|
Fusion Restaurant posted:Sorry, but what is that definition? The only one I'm familiar w/ is the output per unit input. I could see the answer for WWII being pretty different if you are talking about output per person hour vs. output per capita, both of which are measures of productivity used in econ literature, at least. That's pretty much what I mean. Both of the above rose. Whereas from the sounds of it people want something that directly measures welfare impact.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Fangz posted:That's pretty much what I mean. Both of the above rose. Interesting! Do you have links I could read up on this more at? I've only ever seen it as output/capita, but was never clear how much of it was just because there were longer hours vs actually better production. From just a logical standpoint it seems like you might have gotten productivity gains because you were more motivated/were sharing information and techniques/could invest in better capital equipment, but on the flip side maybe you aren't getting the best workers, and if you're producing a huge number maybe you're hitting some diminishing returns/making marginal tanks which are really inefficient to create or something. So would be really curious to learn more about how this panned out! e: Actually in general, if anyone has cool (especially micro-) econ papers on the effects of war I would love to see them! I did some research with a professor applying behavioral econ to IR/war, but never normal econ. Also, if anyone is curious about how people are applying behavioral economics/the study of human decision making to military history, would be happy to dig up some old papers etc with the caveat that you're definitely getting an undergrad take on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/File:Output29-32.gif I mean hours did get longer, but not a lot longer. That links to various contemporary reports on the state of the economy, though you'll have to do some digging to find the relevant ones. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:I remember reading somewhere that the Union Army was the most powerful standing army on Earth in April 1865. Obviously that changed rapidly during demobilization, but was this true? It would make sense considering the US had just finished fighting a total war against the Southern States. Probably? A country at peace obviously has a less powerful army than one that's just won a war, as you say, but it doesn't mean much since if the US got into a war with country x, country x would mobilise and no longer be rocking its peacetime complement. I mean, on land the US could take even a fully mobilised UK, I suspect (our army's never been top tier), but against e.g. the North German Confederation (i.e. the pre-German-Empire), that would be a different kettle of fish. Edit: I dunno about Germany applying lessons from the Civil War about artillery to the Franco-Prussian War, maybe I guess though 5 years is really way too small a lead time for something like that to filter into doctrine, but conscription in Prussia goes back to the Napoleonic period at least, they didn't need any hints from the US about that. They didn't morph from some kind of tiny volunteer army in 1865 to what they fielded in 1870 or anything. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Probably? A country at peace obviously has a less powerful army than one that's just won a war, as you say, but it doesn't mean much since if the US got into a war with country x, country x would mobilise and no longer be rocking its peacetime complement. I mean, on land the US could take even a fully mobilised UK, I suspect (our army's never been top tier), but against e.g. the North German Confederation (i.e. the pre-German-Empire), that would be a different kettle of fish. And it matters a whole lot where they fight too, which makes the whole 'biggest army' question kinda pointless. Either power would have won easily on their home turf, who the gently caress knows what happen if the US tries to fight another Western power in China or something. Probably "everybody dies of hunger and disease".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:And it matters a whole lot where they fight too, which makes the whole 'biggest army' question kinda pointless. Either power would have won easily on their home turf, who the gently caress knows what happen if the US tries to fight another Western power in China or something. Probably "everybody dies of hunger and disease". Yeah, there's this really awful chicken-egg problem that comes out of the fact that armies and states need to come out of something real, and crazy Deadliest Like, the starting problem of Union army vs. France is how neither country shares a loving continent. So how to deal with that? Invent a naval landing force? Teleport armies around? Reform Pangaea? These are all bonkers solutions, and they're doubly hosed by the fact that neither the Union army nor the French army c. 1865 have had any expectation of fighting a war across the Atlantic, and now you need to go full alt-hist and try to imagine what the respective General Staff would even come up with as a strategic plan. Else you turn to the circular grey void, and pretend to fight a battle that has literally no chance of actually happening, and act like a workable result as been achieved. Even if you took the the microcosmic route and used a particular battle as a template, taking Gettysburg and replacing the Army of Virginia with the Molke's Prussian army still brings up very weird questions. Like, are they just going to go through the same exact motions of Gettysburg, just with Prussian equipment? Or are we supposed to roleplay as Moltke's lesser officers and try to figure out Gettysburg on their terms? That's alt-hist as is, but do we also have to pretend that they know anything about American infrastructure, geography, and that Lee's re-battle deployments make any sense to an army that isn't the Confederates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Yeah, there's this really awful chicken-egg problem that comes out of the fact that armies and states need to come out of something real, and crazy Deadliest Well one difference is a Prussian army approaching Gettysburg would have been cavalry screening because they don't have J.E.B. Stuart running around not reporting back to the main army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
I want this thread's take: Who is the most powerful person in history, and why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I want this thread's take: Define "powerful"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
my dad posted:Define "powerful" AH HA Define as you wish, this is probably the most interesting part of the question
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Stalin probably had the most individual control of any leader at any time
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
my dad posted:Define "powerful" Yeah, that's a pretty broad question. Who commanded the largest armies ever? Who commanded the largest armies relative to the world's population at the time? Who had the most influence on how things would turn out in the future? Who was at the right place and took an action that would have made the world completely different now if he/she hadn't been there at that knife-edge moment? It's kind of like asking what the best movie is, there isn't one* and it really depends on how we choose to judge them. *except for Tremors
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Yeah, that's a pretty broad question. Who commanded the largest armies ever? Who commanded the largest armies relative to the world's population at the time? Who had the most influence on how things would turn out in the future? Who was at the right place and took an action that would have made the world completely different now if he/she hadn't been there at that knife-edge moment? It's kind of like asking what the best movie is, there isn't one* and it really depends on how we choose to judge them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QvhCDsFkk0
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Who's got the largest Hydro bill?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Who had the most unilateral military power? Like, what human being in history's word (and their word alone) could cause the most death? Maybe they were super persuasive, or they were a dictator. Is it someone in the cold war, at the height of the US' nuclear power? Since the President has literal unilateral control over nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
There are probably more people on earth who can be genetically linked back to Genghis Khan than any other single person, so that's one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
In the "greatest influence on history" category it's hard to beat Jesus of Nazareth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Yeah I think one of the first 3 Khans of the Mongol Empire, before its division. I don't think Stalin or Truman were in a position to actually exploit their power in the same way the Mongols were, and culturally the Mongols may have had a more profound cultural and historical effect on their former subjects than the former USSR has had?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:There are probably more people on earth who can be genetically linked back to Genghis Khan than any other single person, so that's one. See this is what I said. But, Harry Truman could have nuked the Golden Horde and then steamrolled the remains. But he couldn't have done it without congressional approval. etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:See this is what I said. Reagan could have launched nukes without congressional approval if he had wanted to, he just had to make up a very flimsy reason. And the nukes of the 80s were way more destructive than the ones of Truman's time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I want this thread's take: bewbies posted:See this is what I said. !!! This question's taken a shocking swerve! LBJ controls congress by bathing naked and picking up foreign Heads of State by the collar. He is more powerful than Truman, and would probably have earned Genghis Khan's respect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:bathing naked That is generally required, yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
I don't think you can really say the nukes the leaders during the Cold War had made them supremely powerful given any use of them would have resulted in being nuked right back. I guess maybe Truman during the period before the Soviets had any? But could he have really mobilized to exert his power in the same way the Khans could have, in the immediate aftermath of WW2 when everyone just wanted to go home?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is generally required, yes? I.. I've been doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:AH HA On a percent of the world under their direct control, I'm gonna say Genghis Khan. In terms of military power, the 1980s nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Socialist Republics could have ended human life on earth
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I want this thread's take: Gilgamesh. One third divine, all the prima noctis he wanted, told the gods to gently caress off, and then kicked their bull when they complained. Also beat up dragons and built a wall. Not sure if he made the Martu pay for it, though. sullat fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In the "greatest influence on history" category it's hard to beat Jesus of Nazareth. If we are going to go with a religious founder I would go with Muhammad over Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
The answer is going to be Donald Trump isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
is siege of jadotville on netflix any good? it seems interesting since it involves un peacekeepers in a relatively obscure conflict
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The answer is going to be Donald Trump isn't it. The flesh raiders in the Nu Yok archipelago worship him as the devouring father
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Kanine posted:is siege of jadotville on netflix any good? it seems interesting since it involves un peacekeepers in a relatively obscure conflict Its entertaining and worth a watch. There's one scene where the sniper is ordered to take a shot at long range, so he puts down his scoped, zero'ed enfield, and picks up a bren with open sights. I imagine that the producers read a story about Vietnam where Carlos Hathcock used a M2 to snipe, but uh... the enfield and bren use the same round.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:If we are going to go with a religious founder I would go with Muhammad over Jesus. Alternatively, you could go all the way back to Abraham, since without him there's no Jesus or Muhammad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Are we talking people with direct power, or people who had a huge influence on the future? If it's the latter, then I'm going to go with whoever it was that first figured out agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
sullat posted:Gilgamesh. One third divine, all the prima noctis he wanted, told the gods to gently caress off, and then kicked their bull when they complained. Also beat up dragons and built a wall. Not sure if he made the Martu pay for it, though. His access to Gate of Babylon and Ea makes him quite a powerful contender indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Alternatively, you could go all the way back to Abraham, since without him there's no Jesus or Muhammad. Well, Adam the go-to guy, but he was kind of a chump. Cain killed like, a quarter of the Human population on his own, so I think he gets the prize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:If we are going to go with a religious founder I would go with Muhammad over Jesus. Yeah, I'd go with the big M for this one on the grounds that the development of Islam over later centuries is probably broadly closer to the founder's personal intent than Christianity was to its central figure. I dunno how much credit to lay at the feet of Jesus as a person for most of that influence. Paul might be a different story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Cain killed like, a quarter of the Human population on his own, so I think he gets the prize. That's a pretty good loving answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Speaking of Mongols, what about Mongol PTSD? If the Nazis got sadbrains from manually killing people, wouldn't the Mongols get the same from all the manuals slaughter of civilians they did?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Well, Adam the go-to guy, but he was kind of a chump. Cain killed like, a quarter of the Human population on his own, so I think he gets the prize. Maybe, but Adam contributed significantly to the development of women, thus causing more human misery than anyone else in history. Am I right fellas? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I.. I've been doing something wrong. There are dozens of us!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 07:34
|
|
