American companies drop in world's eyes

[waauw]

Your original statement was that the wars in "Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, plus the various proxy wars it fought in Africa and South America during the Cold War" were major wars. I disagree with that, respectfully. The "11-12 million deaths caused by America" aren't within the necessary scope. WWII caused upward 50 million deaths directly, and several dozens of millions indirectly. I'm sure you consider the numbers comparably close within your own mindset of comparison.

You seem to assume an absence of war in europe is what I consider Pax Americana. You'd be dead wrong of course. What is important is scale. During WWII the entire world was at war. Europe was in ruins, large parts of asia were in ruins; and yes the USA, Australia and Africa, along with a string of colonies were drafted and forced to ration. By example more than a million Indians died in WWII because Winston Churchill shipped their food right out of Bengal. They starved to death.

Certainly, I exagerated when I said the "system came to a halt". Then again, I'm also certain the utilities of a hyperbole in rhetorics passed you right by.

[mrswdk]

How about 25 million? That's how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion, a Chinese civil war triggered in large part by the British invading China and flooding it with opium during the 1830s and 1840s (during the so-called Pax Britannica).

25 million people die in the Taiping Rebellion: 'Britain did a good job of preventing war during its period of global domination'

19 million people die in WWI: 'oh ma gerd, there is no more global peace and stability'

40-50 million people die in global war 1937-1945: 'there is still no peace and stability so sad '

Tens of millions die in Asia, Middle East, Africa etc. in proxy wars and civil wars followed by a global recession: 'phew now there is peace and stability again, thank you America'

'Pax Britannia' and 'Pax Americana' are the most Euro-American-centric concepts ever.

and yes the USA, Australia and Africa, along with a string of colonies were drafted and forced to ration

Rationing in America was so light as to be non-existent. Australia had to ration about 4 different things. And meanwhile their economies, just like economies in S America and Africa, were continuing to grow. America managed something like 8% GDP growth per year during WW2.

Certainly, I exagerated when I said the "system came to a halt". Then again, I'm also certain the utilities of a hyperbole in rhetorics passed you right by.

It doesn't have any utility whatsoever if your aim is to have a factual conversation.

So if you didn't actually mean that WW2 was 'a global war that put the system to a halt', what did you mean?

[Bernie Sanders]

How many were murdered in China under Mao?
How about The Soviet Union under Stalin?

Fukn murdering Americans!

[armati]

Hitred

The U.S. is an empire.
Other sites Im on state that regularly, its nothing new.

The U.S, is also following the "cycle of empire", the same one that every empire has followed before it.

[waauw]

How about 25 million? That's how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion, a Chinese civil war triggered in large part by the British invading China and flooding it with opium during the 1830s and 1840s (during the so-called Pax Britannica).

25 million people die in the Taiping Rebellion: 'Britain did a good job of preventing war during its period of global domination'

19 million people die in WWI: 'oh ma gerd, there is no more global peace and stability'

40-50 million people die in global war 1937-1945: 'there is still no peace and stability so sad '

Tens of millions die in Asia, Middle East, Africa etc. in proxy wars and civil wars followed by a global recession: 'phew now there is peace and stability again, thank you America'

'Pax Britannia' and 'Pax Americana' are the most Euro-American-centric concepts ever.

The Taiping Rebellion was an isolated war. Outside of China nobody was majorly effected. There were no large economic repercussions, no drastic change in the global political arena and no great loss of casulaties among anybody but a single nation. Not then, not the decades after. WWI and WWII on the other hand had decades of repercussions on a global scale.

During WWI South-America, the USA and Australia were able to grow because europe stopped producing enough food. They compensated production. As soon as the war was over however Europe restarted producing again and it plunged most of the rest of the world into an agrarian crisis which lasted about two decades from the 1920's until WWII. The great depression of the 1930's, which effected everybody, was to a large extent caused by WWI.

Fyi, there were enough wars in europe both during the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, especially with the former. The 19th century was the age of revolution in europe. There were enough wars to go around, but they were simply minor in the context of history.

and yes the USA, Australia and Africa, along with a string of colonies were drafted and forced to ration

Rationing in America was so light as to be non-existent. Australia had to ration about 4 different things. And meanwhile their economies, just like economies in S America and Africa, were continuing to grow. America managed something like 8% GDP growth per year during WW2.

Australia had to ration oil, one of the most important economic commodities. Much worse than the mere number "4" would suggest. The USA had about 16million people drafted into the military. That's more than 10% of their population at the time. To minimize American involvement and sacrifice in that era is beyond comprehension.

Certainly, I exagerated when I said the "system came to a halt". Then again, I'm also certain the utilities of a hyperbole in rhetorics passed you right by.

It doesn't have any utility whatsoever if your aim is to have a factual conversation.

So if you didn't actually mean that WW2 was 'a global war that put the system to a halt', what did you mean?

What I underestimated is your pedantic nature. It seemed blatantly obvious that I didn't mean the system to halt in the complete sense. For that to happen, not a single shipment should have occured, all consumption should have stopped and the entire populus should have been without a job. Too ridiculous to be serious. Any well-thinking person should be able to figure that. I'm sure somewhere your mind made that connection as well until either your ego or trolling nature took the upperhand.

[mrswdk]

How about 25 million? That's how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion, a Chinese civil war triggered in large part by the British invading China and flooding it with opium during the 1830s and 1840s (during the so-called Pax Britannica).

25 million people die in the Taiping Rebellion: 'Britain did a good job of preventing war during its period of global domination'

19 million people die in WWI: 'oh ma gerd, there is no more global peace and stability'

40-50 million people die in global war 1937-1945: 'there is still no peace and stability so sad '

Tens of millions die in Asia, Middle East, Africa etc. in proxy wars and civil wars followed by a global recession: 'phew now there is peace and stability again, thank you America'

'Pax Britannia' and 'Pax Americana' are the most Euro-American-centric concepts ever.

The Taiping Rebellion was an isolated war. Outside of China nobody was majorly effected. There were no large economic repercussions, no drastic change in the global political arena and no great loss of casulaties among anybody but a single nation.

The Taiping Rebellion drastically weakened the Qing Dynasty's rule, enabling the colonial powers to begin more actively attacking the Qing and exerting more economic control over the region and eventually facilitating the uprising that overthrew the Qing, which weakened China even further and paved the way for Japan's colonial expansion and invasion of China that caused the entire Pacific theatre of WW2 to even exist in the first place.

You're also wrong about the 'no casualties among anyone but a single nation' point. The UK and France both sent troops to fight in the war. By some accounts the UK and France's involvement was actually significant enough to determine the outcome of the war.

What I underestimated is your pedantic nature. It seemed blatantly obvious that I didn't mean the system to halt in the complete sense.

And yet, that's what you said. So what did you really mean?

[waauw]

How about 25 million? That's how many people died in the Taiping Rebellion, a Chinese civil war triggered in large part by the British invading China and flooding it with opium during the 1830s and 1840s (during the so-called Pax Britannica).

25 million people die in the Taiping Rebellion: 'Britain did a good job of preventing war during its period of global domination'

19 million people die in WWI: 'oh ma gerd, there is no more global peace and stability'

40-50 million people die in global war 1937-1945: 'there is still no peace and stability so sad '

Tens of millions die in Asia, Middle East, Africa etc. in proxy wars and civil wars followed by a global recession: 'phew now there is peace and stability again, thank you America'

'Pax Britannia' and 'Pax Americana' are the most Euro-American-centric concepts ever.

The Taiping Rebellion was an isolated war. Outside of China nobody was majorly effected. There were no large economic repercussions, no drastic change in the global political arena and no great loss of casulaties among anybody but a single nation.

The Taiping Rebellion drastically weakened the Qing Dynasty's rule, enabling the colonial powers to begin more actively attacking the Qing and exerting more economic control over the region and eventually facilitating the uprising that overthrew the Qing, which weakened China even further and paved the way for Japan's colonial expansion and invasion of China that caused the entire Pacific theatre of WW2 to even exist in the first place.

You're also wrong about the 'no casualties among anyone but a single nation' point. The UK and France both sent troops to fight in the war. By some accounts the UK and France's involvement was actually significant enough to determine the outcome of the war.

Except, at that point the British and the French had already beaten Qing into unfair cedings. Qing was already too weak to defend itself. Further colonial aggression into China would've occured anyway.

[mrswdk]

No they hadn't. By the time the Taiping Rebellion started there had only been one conflict between the Qing and the colonial powers: the First Opium War, which was fought between the Qing and the UK only. The first time France (or any other colonial power) attacked the Qing was after the Taiping Rebellion had already begun.

[waauw]

No they hadn't. By the time the Taiping Rebellion started there had only been one conflict between the Qing and the colonial powers: the First Opium War, which was fought between the Qing and the UK only. The first time France(or any other colonial power) attacked the Qing was after the Taiping Rebellion had already begun.

Then France secured concessions on the same terms as the British, in treaties of 1843 and 1844.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Only because it was British policy to enforce trading rights for all Europeans in return for them not to expand their navies overly much. Ergo, the French hired the British to do their dirty work.

[mrswdk]

So you stated that WW2 was a war that 'brought the system to a halt' (then back tracked and called that 'hyperbole), then you said France 'beat' the Qing into concessions pre-Taiping Rebellion (which a cursory Google could've shown you was false), and now you're quoting a Wikipedia link that is also wrong (there was no treaty signed between France and the Qing in 1843). Clearly it's not the accuracy of the information that matters, its whether or not you can use that information to try and argue your agenda.

You could just admit that the notion of 'Pax Britannica' is significantly undermined by the occurrence of a war bigger than WW1 during that period, especially given that war was triggered largely by the UK's military aggression. I'm not sure why you're so keen to prove otherwise.

[armati]

Interesting discussion, I have always focused on europe so dont know very much about what went on in the east.

1 thing I noticed "The great depression of the 1930's, which effected everybody, was to a large extent caused by WWI."

I dont believe thats true, the banks expand and contract the money supply, the depression of the 30s was a direct result of a money supply contraction. They actually do this purposely to acquire wealth, thats standard for banks.

The people understood what the banks were doing in the 30s, thats why people like Bonnie and Clyde were popular with the people, they were robbing banks which the people saw as a little "pay back".

The point about U.S. agriculture increasing due to war is true, but the reduction in output might also have something to do with the droughts that got so bad land got called dust bowls.

[waauw]

So you stated that WW2 was a war that 'brought the system to a halt' (then back tracked and called that 'hyperbole), then you said France 'beat' the Qing into concessions pre-Taiping Rebellion (which a cursory Google could've shown you was false), and now you're quoting a Wikipedia link that is also wrong (there was no treaty signed between France and the Qing in 1843). Clearly it's not the accuracy of the information that matters, its whether or not you can use that information to try and argue your agenda.

You could just admit that the notion of 'Pax Britannica' is significantly undermined by the occurrence of a war bigger than WW1 during that period, especially given that war was triggered largely by the UK's military aggression. I'm not sure why you're so keen to prove otherwise.

Interesting how you keep ignoring most of what I say. Must be great for you holding arguments when you close your eyes and ears, but still open that overly big mouth of yours. Criticizing is a partial game when you don't supply any sources at all and yet make claims and dismiss 'm at your convenience. So I'll provide one for you, from a book this time:

Under these arrangements, international property rights were effectively guaranteed by the extraterritorial application of European and American laws.

This system of foreign concessions and extraterritorial laws was developed most fully in the treaty ports of the Far East. Once again, Britain took the lead, pressing China and Japan for open, nondiscriminatory access for all commercial powers. Indeed, the Anglo-Chinese wars of 1839-1842 and of 1856-1860 were fought mainly to open China to world trade. The unequal treaties that ended the first of these Opium Wars established a network of treaty ports, free-trading zones that were effectively ruled by Europeans.

LIPSON, C., Standing guard: protecting foreign capital in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries(published by the University of California Press, 1985), p. 14

Note how Britain guaranteed trading benefits for more than just itself. Going back on WWI and your argumentative fondness for the developing world, here's another source:

But a usual view is that the depression in agriculture was a consequence, not a cause, of the worldwide depression, which was generally held to have started in speculation in the United States or in structural changes arising from the First World War.

KINDELBERGER, C. P., The world in depression, 1929-1939, revised and enlarged edition(published by the university of California Press, 1986), p. 71

[mrswdk]

So you stated that WW2 was a war that 'brought the system to a halt' (then back tracked and called that 'hyperbole), then you said France 'beat' the Qing into concessions pre-Taiping Rebellion (which a cursory Google could've shown you was false), and now you're quoting a Wikipedia link that is also wrong (there was no treaty signed between France and the Qing in 1843). Clearly it's not the accuracy of the information that matters, its whether or not you can use that information to try and argue your agenda.

You could just admit that the notion of 'Pax Britannica' is significantly undermined by the occurrence of a war bigger than WW1 during that period, especially given that war was triggered largely by the UK's military aggression. I'm not sure why you're so keen to prove otherwise.

Interesting how you keep ignoring most of what I say. Must be great for you holding arguments when you close your eyes and ears, but still open that overly big mouth of yours. Criticizing is a partial game when you don't supply any sources at all and yet make claims and dismiss 'm at your convenience. So I'll provide one for you, from a book this time:

Under these arrangements, international property rights were effectively guaranteed by the extraterritorial application of European and American laws.

This system of foreign concessions and extraterritorial laws was developed most fully in the treaty ports of the Far East. Once again, Britain took the lead, pressing China and Japan for open, nondiscriminatory access for all commercial powers. Indeed, the Anglo-Chinese wars of 1839-1842 and of 1856-1860 were fought mainly to open China to world trade. The unequal treaties that ended the first of these Opium Wars established a network of treaty ports, free-trading zones that were effectively ruled by Europeans.

LIPSON, C., Standing guard: protecting foreign capital in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries(published by the University of California Press, 1985), p. 14

Note how Britain guaranteed trading benefits for more than just itself.

lol, now you're making your third point in three posts.

First, the UK and France attacked the Qing and gained concessions.
Then, only the UK attacked the Qing but also used their power to help France gain its own concessions from China.
Now, the UK gained those concessions and other colonial powers were able to benefit from the concessions the UK gained.

And then at the end you argue WWI was loosely connected to the Great Depression, and therefore was hella influential, but at the same time the Taiping Rebellion (an even bigger war that had more direct and significant consequences) was of no consequence whatsoever because Chinese people.

Make your mind up, dude.

[waauw]

Interesting discussion, I have always focused on europe so dont know very much about what went on in the east.

1 thing I noticed "The great depression of the 1930's, which effected everybody, was to a large extent caused by WWI."

I dont believe thats true, the banks expand and contract the money supply, the depression of the 30s was a direct result of a money supply contraction. They actually do this purposely to acquire wealth, thats standard for banks.

The people understood what the banks were doing in the 30s, thats why people like Bonnie and Clyde were popular with the people, they were robbing banks which the people saw as a little "pay back".

The point about U.S. agriculture increasing due to war is true, but the reduction in output might also have something to do with the droughts that got so bad land got called dust bowls.

Multiple ways how WWI contributed to the great depression:

• Agricultural crisis: It didn't start because of a reduction in output. It started because of an oversupply. During WWI european crops failed and were quickly replaced by increased production elsewhere. Starting the 1920's european agricultural production resumed, but production in the rest of the world didn't drop back, hence the oversupply. Prices dropped, pushing nations with an over-reliance on agriculture(back then most of the world) into a crisis. The dust bowl started in the 1930's, whilst the agricultural crisis started in the early 1920's. It might have been a contributing factor later on, but it definitely wasn't the trigger.
• British lending: pre-WWI the British Empire was the financial guarantor and lender within the world economy. It would continuously lend money to businesses and nations to try and combat crises. WWI largely bankrupted the British and they were no longer financially capable of doing so.
• War debts and war indemnities: Despite many debt restructurings the americans and especially the french were to blame for being too strict on their financial demands. The hyperinflation crises in Germany, Austria and Hungary eventually resulted in a series of domino-blocks knocking eachother over.
• Soviet-Union: the bolshewiks, who came to power under the turmoil of WWI, repeatedly tried to drop massive amounts of commodities on global markets in order to destabilize capitalist nations. They were so intent on trying to being right that they tried to drop prices to bankrupting levels. They failed in most parts however, their contribution to the great depression was minor.

[waauw]

So you stated that WW2 was a war that 'brought the system to a halt' (then back tracked and called that 'hyperbole), then you said France 'beat' the Qing into concessions pre-Taiping Rebellion (which a cursory Google could've shown you was false), and now you're quoting a Wikipedia link that is also wrong (there was no treaty signed between France and the Qing in 1843). Clearly it's not the accuracy of the information that matters, its whether or not you can use that information to try and argue your agenda.

You could just admit that the notion of 'Pax Britannica' is significantly undermined by the occurrence of a war bigger than WW1 during that period, especially given that war was triggered largely by the UK's military aggression. I'm not sure why you're so keen to prove otherwise.

Interesting how you keep ignoring most of what I say. Must be great for you holding arguments when you close your eyes and ears, but still open that overly big mouth of yours. Criticizing is a partial game when you don't supply any sources at all and yet make claims and dismiss 'm at your convenience. So I'll provide one for you, from a book this time:

Under these arrangements, international property rights were effectively guaranteed by the extraterritorial application of European and American laws.

This system of foreign concessions and extraterritorial laws was developed most fully in the treaty ports of the Far East. Once again, Britain took the lead, pressing China and Japan for open, nondiscriminatory access for all commercial powers. Indeed, the Anglo-Chinese wars of 1839-1842 and of 1856-1860 were fought mainly to open China to world trade. The unequal treaties that ended the first of these Opium Wars established a network of treaty ports, free-trading zones that were effectively ruled by Europeans.

LIPSON, C., Standing guard: protecting foreign capital in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries(published by the University of California Press, 1985), p. 14

Note how Britain guaranteed trading benefits for more than just itself.

lol, now you're making your third point in three posts.

First, the UK and France attacked the Qing and gained concessions.
Then, only the UK attacked the Qing but also used their power to help France gain its own concessions from China.
Now, the UK gained those concessions and other colonial powers were able to benefit from the concessions the UK gained.

And then at the end you argue WWI was loosely connected to the Great Depression, and therefore was hella influential, but at the same time the Taiping Rebellion (an even bigger war that had more direct and significant consequences) was of no consequence whatsoever because Chinese people.

Make your mind up, dude.

Nope, I'm making the same point I made before. The British demanded nobody contended with their naval superiority and in return they enforced trading rights for the other european powers(and the USA).

And again, the Taiping rebellion was of no consequence because China at that point was too weak and unimportant to be of consequence. To put it in economic terms, the chinese were price inelastic. This has nothing to do with chinese ethnicity. In todays world China is obviously important and in many ways very resemblent to America when it ascended to power. But back in the 19th century China had clearly met one of its, if not the lowest point in its history.

[jusplay4fun]

One of the biggest advantages of Pax Americana is to keep Europeans from killing each other.

That is enough to justify huge expenditures by the USA on:

1) military
2) the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe
3) the same plan as the Marshall Plan to rebuild Japan
4) Stopping the Soviets from expanding beyond Central Europe.

And some will argue that this is NO consequence? Some are myopic.

Pax Americana? What a pile of horsesh#t.

A 'relative peace' for the truly brainwashed to believe in I suppose.

Guatemala 1951
Cuba 1961 was real special, nearly killed us all.
Brazil 1964
Chile 1973
Argentina 1976
Grenada 1979
Nicaragua 1985 sold missiles to big bad evil Iran to pay for the Contras.
Panama 1990

Today Venezuela

Pax Americana? peace? maybe think for yourself?

Peace to these people is simply eliminate anyone they dont control
allowing the total rape of nations and fuk their environment.

As for the world raised from poverty, yupper, the american companies moved to China,India,Pakistan and anywhere else they could lower wages, not giving a sh$t about the jobs lost or living standards in N America, it was done to increase share prices, bonuses,profits and dividends, far from the goodness of their hearts or any intention of lifting people from poverty.
(if you didnt own shares in these companies you benefited diddly)

China took full advantage of american corporate greed and now becomes the largest most influential economy on the planet.
Kudos to them.

Pax Americana

Pax Americana doesn't mean an absolute peace. It means a relative peace, in the sense that no major wars were fought where the entire system is put to a halt.