Notices
Results 1 to 62 of 62

Thread: German economy in the 30s?

  1. #1 German economy in the 30s? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    While the rest of the world was in depression(or was it) it appears Germany was experiencing lots of economic activity. Why?


    Ive read that zero interest nationalized banking was advocated by Gottfried Feder, was this implemented?


    During the great depression in Worgl Austria they used no interest local government bonds as money and this was apparently an economic miracle, it was stopped by the central bankers, but i wonder if theres some of this in the german economic power prior to ww2?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    What do you mean by "lots of economic activity?" Things were pretty bad in Germany.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_D...Central_Europe
    The Great Depression severely affected central Europe. The unemployment rate in Germany, Austria and Poland rose to 20% while output fell by 40%.

    <...>

    Germany's economy retracted in 1929 when Congress discontinued the Dawes Plan loans. This was not just a problem for Germany. Europe received almost $8 billion USD in American credit between 1924 and 1930 in addition to other war time loans.

    Germany's Weimar Republic was hit hard by the depression as American loans to help rebuild the German economy now stopped. Unemployment soared, especially in larger cities.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Germany
    Germany's Weimar Republic was hit hard by the depression, as American loans to help rebuild the German economy now stopped.[54] Unemployment soared, especially in larger cities, and the political system veered toward extremism.[55] The unemployment rate reached nearly 30% in 1932.[56] Repayment of the war reparations due by Germany were suspended in 1932 following the Lausanne Conference of 1932. By that time Germany had repaid 1/8th of the reparations.


    After that, I am not entirely sure what you're question is.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    I have heard a number of times (but cannot remember any attributable sources) that Hitler revived the German economy by using military spending. And that he got massive popular support that way, because the level of life in Germany improved. All of which happened before Germany invaded or conquered any other country.

    It has always puzzled me how an economy can be helped by spending money on things that bring no tangible benefits to anyone, at least until the country wins a war and, ekhem, "obtains" some assets that way.

    Can I improve the economic standing of my own household by building a howitzer (never to be fired at anyone) in my back yard? I don't think so.

    And yet, on the national level, military spending seems to work, sometimes, for some contemporary countries, regardless of whether or not all that weaponry is eventually used. How come?
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    And yet, on the national level, military spending seems to work, sometimes, for some contemporary countries, regardless of whether or not all that weaponry is eventually used. How come?
    The effect is hsort term and not lasting. It provides an immediate injection of money into the economy with all the benefits that birngs, but that money has to be paid for somehow, somewhen, by true productivity.
    I think Roosevelt did much the same, but with civilian projects like the Hoover dam and the interstate highways. (And yes, I know, Hitler did the autobahns.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I had learned in school that, at a French-German border crossing at one point during the Great Depression, French school kids would cross the border after school and buy pasties and candies in the German shops. It embarrassed the economically-disadvantaged Germans that foreign kids could casually buy what had become extravagances to the Germans, and the German border guards technically should have stopped the kids from crossing over, but the German economy was in such dire need of the French money (the German money being next to worthless).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    jrmonroe your profile picture looks like a swatsika ironically lol
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Another part of the Nazi economic upturn was the corporatist economic policy. Industries were forced into conglomerates. There was no competition between German companies, they were forced to structure themselves into corporations. State-Corporatist arrangements also allowed the Nazi's the harshly control prices and go into deficit without causing domestic inflation, they also outlawed importing products that were produced domestically.

    This was combined with a traditional Keynesian style deficit spending to create jobs. Germany was actually getting poorer as its economy was getting better, which is pretty much how Keynesian spending works. However, the military spending was so extreme that Nazi Germany would have been doomed to plunge back into depression if the war hadn't happened. This methods simply aren't sustainable long term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    jrmonroe your profile picture looks like a swatsika ironically lol
    Yeah, unfortunately. It's an old recursive pattern. I should have made it turn in the other direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    I have heard a number of times (but cannot remember any attributable sources) that Hitler revived the German economy by using military spending. And that he got massive popular support that way, because the level of life in Germany improved. All of which happened before Germany invaded or conquered any other country.

    It has always puzzled me how an economy can be helped by spending money on things that bring no tangible benefits to anyone, at least until the country wins a war and, ekhem, "obtains" some assets that way.

    Can I improve the economic standing of my own household by building a howitzer (never to be fired at anyone) in my back yard? I don't think so.

    And yet, on the national level, military spending seems to work, sometimes, for some contemporary countries, regardless of whether or not all that weaponry is eventually used. How come?
    One of the fears of modernization/industrialization is that machines will start doing jobs that people used to do, leaving them jobless. If you want to industrialize rapidly, then you've got to figure out a way to keep those jobless people from starving. You can't just pay them to stand around and do nothing, or else they end up becoming dependent on handouts, but if you make them soldiers they'll be working hard for their money.

    Also, it is almost always the case that a factory you set up to produce howitzers will also be capable of producing other things. I think it is no small coincidence that Japan, Germany, and the USA are the three major producers of consumer automobiles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    What kojax said is right: many german army personell were recruited from unemployment, and Facism was partially given rise by the downturn. It was also one of the reasons Hitler was able to get people to hate the Jews-he blamed them
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    By the mid 30's most countries were already well on their way to recovery, including Germany. Any idiot in office got the credit. Germany, who'd crashed the hardest, had a new leader who'd taken power when people were the most fearful and resentful--and he and his government also got the credit for explosive expansion coming out of those depths.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Oh. I read somewhere that Hitler was able to recruit many men from unemployed? True? Also, I'm pretty sure the blaming Jews thing is correct, thats how he got the anti-semitism started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I think economically, employing people to do something next-to-worthless costs the same as not employing them, but the benefits are different.

    The main flaw in capitalism is that it's winner-take-all. If you're the second best company (second best balance of price and quality), you might make no money at all. It creates a lot of unnecessary attrition. Enterprises that are still valuable go under because they can't keep themselves alive long enough to get back on their feet again.

    In sports leagues like the NBA, there are measures in place to prevent this from happening. The annual NBA draft awards the best new players to the worst teams in order to prop them up, so they don't start dying off. It's a highly successful system. I doubt the competitiveness of the NBA teams is hurt by it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Im not quite sure what youre trying to put across here.
    But I think that although what you describe is tough, it is also one of the things that make capitolism so great- it keeps companies on their toes, and encourages innovation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The main flaw in capitalism is that it's winner-take-all. If you're the second best company (second best balance of price and quality), you might make no money at all.
    This is inaccurate in a fairly large degree. Not only does that "second best company" take a share of the market away from the "winner," it also ensures that winner keeps innovating and keeps driving to improve. Without the "second best" company, the winner could rest on it's laurels and we'd never advance. Competition breeds creativity and efficiency.

    You seem to be describing a system where there are only two players, but that rarely happens. Further, the company you describe in your post is not usually the "second best," it's usually the "least best."


    Now that I realize, though... I'm totally lost how any of this ties into the thread about Germany in the 30s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The main flaw in capitalism is that it's winner-take-all. If you're the second best company (second best balance of price and quality), you might make no money at all.
    This is inaccurate in a fairly large degree. Not only does that "second best company" take a share of the market away from the "winner," it also ensures that winner keeps innovating and keeps driving to improve. Without the "second best" company, the winner could rest on it's laurels and we'd never advance. Competition breeds creativity and efficiency.

    You seem to be describing a system where there are only two players, but that rarely happens. Further, the company you describe in your post is not usually the "second best," it's usually the "least best."


    Now that I realize, though... I'm totally lost how any of this ties into the thread about Germany in the 30s.
    In a lot of industries there are only two serious competitors. For example: computer CPU's (AMD and Intel) or Satellite TV (Dish Network and Direct TV). The only reason there isn't just one is because of anti-trust laws.

    So, you're right that the number 2 will always still get some market share (because #1 is afraid of the anti-trust suit that would follow if they killed them off), but #3 doesn't have to fall very far behind before they're eliminated entirely.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In a lot of industries there are only two serious competitors. For example: computer CPU's (AMD and Intel)
    Sorry, but you're wrong here, too. I guess companies like Samsung, Texas Instruments, Toshiba, Freescale, Infineon, STM, Hynix, and Sun Mircosystems don't count? Please. I can't take you seriously if you keep making comments like that. You're continuing to use totally inaccurate representations of the actual system you're attempting to describe. It's like writing blueprints for a super tanker with fat crayons and glitter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    I think economically, employing people to do something next-to-worthless costs the same as not employing them, but the benefits are different.

    The main flaw in capitalism is that it's winner-take-all. If you're the second best company (second best balance of price and quality), you might make no money at all. It creates a lot of unnecessary attrition. Enterprises that are still valuable go under because they can't keep themselves alive long enough to get back on their feet again.

    In sports leagues like the NBA, there are measures in place to prevent this from happening. The annual NBA draft awards the best new players to the worst teams in order to prop them up, so they don't start dying off. It's a highly successful system. I doubt the competitiveness of the NBA teams is hurt by it.
    I agree with inow. What does this have to do with the german economy in the 30's?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In a lot of industries there are only two serious competitors. For example: computer CPU's (AMD and Intel)
    Sorry, but you're wrong here, too. I guess companies like Samsung, Texas Instruments, Toshiba, Freescale, Infineon, STM, Hynix, and Sun Mircosystems don't count? Please. I can't take you seriously if you keep making comments like that. You're continuing to use totally inaccurate representations of the actual system you're attempting to describe. It's like writing blueprints for a super tanker with fat crayons and glitter.
    None of those companies make CPU's.

    Perhaps I should have been clearer, because not everyone has the same hobbies (I like to build my own computers from parts). I wasn't referring to companies that make microprocessors of just any kind. I was referring to companies that specifically make the CPU. Only AMD and Intel do that. There used to be a few others, such as Cyrix in the late 90's, but they died out.

    Probably Intel is deliberately letting AMD survive. For the other example, Dish Network deliberately passed up the opportunity to buy out Direct TV early 2000's when Direct TV was having serious financial problems.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Well... That tends to make your intended point even less relevant. You're talking about markets, and yet your example applies to one tiny anecdote in one highly restricted, tightly defined sector?

    And, by the way, you're still wrong... There's IBM and VIA in addition to those abvove.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU#External_links
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Winner takes all situations can occur in Capitalist free markets, but that's why there are anti-monopoly laws. A real monopoly is something like the Steel Barons or Railway Barons of the late 19th century, who owned absolutely every commercial venture in some areas so they could set any price they wanted because people had no other choice. These are illegal today in even the most capitalistic of countries, like the USA.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    A real monopoly is something like the Steel Barons or Railway Barons of the late 19th century, who owned absolutely every commercial venture in some areas so they could set any price they wanted because people had no other choice.
    Like cable TV and electrical utility companies.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    A real monopoly is something like the Steel Barons or Railway Barons of the late 19th century, who owned absolutely every commercial venture in some areas so they could set any price they wanted because people had no other choice.
    Like cable TV and electrical utility companies.
    Ya, there are issues with what constitutes a monopoly that should be busted. At least in Quebec electrical services are handled by the government so we have some of the cheapest electricity in North America. Although, there's no guarantee the government will manage things properly all of the time. Quebec is in a unique position of being very large, with ample potential of hydroelectricity production, with a small population, so we produce an energy surplus that is sold to the US to subsidize our own electricity.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    A real monopoly is something like the Steel Barons or Railway Barons of the late 19th century, who owned absolutely every commercial venture in some areas so they could set any price they wanted because people had no other choice.
    Like cable TV and electrical utility companies.
    Two of the greatest dangers ever to American Democracy, and the American middle class. Hence, why these particular things should be publicly owned, or at least their distribution infrastructure. Private enterprise could still contribute components. Individual power generating stations could be privately owned, but the power would be sold to a public controlled, not for profit distributor.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Imagine if the NBA allowed all of its franchises to die, except just the Lakers and New York Nicks. How interesting and competitive would major league basketball be, if those were the only two teams that existed to play each other? Basketball itself wouldn't die. You could still watch college and minor leagues, or start a pickup game with some friends.

    That's what has happened to the PC component industry.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Well... That tends to make your intended point even less relevant. You're talking about markets, and yet your example applies to one tiny anecdote in one highly restricted, tightly defined sector?

    And, by the way, you're still wrong... There's IBM and VIA in addition to those abvove.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU#External_links
    Video game CPU's are not as sophisticated as x86 CPU's, but yeah other CPU manufacturers exist if you're not just looking for ones that would fit inside a PC. The reason I restricted it to CPU's is because of that. The reason there are few competitors for that particular component of a PC is because it's a difficult market to enter. The requirements a product would have to meet in order to seriously get anyone to buy it are just too high.

    Graphics card chip sets are in a similar situation. The only really serious competitors are ATI and NVIDIA. If those two haven't locked out the whole PC market already, they will soon.

    Motherboards chip sets are open to a few more competitors, and for RAM and hard drives there are a lot of different competitors. If you look PC manufacture itself (assembling a whole computer from components, ready to use), there are tons of competitors, because assembling a PC is a task any ordinary person with knowledge and basic hand tools can do in their basement.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I'm still rather lost on how any of this ties into the German economy in the 1930s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    It's an attempt to answer the question of why military spending is so effective at boosting an economy. The tendency of businesses to go under if they fall behind the competitive abilities of their opposition for even a short time leads to a lot of under utilization of available resources (especially labor).

    In war time, the government steps in and starts maximizing production any which way it can, including utilizing factories and business operations that would ordinarily not be competitive enough to stay open.

    I'm thinking that, if we could do to failing businesses what the NBA does with failing franchizes (teams that lost the last season), propping them up in some manner so their doors stay open (but not propping them up so much that they lose the incentive to compete), then maybe we wouldn't need wars.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    So you're saying that all wars are a result of economic advantage at home? From my knowledge, most wars cause burden (even though Afghanistan is only 4% of the US GDP) to the belligrents. Most wars nowadays are fought to protect, to eliminate an enemy, to gain advantage in a region and other complex geopolitical reasons. The economy was not the reason Germany went to war against Poland. The wanted "living space", specifically the Polish Corridor. The economy may have been one of the reasons why Germany armed itself, and even why it looked to a madman like Hitler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliane
    . The wanted "living space", specifically the Polish Corridor.
    You don't think free real estate is an economic motive?


    The economy may have been one of the reasons why Germany armed itself, and even why it looked to a madman like Hitler.
    And if he didn't go to war, how long do you think he'd have stayed in power?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And if he didn't go to war, how long do you think he'd have stayed in power?
    Probably no longer than about 1950 when he would have died of Parkinson's disease.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    And if he didn't go to war, how long do you think he'd have stayed in power?
    I think you just disproved your first point. You are saying that he went to war in order to stay in power, which is not an economic, but political motive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliane
    And if he didn't go to war, how long do you think he'd have stayed in power?
    I think you just disproved your first point. You are saying that he went to war in order to stay in power, which is not an economic, but political motive.
    I don't think there exists such a thing as two separate categories. He got into power by promising a chicken in every pot. He got the chicken by attacking his neighbors and taking their chickens.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Germany was an economic ruin by the time WWII was over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Yeah. That tends to happen when you lose. The discussion has mostly been about how it ever got good in the first place, because it certainly blossomed during the early stages of the war.

    I wonder if it really just shows that socialist redistribution of wealth *would* work if it could be done in a way that doesn't lessen anyone's work ethic. Hiring all of your unemployed people as soldiers kind of does that. They're working very hard for their paychecks, even though that work doesn't produce anything of economic value. (Unless they win and bring back spoils of war.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    OK, that was a bad point, but Hitler also wanted to encourage his people to support him with patriotic pride as his army overran Poland.
    You are referring to postwar Germany?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I think Germany became (or reestablished itself as) a potent industrial power.

    What if the german government would have mandated factories and workers to build consumer goods, farming equipment, trains, medical equipment hospitals etc and trained the unemployed in teaching, medicine, engineering, builders, instead of mass producing weapons, cannons, bombs, bombers, panzers, etc and training soldiers? An instead of destroying the production output (bombs, panzers) would have said, hey instead of building all this and destroy it, we'll just build all that and give it away instead?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Yeah. In an ideal world, that would have happened. A nice person would have been elected chancellor, and the world would be a more peaceful place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    I think Germany became (or reestablished itself as) a potent industrial power.

    What if the german government would have mandated factories and workers to build consumer goods, farming equipment, trains, medical equipment hospitals etc and trained the unemployed in teaching, medicine, engineering, builders, instead of mass producing weapons, cannons, bombs, bombers, panzers, etc and training soldiers? An instead of destroying the production output (bombs, panzers) would have said, hey instead of building all this and destroy it, we'll just build all that and give it away instead?
    The trouble with work ethics: it's not enough just to give someone a job making something. You also have to bullshit them into thinking the thing they're making is genuinely valuable. If you're giving it away for free, then people think it must not be valuable.

    I wonder sometimes if enough peoples' math skills are poor enough that you could hire them to ride on a stationary bicycle attached to an electric generator, and tell them you're paying them to generate electricity? Then they could feel like they're being paid to help fight global warming and oil dependency, both.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    "If you're giving it away for free, then people think it must not be valuable. "
    Im not sure I fully understand, isnt the enjoyment of using it (or using it vs not using it) also a measure of value?

    If a village gets a napalm bomb dropped on it "for free" curtasy of German/US citizens Im not sure the free-ness will be the thing that measures its less-than-useful value in the minds of the villagers who's houses are burning. On the other hand, if a solar powered water filtration/desalination equipment is parachuted along with engineers to install and train the villagers, imo the use the village gets from it, vital clean water, may be much more a measure of its value than the price of 0$. Unless theres something Im not getting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    You might be on to something. NASA's moon mission wasn't meant as an act of war, but I'm sure the people who worked to accomplish it felt very important. Public works projects building more infrastructure has a similar effect too, even though their benefits are free to the public. Only trouble with public works is you run out of things to build that people will consider to be "necessary".

    The main problem with trying to give free stuff to the third world is most of their governments just steal it and try to resell it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    It should be re-iterated that the pre-war German economic model was not as good, or even as special, as people think it was. It was identical to the Keynsian spending of other Western countries, just with a great state control of industry and even more spending. Too much of the population was working off of state dime and a crash would have been eminent.

    If you're going to use a Keynesian model your debt has to grow at a rate steady or less than the economy, Hitler overspent.

    That was added to Germany's trade deficit at the time meant that much of that state spending was also flowing out of the country.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Not to mention that Germany had payed huge reparations after World War I, and also experienced the Great Depression? It's not like the economy was all sunshine and lollipops over there. In fact, that's part of what helped Hitler rise to power. People were suffering economically and would believe any line of bullshit fed to them which fanned the flames of their anger.

    Sort of like we see today in the US with Fox News and the tea party.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Yeah, and a lot of Nazi Germans believed the Jews were all secretly rich, and hoarding lots of gold. I guess when people talk about "taxing the rich" now, it's a step up because at least now it's based on a genuine assessment of a person's net worth. But it's still very naive, because it assumes there's some unlimited, and untapped store of wealth somewhere waiting to be utilized, and all it is is untapped money.

    If we tapped it, we'd probably get inflation, not wealth.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    But what about the initiative in Worgl Austria that was apparently hailed as a miracle while virtually everywhere else was a dismal depression festival?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6...rgl_Experiment

    I looked it up to see what you were talking about. It looks like it worked out pretty well for them.

    Essentially, it amounts to hoodwinking your creditors. Give them the old currency and let them try to redeem it, while your own people trade in the new one.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    The biggest motivator for the German people to work as hard as they did was the concensus held by most (99%) that they were wronged by the results of WW1. They had to admit blame for a war that they didn't start, or mobilize for , first. They had to pay massive reparations to the victors ( mainly France ). And they lost territory in the East and West ( to France, which was an ancient squabble since the time of Charlemagne's sons, and they had reclaimed in 1870 ).
    The old German government ( Weimar republic ) were seen as traitors for having accepted these terms of surrender after WW1 at Versailles and the president, Paul Hindenberg, who gave in to Hitler and made him Chancellor was seen as one of the people who took part in the WW1 defeat ( he was a commander on the eastern front ).
    Hitler's 'wisdom' was that he recognised this seething anger in his people and used ( or bent it ) to his advantage, to seize power, rebuild the economy, and as a result, the war machine, and to start an invasive war to 'reclaim' the lost German territories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    So you're thinking it was because the people felt a patriotic desire to contribute? That would make a lot of sense. If you look at NASA in the 1960's, I'm sure those engineers were motivated by a lot more than just their paychecks. Probably they liked feeling like their culture would appreciate their efforts on other levels too.

    A German engineer in pre-WW2 times maybe felt the same thing?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And if he didn't go to war, how long do you think he'd have stayed in power?
    Probably no longer than about 1950 when he would have died of Parkinson's disease.
    Parkinsonism is typically not listed as a cause of death. Hitler was a known abuser of drugs and may well have overdosed, of course we will never know the answer to this irrelevant question.

    During war, Hitlerites stole everything not nailed down from invaded nations including slave labor. Not "sustainable" in modern parlance.

    Thanks to all dotcomrades for a most enjoyable thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And if he didn't go to war, how long do you think he'd have stayed in power?
    Probably no longer than about 1950 when he would have died of Parkinson's disease.
    Parkinsonism is typically not listed as a cause of death.
    Dude, I didn't say he died of Parkinsonism. But it is pretty well proved that he had Parkinson's which in that time was a common and sure killer.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10053222
    http://medchrome.com/patient/living-...nsons-disease/
    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...53802096000053
    Even if Germany had won the war, Hitler wouldn't have been around for long.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    So agreed. It is certain that condition of German economy was influential in Hitlerite rise to power, what implications for today's economy can we infer, dotcomrades?

    We are already seeing much opportunistic military adventurism, Prince is thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    It is certain that condition of German economy was influential in Hitlerite rise to power, what implications for today's economy can we infer
    Yes, the bad economy in Germany played a role in Hitler's ability to manipulate people who were frustrated, scared, and angry. Yes, there are parallels with that and what we are seeing in the US today, with the extreme right wing and tea partiers, for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    It is certain that condition of German economy was influential in Hitlerite rise to power, what implications for today's economy can we infer
    Yes, the bad economy in Germany played a role in Hitler's ability to manipulate people who were frustrated, scared, and angry. Yes, there are parallels with that and what we are seeing in the US today, with the extreme right wing and tea partiers, for example.
    At LAST, common ground! So would worthy correspondents like to elaborate or pose solutions? :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    At LAST, common ground! So would worthy correspondents like to elaborate or pose solutions? :-D
    Allow democracy to take its course and avoid an updated, inverse remake of McCarthyism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Although there are parallells between 1930s Germany and present day US, I don't think the results are the same. The US is still a democracy while Germany was by then a dictatorship. And while a lot of people discount democracy in both Canada and US as not being representative of the whole populace, and argue for a system of proportional representation, the fact remains that you still have a vote. And as Ophiolite has stated, allow democracy to take its course by exsercising your right to vote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Although there are parallells between 1930s Germany and present day US, I don't think the results are the same. The US is still a democracy while Germany was by then a dictatorship. And while a lot of people discount democracy in both Canada and US as not being representative of the whole populace, and argue for a system of proportional representation, the fact remains that you still have a vote. And as Ophiolite has stated, allow democracy to take its course by exsercising your right to vote.
    Hitler was democratically elected, and Obama is in flagrant violation of War Powers Act and Constitution in Libyan actions. Democracy appears to be failing again, and economy stinks like week old fish.

    This is not reassuring.

    Ophiolite, is it true Scotland is seceding from UK? If so, good show, old bean, they are a pack of wankers and bloody sods, what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Obama is in flagrant violation of War Powers Act and Constitution in Libyan actions. Democracy appears to be failing again
    However, given that the war powers act is itself almost certainly unconstitutional, many of us find that particular point neither very troubling nor salient.

    On the latter, would you care to share how Obama is supposedly in violation of the constitution itself due to actions in Libya, and elaborate which specific actions are violating which specific section(s) of our constitution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Under US Constitution declaration of war is responsibility delegated to Congress.
    Military adventurism without declaration of war/Congressional authorization is therefore a violation. Nor is this Obama's only impeachable offense, all more grave than William Jefferson Clinton lying about oral sex, which killed no one.

    Rep. Tim Scott (R-Ga.) said on July 5 that if
    President Obama should invoke a clause in the 14th Amendment of
    the U.S. Constitution in order to bypass Congress and borrow
    beyond the debt limit, he would consider that an act worthy of
    impeachment. "This President is looking to usurp Congressional
    oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is
    that is an impeachable act from my perspective," Scott said at a
    Tea Party-related meeting. Rep. Pete Olson (R-Tex.) later told an
    interviewer that Scott's "is not a lonely voice," and that others
    are also discussing impeachment.

    What Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are in fact
    doing, is using the threat of default, or of preventing default
    by using Clause 4 of the 14th Amendment, in order to protect
    London's and Wall Street's illegitimate debt. Obama and Treasury
    Secretary Timothy Geithner have done everything in their power to
    oppose the Constitutional method of dealing with the debt--the
    restoration of Glass-Steagall--and are instead using the threat
    of default to ram through killer austerity, in violation of the
    Constitution's commitment to the general welfare.

    This is but the latest in a long series of impeachable
    offenses committed by Obama:

    Most recent is his flagrant violation of the U.S.
    Constitution and the War Powers Resolution by deploying U.S.
    armed forces and conducting war against Libya without
    Congressional authorization or a declaration of war. Indeed,
    Obama has insisted that a United Nations resolution authorizing
    "humanitarian intervention" is a higher authority than the United
    States Constitution.

    Already in April 2009, Obama was engaging in actions to
    destroy the sovereignty of the United States, when, at the London
    G20 meeting, he agreed to actions, including the expansion of
    "Special Drawing Rights," which gave the International Monetary
    Fund increased power over the economy of the United States and
    other sovereign nations.

    Obama's health-care plan, modelled on Hitler's T-4 policy,
    in its scheme to deny medical care and treatment to certain
    categories of people, constitutes a crime against humanity under
    the Nuremberg Principles to which the United States is bound by
    law and treaty.

    Obama's violation of the separation of powers, by means of
    unilateral executive actions, in violation of U.S. law including
    treaty law, has exceeded even that of George W. Bush and Cheney
    in many respects.

    He has continued the use of signing statements, and has
    made dozens of appointments of special "czars" and recess
    appointments, to circumvent Congressional oversight and the
    Senate confirmation process.

    He has expanded domestic surveillance and wiretapping, has
    continued the use of abusive detentions and interrogations of
    prisoners taken in the "war on terror," and he has expanded the
    use of targetted assassinations, including claiming the right to
    kill American citizens abroad without any due process.

    He has effectively legalized torture and prisoner abuse in
    violation of U.S. law and treaty obligations, by directing his
    Justice Department to cover up hundreds of cases of abuse and
    torture and even deaths, from the Bush-Cheney years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    First, let me say that if you're going to copy/paste stuff that's written by other people, you need to source it.

    It's pretty sad, but only 8% of your post above (44 words out of 545 posted) was not stolen from somewhere else. You copy/pasted 92% of your content from the link below, yet you failed to attribute the work and acted as if the words were your own: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18710

    Let's, however, move past that for now and pretend you're not an intellectually dishonest fool for a few minutes...



    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Under US Constitution declaration of war is responsibility delegated to Congress.
    Sure, but troops can be sent, actions engaged, and operations conducted without declaring war.

    See also:
    Grenada, Invasion of - Reagan 1983.

    In addition, please go study for a while: http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

    Next?


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Military adventurism without declaration of war/Congressional authorization is therefore a violation.
    This does not follow from your previous point. Nor was there any degree of merit in your previous point. Additionally, you are conflating a military operation with declarations of war. The terms are not equal, and hence your point is found wholly lacking.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Nor is this Obama's only impeachable offense
    You have yet to establish any constitutional offense from the president, let alone any offense anywhere even approaching the proximity of impeachability.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Rep. Tim Scott (R-Ga.) said on July 5 that if
    President Obama should invoke a clause in the 14th Amendment of
    the U.S. Constitution in order to bypass Congress and borrow
    beyond the debt limit, he would consider that an act worthy of
    impeachment.
    What one Republican representative from the first district of South Carolina said he personally considers an act worthy of impeachment at a tea party meeting has zero bearing on my question. Nor does the popularity of his stance.

    You said that the president has violated the constitution. I asked you what parts specifically have been violated, and you have failed to address this very clear and straight forward request in a way which has any validity or merit.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    What Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are in fact
    doing, is using the threat of default, or of preventing default
    by using Clause 4 of the 14th Amendment, in order to protect
    London's and Wall Street's illegitimate debt.
    This point makes zero sense. The default on our debt is not impacted one iota by what Obama and/or Geithner do or don't do.

    As should be clear to anybody by now, should we default on our debt, that is going to happen as a result of non-action by our congress. Should we avoid a default on our debt, that too will happen as a result of an act of congress. It's really that simple. Congress approved the spending which has taken place, and congress implemented the debt limit.

    Only congress can allow default. Only congress can prevent default.

    That's all there is to it. End of story, case closed. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Obama and Geithner have nothing to do with this.



    The rest of your post is completely off topic. It's all red herring. It's all non-sequitur. Answer the question put to you and stop trying to evade.


    Let me repeat:

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    would you care to share how Obama is supposedly in violation of the constitution itself due to actions in Libya, and elaborate which specific actions are violating which specific section(s) of our constitution?
    You have yet to address this clear and straight forward question (and, as is likely clear to most readers by now, it's because your point was incorrect).

    I understand that you disagree with the actions of the president which you listed. I understand that you have a different ideology. I understand that you do not support the actions and items you pasted from someone else's website. Your disagreement alone, however, does not surpass the threshold which is constitutional violation.

    Sharing items with which you disagree with the president does nothing to show which specific sections of our constitution have supposedly been violated.


    Please, try again. What specific sections of our constitution have been violated by which specific actions of the president, and in which specific ways?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Never claimed it was my own, gave you what you were asking for. Should be obvious from different style is not poor Prince's efforts. Hitler was democratically elected, as is Obama- this is not requiring source, is known, or should be. Obama is acting against best interests of nation, as did Hitler, also obvious.

    Prince is reluctant to mention source due to adverse publicity surrounding LaRouche movement which tends to obscure points under discussion, but now cat is out of bag, no more, promise.

    Prince has found through following this movement that forecasts are generally reliable, fall of Enron, September 11th, etc., etc., etc., and so forth and so on and things of that nature. Notwithstanding, legislator WAS misidentified by source, thank you for correction.

    Standing properly chastised, Prince humbly asks inow what is difference between "military operation" and "war"?

    Being product of undeclared "Cold War" plus Vietnam and illegal bombing in Cambodia, Laos, plus numerous CIA actions in IberoAmerica and Asia plus aforementioned Grenada and current global counterinsurgency has confused Prince to no end, any clarification is welcome. Link involves Yoo, and dates from 2001. At that time as you may recall unfortunate media event occurred involving substantial American civilian casualties. Point appears to be that Presidential latitude is granted in case nation is attacked. Yoo has also argued waterboarding is not torture and is in fact evidently big fan of torture. Great legal minds of Third Reich must have made similar arguments justifying Hitler, yes, this is of limited relevance with regard to Constitution but no surprise.

    What American civilian casualties has Libya been responsible for?

    And finally, returning to topic, sorry state of economy is believed by Prince to be greater threat to Republic than Libya, as it is affecting more people adversely. Obama is negligent in addressing this effectively, as was Bush before him. Greatest deficiency of Obama is continuing Bush policies in short.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Never claimed it was my own, gave you what you were asking for.
    Doesn't matter. You failed to source it. Posted it as if it was your own, despite not actually claiming it was. Further, as I believe I made abundantly clear in the previous post, what you posted did not even begin to address the request put to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Should be obvious from different style is not poor Prince's efforts. <snip> Prince is reluctant to... <snip> Prince has found... <snip> Prince humbly asks... <snip> ...has confused Prince to no end... <snip> ...state of economy is believed by Prince to be...
    I see you continue with the illeism and still like talking like Elmo or like Dobby the house elf from the Harry Potter stories. That's truly unfortunate. It would be much easier to take you seriously if you engaged in discussions like a mature human being, but alas...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCqfwXeq6_8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYadh2xmcI



    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Prince is reluctant to mention source due to adverse publicity surrounding LaRouche movement
    Irrelevant. Not only did you fail to source your material, your material was deeply flawed and failed to address my clear and straight forward request to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Standing properly chastised, Prince humbly asks inow what is difference between "military operation" and "war"?
    I will consider addressing this question, but first the time now is for you to either support your claim that our president has acted in violation of our constitution in a valid way... showing what specific section he has violated by which specific act and in which specific ways... or, openly concede that you were mistaken and that you are not able to find specific evidence in support of this assertion which you previously put forth.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Great legal minds of Third Reich must have made similar arguments justifying Hitler, yes, this is of limited relevance with regard to Constitution but no surprise.
    I'm choosing for now to focus on the "little relevance to the constitution" part. Let's first address that before we move on.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    And finally, returning to topic, sorry state of economy is believed by Prince to be greater threat to Republic than Libya
    Except, this isn't the topic of the thread. Do you perhaps have a severe learning disability about which we should be aware?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Big deal, failure, fall down seven times, get up eight.

    Cannot change past, only learn from it. Such as historical fact that FDR asked Congress for declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, in those days evidently, people understood checks and balances and separate duties of branches of government. Today, not so much, too bad.

    Fortunately Prince's exposure to matrimony has fitted him to endure hostility and merciless criticism. His failings are not topic of thread. 8)

    Topic of thread is economy of Germany in 1930s, as indicated by title. Involvement of Rommel in Libya and surrounding area was later development.

    Was economy of Germany truly adequate in any sense in 1930s? Probably not.
    Once Germany embarked on path of conquest, it looted conquered territories- not sustainable. Argument for invasion of Iraq was, in part, "war will pay for itself", clear emulation of Nazi model, so far not realized in practice- more evidence of neocon unfitness to lead, whether in Republican or Democrat administration.

    Prospects for Obama Libyan intervention becoming paying proposition appear similarly remote to date. Already military petitions Congress for funds to replace expended munitions used in undeclared war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    To summarize, then, you've said this: "I continue to talk total bullshit, and cannot backup my claims when asked to do so. Instead, I will evade and try changing the subject."

    Got it. At least you're consistent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •