On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:08:45 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 4:11 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 6:59:05 PM UTC-4, Joy Beeson wrote:

(quoting the site https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/your-destiny )
> >> "I am a little surprised (but only a little) that Anderson states that
> >> if he had a time machine and could erase either Woodrow Wilson’s
> >> presidency or Baby Hitler, he’d opt for the first."

> >> World War II was made inevitable by the treaty that ended WWI.
> >> Removing Baby Hitler might put a sane Fuehrer into office.

> >> I'd have to read up on Wilson before forming an opinion.

> > Without Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles would be different,
> > perhaps even better.

> Uh, no. Wilson was the primary advocate of a more equitable peace. The
> punishment provisions towards Germany would have been even worse without
> Wilson.

Assuming that indeed assassinating Hitler might not have prevented World War II
and might even have made it go worse, one could perhaps assassinate Baby Heydrich
to at least mitigate the Holocaust.

But why stop there? Instead of looking for someone else instead of Woodrow Wilson to
deal with to prevent the Treaty of Versailles, why not prevent *World War I*?

I doubt, though, that going back in a time machine and stopping Gavrilio Princip would
do it.

And Austria's desire to hold on to Serbia wasn't really just the choice of one individual.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire had been around for some time, and holding on to Serbia,
to Hungary, to Romania, and so on and so forth would simply have been in the nation's
interests from a viewpoint shared by the country's entire ruling class.

Could assassinating Kaiser Wilhelm II bring into being a Germany that would ally itself
with France instead of Austria? World War I was preceded by a war between Germany
and France in which *France* was the aggressor. But would assassinating the Frenchman
who had *that* bright idea, whoever he was, even help?

Other than Princip and possibly the Kaiser, there doesn't seem to be any one individual
with a pivotal role in making World War I possible. Assassinating Lenin and Stalin would
have prevented one of the worst consequences of that conflict, and one could still use
one's time machine to get rid of both Hitler and Heydrich for good measure. But is there a
tidier possibility that I've missed?

Or get rid of Muhammad first; then, Europe's history would unfold in a very different manner,
and so one would have a completely different set of wars to prevent.

John Savard

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 6:33:59 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
> > > him.
>
> > Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
> > when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
> > in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
> > decades of idiocy* to come due.
> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had its
> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and then
> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the rise
> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>
> That much I knew. What I was *not* aware of is that, unlike not only the 2008
> crash, but one or two that preceded it, was that the causes included legislation
> that unwisely removed regulations intended to prevent crashes - because they
> were hindering some people's ability to accumulate wealth. So I had not known
> that the U.S. Government (and presumably the Republican Party) were to blame
> for the Great Depression.
>
>

This Republican idea didn't help.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act

Hoover ran on a higher tariff.

--
Kevin R

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

[snip]

> Or get rid of Muhammad first; then, Europe's history would unfold in a very different manner,
> and so one would have a completely different set of wars to prevent.
>

ObSF: AGENT OF BYZANTIUM by Harry Turtledove.

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

--
Kevin R

In article <12f1ffca-6719-4120-9aad-f1c7ace85080n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>with a pivotal role in making World War I possible.

(Hal Heydt)
Otto von Bismarck might be a "better" choice. On the other hand,
taking him early enough might eliminate the idea of government
retirement payments starting at age 65.

On 10/7/2022 3:51 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 6:33:59 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>>>> him.
>>
>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had its
>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and then
>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the rise
>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>
>> That much I knew. What I was *not* aware of is that, unlike not only the 2008
>> crash, but one or two that preceded it, was that the causes included legislation
>> that unwisely removed regulations intended to prevent crashes - because they
>> were hindering some people's ability to accumulate wealth. So I had not known
>> that the U.S. Government (and presumably the Republican Party) were to blame
>> for the Great Depression.
>>
>>
>
> This Republican idea didn't help.
>
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act
>
> Hoover ran on a higher tariff.
>
MAGA would say they didn't go far enough.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2022-10-05 6:17 p.m., Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/5/2022 2:46 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:08:39 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> World War II was made inevitable by the treaty that ended WWI.
>>>>> Removing Baby Hitler might put a sane Fuehrer into office.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd have to read up on Wilson before forming an opinion.
>>>>>
>>>> Without Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles would be different,
>>>> perhaps even better.
>>>
>>> Uh, no.  Wilson was the primary advocate of a more equitable peace.  The
>>> punishment provisions towards Germany would have been even worse without
>>> Wilson.
>>
>> I think 1945 proved that a tougher peace would have also led to a more
>> peaceful world since in 1918 there was no Soviet Union (at least with
>> anywhere near the power of 1945).
>>
>> Of course two of the big losers in the Versailles peace were Italy and
>> Japan and in a sense the German naval buildup (bear in mind what
>> Versailles said about U-boatts) and even more so the Japanese naval
>> buildup was Washington's insistence Britain renounce its naval treaty
>> with Japan. Both Italy and Japan were revanchist after WW1 in the
>> sense they felt they had earned the spoils of war and been denied at
>> Versailles while Britain and France got all the 'goodies'. Not my view
>> but Mussolini among others made that point extremely strongly.
>
> The post WW2 peace treaties were not anywhere near as punitive as
> Versailles and they were stronger because the losers got thoroughly
> stomped into the ground leaving no doubt they had LOST rather than
> feeling "You know, we should have kept fighting."  The victors didn't
> leave the old governments in power while telling them "give us all your
> money and valuables", they installed new governments that were not as
> militaristic and then supported them.  (Well, the Western Allies did....)
>

The Kaiser and the Austro-Hungarian Emperor would be very surprised
indeed to learn that they had been left in power after World War I.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>> > him.
>
>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>
>Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had its
>roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and then
>other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the rise
>caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.

IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
/main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.

>That much I knew. What I was *not* aware of is that, unlike not only the 2008
>crash, but one or two that preceded it, was that the causes included legislation
>that unwisely removed regulations intended to prevent crashes - because they
>were hindering some people's ability to accumulate wealth. So I had not known
>that the U.S. Government (and presumably the Republican Party) were to blame
>for the Great Depression.

Actually 2008 was caused by Republican changes in banking laws
designed to help their good friends get even richer than they already
are.

Some might say that this was an attempt to carry out their "Contract
on America", taken out in the mid-90s, which failed.

In that case, Trump would be their second attempt, which also failed.
So far.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 02:10:25 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-10-05 6:17 p.m., Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 10/5/2022 2:46 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:08:39 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> World War II was made inevitable by the treaty that ended WWI.
>>>>>> Removing Baby Hitler might put a sane Fuehrer into office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have to read up on Wilson before forming an opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Without Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles would be different,
>>>>> perhaps even better.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, no.  Wilson was the primary advocate of a more equitable peace.  The
>>>> punishment provisions towards Germany would have been even worse without
>>>> Wilson.
>>>
>>> I think 1945 proved that a tougher peace would have also led to a more
>>> peaceful world since in 1918 there was no Soviet Union (at least with
>>> anywhere near the power of 1945).
>>>
>>> Of course two of the big losers in the Versailles peace were Italy and
>>> Japan and in a sense the German naval buildup (bear in mind what
>>> Versailles said about U-boatts) and even more so the Japanese naval
>>> buildup was Washington's insistence Britain renounce its naval treaty
>>> with Japan. Both Italy and Japan were revanchist after WW1 in the
>>> sense they felt they had earned the spoils of war and been denied at
>>> Versailles while Britain and France got all the 'goodies'. Not my view
>>> but Mussolini among others made that point extremely strongly.
>>
>> The post WW2 peace treaties were not anywhere near as punitive as
>> Versailles and they were stronger because the losers got thoroughly
>> stomped into the ground leaving no doubt they had LOST rather than
>> feeling "You know, we should have kept fighting."  The victors didn't
>> leave the old governments in power while telling them "give us all your
>> money and valuables", they installed new governments that were not as
>> militaristic and then supported them.  (Well, the Western Allies did....)
>>
>
>The Kaiser and the Austro-Hungarian Emperor would be very surprised
>indeed to learn that they had been left in power after World War I.

Very true. The extensive retraining of the entire nation (particularly
West (at least) Germany and Japan) was omitted.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 10:07:29 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> Some might say that this was an attempt to carry out their "Contract
> on America", taken out in the mid-90s, which failed.

I suppose that some might feel that is a more accurate name than
the one they gave it, the "Contract with America"...

And, of course, January 6th did look like an attempted hit...

John Savard

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 5:17:38 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Or get rid of Muhammad first; then, Europe's history would unfold in a very different manner,
> > and so one would have a completely different set of wars to prevent.
> >
> ObSF: AGENT OF BYZANTIUM by Harry Turtledove.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_Byzantium

....an invasion of nomadic Jurchens across the Danube frontier.

My, those Manchurians really get around, don't they. But then,
they did establish the Qing dynasty even in our timeline.

John Savard

In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> > Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
> >> > him.
> >
> >> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
> >> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
> >> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
> >> decades of idiocy* to come due.
> >
> >Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had its
> >roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
> >and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and then
> >other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the rise
> >caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>
> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>

Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:51:50 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <12f1ffca-6719-4120...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >with a pivotal role in making World War I possible.
> (Hal Heydt)
> Otto von Bismarck might be a "better" choice. On the other hand,
> taking him early enough might eliminate the idea of government
> retirement payments starting at age 65.

He didn't get everything his own way. It is still a controversial topic, but he himself said
later that he was against the annexation of most of Alsace and part of Lorraine at the end of
the Franco-Prussian war, correctly viewing it as a grievance that would never end. Without that cause
for French resentment, WWI might not have happened as it did.

I tend to believe his claim, because at the time the negative side of the annexation wasn't apparent.

OTOH without Bismark the 1870 war might have resulted in a larger annexation of French territory, especially in Lorraine. That
might have made defense in 1914 more difficult for the French.

William Hyde

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:51:50 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <12f1ffca-6719-4120...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >with a pivotal role in making World War I possible.
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Otto von Bismarck might be a "better" choice. On the other hand,
>> taking him early enough might eliminate the idea of government
>> retirement payments starting at age 65.
>
> He didn't get everything his own way. It is still a controversial
> topic, but he himself said later that he was against the annexation of
> most of Alsace and part of Lorraine at the end of the Franco-Prussian
> war, correctly viewing it as a grievance that would never end.
> Without that cause for French resentment, WWI might not have happened
> as it did.
>[...]

However, if France under Louis XIII & XIV had not annexed Alsace and
Lorraine the issue would not have arisen in the first place. French
aggression to their `natural borders'?

--
Stephen Harker sjharker@netspace.net.au
was: http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
now: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker@netspace.net.au/
or: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker_nbn/

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 3:41:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Harker wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:51:50 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <12f1ffca-6719-4120...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >with a pivotal role in making World War I possible.
> >> (Hal Heydt)
> >> Otto von Bismarck might be a "better" choice. On the other hand,
> >> taking him early enough might eliminate the idea of government
> >> retirement payments starting at age 65.
> >
> > He didn't get everything his own way. It is still a controversial
> > topic, but he himself said later that he was against the annexation of
> > most of Alsace and part of Lorraine at the end of the Franco-Prussian
> > war, correctly viewing it as a grievance that would never end.
> > Without that cause for French resentment, WWI might not have happened
> > as it did.
> >[...]
>
> However, if France under Louis XIII & XIV had not annexed Alsace and
> Lorraine the issue would not have arisen in the first place. French
> aggression to their `natural borders'?

To be sure. And if the allies had accepted Louis XIV's offer of Alsace in 1709 ...

I believe the French crown claimed to have inherited Lorraine in 1766. To what
degree, if any, this inheritance was induced by illicit actions I do not know.

William Hyde

On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>>>>> him.
>>>
>>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>>>
>>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had its
>>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and then
>>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the rise
>>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>
>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>>
>
> Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
> Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
> 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
> money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
> is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
> research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
>
Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
the accounts being closed.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 22:24:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:08:39 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> World War II was made inevitable by the treaty that ended WWI.
>>>>> Removing Baby Hitler might put a sane Fuehrer into office.

This has been discussed in overwhelming detail in soc.history.what-if
both in a very long scenario called the "Dead Baby Time Line" (DBTL)
where the baby in question was of course AH.

All this was written on Usenet some 20+ years ago.

>>>>> I'd have to read up on Wilson before forming an opinion.
>>>>>
>>>> Without Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles would be different,
>>>> perhaps even better.
>>>
>>>Uh, no. Wilson was the primary advocate of a more equitable peace. The
>>>punishment provisions towards Germany would have been even worse without
>>>Wilson.

Highly ironic since Wilson was the most racist US president ever and
at Versailles managed to offend both China and Japan.

>>I think 1945 proved that a tougher peace would have also led to a more
>>peaceful world since in 1918 there was no Soviet Union (at least with
>>anywhere near the power of 1945).
>
>Bolshevik Russia did exist, of course, in 1918. And Russian Imperialism
>started several hundred years prior (viz. The fable of the Potemkin Village).

I did say 'with anything near the power of 1945" which Bolshevik
Russia never had during Lenin's lifetime.

>Wilson had been preparing a Peace Plan prior to the German
>surrender, and he had a "determination to prevent the utter
>destruction of Germany"[1].

Question: would Wilson have considered the 1945 peace a "utter
destruction of Germany"? One might argue that case for East Germany
but despite being under the thumb of Russia they were distinctively
German. In West Germany they were under quite tight US-British-French
control for 5-7 years but were reasonably independent by 1955.
Certainly nothing close to "destruction" and they had been pretty much
entirely self governing since 1950.

>By October 20, 1918, Germany acknowledged a readiness to
>accept Wilson's surrender terms. Capitulation occurred November 8.
>
>However, there was considerable discord amongst the allies
>even before the peace conference started. English and French
>elections in 1918 won with vindictiveness as campain slogans,
>and at the same time Republicans took control of the senate,
>and partisanship ensured that they didn't support Wilson's
>terms.
>
>[1] A New History of the United States. William Miller. (c)1958 p. 345

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:21:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 10:07:29 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Some might say that this was an attempt to carry out their "Contract
>> on America", taken out in the mid-90s, which failed.
>
>I suppose that some might feel that is a more accurate name than
>the one they gave it, the "Contract with America"...

Well, they could hardly /admit/ to being in the Murder-for-Hire
business.

>And, of course, January 6th did look like an attempted hit...

Yes it did.

But, of course, sheer greed could be the explanation. No contract
required.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 08 Oct 2022 10:01:20 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> >> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>> >> > him.
>> >
>> >> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>> >> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>> >> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>> >> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>> >
>> >Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had its
>> >roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>> >and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and then
>> >other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the rise
>> >caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>
>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>>
>
>Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
>Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
>1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
>money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
>is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
>research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.

Don't need no 1000 word essay; as another poster has pointed out:

There was a run on the banks.

I was taught this stuff back in the 60s (see above).

Any guesses as to when/why the FDIC was created?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <thsqhr$988r$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
> > Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
> >>>>> him.
> >>>
> >>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
> >>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
> >>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
> >>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
> >>>
> >>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had
> >>> its
> >>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
> >>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and
> >>> then
> >>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the
> >>> rise
> >>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
> >>
> >> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
> >> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
> >> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
> >> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
> >>
> >
> > Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
> > Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
> > 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
> > money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
> > is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
> > research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
> >
> Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
> the accounts being closed.

Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:01:05 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:

> Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
> would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.

And silly me, I would have thought that the stock market failure would
reasonably create the fear that the value of the properties the banks held
as collateral for their loans would decrease.

So even if the popular picture that the stock market crash caused the
Great Depression was *incomplete*, that didn't make it *wrong*; that was
indeed the event that "lit the fuse" or "toppled the first domino".

John Savard

On 10/9/2022 10:00 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <thsqhr$988r$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>>>>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>>>>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>>>>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had
>>>>> its
>>>>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>>>>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and
>>>>> then
>>>>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the
>>>>> rise
>>>>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
>>>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
>>>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
>>>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
>>> Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
>>> 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
>>> money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
>>> is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
>>> research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
>>>
>> Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
>> the accounts being closed.
>
> Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
> would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.
>
I don't remember the specifics of why one bank had a run but once one
bank was in trouble it just snowballed from there as people heard and
tried to get their money out before their bank had a run on it.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <thv5hs$i855$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/9/2022 10:00 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <thsqhr$988r$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>>>>>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>>>>>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>>>>>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>>>>>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the
>>>>>> rise
>>>>>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
>>>>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
>>>>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
>>>>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
>>>> Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
>>>> 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
>>>> money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
>>>> is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
>>>> research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
>>>>
>>> Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
>>> the accounts being closed.
>>
>> Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
>> would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.
>>
>I don't remember the specifics of why one bank had a run but once one
>bank was in trouble it just snowballed from there as people heard and
>tried to get their money out before their bank had a run on it.

It's a key plot point in "It's A Wonderful Life".
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 2:57:06 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 10:00 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > In article <thsqhr$988r$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >>> In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6das...@4ax.com>,
> >>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
> >>>>>>> him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
> >>>>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
> >>>>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
> >>>>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had
> >>>>> its
> >>>>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
> >>>>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and
> >>>>> then
> >>>>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the
> >>>>> rise
> >>>>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
> >>>>
> >>>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
> >>>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
> >>>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
> >>>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
> >>> Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
> >>> 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
> >>> money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
> >>> is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
> >>> research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
> >>>
> >> Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
> >> the accounts being closed.
> >
> > Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
> > would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.
> >
> I don't remember the specifics of why one bank had a run but once one
> bank was in trouble it just snowballed from there as people heard and
> tried to get their money out before their bank had a run on it.
> --

See:

[quote]

Though the directors of Public Bank objected to the choice of name, arguing
that "ignorant foreigners would believe that the United States government
was interested in this bank and that it was a branch of the United States
Treasury in Washington", the name was approved and the bank came into
being. The use of such an appellation was outlawed in 1926 but did not apply
retroactively.

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_United_States

They really should have used another name.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

On 9 Oct 2022 19:04:15 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:

>In article <thv5hs$i855$1@dont-email.me>,
>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 10/9/2022 10:00 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>> In article <thsqhr$988r$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>> In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin Coolidge
>>>>>>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>>>>>>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>>>>>>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>>>>>>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the
>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
>>>>>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
>>>>>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
>>>>>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
>>>>> Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
>>>>> 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
>>>>> money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
>>>>> is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
>>>>> research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
>>>>>
>>>> Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
>>>> the accounts being closed.
>>>
>>> Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
>>> would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.
>>>
>>I don't remember the specifics of why one bank had a run but once one
>>bank was in trouble it just snowballed from there as people heard and
>>tried to get their money out before their bank had a run on it.
>
>It's a key plot point in "It's A Wonderful Life".

And also in /Mary Poppins/.

Which would be on-topic here, except that it is a movie.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <5oh8khhf8dgnopuuiehgsrbr3b0i7lt4fq@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 9 Oct 2022 19:04:15 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <thv5hs$i855$1@dont-email.me>,
>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>On 10/9/2022 10:00 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> In article <thsqhr$988r$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/8/2022 10:01 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>> In article <nq73kh1f5t3bu6dasqaaj2eaimsitufcpc@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Robert
>Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <14d0cf03-3b09-4bb1...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, but perhaps it's because the Republican Herbert Hoover succeeded
>>>>>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ahem, Warren Harding elected in 1920. Followed by his VP Calvin
>Coolidge
>>>>>>>>> when Harding died of a heart attack; Coolidge elected in his own right
>>>>>>>>> in 1924. Hoover elected in 1928 just in time for the bill for several
>>>>>>>>> decades of idiocy* to come due.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah. Well, I _think_ I've heard that the stock market crash of 1929 had
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> roots in the excesses of the "Roaring 20s". The stock market was rising,
>>>>>>>> and that led to a lot of people making very speculative purchases, and
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> other persons purchased stock at even higher prices, thinking that the
>>>>>>>> rise
>>>>>>>> caused by speculation meant an increase in real value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC, we were taught (in High School or maybe Junior High) that the
>>>>>>> /main/ problem was people buying "on margin" -- up to 90% of what they
>>>>>>> invested was not their money but fronted by the broker. When they
>>>>>>> lost, they couldn't pay it. Hilarity ensued.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that the stock market crash didn't have that much to do with the
>>>>>> Great Depression. It was the great wave of bank failures that started in
>>>>>> 1930 that was responsible. AFAICT, ordinary banks didn't have that much
>>>>>> money in the stock market but about a third of them failed anyway. Why
>>>>>> is the subject of the 1000 word essay that I am too lazy to write (and
>>>>>> research). BTW, I suspect somebody else has already done the work.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Short version is the banks didn't have enough cash on hand to cover all
>>>>> the accounts being closed.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the reason the accounts were being closed was fear that the bank
>>>> would fail. I am thinking on why that fear existed.
>>>>
>>>I don't remember the specifics of why one bank had a run but once one
>>>bank was in trouble it just snowballed from there as people heard and
>>>tried to get their money out before their bank had a run on it.
>>
>>It's a key plot point in "It's A Wonderful Life".
>
>And also in /Mary Poppins/.
>
>Which would be on-topic here, except that it is a movie.

No more on-topic than "It's A Wonderful Life".
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..