI, it is nowhere as inevitable as people think.
What? it makes perfect sense; they can't prey on what's' not there! For a follow up I'll shoot-myself in the foot... As soon as I can get the musket ball to stop rolling out of the barrel before I can fire it...
Randy
Better would be
"I'll teach that cobbler for overcharging me for a pair of loafers. If I cut off both my feet with this here circular saw then he'll slightly reduced business. That'll teach him!"
From those links you posted above, later panics in Britain were less serious, and only the panic of 1825 was as serious as the biggest US panics (e.g. 1837, 1873, 1893).
Btw, the 1890 Baring crisis was a classic example of timely intervention from BoE.
Nope. Your interpretation and mine are different. Specific case...
The Barings Crisis. The point was that the crisis was allowed to develop in the first place due to mismanagement and incompetence and special interests corruption seems to have been overlooked?
The Barings Crisis. The point was that the crisis was allowed to develop in the first place due to mismanagement and incompetence and special interests corruption seems to have been overlooked?