It’s Made of Plastic!

To what extent did the U.S. experience an economic boom during the 1920s? is a curiously worded question for a curious time in American history. The twenties were one heck of an oxymoron. Not only was it directly after World War I, it was the time that preceded the Great Depression, and, for such grim surroundings, still managed to have an especially stunning reputation. The twenties were seemingly the peak of human accomplishment in the U.S., the arts and technology working together to create talking movies, jazz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, surrealism, Hemingway, baseball, Lindbergh, and on and on and on. It was seen as a time of prosperity in the U.S., where per capita income increased by 33 percent and consumerism and the auto industry boomed. But at the same time, these seemingly great economic feats, like so many other things, are much more complicated than they seem. Here’s where the wording of the question comes in. It would seem like the twenties saw an undisputable economic boom. And if you thought that, then you would be, technically, right. But when held up to scrutiny, the apparent economic growth in the U.S. was in reality a façade for some deeper, more serious economic problems that were growing in America and the international community.

A bit of background and oversight on international economics at the time in a simple statement: Europe was devastated. Germany, being on the losing side of WWI, had a massive amount of debt to pay off. The Allies, having borrowed so much money from the U.S., had more to pay back than Germany did. To help matters, the entirety of Europe, including its workforce and its industry, was completely in tatters from the terrors of war, and France, having refused to raise taxes on its people, was completely broke. Needless to say, this was not the start of a promising economic future. What happened that allowed the U.S. to remain unaffected, and even “prosper”? Well, there was a two-part plan, so to speak: debt and tariffs. The U.S. didn’t really play that big of a part in the war physically, so all of its land and factories and agriculture were completely fine, and they had $2.6 billion in war debts waiting to be collected from the Allies who were owed $2.0 billion by Germany. Sadly, Germany didn’t have any money, so to keep this cycle of money from Germany to the Allies to the U.S. going, the U.S. started the Dawes Plan, where they loaned $2.5 billion to Germany so they could pay off their debt to the Allies (who again, in turn, had $2.6 billion in debt to the U.S. See where this is going?). The debt situation severely weakened and subdued the European economy, but what struck the final blow was the tariffs. At around the same time as the Dawes Plan, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff was enacted, creating tariffs of 60 percent, the highest in American history. As a result, the American people tended to buy American-made products instead of generating much-needed revenue for Europe. This short-lived and crushing plan swiftly put the U.S. into control of western economics, and at the same time, debilitating the European economy, and setting up a teetering global market, just waiting for a gust of wind to blow it over the edge.

Now, back to domestic affairs. One would think that all of these tariffs and the fact that per-capita income increased by 33 percent or exports increased by 60 percent would be indicators of a healthy, sustainable economy. Sadly, in this case, one would be mistaken. Although these statistics and facts are true, the economy, as can be seen just a few years later, was far from sustainable. The economic growth seen by the U.S. was facilitated by a short term strategy and a series of ineffective plans, including the implementation of trickle-down economics and (again) tariffs. Trickle-down economics (implemented later by Reagan) was a policy where governments would give big businesses and other wealthy entities big tax breaks and other benefits with the idea that they would invest in other ventures and stimulate the economy as a whole. Sadly, when implemented, it was found that the rich would rather save money than frivolously spend and invest it and the “trickle-down” benefits to the poor were never really seen. Tariffs and trickle-down economic policies ended up benefiting the rich and hurting the poor, creating a concentration of wealth, increasing the class divide, and artificially inflating the market. As you can see, those statistics only tell part of the story; when you omit the fact that over half the people in the same decade were living below the poverty line and two-thirds of Americans were living at “minimum comfort level”, the twenties did indeed seem like a prosperous time. As a side note sub-factor, consumerism was also booming--the auto industry employed 6 million people by the end of the decade. But, not only were people starting to buy things that they couldn’t afford on credit, the ultimate consequence of the mass production consumerism of the twenties was the oversaturation of the market. Companies quickly found that households often didn’t need more than one toaster or one car, and as a result, companies that stuck with one model rather than operating on an constantly updating system (buy the new iPhone! with even more gizmos!) were quickly weeded out. By the end of the decade, the U.S. had a whole lot of metal, but not a lot of cash.

Ultimately, when discussing the extent of the economic boom of the twenties, we must also look at what came after: the Great Depression. Look, you can’t have one day with economic prosperity and suddenly the next with poverty; history just doesn’t work like that. The nature of history is that one event fluidly transitions into the other--every single thing that happens in one decade becomes a factor in the next, and the twenties were no exception. The Great Depression was a result of poor and unsustainable economic strategies implemented in the 1920s. All of the faulty tariffs, debts, taxes, and policies eventually started to add up. They temporarily boosted the market, inflating our economy for a short amount of time and for a small amount of people before it became completely unsustainable due to a lack of proper infrastructure and crashed. So, while it would be technically true to say that the U.S. experienced an economic boom during the twenties, calling it “effective” or “sustainable” would be equivalent to calling alcoholism a sound solution to life’s troubles; it might have worked well enough for a few hours, but shortly afterwards, you’re left with no money, a pounding headache, and a whole pile of problems.

For Glory! For God! And For More Money! : The Story of American Imperialism

Ah, imperialism. As the world powers saw the last of the world’s territory disappearing before their eyes at the turn of the 19th century, decided to implement the policy of imperialism (where countries expand their sphere of control over other countries/territories, in this case, militarily) even more fervently than before. Europe was going crazy with conquering! Africa was quickly gobbled up. Asia was turning into a punching bag. Island life was quickly becoming a terrible lifestyle decision.  But wait! Where does our favorite gun-toting, freedom-loving country play into this? It’s time for a spotlight! Obviously, American imperialism has always existed, especially with that whole Native American deal, but it really started kicking into high gear at the end of the 1800s. The U.S. (somewhat forcibly) opened up trade with Japan, bullied our way into Hawaii and other islands, and annexed the Philippines in the Pacific. We also started to interfere in our own hemisphere, building the Panama Canal, poking our noses around in Mexico,  and sparking the Spanish-American War in Cuba, helped along by yellow journalism. Basically, the U.S. joined the party and started to demonstrate empire-istic tendencies across the world, for various reasons.

    This brings us to today’s resolution: was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy for the United States to follow at the turn of the nineteenth century? This question is a bit difficult to answer. When you analyze the benefits and the harms of imperialism as a policy for the U.S., you have to look at both the economic/political side and the moral side and compare them, which is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. However, for reasons that will soon be clear, I ultimately would say that yes, imperialism was indeed a proper and legitimate policy for the U.S. circa 1900.

    Imperialism took off in the U.S. for a multitude of reasons, but the main benefits of imperialism as a policy was its use as a political, and to perhaps a lesser degree, an economic tool. So, the U.S. is still a new, baby nation. But it’s starting to become way more relevant. It’s gone through its own civil war, had its fair share of leaders and wars, and went through an obligatory “take over stuff” period. This period of time is a make-or-break point. The U.S. has become huge economically after its own Industrial Revolution. And now, well, this imperialism thing comes along, a bit like a hazing ceremony. Peer pressure. You going to be one of the cool kids? Or are you going to be a pack mule? You either get into the game or you get trampled. The documents provided for us doesn’t really give much information about this tension, about the global scene. There is one, that’s kind of close, but not really, from Alfred T. Mahan, a U.S. Navy officer in the late 1800s, who wrote in his book The Interest of America in Sea Power, “Americans must begin to look outward. The growing production of the country demands it. An increasing volume of public sentiment demands it. The position of the United States, between the two Old Worlds and the two great oceans, makes the same claim.”(Doc 2). Basically, he’s saying that the U.S. needs to function as an economic liaison between Asia and Europe, to take advantage of the opportunities that are being presented to us. Albert Beveridge, a Republican senator says about the same thing in a speech he gave to the U.S. Senate in 1900, “We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient...the Pacific is the ocean of the commerce of the future...The power that rules the Pacific...is the power that rules the world.” Imperialism is a strong political and economic policy, and those that advocate for it have these things in mind.

This makes a perfect transition into the second part of the question, the “legitimate” side: morals. From a moral standpoint, imperialism does not stand. There’s no point in beating around the bush, because morals are subjective. Every single person will have a different opinion. And when I look at the evidence, the people that are supporting imperialism and argue a moral standpoint sound like they’re trying to justify it to themselves. These justifications come off as incredibly racist (“It seems to me that God, with infinite wisdom and skill, is training the Anglo-Saxon race”) and also inconsiderate to the native people (Doc 1,3,5,6). I’ll be honest, “We insist that the subjugation of any people is ‘criminal aggression’”, sounds about right to me. But, like I said, morals are subjective.

So, let’s zoom out. The world was teetering. The U.S. was in the perfect position to make its own global debut. That’s what imperialism allowed us to do. We showed the world that we meant business. Taking that opportunity turned us into a world power and the 20th century became America’s. Culturally, France has been the center of the world for the past 200 years, but with the end of the Post-Impressionistic Era, around 1900, art shifted to the new capital: New York City. Militarily, the U.S. played a huge role in both World Wars. Economically, we became a(n even bigger) powerhouse. Perhaps using imperialism was the best method to achieve this. Perhaps it was not, but it is undeniable that using imperialism led straight into the U.S.’s debut as a global power. So, was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy? It was certainly proper. It was a suitable policy to use at the time. But legitimate? Just? Maybe not. But ultimately, ethics are subjective. Maybe we actually believed that we were helping people. But, imperialism undeniably worked, and in face of this question, I believe that at the time, it was indeed suitable and legally justifiable, if not morally so.