The Great Depression Minus Two Leaders.

If both Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler died, and their political ideas and various policies were thus never put into practice (that is, there's no similar political figure in either country), how would the Great Depression have gone differently? Which countries would have emerged a political superpower and who would have fallen apart?
 
FDR Dies:

The problem here is that FDR's New Deal didn't really go far enough to create jobs during the great depression, and also that FDR was simply doing what the American People wanted him to do: get people back to work, regardless or in spite of the conventional powers of the Presidency. Other people, among them Herbert Hoover (Who created a job finding organization and a business loans organization) had other ideas of trying to reform the government.

If FDR dies, (and your broad claim of like-minded people is unworkable, 10-20% of America vanishes if you claim all reformers disappear) we'd see a different kind of change. Consolidation of Union Power, abolition of Child Labor, the end of Prohibition, these things were in the cards by the passing of the New Deal in any situation. The USA could move further to the left and start launching outright government controlled businesses, creating a proto-socialist structured USA like Western Europe is today. The USA could also respond with some kind of government bailout of debts and try to re-energize the markets. Another option is a very international approach--the USA works with the UK and France to eliminate Tariffs between these nations to try to open foreign markets. If Germany is included in these negotiations, the second world war might be averted. I'd suspect that Government does Business is the alternative answer, which creates an inefficient structure and desperately needed Jobs.

Hitler's addressing of the Great Depression started with mundane Job Creation, but quickly moved into massive, unsustainable military development. The Germans desperately need jobs, but Der Furher historically threw most of his resources into army development. Without Hitler, it's an open question whether the Nazi's ever come into power in the first place. The Answer is probably not. The Wiemar Republic is a failing nation, and its very likely that once the Political right crumbles with no names like Papen and General Scheliechter leading it into obscurity, the KPD and Ernst Thalmann are coming to power after Hindenburg dies. Thalmann's answer to the Great Depression is breaking the Capitalist Machine for the benefit of the people at the bottom. In basic terms, he's going to use a state-socialist method to rebuild Germany--and he might not be above seizing the assets of the very wealthy to achieve these aims. Thalmann's Socialist rebuilding of Germany is going to cause massive capital flight from the country, but its also going to produce short term results. Whether Germany ten years in the future has many prospects for growth is a hard question to answer.

The problem with Socialism is that it doesn't work as well as Capitalism. So a Capitalist structure is generally more efficient than a Socialist one, and the price will be paid in GDP/Capita Increases.
 
The problem with Socialism is that it doesn't work as well as Capitalism. So a Capitalist structure is generally more efficient than a Socialist one, and the price will be paid in GDP/Capita Increases.

Socialism is far more efficient than Capitalism and actually sustainable.

Capitalism is not sustainable and discourages long term planning, thus creating a crack addict economy like the U.S.'s.
 
The problem with Socialism is that it doesn't work as well as Capitalism. So a Capitalist structure is generally more efficient than a Socialist one, and the price will be paid in GDP/Capita Increases.

Socialism is far more efficient than Capitalism and actually sustainable.

Capitalism is not sustainable and discourages long term planning, thus creating a crack addict economy like the U.S.'s.
 
Socialism is far more efficient than Capitalism and actually sustainable..

Sustainable:Ever heard of the Aral Sea?

I am not quite sure how you can call a system that subtracted rather than added value to raw materials "efficient".
Considering that the computer you are typing on would not even exist in a socialist world I think you should give up on whatever you are smoking.

Capitalism is not sustainable and discourages long term planning, thus creating a crack addict economy like the U.S.'s.

Do you actually know anything about how businesses, finance and the markets work? Have you ever even spoken to someone who runs a major business or who makes investments? Long-term revenue streams are the holy grail of investment. Hence the low price given to government debt.
 
If both Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler died, and their political ideas and various policies were thus never put into practice (that is, there's no similar political figure in either country), how would the Great Depression have gone differently? Which countries would have emerged a political superpower and who would have fallen apart?

This is far too vague. When does Hitler die? That makes a big difference.
 
Sustainable:Ever heard of the Aral Sea?

Yes, a sad story of a totalitarian regime in which no one bothered to rock the boat. Any further Red Herrings.

Do you actually know anything about how businesses, finance and the markets work? Have you ever even spoken to someone who runs a major business or who makes investments? Long-term revenue streams are the holy grail of investment. Hence the low price given to government debt.

Lets see, U.S. CEOs are hired or fired on quarterly earnings for shareholders. They have to maximize profit immediately by any means. Which leads to outsourcing, aggressive loaning, etc. We see how good thats been to the U.S. economy, that is a complete disaster.

Need further proof, look no farther than Nuclear Power Plants. We need a shit load of them to meet our energy requirements, but no U.S. Company is willing to take a loss on building such plants, only the U.S. Government can afford to wait years for a return on their investment and its completely bought into the Magical Free Market solves everything bullshit.

Britain and France on the other hand have not.
 
I would say they probably stagger along like Britain where such ideas, as presented by Mosley to MacDonald, were rejected and not implemented

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Yes, a sad story of a totalitarian regime in which no one bothered to rock the boat. Any further Red Herrings. .

Other than the fact that capitalist regimes have higher standards of living and better environmental protection than socialist ones, nope.

Socialism is of course totalitarian, because it requires a command economy. And as you, for once, astutely observed, that removes checks and balances.

Lets see, U.S. CEOs are hired or fired on quarterly earnings for shareholders. They have to maximize profit immediately by any means. Which leads to outsourcing, aggressive loaning, etc. We see how good thats been to the U.S. economy, that is a complete disaster..

Any more vague generalisations? Any meaningful comparison with systems where vested interests prevent progress?

Need further proof, look no farthr than Nuclear Power Plants. We need a shit load of them to meet our energy requirements, but no U.S. Company is willing to take a loss on building such plants, only the U.S. Government can afford to wait years for a return on their investment and its completely bought into the Magical Free Market solves everything bullshit.
Britain and France on the other hand have not.

Britain has not built nuclear power plants in years because the government was err, too short-termist.
Your statement contains so many dubious assumptions its ridiculous, nuclear power plants are, on a large number of levels, a high political risk investment, and that market does not build them because there is not enough chance to recoup that investment. The market would happily wait for the return if the risk of achieving that return could be controlled.
 
I would say they probably stagger along like Britain where such ideas, as presented by Mosley to MacDonald, were rejected and not implemented

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Britain staggered along as a well-above average performer during the Depression.
 
The problem with Socialism is that it doesn't work as well as Capitalism.

I think you're confusing socialism with communism here. Very different things. I got the impression that by socialism the previous poster meant something like OTL modern day western Europe, not the USSR...
 
I think you're confusing socialism with communism here. Very different things. I got the impression that by socialism the previous poster meant something like OTL modern day western Europe, not the USSR...

As a system for which capitalism would be a better description? I can think of clearer ways to debate.
 
Top