Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Wizard

(12,541 posts)
113. Japan and Germany, our WW II enemies,
Thu Oct 23, 2014, 08:40 AM
Oct 2014

were reduced to rubble, and their manufacturing capabilities, especially automobiles, didn't realize its potential until the mid 70s. The US auto industry fell victim to old technology and accountants making engineering decisions based on the bottom line (See Michael Moore's "Roger and Me&quot .
the United States rebuilt Germany's and Japan's manufacturing under the Marshall Plan so as to avert a continuation of the World Wars that started in 1914. The Versailles Treaty that ended hostilities in 1919, also bankrupted Germany and laid the groundwork for the Third Reich.
With new steel mills and modern facilities Germany and Japan surpassed the US in manufacturing. The oil embargo of 73-74 caused people to demand more efficient cars, and the US auto industry wasn't in tune with the market demands.
The tax structure also encouraged big business to reinvest its profits in R&D and expansion, thus creating new jobs.
Ronald Reagan's ill advised economic strategy gave the wealthy their tax breaks on the front end and encouraged big business to hide money in off shore tax havens and money laundries. Without a tax structure to encourage expansion, but rather designed to send jobs to cheap labor third world sweat shops America's manufacturing base slowly drifted off shore along with the commensurate well paying jobs and in the process taking money out of circulation.
W. Bush's tax cuts put Reagan's policies on steroids and the economy tanked in 08, just a few months before the Bush economic team expected.
Even with the cratered economy coming under W. Bush, the corporate media did its best to blame Obama.
Have to stop now for more coffee.

AHhhhh... GummyBearz Oct 2014 #1
Come on! Remember! What was going on during those years? DetlefK Oct 2014 #2
I beg to differ. SheilaT Oct 2014 #3
There's never only one reason The2ndWheel Oct 2014 #6
Oh but there most certainly was competition -- mostly "made in Japan" was a saying loudsue Oct 2014 #100
Japan and Germany, our WW II enemies, The Wizard Oct 2014 #113
spot on hoosierlib Oct 2014 #24
Welcome to DU, hoosierlib! calimary Oct 2014 #51
A few hundred thousand men KIA in a World War had no impact on unemployment? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2014 #69
The impact of those deaths SheilaT Oct 2014 #73
As to Exports, Oil was #1 during WWII and post WWII. happyslug Oct 2014 #86
And it is almost at exactly the same point SheilaT Oct 2014 #88
The biggest correlation has been the huge increase in speculation since the early 1980s happyslug Oct 2014 #94
Yes, you're right on the money. 3rdwaydem Oct 2014 #4
Low tax rates on top earners have meant lots of recessions, lots of economic upheaval. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #19
The wealthy love recessions because they can buy a good company for little or nothing and ride out Jim Beard Oct 2014 #95
+1 nt laundry_queen Oct 2014 #106
Correct. hifiguy Oct 2014 #125
You are so right. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #130
Exports and imports, as a percentage of GDP were pretty low back then MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #31
Very true BobbyBoring Oct 2014 #41
Good point. Trade is a smaller part of our economy (24%) than any other country other than Sudan. pampango Oct 2014 #105
You forget the labor shortage. malthaussen Oct 2014 #42
Everybody did well in those days including the very wealthy. Bandit Oct 2014 #47
You dont think that was a big part of it? We made EVERYTHING. Others made very little. 7962 Oct 2014 #53
People paid the top rate then and would in the Future. happyslug Oct 2014 #67
If you want to increase revenues, get rid of deductions. Al Capones are rare. 7962 Oct 2014 #72
All those groups you mention, rarely cheat on their Income taxes happyslug Oct 2014 #83
Here's the link. And you really think cash earners declare all their income? 7962 Oct 2014 #89
I notice both your cite and my cite rely on the same Government data, and the difference is SS happyslug Oct 2014 #92
Well, usually whenever one mentions "taxes", everyone includes payroll taxes 7962 Oct 2014 #97
Updated 91% Brackets HenryWallace Oct 2014 #117
getting rid of deductions will hurt middle income workers the most noiretextatique Oct 2014 #99
Deductions can be capped. Problem solved. 7962 Oct 2014 #101
personal deductions...possibly noiretextatique Oct 2014 #102
Europe was back on its feet by 1947, and Germany was already the #1 Exporter by the 1960s. happyslug Oct 2014 #63
........ daleanime Oct 2014 #123
I would settle for taxing capital gains on a sliding scale Kelvin Mace Oct 2014 #5
Not a bad idea. ileus Oct 2014 #13
That would help in several respects. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #21
The HF Managers would truly hate it Kelvin Mace Oct 2014 #66
A very good idea. hifiguy Oct 2014 #27
Well, my whole point Kelvin Mace Oct 2014 #64
The rich chipped away at those rates for decades... Orsino Oct 2014 #7
The high rate was incentive to invest money JEB Oct 2014 #8
Because I never miss an opportunity to post these... JHB Oct 2014 #9
Thanks. Great graphs. JDPriestly Oct 2014 #22
Keep posting this at every opportunity! SunSeeker Oct 2014 #57
It, etc., worked before, and very well. America prospered like never before. Hortensis Oct 2014 #10
America prospered... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #18
Ahh, the WWII argument salib Oct 2014 #32
Sorry, but... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #39
Wow, still holding on the WWII obfuscation salib Oct 2014 #48
The growth came about because of full employment (which there wasn't, between 1929 and 1942 or so) Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #50
I'll make it quick, because I gotta get back to work as this is not my job salib Oct 2014 #61
Couldn't you say industry failed to run amok with planned obsolescence back then? RedCloud Oct 2014 #52
Very few actually PAID those high rates. 7962 Oct 2014 #56
And we still did better then. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #76
The Federal budget was about 20% of GDP then. Today its over 35%. 7962 Oct 2014 #81
Yes, but the rates that were ACTUALLY paid by the wealthy and big business were higher then than now stillwaiting Oct 2014 #108
What's the objective source for this allegation? LanternWaste Oct 2014 #37
What's the objective source for the allegation that high tax rates led to general prosperity? Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #45
Few here believe you. I do, because its true. 7962 Oct 2014 #55
"Some of those taxes did pay for things"? OrwellwasRight Oct 2014 #60
I have no problem with taxes as such... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #68
I've been saying that for a long time. I'm glad economists finally agree with me. eom Blanks Oct 2014 #11
The huge increase in the concentration of wealth... Adrahil Oct 2014 #12
Actually, it corresponds with the drop from the 90 percentages to the 70's also salib Oct 2014 #26
You've got to be kidding. nt clarice Oct 2014 #14
Not at all salib Oct 2014 #25
Read the history. Enthusiast Oct 2014 #43
I'm sure the billionaires would stay here and pay the 90% tax, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #15
Most of them probably wouldn't be that fussed anyway Spider Jerusalem Oct 2014 #16
Oh, changes in capital gains taxation need to happen as well. stillwaiting Oct 2014 #112
If they go, then they go salib Oct 2014 #23
Good riddance. We don't need people buying prime real estate in the US and then not paying JDPriestly Oct 2014 #28
Billionaires have grown wealthy exploiting the natural resources of closeupready Oct 2014 #35
Capital controls can stop that behavior. roamer65 Oct 2014 #79
Good riddance. hunter Oct 2014 #93
Let them go. stillwaiting Oct 2014 #111
I say the uber-wealthy ought to be taxed out of existence. hunter Oct 2014 #17
It's been suggested that one billion in assets and income is enough for Cleita Oct 2014 #30
When you tax at 100%, what incentive is there for them to do anything? Shoulders of Giants Oct 2014 #85
100% of money earned and assets owned over a billion dollars. Cleita Oct 2014 #91
Seems like that would violate the constitution taught_me_patience Oct 2014 #126
With that logic, paying taxes would be a violation, period. Cleita Oct 2014 #127
They should at least have to do something tangible to Enthusiast Oct 2014 #40
yes! wish I could rec your reply 1 billon times Hunter!! undergroundpanther Oct 2014 #59
Hello! hunter Oct 2014 #98
At least salib Oct 2014 #20
We used to have a 90% tax rate. Cleita Oct 2014 #29
Kennedy tried that salib Oct 2014 #44
Eliminate all deductions and loopholes and increase the rate to 55% for the top 1 %. roamer65 Oct 2014 #77
The wisdom of this economic fact is precisely why Hillary is preferred closeupready Oct 2014 #33
Precisely. Enthusiast Oct 2014 #38
That would make them cry, though. malthaussen Oct 2014 #34
K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Oct 2014 #36
Do they also support allowing all the deductions that were allowed back then joeglow3 Oct 2014 #46
Oh, oh...but they are the Job Creators! SoapBox Oct 2014 #49
Policy makers never listen to economists/economic research Taitertots Oct 2014 #54
when will they start undergroundpanther Oct 2014 #58
Gawd dammit to all on this board arguing against this abelenkpe Oct 2014 #62
Agree one hundred percent, abelenkpe! lovemydog Oct 2014 #75
Alas, the people (congress) who could do this have been bought by uber-rich. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #65
If a top marginal rate of 90% would increase everyone's well-being, it could be argued that these indepat Oct 2014 #70
Reagan's intention seemed to be to turn America into a feudalistic nation AZ Progressive Oct 2014 #82
K & R SunSeeker Oct 2014 #71
I think this is the single most effective way to strengthen the middle class. lovemydog Oct 2014 #74
As long as we make the first 25k tax free. roamer65 Oct 2014 #78
I am for 50 K, and threy is support that that would INCREASE revenue to the Government. happyslug Oct 2014 #84
Taxes are social engineering, but that's good AZ Progressive Oct 2014 #80
So then exploit the loopholes! nitpicker Oct 2014 #87
make them invest their money in america. pansypoo53219 Oct 2014 #90
Sadly, Democrats asked the wealthy only to pay a little more, as if a little more would have cured indepat Oct 2014 #96
And I'd like a Federal Department of crisp, lossless, Grateful Dead soundboards. Warren DeMontague Oct 2014 #103
Right Wing: but they are the job creators! LOL B Calm Oct 2014 #104
Yup. Not much to add to that other than saying: Share that graph far and wide. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #107
I would be happy with FDR's 60%-80% top rate from 1933 till WWII started. n/t pampango Oct 2014 #109
I don't think you even need to go that far Prophet 451 Oct 2014 #110
I have been watching this thread melm00se Oct 2014 #114
I support the 90% CJCRANE Oct 2014 #115
$100 million income taxed at 90%: can they survive on just $1 million per year? Martin Eden Oct 2014 #116
You hit it on the head AZ Progressive Oct 2014 #124
That would at least $10 million per year on that income CJCRANE Oct 2014 #128
You are correct ... let's raise that to 99% Martin Eden Oct 2014 #129
Democratic Party isn't strong enough to advocate for working families. Social justice whereisjustice Oct 2014 #118
Shocking that once it fell off a cliff most Americans... EEO Oct 2014 #119
Income just shifts to another form then One_Life_To_Give Oct 2014 #120
I'll agree if the $$ goes towards Social programs and not to more military empire building. Amimnoch Oct 2014 #121
Pointless Man from Pickens Oct 2014 #122
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Economists Say We Should ...»Reply #113