Do you think there could be a second Great Depression?

[Angus Forbes]

Somehow I am reminded of the person who could go into an empty room and start an argument.

 

[AmateisGal]

Undertow, your post was spot on. It's amazing how they itemize everything down to the last detail - yes, even that Tylenol you paid $15 for. I think one of my relatives said they were charged for a PEN once. Ridiculous.

Even scarier is when you get into life-threatening illnesses. My cousin's newborn daughter had to be life-flighted to another hospital in another state to go to the neo-natal care unit. She was there for 24 hours. Cost: well over 100K. How ANYONE can justify charging that kind of money is beyond me.

 

[LizzieMaine]

How ANYONE can justify charging that kind of money is beyond me.

They do it because we let them.

 

[AmateisGal]

They do it because we let them.

Yes, but when your child's life is in danger, you will sign anything to save their life. That's where they get you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Add "ruthless extortionists" to the list of epithets they've earned.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Well, "on average" is also very, very wrong. We're talking about a small minority, living in villas which was never, ever the norm or even "the average" way of life. I know Churchill wasn't ignorant (his biography on the 1st Duke of Marlborough is excellent, one of the best things written about him), so even though the view of Roman Britain has admittedly changed since the days of Mortimer Wheeler, I know which alternative my money is on...

Sorry, but Churchill was brilliant in many ways, but he wasn't flawless, and I think he had a limited social viewpoint.

The point is that society has progressed to a point where the poorest person today lives like a king from the middle ages. Central heating, cheap food, 40 hour work week, cheap clothing, air conditioning, electricity, running water, housing with insulation, etc.

 

[Flicka]

The point is that society has progressed to a point where the poorest person today lives like a king from the middle ages. Central heating, cheap food, 40 hour work week, cheap clothing, air conditioning, electricity, running water, housing with insulation, etc.

In a material sense I would argue that people in the Western world live better than kings did a few hundred years ago. We might argue about how health services should be offered but at least they exist. Just ask Louis XIV how he would have rated anaesthetics vs gilt when he had his anal fistula surgery in the 1680s.

 

[angeljenny]

I have no personal experience of the NHS, but my friends in Britain have nothing but good to say about it. [huh]

I like the NHS. I have been to the local hospital twice this year and the staff were lovely. There are generally long waiting times but the care has been good.

There is generally a negative attitude towards the NHS in the press and people tend to focus on the bad bits. I really can't complain - when I was in a car accident I went to the hospital to get checked out - saw a doctor, had an x ray and was given pain killers - and was only there for a couple of hours and there was no charge. I think we are a lot better off with the NHS than without it. I see an NHS doctor and dentist - the doctor is free (a part from prescriptions) and the dentist is way cheaper than going private.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I read somewhere that the NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world. Just below McDonalds and above the China National Petroleum Corp.

 

[Edward]

In a material sense I would argue that people in the Western world live better than kings did a few hundred years ago. We might argue about how health services should be offered but at least they exist. Just ask Louis XIV how he would have rated anaesthetics vs gilt when he had his anal fistula surgery in the 1680s.

Jinkies, aye. Some weeks after I was so efficiently dealt with when I came down very suddenly with a kidney stone, I read about how they dealt with that in the Victorian era and earlier. The method was to enter through the perineum and get up to the intestine that way, in order to remove the stone. Without anaesthetic. I can't even begin to imagine.... though that said if I'd been in such excruciating pain much longer than I was, I'd have been desperate enough to try anything...

Well, "on average" is also very, very wrong. We're talking about a small minority, living in villas which was never, ever the norm or even "the average" way of life. I know Churchill wasn't ignorant (his biography on the 1st Duke of Marlborough is excellent, one of the best things written about him), so even though the view of Roman Britain has admittedly changed since the days of Mortimer Wheeler, I know which alternative my money is on...

Sorry, but Churchill was brilliant in many ways, but he wasn't flawless, and I think he had a limited social viewpoint.

That he certainly did, but the posthumous Churchill Myth has been very efficient in covering up so much.

I'm glad it's nonsense, but what isn't nonsense is how my friends felt about the NHS and the very real terror of someone afraid of dying in one of their hospitals.

The popular press has a lot for which to answer in that respect.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Regarding Churchill's statement, note that subsequent posts disagreeing with him compare medieval conditions with twenty-first century conditions (people now live like kings did then) rather than consider AD 400 v. AD 1900 (not AD2012). Surely he understood that he was making a surprising claim when he favored AD400 to any subsequent period until 1900. Perhaps he made this claim purposefully to attempt to refute the modernist bias that things are great now (and they are, relative to AD 400), and that they will necessarily continue to improve monotonically from 2012 forward (which they will not). The key idea is to refute the modernist bias by reminding his readers that the road from 400 to 1900 was a very rough one indeed, as his four-volume treatise clearly shows. Further in his defense, I would note that he was born in 1874, and had first-hand experience of pre-1900 Britain, unlike anyone posting here, and almost certainly a far better knowledge of history in general, as indicated by his Nobel Prize.

Too bad that old Winston is dead and therefore unable to argue is own point of view. Were he still alive, you critics in this thread could meet with him in order to correct and tutor the old guy. Perhaps a dinner at Chartwell. I am sure he would find you to be delightful, fascinating dinner companions.

 

[Flicka]

I'm quite sure Churchill was man enough to have survived little me contradicting him, at the dinner table or otherwise. I suppose I would mostly have taken the opportunity to pump him on everything Duke-of-Marlborough-related, since I'm somewhat fascinated with the 1st Duke, and I'm sure he would have been happy to oblige. Few people object to dinner partners who listen admiringly to their every word. That's one of the things I love about his biography on the Duke; it's very entertaining because he's pretty acerbic and not at all blind to his illustrious ancestor's many and entertaining faults. The fact that he clearly admires him doesn't stop him from seeing the man behind the myth.

The thing is, I'm currently writing a novel partially set in late Roman Britain and partially in 1922. I have read extensively on those subjects in the past few months, so you'll have to forgive me if that statement caught my eye, especially since a bunch of them is on the state of Roman archeology in Britain 1915-1930. Churchill had an agenda - he was violently anti-German even before WWI and thus it would have served his purpose to depict the early Middle Ages as a great British culture torn to shreds by a German invasion (as in the Anglo-Saxons). He wasn't the only historian to try to push that, highly debatable POV in the years after the wars. Up until then, Britain had emphasised its great Germanic past (which is why the term Anglo-Saxon has been given such a prominence) but starting after WWI, Britain instead turned to the pre-Anglo-Saxon era which led to, among other things, a new interest for the Arthurian myths. I would put Churchill's comment in that context - as well as taking into account that archeology has taught us a huge amount things about Roman Britain that wasn't known in Churchill's days.

Like I said, the man wasn't flawless. He was human. The fact that he had flaws does not diminish his achievements in other areas - on the contrary. And he'd be the first to admit that he wasn't 'of the people'. I think he'd have claimed he was 'for the people', though, but that's a matter where opinions differ.

 

[Touchofevil]

:eeek:

$700?! That's about £500! A month! What kind of lunatic arrangement requires that you pay out that every month?! That's just plain potty. [huh] People over here who whinge about the NHS should spend some time in America with its "healthcare" system. I can even get top level treatment from Bupa here for £1000 a YEAR (about $1400).

Our union constantly tells us it is the best available. They must believe that if they continue to repeat this that at some point we will believe them. If I were to sign up for the"A" level plan, I would currently be paying $1000 a month not including the impending increase.

 

[Angus Forbes]

In the early volumes of "History . . ." Churchill talks about the Anglo Saxons, of course. But the primary conflict he seems to dwell on is conflict with France, Scotland, and to some extent Wales, and often the Roman Church. Mainly France, though -- things got fairly complicated when the English King was, concurrently, a French Duke. He also has some interesting things to say about Vikings. He calls them brutal, villainous, shameful salt-water pirates, but also acknowledges that they were the most formidable and daring race in the world.

His anti-German side is much more evident in the six-volume series on WWII, although he often acknowledges the many virtues of the German people as distinct from their government of the time. But to me, the most entertaining characterization of Germans was by Charles de Gaulle. I can't begin to recall his words exactly, but something about casting a net into the ocean and filling it with monsters and geniuses, a country where everyone is an artist but nobody has good taste, and so forth . . .

In any case, this has come a long way from a discussion of a second great depression. My only point in bringing Churchill up is that a reading of his account of history clearly tells me that, over the course of years, just abut anything can happen, most certainly including a second great depression.

Regarding your book, Flicka -- you have a remarkable command of both English and history, and I am sure that the book will be excellent!

Best regards -- AF

 

[TomS]

It's impossible to come across as flattering with a premise that the poor should starve to death. I've never really considered myself a gentleman, and I suppose I shouldn't, what with having compassion and all. A heart is unbecoming of a man with any class.

Well said, sir!

 

[Flicka]

In the early volumes of "History . . ." Churchill talks about the Anglo Saxons, of course. But the primary conflict he seems to dwell on is conflict with France, Scotland, and to some extent Wales, and often the Roman Church. Mainly France, though -- things got fairly complicated when the English King was, concurrently, a French Duke. He also has some interesting things to say about Vikings. He calls them brutal, villainous, shameful salt-water pirates, but also acknowledges that they were the most formidable and daring race in the world.

His anti-German side is much more evident in the six-volume series on WWII, although he often acknowledges the many virtues of the German people as distinct from their government of the time. But to me, the most entertaining characterization of Germans was by Charles de Gaulle. I can't begin to recall his words exactly, but something about casting a net into the ocean and filling it with monsters and geniuses, a country where everyone is an artist but nobody has good taste, and so forth . . .

In any case, this has come a long way from a discussion of a second great depression. My only point in bringing Churchill up is that a reading of his account of history clearly tells me that, over the course of years, just abut anything can happen, most certainly including a second great depression.

Regarding your book, Flicka -- you have a remarkable command of both English and history, and I am sure that the book will be excellent!

Best regards -- AF

Thank you! I will certainly do my very best!

 

[John in Covina]

At the time of the Great Depression we had a USA that still had a significant rural and farming based portion of society. The industrial portion was actually growing until 1929. The stock market was being legally manipulated to a degree we can't actually comprehend.

The US has gone thru a number of depressions and recessions that were serious. between 1800 - 1900 they seemed to come with regularity.

The bubble is artifically inflated by the speculating market by the over enthusiasm of the buyers. When the bubble bursts it pulls down a chain of interconnected businesses. What is funny is those that warned before each time the bubble burst were told to shut up! I recall seeing a program on PBS where an expect was talking about how the brokers and the investors tend to fall into two camps: Unbridled enthusiam or total fear and the attitude can turn on a dime. As long as these are the 2 states for investors, then we'll see all sorts markets balloon and burst well into the future.

I am also amazed at how affective the markets are at destroying wealth.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

It always seems like one of the signs that the bubble is about to burst is when you start seeing lots of 25-year-old millionaires (who won't be for long) because the market starts attracting people who really don't belong in that particular business. -- it happened with the dotcom and housing bubbles which the latter ironically rose from the ashes of the former. And similarly there's the famous story about how Joseph Kennedy realized that the Crash was coming when the shoeshine boy was trying to give him stock advice.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Joke I remember from 1987 --

"What do you call a 25-year-old stockbroker in suspenders?"

"Waiter."

 

[jamespowers]

Joke I remember from 1987 --

"What do you call a 25-year-old stockbroker in suspenders?"

"Waiter."

:rofl: Or back then you would throw a stockbroker a dollar coin as they were begging on the street.