Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About Zach

  • Rank
    Political Guru

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

461 profile views
  1. I support this, but only for the entertainment value.
  2. In this thread, we have: An inflammatory title Debate over the veracity of poll numbers Godwin's law General anger with @Reagan04 I don't understand what's wrong with political discussion being posted... until it turns into this.
  3. I know, but that's what @TheMiddlePolitical's map says. Technical error?
  4. Screenshots or it didn't happen (and no one can troubleshoot)
  5. The Panic of 1907 was caused by a myriad of factors, one being the United Copper Company scheme, but the condition in which traders would lose faith in financial markets was created by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Hepburn Act decimated the value of railroad securities, causing market capitalisation to tumble by nearly 25% even before the October crash. It was this lack of liquidity that led to the panic in the first place. If the UCC scheme was alone, then markets would've adjusted quickly. For a more recent comparison, financial markets in September 1907 were in a similar state to that of June 2008: equities have tumbled and the market is feeling the consequences of previously heightened P/E ratios, but volatility is not high enough to constitute a crisis... yet. This entire mess could've been prevented with a central bank to serve as a lender of last resort, and luckily, in a rare moment of rationality, the United States created the Federal Reserve. I support some experimentation, but one has to ignore a substantial amount of empirical data if they believe that attempting to centrally plan prices of market goods and services is going to end well.
  6. The impact of tariffs on the economy was smaller since tariff revenue was only ~1.75% of GNP, but their role in government was disproportionate since it was half of federal revenues, making it an issue in the political arena. If he implemented the policies that led to the Panic of 1907 during the 1890s, then it shouldn't be a surprise that a contraction like it occurs. In the 1890s, the suffrage movement was a mess at best. The two leading organisations, National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association, merged earlier in the decade and had no clear goal or direction, even under the leadership of Susan B. Anthony. That being said, however, I could see the timeline on suffrage being accelerated a few years, as women played a larger role in labour laws and combatting corruption, issues that emerged during the Progressive Era. Approximately half of federal revenues were tariffs, whilst the other half were excise taxes.
  7. I assumed that this was one of those "what would happen if Bryan won the presidency" scenarios and in 1896, he supported the Spanish-American War. On the domestic policy front, Bryan would be in a state of quagmire after the Panic of 1893. If he did implement substantial progressive reform that we saw the decade after, then one would see a repeat of the Panic of 1907, which was promulgated by federal intervention in the rail industry through the Hepburn Act as well as major trust-busting cases, most notably against Standard Oil. His desire to lower the tariff would have a negligible effect on the economy. Federal revenues during the 1890s ranged from 3-4% of GNP, with half of that being tariffs, so even if he somehow managed to eliminate all tariffs (wouldn't happen, but let's assume it does for the sake of this example), one would only see an effect analogous to the Revenue Act of 1926—it helps a bit (perhaps boost quarterly growth numbers by 0.25%)—but makes no difference at the end of the day.
  8. This tends to happen on custom maps for some reason. The application seems to not detect the boundaries in the BMP image, so you end up with a myriad of fragmented regions and conflicts. When this happens, I go open the image in Photoshop and strengthen the boundaries, but sometimes the stroke required to get it right is far above the 1 pixel suggested in the game. Strange.
  9. What region comes up when you click on the blue background?
  10. This forum uses IPS as a platform, and there is an option to do allow users to modify polls. Perhaps he's using a different version?
  11. If we're talking about a win against McKinley in 1896 (1900 is a whole different story), then there wouldn't have been many changes from OTL on the foreign policy front. While he was anti-imperialist in the election of 1900, he initially supported both the Spanish-American War and the 1898 Treaty of Paris. He turned against those positions in his 1900 speech "Imperialism: Flag of an Empire", but again, the focus is on 1896. At this point, he viewed the Spanish as an oppressive empire against the Filipinos, a group that must be liberated and have democracy spread to them. When he came out against US involvement in the Philippines and Cuba at the turn of the 20th century, the situation had changed according to Bryan—it no longer concerned an oppressive colonial regime, but a class warfare narrative that he could use to (try to) win elections. McKinley did not do much for black civil rights, but he did speak out against lynching and appointed blacks to government positions of lower significance such as postmaster. Bryan would have been worse on this front. Why? He had a solid support base in the South, a region that was becoming weary of blacks obtaining a larger role in the conduct of the federal government. After the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, discriminatory Southern policies had a firm legal standing and Bryan would not risk alienating his own party, as Democratic support was precarious at best with the decline of Bourbon influence. Another one of Bryan's largest platform tenets after his Cross of Gold speech, bimetallism, would have made next to no difference in the 1890s. The discovery of the cyanide process for extracting gold dramatically increased the metal's supply on global markets, most notably with the Witwatersrand Gold Rush and Klondike Gold Rush. That being said, Bryan's decision would have led to nominally higher price stability, but with the lack of a private central bank, financial panics would still be a common occurrence. The economy overall would have remained in the doldrums found after the Panic of 1893. Lowering immigration of unskilled labour and expanding the Interstate Commerce Commission would have been a profound drag on economic growth. After a brief recession in 1896, Bryan's administration would not see the higher levels of GNP growth that McKinley had (including 8.16% in 1897 and 11.60% in 1899). This state of economic malaise would've made reelection of Bryan difficult. Ironically enough, however, perhaps he could use the Spanish-American War to garner increased support.
  • Create New...