Economics

>entire economy
>USA
the USA has the most diversified economy in the world.

We will sell you guns, but we will also sell you food, resources, media/technology, machinery etc etc.

Truth is the USA is a water economy, we consume a ridiculous amount of water to drive our industries. Contrary to fags who think its an oil or war economy. Those are only a small piece of the pie.

>lose war
>nation in crumbles
>whole generations lost
>turned into colony for competing superpowers
>survive all this just to be hijacked by globalist and overrun with imported rapists

Idk user sounds pretty depressing to me

Because War Magically Fixes Economies Shitlord.

Also this, see the Roman Empire's transition from free market capitalism to economic planning

They seemed to pull themselves out of the Depression before they entered the war.

How can you say it was a planned economy, when private enterprise was still active?

>They seemed to pull themselves out of the Depression before they entered the war.

That's true, they did. What we're saying is that they needed war for that success to continue.

>How can you say it was a planned economy, when private enterprise was still active?

You can still have private enterprise in a planned economy, as there are differing degrees to which a government can interfere. Economic planning ranges from simple regulations and taxes to full on control of every single industry.

economics are a means to the goal and not the goal itself hence why national socialism had no bias towards either and would use whatever works whether it be free market or government control and often employed both.

>That's true, they did. What we're saying is that they needed war for that success to continue.

By that do you mean taking over occupied countries resources?

>You can still have private enterprise in a planned economy, as there are differing degrees to which a government can interfere

It would be mixed-market economy rather than a planned economy.

Holocaust was a lie to cover up mass jewish migration, simlar to the mass muslim migration we have today.

>By that do you mean taking over occupied countries resources?

Yes, any type of war that brings them more and more resources.

>It would be mixed-market economy rather than a planned economy.

I guess, but the Roman economy never really stopped moving more and more towards total government planning. Which funnily enough was driven on by their failing economy, a result of increased interference in the markets.

>being this touchy about muh holohoax

mate, he didn't even mention it

Molymeme has a pretty good video in which he talks about the Roman economy and its failures.

youtube.com/watch?v=qh7rdCYCQ_U

>German economy not diverse and reliant upon military industry

>relative to whom could this even be true considering the british empire, soviet union, and u.s.a all had massive military spending as well

IT WAS THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Because nationalist economics was always superior to globalist bullshit

Slavery and Conquest.

When you take over a a forein counties tax system and enslave 23% of the population, ones country tends to prosper

...

>not an argument: the post

Yes because getting out of the depression first was thanks to invading whatever nation you could be implying which happened much much later.

All the most largest economies of today, the German, US-American, Japanese rose after WW2 via a hybrid model with lots of government intervention.

An absolutely deregulated market is bullshit and has never led to universal growth.

>italian

kek, I was just talking about your predecessors and how they fucked up their free market prosperity

if I was indian or paki like you I too would fear nationalism and adore individualistic free market tier ideologies that do not judge me on my being a foreign horde but on my dollar value

He's got a point

I'm a white nationalist/fascist myself but whatever, be a stormfag moron. I'm too tired to deal with your kind right now

>How can you say it was a planned economy, when private enterprise was still active?

By the late empire period, jobs became hereditary in Rome, meaning children are forced to work the same jobs as their parents. The exchange rate was regulated. Despite there there being no gold in the coins by the late empire period, the government forced citizens to accept it at the same value as the older coins that had a lot more gold. Taxes remained the same despite crop yields dropping. To ensure that the taxes were being collected properly and the laws were being followed, the preexisting administrative districts were subdivided further. Yes, there was still private enterprise, but only for the rich and well connected.

lol talk about " non arguments "

modern corporatocracy is not capitalism

corporatocracy is literally the jewish trickery that people like complain about

You misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about Rome, I was challenging the idea that NatSoc Germany was a planned economy.
ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Interesting read though. Where else can I read about Rome in terms of economics.

Calling me a paki isn't going to get you any real arguments, friend

>modern corporatocracy is not capitalism

This argument is a 'no true Scotsman', similar to the one that Marxists use when you bring up their failures. Corporatocracy seems to be an inevitable outcome of free market liberal capitalism.

>free market capitalism is so good and government intervention in the economy so bad,
t.

war is as good to the economy as breaking windows to later fix them
no wealth is generated, resources are wasted and previous wealth destroyed

corporatocracy is what happens when companies abuse regulations imposed by the government. This then results in global corporations establishing monopolies over different industries and controlling countries through lobbyist. The key word here is "regulations", meaning that it is not free market capitalism.

"corporatocracy" is just code for "capitalism when it starts doing things I don't like"

...

>corporatocracy is what happens when companies abuse regulations imposed by the government

>This then results in global corporations establishing monopolies over different industries and controlling countries through lobbyist

Do you expect this not to happen? This is what I mean when I say corporatism is an inevitable outcome of free-market economics. It only becomes a matter of time before monopolies and oligopolies start destroying competition. By having some sensible nationalistic regulation in the first place or government intervening when market failure is occurring, it can be stopped.

The way I see it, a truly free market offers too much competition for any one person to rise too high. It's only when governments start introducing regulations and subsidies that private enterprises can start to outclass their competition.

However I'm interested in reading some more about NatSoc and Fascism, any books you'd recommend?

Did they? They're deep in debts.

It's like worse version of Greece. Hitler's regime was really good at PR that money poured into Germany. Buy reckless spending forced Germany to do what they did..partly.

>The way I see it, a truly free market offers too much competition for any one person to rise too high.
you'd see it that way if you were wholly ignorant of basic history. go read up on how business was done in the 19th century.

>a truly free market offers too much competition for any one person to rise too high

Unfortunately there is not "true", "free", or "pure" market economy out there. And people like the (((Rothschilds))) have indeed risen too high, that they are now too big to fail.

>It's only when governments start introducing regulations and subsidies that private enterprises can start to outclass their competition.

True, but these politicians are bought by firms, who gained their wealth via liberal capitalism.

>However I'm interested in reading some more about NatSoc and Fascism, any books you'd recommend?

Pic related.

...

>politicians are bought by firms, who gained their wealth via liberal capitalism

that's true, unironically really made me think

>the white man is the greatest conqueror, builder of civilizations and cultivator of culture and art
>but he can't be trusted to freely dispense with his income, because he would ignore his family and community to spend it all on frivolity like a nigger

this is what "white nationalists" actually believe

Because they kicked out all the undesirables

also thanks for the books mate, that's a good selection

>but he can't be trusted to freely dispense with his income
What does this mean? The income he has after taxes is his to buy what kind of food he wants or whatever. Are you saying he should have all of his income? This is simply not possible as the military and other massive government programs use these taxes.

Are you saying that the individual should have the choice whether to fund the military and other government entities?

This is rejected. There are government arms such as public works and pro-birth rate programs that we view just as important as the military to the future well being of the race and hence just as the military is an absolutely necessary taxation so too are the others.

Perhaps one will proclaim " Sure, these things sound good and talk is easy but I only make so much money and this taxation has reduced my diet to the cheapest bread and water "

Maybe you should take a moment and go to a graveyard and see others who have sacrificed much more for our nation than you have.

Because when you spend other peoples money through socialism it gives the impression of wealth creation.
Real wealth (jewish gold) leaves the country and is exchanged for oil, lead, food which trickles down from those whom recieve wealth first.
Hitler made bernie madeoff look like a door to door con man.
The 3rd reich would of collapsed as soon as new jew gold stopped.
It was an never ending cycle of theft and spending.

>What does this mean? The income he has after taxes is his to buy what kind of food he wants or whatever. Are you saying he should have all of his income? This is simply not possible as the military and other massive government programs use these taxes.

Maintaining the military, police and courts, which I believe are essential, would take no more than 10% of GDP. Currently another 30-40% is taken for government healthcare, social security and public education which are not only of questionable quality, but infiltrated and managed on all levels by people with an anti-white agenda.

Instead of the majority white people being free to choose the social security, education, healthcare and charitable services that would best serve their family and community, they have half of what they earn taken at gun point, and put in a pot that attracts migrant invaders, sheltering them and clothing them at the expense of native families that are also in need.

All for what? For the illusion that these services are "free"? These so called public works don't involve the public at all - the public's role is to be tax farmed, and then patiently wait to get a portion of it's rightful earnings back. Contrast that to local charity, where people contribute not only money, but their time and effort to actively alleviate the social problems around them, instead of waiting for a central institution to shift its fat ass and do something.

>Maybe you should take a moment and go to a graveyard and see others who have sacrificed much more for our nation than you have.

Bottom of the barrel argument. Expected nothing more from a leaf.

Please get a better understanding on this issue other than puking out surface alt-right arguments.

>d put in a pot that attracts migrant invaders, sheltering them and clothing them at the expense of native families that are also in need.

In the national socialist state this is not a relevant point as this would be an ethnic nationalist authoritarian state

>For the illusion that these services are "free"?

At what point is this ever being even slightly alluded to? Hitler in his speeches, and various other national socialist communications- always strictly emphasize how this is heavy sacrifice and the complete opposite of " free "

Self sacrifice is the cornerstone of national socialism and civilization.

How did the United States prevent a depression after the dot-com bubble burst? They replaced it with another one, the real estate bubble. What did they replace the real estate bubble with? The US Dollar bubble.
The government programs the Nazis had in mind were a bubble that was bound to burst. To escape the fact that they couldn't pay their debts they started to hand out IOUs to foreign investors to keep imports flowing. At some point the Nazis would have had to default on their debt luckily for them they could start a war instead.

>How can you say it was a planned economy, when private enterprise was still active?

That's is called the German pattern of socialism. In the Russian pattern all factories are owned by the state while in the German patter the illusion is kept going that private enterprises have control. In fact though the Nazis dictated prices, wages, made plans and since they were responsible for import and export they were the ones in the driver's seat. When you control the supplies and you can dictate the prices than what else is there left of a free market?

Ironically the German pattern is what nowadays is most common for states to adopt. It's called interventionism or in Germany it's propagated as social market economy. States can set minimum wages, work regulations and even female quotas. Yes we have females quotas in Germany. Something Hitler fancied himself in the very beginning of his reign.

All that was a relief for symptoms... not the cause.
Basically the state resortrd to extortion to meet its budget because the main holders of wealth - the patricians with latifunda fully staffed by slave labour - were exempt from taxes due to political lobbying.
Kind of rings a bell in todays economy...

>that picture
top kek

Their state was geared for war their market was very free for private enterprise, their economics was austrian based.

Labor intensive public work. They built the Autobahn at the time, and a lot of other stuff. Just like Hoover dam in the USofA.
Sure, it can kickstart the economy, but it isn't feasible in the long run. It also isn't feasible nowadays since even constructionwork isn't as labor intensive as it was a hundred years ago.

>Sure, it can kickstart the economy, but it isn't feasible in the long run. It also isn't feasible nowadays since even constructionwork isn't as labor intensive as it was a hundred years ago.
Croat unemployment rate: 17,5%

Yeah, you sound like you know what you are talking about. Nevermind that this is about aggregate demand and by keeping it up full employment can be permanently maintaned.

>why was Nationalist Socialist Germany the first country to get out of the Depression?

Is this even true? I keep hearing Germany was ready for bankrucpty in '39 and thats why the war had to start or Nazis would've been laughed out of office.

>it isnt feasible in the long run
State injection was never meant to be feasible in the long run. It was to take the idle and cheap workforce created by a depressive economy to construct common use infrastructure and rebound the economy.
There is no eternally feasible one fits all economic system. Eternal unending growth isnt feasible either.
But you definitely need infrastructure projects to develop the economy or it will tank.

I cry ever time

>while in the German patter the illusion is kept going that private enterprises have control

>In fact though the Nazis dictated prices, wages, made plans and since they were responsible for import and export they were the ones in the driver's seat

Sources for that?

Also, what was the difference between Hitler's Nationalistic Socialism and Bismarck's Prussian Socialism?

It was more Keynesian if anything are examples of a deficit budget

The economy was prepared in part for the very purpose of war.

That is coming from the same camp claiming the 6 gorillion. The same camp claiming the German Reich caused the hyperinflation with their money printing (CNN tip: it's not). The "war economy" shit is a myth, more propaganda used to enforce a certain narrative. The real reasons Germany had to go to war was because of the excessive sanctions pushed by the banking cabal, propaganda fueled boycotts, and aggressive geographical posturing by (((Britain))). Even then it was only triggered by underhanded provocation.

>Croat unemployment rate: 17,5%
It ain't my fault that the commies still rule this land and that the average Croat is a lazy bum.
>Yeah, you sound like you know what you are talking about.
I just have a bachelors degree in economics, pls no bully. I'm just starting my masters.
>Nevermind that this is about aggregate demand and by keeping it up full employment can be permanently maintaned.
The AD curve of Germany at the time wasn't elastic. Everything would be an improvement. And with full employment you run the risk of high inflation, something the germs were fearing at the time. But I'm just talking out of my ass, since I haven't read about the factors that influenced Germanies GDP at the time. I'm just saying that an increase in personal spendings that is based on increased gov't spendings cancels out almost entirely in the long run

Interdasting.
Privatisation isnt a bad thing... it depends on who you sell to. If nationalists own your country's companies and the government has a share, you still get a nationalised industry that makes the government money
Ownership isnt bad, everything depends on who owns it.

They were just taking massive loans and would go bankrupt if they didn't start the war

Addendum to We never got to know their long run economic program, because of the war and the subsequent collapse of the Reich. Maybe they had something planned, maybe not. Maybe they really wanted to go
>lol, I own half the world, I don't have to care about resources or poverty due to inertia
Maybe not.

Yes but the idea is you break someone elaes windows and then steal their factories to make the windiws you broke

Exactly this. And the same thing can be said about government intervention - if it's nationalists ruling the nation and are able to respect the private sector.

>Sources for that?
mises.org/library/vampire-economy

>Also, what was the difference between Hitler's Nationalistic Socialism and Bismarck's Prussian Socialism?
There are of course practical differences but the principle of making people dependent on the state is the drive for both. I think Bismarck's approach illustrates fairly well what a ponzi scheme socialism is. The workers got to pay in pension that they would receive at the age of 70 while the life expectancy was around 46 years at the time. So the state could blow all the money before the worker ever got eligible for his pension.

life expectancy is mostly influenced by infant fatalities, I think that most adults probably made it to old age

76 posts & not a single mention of Usury.

Seems this thread has JIDF out of the ass.

"Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible."
-Maria Theresa

You make the years between 1871-1914 sound as if they were terrible, when it was the opposite.

>compulsory education
>strong iron & steel industry
>German science & engineering the best in the world
>development of railways
>became influential in world trade
>Germany overtook Britain as the industrial powerhouse of Europe
>high standard of living
>strong military
>nationalistic country

Not so fast.

It could have been much better without the damn Prussians. They're the ones that brought brought this big government in Asia Minor (Berlin) upon us.

Just look at Sweden. They got late in the game of industrial revolution in the 1870s and they overtook everyone in no time in terms of creation of wealth even the United States. Nobel coming up with the dynamite is just one of the examples of the many science developments they came up with before they introduced their own brand of socialism in the 1950s that sucked up all their wealth.
You know when IKEA, Volvo and H&M were all started before 1950? The last big seller Sweden had? Mojang developing Minecraft. You know how many jobs were created in Sweden from 1950 to 2005? Zero!

>as this would be an ethnic nationalist authoritarian state

That's about as viable as an anarcho-capitalist society. You'll get pummeled by the global powers.

About self-sacrifice - the self-sacrifice we admire is a conscious choice of family, country, an ideal over your own life and comfort. You don't have to force a patriot to fight bravely, or a parent to go without for his children.

If it's not a conscious choice, then one is simply being sacrificed by others for their gain, like an animal or a slave. There's no virtue in it for either side and it's what authoritarianism produces.

As soon as life expectancy rose the welfare system was under constrain. The beginning of eugenics movements and social cleansing all started in the 1920s when it was apparent to everyone that the system was not viable.

That is the problem with almost all of the socialists out there, especially Marx himself. Their systems don't work and then they get the idea it is the fault of the people and so they must create a new man and destroy the weak. The Nazis and the Soviets both were bent on creating a new man and in looking at the Asian mass murderers you can sense how clueless they were when they practically started killing people for totally random reasons.
Collectivism has lead to devastating results and never made anyone richer. The only thing it produced in abundance was huge piles of bodies.

>authorianism means slavery
It depends, there are degrees of it.
Autocrats or oligarchs have always needed the mandate of the lower classes to maintain stability. No state is sustainable on coercion alone.
This is not to say there is no coercion, or that statism isnt oppressive to those with few means, but there is a difference between structure and practice (or culture)

>It could have been much better without the damn Prussians. They're the ones that brought brought this big government in Asia Minor (Berlin) upon us.

You sound like an liberal ideologue.

>They got late in the game of industrial revolution in the 1870s and they overtook everyone in no time in terms of creation of wealth even the United States

They might have been doing well for themselves, but no way did they surpass Germany, let alone the United States.

So if both the Second and Third Reich were examples of an economy done wrong, tell me which system in your opinion is the most efficient.

Individualism is an ideal for weaklings which naturally leads to liberalism and a disconnect from ethnicity, of which preserving our ethnicity is our main goal. It becomes clear a disciplined obedient people willing to sacrifice for the well being of the collective- the race and nation- is what is important and notions of individual " liberties " become null and avoid as soon as we realize how much more stable and civilized a society we live in compared to the foreign degenerate hordes who are so easily lured by the notions of communism or the " freedoms " of individualism.

The USSR never experienced the great depression at all. Checkmate.

based desu

Because they defaulted on their debts and anybody who objected got thrown into a camp. Furthermore, stealing private property of your richer citizens is a great way to boost state spending.

>(((richer citizens)))

>why was Nationalist Socialist Germany the first country to get out of the Depression?

It wasn't. Germany was, along with the USA, simply hit harder by the Great Depression than any other country.

>Individualism is an ideal for weaklings

When you're literally too scared to do anything other than join the group, obey the leader and do what everyone else says, you don't get to call anyone else a weakling.

>Germany
Because they were reliant the Dawes Plan.
>USA
Because they had no safety nets.

That pic doesn't exactly argue in favour of individualism. In fact it's the opposite, the USSR was as collective as they came.

Such an existence is already what the allied soldiers endured. So you are deluded to imply otherwise.

sooo

nazis came into power in '33

'34 economy slows down

makes you really think.

>You sound like an liberal ideologue.
It's not just the social reforms, it's also the whole Kulturkampf those Protestant brutes waged against us Germans which might have had the most long lasting negative effect on Germany. Apart from the devastating war they brought on Germans that it is.

>They might have been doing well for themselves, but no way did they surpass Germany, let alone the United States.
Maybe not but they had the biggest per capita income growth of the world. Nowadays Sweden has a per capita income lower than Mississippi, the poorest state of the United States.

It's true that the German economy was just beginning to recover when he came into office, however unemployment was still bad.

>January 1933 - 6 million
>January 1934 - 3.3 million
>January 1935 - 2.9 million

Typical Cathocuck. Putting the Papacy before your own people.

See
The German economy was stimulated primarily by loans from mefo bills, which were government credit loans that guaranteed the holder one reischmark. They were massively in debt, Hitler planned on repaying these bills with the spoils of war. The world economy also was in the recovery phase of the largest depression in history.

Shit, just realised MGRR was world war 2.

>Poland's just the spark, son! Germany's been wanting this war for years!

>Typical Cathocuck. Putting the Papacy before your own people.

That's the point you're missing, mate. My people are not the Prussians.

You're delusional, anti trust laws are the sole reason we're not under the boot of megacorps. Government subsidises are a microscopic fraction of investments, it's just not mathematically possible. Look up the history of Standard Oil.

>My people are not the Prussians
Fair enough. I guess you don't have a problem with Poland reclaiming old clay then.

I'm still interested in what you consider to be a decent economic system.

>I'm still interested in what you consider to be a decent economic system.

capitalism

Liberal capitalism?

Did you know that by the time the antitrust case against Standard Oil was filed it had already hundreds of competitors? Of course it still got partially dissolved by the state years later.

No, capitalism.

You're going to have to be more specific user. What type of capitalism?

The kind that somehow enforces my racism while also giving me muh freedoms. I want the grand package do-it-all ideology that is utopian ahhh i can see it in my mind I get everything in this special brand of capitalism i dont have to give up anything

This guy gets it.

The irony of a truely 'free market' is that it actually requires a strong and robust regulation. The state or some power given regulatory body would have to curb this natural tendency towards corporatism, monopolies and syndicates.

>What type of capitalism?
Just capitalism.

>You're going to have to be more specific user.
The voluntary exchange of goods between people (and emus).

>What type of capitalism?
Just capitalism.

>You're going to have to be more specific user.
The voluntary exchange of goods between people (and emus).

>Just capitalism
Stop being vague and avoiding the question.

Their wages also went to shit after a while and their economy tanked. It's was a temporary bubble which is seen in every government intervention before the crash.

because they cooked the books

I think instinctively people on the right went to free market capitalism merely because it seemed as though it was the opposite of communism.

But free market capitalism, in my view, has only limited benefits: it is effective insofar as it isn't irrational communist central planning.

However, for example, I think things like minimum wage law are necessary even though they are contrary to free market principles, as practice shows us that the Jews can't be trusted to pay a fair wage.

And anyone who is content with the current distribution of wealth and economic power is a shill or a brainwashed retard.

I just gave you the specifics what capitalism entails. I don't know what you want to read.

>there is only one type of capitalism