Why do you keep arguing with him, in circles? Nothing to be gained on either side I think. We want the same outcomes as Don does but we believe in different data and trade-offs. There is no winner here or even who is right. It does encourage Don to post more.
If your theory were true, we should have expected Hitler's 1923 beer hall putsch to have succeeded, since the reparations were imposed in Paris in 1919. Instead, he did not come to power for another decade, until 1933, fully 14 years after the humiliating economic burdens of the first world war. . . . To be sure, he attempted a coup that failed (November 8, 1923), and he was imprisoned. But he retained his key followers and wrote his venomous memoir Mein Kampf that became the Nazi bible. During the late 1920s, the German economy began to recover, and there was less interest in the Nazis. In the 1928 Reichstag (legislature) elections, they won only 2.6% of the vote. If good times had continued, Hitler might have been forgotten. He needed another crisis for a shot at gaining political power. The crisis came as a succession of misguided policies created obstacles to enterprise and brought on the Great Depression . . . https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpow...rs-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/#36898cd7ff70
It's fair to say that without the populism engendered by the Great Recession (reflected in the Tea Party and Occupy movements), Trump would never have been elected. You never know what an economic cataclysm will bring.
Takeaways from CV study in Bavaria: Children rarely transmit the virus; virus in feces appears non-infectious, merely touching surfaces doesn't transmit virus unless they're freshly/intensely infected; fresh air disperses CV, sunlight's UV kills it. https://t.co/MHzta8C6Kd— Andrew Hammel (@AndrewHammel1) April 17, 2020
I didn't know how to interpret the stats as stated in that Stanford study. But my hubby, a life sciences venture capitalist explained them to me. He said the important number is the population-weighted prevalence of 2.81%. That's the prevalence in the general population after you account for different cohorts in your test subjects (such as old white women who can drive to a testing facility). He says that a prevalence of 2.81% compared to what the healthcare organizations are reporting confirms that coronavirus is highly infectious but also that there are a lot of mild cases. Also, 2.81% means that we definitely don't have herd immunity yet. of course, as Bob points out, the paper has not been peer-reviewed yet. My research-oriented Doctor Daughter warns that everyone is so anxious for info that lots of stuff is getting accelerated publication without peer review.
The New York Times now estimates that *33,000* media workers will be affected by planned layoffs, furloughs or pay cuts since the crisis began, up from 28,000 last week. https://t.co/3VXVlOLv7c— marc tracy (@marcatracy) April 17, 2020
A study of a quarantine in Toronto? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445304001859 A single-city quarantine for a limited duration bears no relationship to shutting down the fifth largest economy in the world (California) or the largest (United States) or nearly the entire world (save Sweden and a few others) indefinitely. Toronto could be erased from the planet tomorrow and civilization would go on. (That's not commentary, it's fact). A single-city study is meaningless. And, indeed, I'm all for quarantining New York City (as, at least rhetorically, was Trump at one point). New York is kind of like Toronto, only larger and with less pleasant people, with a few exceptions.
Not my theory. What most historians believe. I focused on this period for a term at Dartmouth and wrote a paper on it. Interestingly enough, the historian who wrote that Forbes piece -- those paragraphs you quote don't refute my point! -- also published a book entitled: Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II Whoops!
Proximate ("but for") cause. Absent the Great Depression, Hitler doesn't come to power. Yes, the Paris Peace Conference also played a role, but the depression was a necessary element. I got an A on a college paper arguing that the the Decembrist uprising (1820s) led inexorably to the Russian Revolution (nearly a century later). I know how this historical causation racket runs.
Not Hitler -- but closer to home. Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin and the Great Depression - Book Review https://dailyhistory.org/Voices_of_...ughlin_and_the_Great_Depression_-_Book_Review
Congratulations on the A, but "inexorably" is a stretch. Parallels, yes, similar themes, sure, and that's about it. My senior thesis was on the Russian Revolution.
The essay topic was, "When did the Russian Revolution Become Inevitable?" I don't disagree today that my argument was a stretch, but inexorability was baked into the cake. I had to pick a moment in time and logically defend my decision, showing my command of Russian history (which is fuzzier today).
Gavin Newsom’s administration not releasing details on $1 billion California contract for coronavirus masks . . . Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has yet to release details about its $1 billion contract with a Chinese company hired to provide masks to combat the spread of the coronavirus — a deal that has drawn scrutiny over the company’s reported track record of selling defective products. An official from the Newsom administration refused to provide state senators with a copy of the contract during a budget oversight hearing in Sacramento on Thursday, despite the state having already paid half the cost . . . https://www.sfchronicle.com/politic...s-administration-not-releasing-1-15208694.php
Rather than trying to keep the temperature down and advocating for an orderly return to normalcy, trump quickly abandons yesterday’s sensible tone in favor of promoting radical extremism. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-governors.html “His stark departure from the more bipartisan tone of his announcement on Thursday night suggested Mr. Trump was ceding any semblance of national leadership on the pandemic, and choosing instead to divide the country by playing to his political base. Echoed across the internet and on cable television by conservative pundits and ultraright conspiracy theorists, his tweets were a remarkable example of a president egging on demonstrators and helping to stoke an angry fervor that in its anti-government rhetoric was eerily reminiscent of the birth of the Tea Party movement a decade ago.”
"the tweets themselves were just madness, undermining trust, a blatant attempt to shift blame, acts of selfish cynicism. can we hang together? president is an obvious negative force trying to divide us with tweets like that." -David Brooks (tonight) when we most need national leadership, this guy's busy tweeting, watching TV, attacking Cuomo and dividing a nation with all his might.