Okay, your right we should have a civilized argument. It ws mean what I did and the way I did it. So... lets get this started. How is it futile to state that his sponsoring of big business while he was in office, not after he left office, caused the Great Depression. Its not the people after him who are supposed to fix what he did, he should have fixed his own mistakes. As I stated above if there is no export and constant import then the money runs out and the Great Depression begins.
Before you start calling people ignorant, you should probably make sure you know what it means first.
I gave you a link to the definition if it helps you out, and since I gave you the link, then I must know what it means, because I read the article! So please don't try to come back with a comeback like you don't know what it means. Woodrow Wilson was an isolationist due to his inability to stay an internationalist. Here's a quote from another site backing up my opinion. It is talking about isolationism.
National policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries. Isolationism has been a recurrent theme in U.S. history. It was given expression in the Farewell Address of Pres. George Washington and in the early 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. The term is most often applied to the political atmosphere in the U.S. in the 1930s. The failure of Pres. Woodrow Wilson's internationalism, liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy, and the rigours of the Great Depression were among the reasons for Americans' reluctance to concern themselves with the growth of fascism in Europe. The Johnson Act (1934) and the Neutrality acts (1935) effectively prevented economic or military aid to any country involved in the European disputes that were to escalate into World War II. U.S. isolationism encouraged the British in their policy of appeasement and contributed to French paralysis in the face of the growing threat posed by Nazi Germany. See also neutrality.
Its not the people after him who are supposed to fix what he did,
Yes it is. That's exactly what a new government is supposed to do.
he should have fixed his own mistakes.
He clearly wouldn't have advocated his policies if he thought they were mistakes.
As I stated above if there is no export and constant import then the money runs out and the Great Depression begins.
The great depression was a financial crisis, not a business crisis. Protectionism was part of the problem, but it was more of a thing which made the situation worse, rather than causing it to happen in the first place.
Woodrow Wilson was an isolationist due to his inability to stay an internationalist.
Hitler failed to defeat the Soviets. That doesn't make him a communist.
As a matter of fact, the only reason Wilson failed is because he was outvoted. It doesn't mean he wasn't a liberal nationalist. Look at what he did achieve, most of the 14 points, and the founding of the first political supranational institution, the League of Nations. Regardless of its success, it's clear he leans far more to internationalism than isolationism, which never really got going in America after the mid 20s, after he had left office and died.
Terrorism sprung out of America's inability to not be nosy and cause more problems in the world. By giving Pakistan tons of extra ammunition (which the country may or not have needed for its own self defence), Afghanistan was saved and most of said weapons were shifted to Afghanistan -- resulting in the Taliban. But it wasn't that big, or bad, or worldchanging.
In my opinion, A war's "worseness" should not be judged on the # of lives lost.
He founded the league of nations because he was an isolationist. It allowed no more war in his mind.
The great depression was a financial crisis, not a business crisis.
You have to have finances to run business, so when the money had run out the "business" crashed. The same happened with the stock market, the resources ran out, one person dropped out of the market ranting on about how the economy was going to crash and others dropped out causing the economy to crash, thus the great depression.
Hitler failed to defeat the Soviets. That doesn't make him a communist.
I am not talking about war, im talking about policies. Wilson created isolationistic policies and this led him to drop his internationalist view and take up isolationism. Hitler took responsibility of his policies and shot himself, whilst drinking poison. ultimatetitan, this isn't spam, this is a conversation. Spam is writing small text over and over which leads to nowhere. As you can tell this isn't small text. An example of spam was your post.
He founded the league of nations because he was an isolationist.
That was only 1 of the 14 points. The others included the right of the members of ther League of Nations, including America, to essentially be world police, ensuring the right of peoples to have self determination was not infringed upon, if necessary by force if sanctions failed. That is not an isolationist policy.
You have to have finances to run business, so when the money had run out the "business" crashed. The same happened with the stock market, the resources ran out, one person dropped out of the market ranting on about how the economy was going to crash and others dropped out causing the economy to crash, thus the great depression.
That's exactly what a financial crash is. Business crashes happen for different reasons entirely.
Businesses crashed because a stock market bubble burst bringing down the banks. Businesses had their capital tied up in banks, who couldn't pay them back, so they went bust. The crash didn't happen because businesses overestimated demand, which is what causes business crashes.
Wilson created isolationistic policies
Such as?
his led him to drop his internationalist view and take up isolationism.
Examples.
Hitler took responsibility of his policies and shot himself, whilst drinking poison.
The nitty gritty details of Hitler's death are irrelevant. The point was you deduced that Wilson was an isolationist because his internationalist policies failed. That just isn't sound logic. To use a more clear example to show why your logic is unsound:
The USSR failed to achieve the transition from state socialism to communism. That doesn't mean they weren't communists.
Ok, business is in the same category as finance, like I said one can not be without the other.
Businesses crashed because a stock market bubble burst bringing down the banks. Businesses had their capital tied up in banks, who couldn't pay them back, so they went bust.
The stock market crashed bringing down the banks. The reason it brought down the banks is because the banks had all their finances stuck in the stock market. So due to the stock market crashing finances went down the drain and cause the businesses to lose all their money. So thus forth the loss of finances caused the businesses to crash. Ill be back in one moment to finish my conversation.
Ok, business is in the same category as finance, like I said one can not be without the other.
They are interdependent, but that is why there are two different kinds of crisis. If businesses are the primary cause of the crash, it's a business crash. If the financial system is the primary cause of the crash it's a financial crash. Simples.
So thus forth the loss of finances caused the businesses to crash.
Which is exactly why it was a financial crash not a business crash.
Really we're no even arguing anymore. It's just a question of correct definitions.
How can they be interdependent? You have to have finances to run a business.
Which is exactly why it was a financial crash not a business crash.
How is the crashing of business due to finances a financial crash. Their both in the same category.
That is not an isolationist policy.
How is it not? He founded the league of nations so he wouldn't have to deal with national problems.
Such as?
The anti-immigration policies he put in play after the war. Is that good enough?
Examples.
Same as above.
The nitty gritty details of Hitler's death are irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? Their details that should be known and are relevant in every way to his failure. He failed and killed himself. Wilson should have done the same. In my opinion.
Really we're no even arguing anymore. It's just a question of correct definitions.
Thats quite true, but correct opinions also. Which from a certain view point every opinion in wrong. Lol, i've had fun though.
Financial crisis, specifically with regards to the Wall Street Crash, a burst stock bubble.
He founded the league of nations so he wouldn't have to deal with national problems.
Have you completely ignored what I've already said? He intended to join in order that the US could have a leading and active role which would include large scale military intervention. How you are deducing this is an isolationist policy is beyond me.
The anti-immigration policies he put in play after the war. Is that good enough?
No.
How is it irrelevant? Their details that should be known and are relevant in every way to his failure. He failed and killed himself. Wilson should have done the same. In my opinion.
Again did you even read what I've already wrote? It was an analogy, to show that if person X attempts to achieve a certain means, let's call it Y, if X fails, it does not mean that he has become the opposite of Y.
And businesses need to place their money in banks in order for banks to invest. Banks don't just magically have massive amounts of capital.
Yeah, the businesses placed their finances in banks for safe keeping., in return the banks invested it in the stock market. So when black tuesday occurred, the finances were lost and the banks froze all their assets. Causing businesses to close due to no finances.
Have you completely ignored what I've already said?
Pretty much, have you ignored what i've said. Also why should I listen to what you've said if my aspect is opposing yours?
[quote]The anti-immigration policies he put in play after the war. Is that good enough?
No.[/quote] How is it not good enough his isolationistic views caused him to be an anti-immigrationist.
Again did you even read what I've already wrote? It was an analogy, to show that if person X attempts to achieve a certain means, let's call it Y, if X fails, it does not mean that he has become the opposite of Y.
Again why would I want to listen to what you wrote? Yeah but if person X fails to achieve Y then he is a failure and his failure is not supposed to be blamed on person Z. Do you get it or do I need to explain it more?
Pretty much, have you ignored what i've said. Also why should I listen to what you've said if my aspect is opposing yours?
Well, then after this post I shall cease replying. If you cannot understand the fundamental principles of a two way debate, then there isn't really any point carrying on with you.
How is it not good enough his isolationistic views caused him to be an anti-immigrationist.
I'd say his political decisions easily label him as an internationalist. Immigration, especially at that time, was a very minor point.
Again why would I want to listen to what you wrote?
Because otherwise it's not an argument.
Yeah but if person X fails to achieve Y then he is a failure and his failure is not supposed to be blamed on person Z
There was no person Z in my analogy.
Do you get it or do I need to explain it more?
I feel I should be saying the same to you, since you evidently can't graspe the simplest of analogies.
