Liberal Forum

Pretty sure the Nazi economy was extraordinarily successful because they got rid of the vast majority of parasites. All the other stuff like sending women home to have kids and deficit spending was secondary.

When the bulk of that debt repayment goes to a certain group...the solution isn't particularly difficult.

But there will always be certain people who insist allowing that to happen is "freedom."
 

Polar1ty » 01 Jan 2022, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:32 pm

Pretty sure the Nazi economy was extraordinarily successful because they got rid of the vast majority of parasites. All the other stuff like sending women home to have kids and deficit spending was secondary.

When the bulk of that debt repayment goes to a certain group...the solution isn't particularly difficult.

But there will always be certain people who insist allowing that to happen is "freedom."

I think psychology is also involved with economic success. The German worker was optimistic about the future and highly motivated to contribute. That matters. When workers feel oppressed, the economy tends to suffer.

FOS » 01 Jan 2022, 5:38 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:38 pm

I think psychology is also involved with economic success. The German worker was optimistic about the future and highly motivated to contribute. That matters. When workers feel oppressed, the economy tends to suffer.

I suspect if the U.S. had its own version of the night of broken glass, the economy would improve overnight here too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

SJConspirator » 01 Jan 2022, 5:44 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:44 pm

I suspect if the U.S. had its own version of the night of broken glass, the economy would improve overnight here too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

When the usa denounced Germany after the night of broken glass, Germany responded that no jews died during it...and FDR is being very hypocritical considering he refused to sign the anti lynching bill (true)
 

SJConspirator » 01 Jan 2022, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:21 pm

If his head was a North African oil field in 1942, the combined forces of Rommel, Patton and Montgomery could not get thru to it.. that’s how hard and stupid it is lol

You seem to believe stating and restating lies about what a nice guy Hitler was will erase the true History.  First, he was a megalomaniac murdering tyrant.  2nd, socialism has NEVER worked and every study of socialism proves it.  As studies designed to isolate the reasons for its failure clearly indicate because it merely addresses the distribution of wealth as if that wealth was merely "manna from heaven".  It clearly is not.  So even if you took everything of value and distributed that wealth to every person equally (assuming that was possible) then you would still have to address "How are you going to produce more wealth".  And this is where Socialism fails utterly.  And we can go back and look at the data and see exactly why.  It isn't even a mystery anymore, you have just been excluded from being exposed to it through your confirmation bias.  And if you ever actually took the time to READ known empirical testing of these theories you would clearly agree.  These intellectuals (as opposed to economic empiricists) have no interest in being correct and certainly don't want any empirical examinations.  They often aren't even economists.  They often come at it from a Sociological or other perspective which though well intentioned do not hold up to reality.  And they have in many cases already been debunked though many of those developing an understanding are not exposed to the evidence.
 

FOS » 01 Jan 2022, 5:38 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:38 pm

I think psychology is also involved with economic success. The German worker was optimistic about the future and highly motivated to contribute. That matters. When workers feel oppressed, the economy tends to suffer.

That is very true. I don't remember the last time I talked with a motivated employee here in the states...maybe back in 1999...lol.

Maybe some curry *** who brought his family over from some slum in India and hoped to eke out a better living is highly motivated, but then again they already have the nepotism in place to advance in tech.

 
 

LibDave » 01 Jan 2022, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:49 pm

You seem to believe stating and restating lies about what a nice guy Hitler was will erase the true History.  First, he was a megalomaniac murdering tyrant.  2nd, socialism has NEVER worked and every study of socialism proves it.  And studies designed to isolate the reasons for its failure clearly indicate because it merely addresses the distribution of wealth as if that wealth was merely "manna from heaven".  It clearly is not.  So even if you took everything of value and distributed that wealth to every person equally (assuming that was possible) then you would still have to address "How are you going to produce more wealth".  And this is where Socialism fails utterly.  And we can go back and look at the data and see exactly why.  It isn't even a mystery anymore, you have just been excluded from being exposed to it through your confirmation bias.  And if you ever actually took the time to READ known empirical testing of these theories you would clearly agree.  These intellectuals (as opposed to economic empiricists) have no interest in being correct and certainly don't want any empirical examinations.  They often aren't even economists.  They often come at it from a Sociological or other perspective which though well intentioned do not hold up to reality.  And they have in many cases already been debunked though many of those developing an understanding are not exposed to the evidence.

there has never been a great leader who didn't kill people. You could call Churchill a murdering tyrant since, after all, he entered a massively destructive world War he never had to get involved with. The measure of how 'evil' murder is depends basically on who you are murdering. Nothing is wrong with killing your enemy imo. 

Also, wealth production comes from innovation. 

And all this stuff about redistribution of wealth.. wtf do you think corporations do?? Lol. Outside of Strasser and Rohm the naxis were not terribly interested in massive wealth redistribution. That is not necessary for a socialist economy.

Polar1ty » 01 Jan 2022, 5:52 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:52 pm

That is very true. I don't remember the last time I talked with a motivated employee here in the states...maybe back in 1999...lol.

Maybe some curry *** who brought his family over from some slum in India and hoped to eke out a better living is highly motivated, but then again they already have the nepotism in place to advance in tech.

lol.  Curry ***?  ROFLMAO.

LibDave » 01 Jan 2022, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:49 pm

You seem to believe stating and restating lies about what a nice guy Hitler was will erase the true History.  First, he was a megalomaniac murdering tyrant.  2nd, socialism has NEVER worked and every study of socialism proves it.  As studies designed to isolate the reasons for its failure clearly indicate because it merely addresses the distribution of wealth as if that wealth was merely "manna from heaven".  It clearly is not.  So even if you took everything of value and distributed that wealth to every person equally (assuming that was possible) then you would still have to address "How are you going to produce more wealth".  And this is where Socialism fails utterly.  And we can go back and look at the data and see exactly why.  It isn't even a mystery anymore, you have just been excluded from being exposed to it through your confirmation bias.  And if you ever actually took the time to READ known empirical testing of these theories you would clearly agree.  These intellectuals (as opposed to economic empiricists) have no interest in being correct and certainly don't want any empirical examinations.  They often aren't even economists.  They often come at it from a Sociological or other perspective which though well intentioned do not hold up to reality.  And they have in many cases already been debunked though many of those developing an understanding are not exposed to the evidence.

Another fact free rant from a Ben Shapiro wannabe.

try harder.  Bring facts.  Be interesting.  Be original.  Be entertaining. Something to make anybody want to read you.

LibDave » 01 Jan 2022, 5:55 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:55 pm

lol.  Curry ***?  ROFLMAO.

Mediocre programmers/software devs, amazing talkers.

FOS » 01 Jan 2022, 5:54 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:54 pm

there has never been a great leader who didn't kill people. You could call Churchill a murdering tyrant since, after all, he entered a massively destructive world War he never had to get involved with. The measure of how 'evil' murder is depends basically on who you are murdering. Nothing is wrong with killing your enemy imo. 

Also, wealth production comes from innovation. 

And all this stuff about redistribution of wealth.. wtf do you think corporations do?? Lol. Outside of Strasser and Rohm the naxis were not terribly interested in massive wealth redistribution. That is not necessary for a socialist economy.

Socialism, Marxism, Marxist/Leninism, Democratic Socialsim, et al are by definition concerned with wealth redistribution.

What fosters innovation?

What empirical evidence do you have which indicates socialism in and of itself promotes production?  I got news for you, you have none.  Why?  Because socialist intellectuals do not even address it.  They merely address the fairness or whatever about the redistribution.  Others who HAVE addressed these aspects of socialism and indeed tested the tenets of socialism have shown again and again it fails and why it has failed.

LibDave » 01 Jan 2022, 5:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 5:59 pm

Socialism, Marxism, Marxist/Leninism, Democratic Socialsim, et al are by definition concerned with wealth redistribution.

What fosters innovation?

I reject your definition lol. There can be socialism without wealth redistribution. And if you want to define socialism otherwise then I suppose the national socialists were not socialist. 

The nazis were highly innovative. We never could have reached the moon without them...

You need intelligent and creative genius to have some motive to advance knowledge...largely inspired by being good for their people...their social identity group. 

The idea that the nazis wanted world domination is actually absurd...based on what we all accept as their ideology.

They wanted all their citizens to be german. They wanted a homogeneous population. You cannot dominate the world without having a multiracial population lol. Right? So this is a glaring inconsistency and it is quite stupid that mainstream history can't see that.

Meanwhile we actually do know that the ussr was seeking world domination. And thr only war that had to be fought was Germany vs the ussr.

When the uk declared war on Germany it was under the idiotic pretense that the uk cared a huge amount about Poland and the integrity of polish borders. But guess what?

The ussr invaded Poland at the same time that Germany did.

Why didn't the uk declare war on the ussr?

You can't explain things like this. Your version of history is just stupid and incoherent.
 

FOS » 01 Jan 2022, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 6:02 pm

I reject your definition lol. There can be socialism without wealth redistribution. And if you want to define socialism otherwise then I suppose the national socialists were not socialist. 

The nazis were highly innovative. We never could have reached the moon without them...

You need intelligent and creative genius to have some motive to advance knowledge...largely inspired by being good for their people...their social identity group.

Well then what is your understanding of National Socialism?  Capitalism combined with ethnic purity and the subjugation of the labor of inferior races internal and the further subjugation of the wealth of other non-Aryan nations?  To include Austria, Czechoslavakia, Poland, USSR, North Africa, Middle East, South America and the United States.


I guess it was Churchill which brought about war by objecting to Hitler's policy of Lebensraum and the raping and pillaging of its neighbors.

LibDave » 01 Jan 2022, 6:25 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 6:25 pm

Well then what is your understanding of National Socialism?  Capitalism combined with ethnic purity and the subjugation of the labor of inferior races internal and the further subjugation of the wealth of other non-Aryan nations?  To include Austria, Czechoslavakia, Poland, USSR, North Africa, Middle East, South America and the United States.

No lol.stop getting your info on nazis from jews. They are inherently biased.

FOS » 01 Jan 2022, 6:26 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 6:26 pm

No lol.stop getting your info on nazis from jews. They are inherently biased.

So what was Hitler's policy?  Not Lebensraum?  What was his economic system if not socialism as I defined it (and the NAZI's too by the way).  What is your definition of national socialism?
 

LibDave » 01 Jan 2022, 6:29 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 6:29 pm

So what was Hitler's policy?  Not Lebensraum?  What was his economic system is not socialism as I defined it (and the NAZI's too by the way).  What is your definition of national socialism?

He absolutely wanted lebensraum. That is why he wanted oil and farmland from Ukraine. 

The uk had no natural resources he needed. 

I would say fascism IS socialist. But you seem obsessed with wealth redistribution and that is not fascist policy. So you need to decide how you define words. 

The nazi economic model was basically to abolish all unearned income.. that means thinks like interest on loans and land speculation and the stock market.. they wanted all income to be a product of labor.. 
 

Lebensraum/autarky was simply .otivated by the desire to disconnect from international finance which is able to undermine the sovereignty of nations. The goal is being self sufficient.

Germany had plenty of iron and silver and tin. It lacked oil and agriculture. Easiest solution: take Ukraine.

Sure..Ukrainians forced to leave their homes might be sad. But this is what realpolitik is all about. It was just the German version of manifest destiny. We cannot pretend to be ethically superior.

FOS » 01 Jan 2022, 6:12 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 6:12 pm

The idea that the nazis wanted world domination is actually absurd...based on what we all accept as their ideology.

They wanted all their citizens to be german. They wanted a homogeneous population. You cannot dominate the world without having a multiracial population lol. Right? So this is a glaring inconsistency and it is quite stupid that mainstream history can't see that.

Meanwhile we actually do know that the ussr was seeking world domination. And thr only war that had to be fought was Germany vs the ussr.

When the uk declared war on Germany it was under the idiotic pretense that the uk cared a huge amount about Poland and the integrity of polish borders. But guess what?

The ussr invaded Poland at the same time that Germany did.

Why didn't the uk declare war on the ussr?

You can't explain things like this. Your version of history is just stupid and incoherent.

I understood a different version of history

Hitler annexed Sudetenland and Cechoslavakia, which France opposed.  At that time, England took offense as well but Chamberlain appeased Hitler.

France was committed to their allies, leading to direct conflict with Germany.  When the Nazis invaded Poland, it was the last straw, and France declared war.  UK had to follow suit at that point, they were obliged by a treaty with France to declare war also.

After Churchill gained power, the UK escalated war on Germany at the urging of DeGaulle and many others.

 

SJConspirator » 01 Jan 2022, 7:01 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2022, 7:01 pm

I understood a different version of history

Hitler annexed Sudetenland and Cechoslavakia, which France opposed.  At that time, England took offense as well but Chamberlain appeased Hitler.

France was committed to their allies, leading to direct conflict with Germany.  When the Nazis invaded Poland, it was the last straw, and France declared war.  UK had to follow suit at that point, they were obliged by a treaty with France to declare war also.

After Churchill gained power, the UK escalated war on Germany at the urging of DeGaulle and many others.

Chamberlin was a better PM of the uk than Churchill imo. 

France was naturally terrified of Germany sure. Because France is next to Germany. And Germany almost conquered France in ww1. 

But imO this was all paranoia based on nothing. We know the nazis had a resource based focus on their imperialism and France had absolutely npthing...other than perhaps French girls...to interest the nazis. 

France easily could have just ignored the nazi invasion of poland...just like they ignored the ussr invasion of Poland. And France woukd have been safe. 

But no...they decided to declare war. For strategic reasons? Or for jewish reasons. Well...Jewish no doubt.