SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off in 2006!  Final payment of £45M - gee thanks usa. Glad we paid of your extortionate loan to fight for you secuity and peace. 

Original comment

The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off in 2006!  Final payment of £45M - gee thanks usa. Glad we paid of your extortionate loan to fight for you secuity and peace. 

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

You missed major points about the Anglo-American loan that was discussed here before and the discussion fizzled away once the truth came out and the Brits conceded and left with their tails between their legs.

Facts:  A total of $31.4 billion in material was involved in the Lend-Lease agreement for Britain but you paid back $7.8 billion by leasing us land for our bases so we can help protect you.  So the agreement was that you would use the material until you returned it or destroyed it.  Since most of it couldn’t be used for anything after the war, those items were sold at a huge discounted value of 1.075 billion pounds. America offered $3.75 billion at a rate of 2%.  See if you can get a loan for that amount today and good luck with that.  America, once again, lost a lot of money in that deal.  Can you tell me one single benefit America received by giving you these loans at such a low interest rate and discounting it so you only pay $3.75 billion on equipment costing America $31.4 billion?  Do you really believe America made money in this deal?

Original comment

You missed major points about the Anglo-American loan that was discussed here before and the discussion fizzled away once the truth came out and the Brits conceded and left with their tails between their legs.

Facts:  A total of $31.4 billion in material was involved in the Lend-Lease agreement for Britain but you paid back $7.8 billion by leasing us land for our bases so we can help protect you.  So the agreement was that you would use the material until you returned it or destroyed it.  Since most of it couldn’t be used for anything after the war, those items were sold at a huge discounted value of 1.075 billion pounds. America offered $3.75 billion at a rate of 2%.  See if you can get a loan for that amount today and good luck with that.  America, once again, lost a lot of money in that deal.  Can you tell me one single benefit America received by giving you these loans at such a low interest rate and discounting it so you only pay $3.75 billion on equipment costing America $31.4 billion?  Do you really believe America made money in this deal?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JustSayin (80 days ago)

Of course the USA benefitted.  I appreciate you don't know much history, but you were coming out of the Great Depression, 25 percent unemployment, standard of living at a low.  The war created a massive boost to your manufacturing industry.  Your countrymen were being trained to work in factories instead of fighting.  Look up the reforms that Roosevelt pushed for in order to boost production.  Look up the huge successes of business like at the Alabama Dry Dock.   

The assets you sold at a 'discount' to avoid having to fight still represents an amazing deal for the USA.  Not only a captive audience (we could hardly say no), not only a mass order on a scale never seen before, not only guaranteeing a source of repayment long into the future, but also a fantastic way of delaying your own entry into the war.  The rest of the allies threw our military resources into the war AND the lives of our population.  Your deal avoided the latter for quite some time.

As a sweetener, obviously the land that you were allowed to occupy across the globe (courtesy of your allies) to keep you safe was invaluable to you and still is today, so it's hard to put a price on that.  You depend on your bases around the world to keep you safe at night - in fact, no other nations on earth are so dependent on foreign soil for their own defence.

Original comment

Of course the USA benefitted.  I appreciate you don't know much history, but you were coming out of the Great Depression, 25 percent unemployment, standard of living at a low.  The war created a massive boost to your manufacturing industry.  Your countrymen were being trained to work in factories instead of fighting.  Look up the reforms that Roosevelt pushed for in order to boost production.  Look up the huge successes of business like at the Alabama Dry Dock.   

The assets you sold at a 'discount' to avoid having to fight still represents an amazing deal for the USA.  Not only a captive audience (we could hardly say no), not only a mass order on a scale never seen before, not only guaranteeing a source of repayment long into the future, but also a fantastic way of delaying your own entry into the war.  The rest of the allies threw our military resources into the war AND the lives of our population.  Your deal avoided the latter for quite some time.

As a sweetener, obviously the land that you were allowed to occupy across the globe (courtesy of your allies) to keep you safe was invaluable to you and still is today, so it's hard to put a price on that.  You depend on your bases around the world to keep you safe at night - in fact, no other nations on earth are so dependent on foreign soil for their own defence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

Brill summary. From the OP made: I didn't  and couldn't  say the point better.

Original comment

Brill summary. From the OP made: I didn't  and couldn't  say the point better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

The next time your country is in a recession, make a lot of devices and sell it to other countries for 10% of your cost.  That will get you out of the recession no problem.  Hahaha.

Original comment

The next time your country is in a recession, make a lot of devices and sell it to other countries for 10% of your cost.  That will get you out of the recession no problem.  Hahaha.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JustSayin (80 days ago)

So you don't know about history OR economics?  The facts are out there if you care to challenge the jingoism that you've been brainwashed with.  Try these for size:  During WW2, 17 million new civilian jobs were created in the USA, industrial productivity increased by 96%, corporate profits after taxes doubled, and women and black people had the first chance to genuinely enter the job market.  So which of these don't you count as a benefit?  Hahahahaha.

So what you really need to be saying is "The next time your country is in a recession, there's a world war, and you don't feel like fighting, sell war bonds to exploit the upper end of the massive income inequality in your country, and implement a carefully managed increase in taxes to fund retraining of unemployed people, find a captive market, tie in that captive market to guaranteed payments over the next few decades (by which time you'll be home and dry), and do your best to save your countrymen from getting dirty".  

That was your plan and it worked for you.  Congrats.  You didn't have to fight a full war, and you could rebuild your economy.  Win win!  (Oh unless you count all that bullcrap about ethics, compassion, courage, helping those in need, etc etc.)

Original comment

So you don't know about history OR economics?  The facts are out there if you care to challenge the jingoism that you've been brainwashed with.  Try these for size:  During WW2, 17 million new civilian jobs were created in the USA, industrial productivity increased by 96%, corporate profits after taxes doubled, and women and black people had the first chance to genuinely enter the job market.  So which of these don't you count as a benefit?  Hahahahaha.

So what you really need to be saying is "The next time your country is in a recession, there's a world war, and you don't feel like fighting, sell war bonds to exploit the upper end of the massive income inequality in your country, and implement a carefully managed increase in taxes to fund retraining of unemployed people, find a captive market, tie in that captive market to guaranteed payments over the next few decades (by which time you'll be home and dry), and do your best to save your countrymen from getting dirty".  

That was your plan and it worked for you.  Congrats.  You didn't have to fight a full war, and you could rebuild your economy.  Win win!  (Oh unless you count all that bullcrap about ethics, compassion, courage, helping those in need, etc etc.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

Jesus, what crawled up your ass today that made you so mad at the USA?

When the government employs that many people without the money to pay them, they take on debt.  

“The debt-to-GDP ratio hit its all-time record of 113% by war's end. Debt was at $241.86 billion in 1946, about $2.87 trillion in current dollars.”  theatlantic com /business/archive/2012/11 /the-long-story-of-us-deb t-from-1790-to-2011-in-1- little-chart/265185/

We are still paying off that debt and the interest payments alone hurt every American citizen and the debt has grown to $22 trillion because we essentially make interest payments and nothing on the principle.  To pay principle, we take on new debt.  The last time we were debt free was in 1835.  Wars are expensive and creating jobs is not free.  Welcome to the real world instead of the fantasy you currently live in.

Original comment

Jesus, what crawled up your ass today that made you so mad at the USA?

When the government employs that many people without the money to pay them, they take on debt.  

“The debt-to-GDP ratio hit its all-time record of 113% by war's end. Debt was at $241.86 billion in 1946, about $2.87 trillion in current dollars.”  theatlantic com /business/archive/2012/11 /the-long-story-of-us-deb t-from-1790-to-2011-in-1- little-chart/265185/

We are still paying off that debt and the interest payments alone hurt every American citizen and the debt has grown to $22 trillion because we essentially make interest payments and nothing on the principle.  To pay principle, we take on new debt.  The last time we were debt free was in 1835.  Wars are expensive and creating jobs is not free.  Welcome to the real world instead of the fantasy you currently live in.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JustSayin (80 days ago)
Latest comment:

Mad at the USA?  No, just amused that you have a unilateral approach to history.  Americans are often quite endearing in a rather simple, jolly way, but we do have to educate them every now and again.

Right, so you really don't understand economics.  Debt is a necessary part of being a developed nation.  According to your hilarious view of economics, the economy of the 1930s (Great Depression btw) is an improvement on your current situaton because back then you had less debt-to-GDP.  I see.

Again, you're really dishonest (or incompetent) with your fact-checking.  The very next sentence from the one you copied and pasted says "Still the debt shrank in significance as the US economy grew."  I don't really have the time to explain the difference between good debt and bad debt, but please, look it up.  

Creating jobs isn't free.  You obviously missed my reference to "sell war bonds to exploit the upper end of the massive income inequality in your country, and implement a carefully managed increase in taxes".  That initially funded your manufacturing boost, and repayments funded plenty after, along with increased consumer spending as everyone had jobs.  See?  What stone do you live under to not see that?  Have you ever studied any history at all?  Just look at the manufacturing boon, and the subsequent WW2 'Golden Age of Capitalism'.  WW2 for the USA was a critical step to ending the post-Depression stagnation.  I mean that's not even controversial. 

For a logical, money-driven approach, the USA absolutely took the best course of action, and it paid off.  But now you try and figure out why Europe treats you like cowardly money-grabbers.

Original comment
Latest comment:

Mad at the USA?  No, just amused that you have a unilateral approach to history.  Americans are often quite endearing in a rather simple, jolly way, but we do have to educate them every now and again.

Right, so you really don't understand economics.  Debt is a necessary part of being a developed nation.  According to your hilarious view of economics, the economy of the 1930s (Great Depression btw) is an improvement on your current situaton because back then you had less debt-to-GDP.  I see.

Again, you're really dishonest (or incompetent) with your fact-checking.  The very next sentence from the one you copied and pasted says "Still the debt shrank in significance as the US economy grew."  I don't really have the time to explain the difference between good debt and bad debt, but please, look it up.  

Creating jobs isn't free.  You obviously missed my reference to "sell war bonds to exploit the upper end of the massive income inequality in your country, and implement a carefully managed increase in taxes".  That initially funded your manufacturing boost, and repayments funded plenty after, along with increased consumer spending as everyone had jobs.  See?  What stone do you live under to not see that?  Have you ever studied any history at all?  Just look at the manufacturing boon, and the subsequent WW2 'Golden Age of Capitalism'.  WW2 for the USA was a critical step to ending the post-Depression stagnation.  I mean that's not even controversial. 

For a logical, money-driven approach, the USA absolutely took the best course of action, and it paid off.  But now you try and figure out why Europe treats you like cowardly money-grabbers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

Yes it probably will! Not sure of your point?

Original comment

Yes it probably will! Not sure of your point?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

There seems to be a consistent fall-back, by the right in the USA, to anything that’s “new” with the phrase “how is this going to be paid for – more tax?” This is a deliberate rhetoric  to prick the ears up of the listeners (in Fox news case) by drumming fear into the average Joe by implying that they personally will have less money if some of these new trendy ideas get through.  As far as Medicare is concerned it would appear to me that the average USA citizen will happily pay far more, via private insurance, for the very same medical care as long as no scrounging freeloaded  gets it for free from my hard earned cash. What a Numpty self-centred attitude! Taking the British health care system (NHS) as an example there are absolutely no objections from the public and everyone pays in and anyone can take out, regardless of their current status. The only complaint we Brits have with the NHS is that it is underfunded but being “owned” by the people efficiencies are under constant scrutiny. The USA model with private insurance funding is why the most basic of basic care and drugs are the most expensive in the world that perpetuates an upward spiral of insurance cost.  

 

Green new deal: I like the reference to a national crises that can be funded like they managed to do for WWII! They have to be careful pushing the analogy as it wasn’t really the Americans who paid for WWII it was mainly the Brits and the Russians. The Americans joined WWII at end of the war and for a relative small time. Who paid? The Brits sold of their empire whilst waiting for the Americans to help and the Russians lost 8 million citizens and most of which whilst the American pussy footed around debating as to whether a European war was a concern of theirs and only when the Japanese got stuck-in and  brought it close did they suddenly have a change in stance . The Americans contribution, in the earlier part, was to rip-off the desperate Brits and their allies with overpriced food and weapons  and loans (loans that brit were still having to pay 50 years! after the end of the war).

Original comment

There seems to be a consistent fall-back, by the right in the USA, to anything that’s “new” with the phrase “how is this going to be paid for – more tax?” This is a deliberate rhetoric  to prick the ears up of the listeners (in Fox news case) by drumming fear into the average Joe by implying that they personally will have less money if some of these new trendy ideas get through.  As far as Medicare is concerned it would appear to me that the average USA citizen will happily pay far more, via private insurance, for the very same medical care as long as no scrounging freeloaded  gets it for free from my hard earned cash. What a Numpty self-centred attitude! Taking the British health care system (NHS) as an example there are absolutely no objections from the public and everyone pays in and anyone can take out, regardless of their current status. The only complaint we Brits have with the NHS is that it is underfunded but being “owned” by the people efficiencies are under constant scrutiny. The USA model with private insurance funding is why the most basic of basic care and drugs are the most expensive in the world that perpetuates an upward spiral of insurance cost.  

 

Green new deal: I like the reference to a national crises that can be funded like they managed to do for WWII! They have to be careful pushing the analogy as it wasn’t really the Americans who paid for WWII it was mainly the Brits and the Russians. The Americans joined WWII at end of the war and for a relative small time. Who paid? The Brits sold of their empire whilst waiting for the Americans to help and the Russians lost 8 million citizens and most of which whilst the American pussy footed around debating as to whether a European war was a concern of theirs and only when the Japanese got stuck-in and  brought it close did they suddenly have a change in stance . The Americans contribution, in the earlier part, was to rip-off the desperate Brits and their allies with overpriced food and weapons  and loans (loans that brit were still having to pay 50 years! after the end of the war).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

“it wasn’t really the Americans who paid for WWII it was mainly the Brits and the Russians.” Please provide a reference for your comment because I disagree.  According to what I found, the US paid 4 trillion in today’s dollars and definitely more money than any other country.  caseagainstbush blogspot com/2005/04/financial-cos t-of-world-war-ii1u dot html
m warhistoryonline com/history/cost-u-s-wars -now html

1    U.S.            $341 billion in 1945
2    Germany         $272 billion in 1945
3    Soviet Union    $192 billion in 1945
4    Britain            $120 billion in 1945
5    Italy            $94 billion in 1945


Regarding military deaths, the Soviet Union did have more at around 8 to 10 million.  The next was Yugoslavia at 446,000 and then the USA at 416,000.  We lost a lot even though we entered late.  Just admit it, America and Russia saved your ass.

Original comment

“it wasn’t really the Americans who paid for WWII it was mainly the Brits and the Russians.” Please provide a reference for your comment because I disagree.  According to what I found, the US paid 4 trillion in today’s dollars and definitely more money than any other country.  caseagainstbush blogspot com/2005/04/financial-cos t-of-world-war-ii1u dot html
m warhistoryonline com/history/cost-u-s-wars -now html

1    U.S.            $341 billion in 1945
2    Germany         $272 billion in 1945
3    Soviet Union    $192 billion in 1945
4    Britain            $120 billion in 1945
5    Italy            $94 billion in 1945


Regarding military deaths, the Soviet Union did have more at around 8 to 10 million.  The next was Yugoslavia at 446,000 and then the USA at 416,000.  We lost a lot even though we entered late.  Just admit it, America and Russia saved your ass.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

If turning up late and shooting  the last  tied defeated german soldier (pos after missing a few times) doesn't really count as "winning" .  We are greatful for American joining the war (and as Churchill said "you can count on the Americans to do the right thing - in the end!).  But you might pat yourselves on the back for a job well done but for the rest of the world too many suffered whilst you  watched on the sidelines. You  will never be our heroes and far from our saviors.

Original comment

If turning up late and shooting  the last  tied defeated german soldier (pos after missing a few times) doesn't really count as "winning" .  We are greatful for American joining the war (and as Churchill said "you can count on the Americans to do the right thing - in the end!).  But you might pat yourselves on the back for a job well done but for the rest of the world too many suffered whilst you  watched on the sidelines. You  will never be our heroes and far from our saviors.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

I think you misunderstood me.  I am not trying to pat ourselves on the back.  I was just countering comments made above with actual facts.

People are quick to point out that we didn’t join the war effort until Pearl Harbor so we changed that going forward and now we get blamed for proactively involving ourselves in wars where people think we shouldn’t be in like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.

My personal opinion is that we should stay out of everyone else’s wars and let them kill each other.  Why risk precious American lives to save the Brits or any other country.  You complain about us reaching all over the world with our bases in nearly every country and I think we should shut those down, save our money and soldiers, and sit back and watch the carnage.  But if someone attacks us again, they will once again wake a sleeping giant.  Does that sound good for you?

Original comment

I think you misunderstood me.  I am not trying to pat ourselves on the back.  I was just countering comments made above with actual facts.

People are quick to point out that we didn’t join the war effort until Pearl Harbor so we changed that going forward and now we get blamed for proactively involving ourselves in wars where people think we shouldn’t be in like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.

My personal opinion is that we should stay out of everyone else’s wars and let them kill each other.  Why risk precious American lives to save the Brits or any other country.  You complain about us reaching all over the world with our bases in nearly every country and I think we should shut those down, save our money and soldiers, and sit back and watch the carnage.  But if someone attacks us again, they will once again wake a sleeping giant.  Does that sound good for you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

Hahaha sleeping giant.  The only sleeping giants in this world are Russia and China, and my god don't you try hard to keep them sweet?  Particularly Russia.

If someone attacks you again... like the viet-cong awaking you, beating you, then sending you limping home with your tail between your legs?  Yeah what a giant. 

Well done for typifying the cowardice of the USA though.  Perhaps while you're "sitting back and watching the carnage", you could sell them some arms and make some money on the side?  Oh my mistake.  You already do.

Original comment

Hahaha sleeping giant.  The only sleeping giants in this world are Russia and China, and my god don't you try hard to keep them sweet?  Particularly Russia.

If someone attacks you again... like the viet-cong awaking you, beating you, then sending you limping home with your tail between your legs?  Yeah what a giant. 

Well done for typifying the cowardice of the USA though.  Perhaps while you're "sitting back and watching the carnage", you could sell them some arms and make some money on the side?  Oh my mistake.  You already do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (80 days ago)

I know you're trolling, but that's spectacularly stupid.  

Yes, the USA paid a lot of money into a World War to avoid getting its hand dirty and actually fighting, but you expected it to be paid back.  As the OP pointed out, war for you was a commercial venture and your production industry did very well out of it.  Turns out that 'non-interventionist' is the most profitable form of cowardice.

The USA required payment for certain assets, and when it saw the allies couldn't afford it, gave a loan of over a billion for Lend-Lease.  This was only repaid in 2006, and the total came to $7.5bn.  Utterly shameful.  How many Jews were gassed while you were counting your coins?  I wonder why other countries haven't charged the USA when we've had to hold your hand while going into so many of your ill-advised wars.  I can't recall any you won alone. 

So while some people were standing up to fascism (before the UK was even threatened), fighting agents of systematic genocide, the USA was hiding away making business deals.  Nice one.  Thanks for that.  You only picked up the courage to fight when Japan wiped the floor with you at Pearl Harbor, when you suddenly realised that you couldn't go on paying braver countries to fight... and you only got out of that by one of the worst wartime atrocities ever committed. 

Russia undoubtedly contributed more to WW2 than the USA as they opened up a whole new front.  They sacrificed more for world peace and the allied victory in one winter than you did in the entire war.  I appreciate that this won't be the way that WW2 is taught to Americans, so you probably had no idea it was like this.  Unfortunately, the rest of Europe remembers WW2 in a very different way to your chest-beating propaganda, and Americans will have to carry that stigma.

Original comment

I know you're trolling, but that's spectacularly stupid.  

Yes, the USA paid a lot of money into a World War to avoid getting its hand dirty and actually fighting, but you expected it to be paid back.  As the OP pointed out, war for you was a commercial venture and your production industry did very well out of it.  Turns out that 'non-interventionist' is the most profitable form of cowardice.

The USA required payment for certain assets, and when it saw the allies couldn't afford it, gave a loan of over a billion for Lend-Lease.  This was only repaid in 2006, and the total came to $7.5bn.  Utterly shameful.  How many Jews were gassed while you were counting your coins?  I wonder why other countries haven't charged the USA when we've had to hold your hand while going into so many of your ill-advised wars.  I can't recall any you won alone. 

So while some people were standing up to fascism (before the UK was even threatened), fighting agents of systematic genocide, the USA was hiding away making business deals.  Nice one.  Thanks for that.  You only picked up the courage to fight when Japan wiped the floor with you at Pearl Harbor, when you suddenly realised that you couldn't go on paying braver countries to fight... and you only got out of that by one of the worst wartime atrocities ever committed. 

Russia undoubtedly contributed more to WW2 than the USA as they opened up a whole new front.  They sacrificed more for world peace and the allied victory in one winter than you did in the entire war.  I appreciate that this won't be the way that WW2 is taught to Americans, so you probably had no idea it was like this.  Unfortunately, the rest of Europe remembers WW2 in a very different way to your chest-beating propaganda, and Americans will have to carry that stigma.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Turkey shoe dance
Turkey shoe dance
The Rational National | 'Diner Jack' schools Fox News on the Green New Deal
The Rational National | 'Diner Jack' schools Fox News on the Green New Deal
Thom Hartmann | Richard Wolff | How empires end
Thom Hartmann | Richard Wolff | How empires end
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
Historian calls out billionaires at Davos
How homeless people survive the polar vortex
How homeless people survive the polar vortex