The Good Post Gallery

[Beet]

As someone noted earlier these aren't entirely rare.  In fact, if you look at the Congressional Representation or the List of Governors for some states, it almost seems to be an established tradition.  Outside of presidential families, there are those families in various states that become state fixtures.  I'm thinking of families like the Frelinghuysens of New Jersey, the Bayards of Delaware, the Cabots and Lodges of Massachusetts, the Stevensons of Illinois, etc etc etc.  Fact is, a lot of politicians come from generations thereof, mostly raised from birth to take their (usually) father's shoes.

Americans in general are attracted to this sort of dichotomy, because they are dumb, stupid, and lazy.  Not because they hate freedom (though, a very good argument could be made for that).  In politics it's all about name recognition and appeal.  It's what I would consider to be the "I knew your father" effect, which is what it says on the tin can.

However, at the same time, being a part of a political dynasty doesn't guarantee success.  The Adams family stopped sending men to the White House in 1829, with Charles Francis Adams Sr. and Charles Francis Adams Jr. both achieving fame as third party VPs (Sr. was VP on the Free Soil ticket, Jr. in 1848 was VP on the "True Democrat" ticket in 1872) being the last evidence of their political prestige.  The Harrison family was surprisingly good at elections, electing Ol' Willy before waiting forty plus years to elect his grandson Benjamin.  They haven't been heard from since.  Which brings me to the Roosevelts. . . . lolboy.
You would think that the most popular name brand dynasty would've had much success after TR and FDR.  However, the continuation of the line has proven that if anything, politics is not a genetic gift.  Several of TR's sons, god bless them, took up the very deadly occupation of being in war.  I think several of them died, though one of them, Teddy Jr, did try to run for office.  However, he took a pretty high level step in running for Governor against Alfred E. Smith, who was considered to be a pretty danggum good Governor and had the "street touch" to connect with urban voters and even Republicans to win office repeatedly during the Republican 1920's.  The fact that Smith took Bryan establishment favorite William McAdoo to 100 plus ballots at the 1924 Democratic National Convention speaks is evident of how successful and popular he was perceived, despite being a papist alcoholic (imagine if Jesse Jackson became Governor of Illinois in 1978 and tied Mondale in the 1984 Democratic Primaries and the Convention turned into 1968.  Yeah, that was Smith in 1924).  But damn, enough about Smith, this is about political dynasties.
Anyway, back to the Roosevelt kids.  Oh wait. . . . . what did Teddy do?  All I heard about was how great Al Smith was from Teddy's cousin Franklin Roosevelt.  Wait. . . . what?
So in a freak circumstance of history, FDR succeeds Smith and goes onto become one of the most successful presidents in history.  A former petty Assistant Secretary of the Navy, disgraced by scandal and by a paralytic illness, manages to turn it around in the span of a decade and get to the office of President in a landslide victory over the sexy boy Herbert Hoover though to be fair by 1932 Hoover was far from sexy.  You would think with such an acclimated career that the Roosevelts would've been able to have a strong family dynasty lasting well to the present day.
You'd be wrong.
First there was the old boy James Roosevelt.  A former army general who had enough gravitas in 1948 to be considered a replacement for Harry Truman, Roosevelt ran for the US Congress in California.  He held office for a decade in a "safe" urban Democratic seat in California.  He was kept there pretty much as a reminder of the good ole days as well as his multitude of extramarital scandals that he publicly admitted time and again.  You see, unlike FDR, James wasn't a cool enough motha to brush off sex scandals and thus was relegated to being a Congressman and then a useless cabinet officer for the rest of his life.  Okay, not the rest of his life, he did retire and make a book or two and got married several hundred times.  But still, he was a man who fell woefully short of the expectations for him despite being set up for success by pretty much every higher up in the party to follow in Daddy's footsteps.
Younger brother FDR Jr. was pretty much the same story, minus the military career.  His later run as the Liberal candidate for New York City Governor in 1966, which siphoned off liberal Democratic votes from Frank O'Connor and led to four more years of Rockefeller, probably left a bad taste in the NY Democratic Party's mouth.  As well, he ratted out his own brother Elliott as some communist sympathizer.  A pretty dick move if you ask me.
FDR was truly one of a kind out of his family.  So was Teddy Roosevelt, if you believe the 1994 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Election.
I'll let CNN News tell you about the Kennedys the next time one of them drops dead or is elected.
As for the Bush and Clinton families, who knows?  Maybe they will end up being long lasting dynasties with competent politicians like the Adams family was.  Maybe the Clinton family, with Bill already elected, will wait fifty years before electing another one like the Harrison family was.  Really, I don't know.  But it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't, considering history.

[Beet]

You know, BRTD, for a lot of people cultural identity is a powerful tool to avoid getting absorbed into a dominant, homogenizing unmarked category from which they will then feel that they can set themselves apart only by devoting themselves to posturing using personal musical taste, fashion sense, and so on.

[Beet]

Beet is a girl?

Card carrying member of the prude brood. As close to female as Atlas posters get.

Lol. Equation of female = prude sillyness aside, I'm not that prudish, really. I favor the legalization of prostitution, which I'm pretty sure puts me on the anti prude side of San Francisco, the most liberal city in the country. As well as giving me a position that's a lot more popular with men than women. Sure, I look like one compared to opebo, but I don't think that's saying too much.

[Beet]

I am not sure the 1957-58 recession was really global. In coincided with the German "coal crisis", which, however, was very specific and short-lasting. Essentially, the German government had abolished import duties on oil, which resulted in the closure of several coal mines. German unemployment went up briefly, but quickly continued to decline to 1.3 % in 1960.

For the US, the economic crisis seems to have been triggered by the Suez Canal crisis, which sent up oil prices quite strongly - much more than in Europe, which made the anti-monopoly commission investigating into price manipulation by major oil companies. Most likely, this was followed by the usual mechanics (inflation goes up, real consumer spending declines, money supply is tightened, etc.)

Looking at the fundamentals, the US markets for durable goods had reached more or less saturation (nearly 100% of households owning refrigerators, 90% owning TVs, 77% cars). At the same time, production equipment, most of which had been installed in the late 1930s / early 1940s, i.e. after the Great Depression and prior to the US' entry in WW II, was more and more becoming outdated, especially in comparison to Europe, which had seen massive investment during post WW II reconstruction. Europe still had substantial unsatisfied demand for durables, most likely also  lower labour costs than the USA, making it an attractive investment location.  1957 was the first year since WW II in which the US became a net capital exporter.

In such a situation, recovery takes some time. However, replacement demand for durables would gradually set in, coupled with demand for new products (e.g. colour TVs) and services (e.g. air travel), and stimulate overdue modernisation investment.

Very good as far as economics posts go.