Trump's Valor

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No its not. Welfare state has nothing to do with NS. It is utilitarian not egalitarian and is meritocratic. Class doesn't have anything to do with it and is only a distinction made between levels of skill.

The state would be an autarky and completely self sufficient. What could not be generated from the state is acquired through international barter.

Currency is tied to a labor backed system.

Would have been interesting to see how that type of system would have played out. They had to acquire massive amounts of gold initially but as the system would have moved away from traditional currency that would not have been a long term issue.

I was talking about historical Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're quoting some Jew-hating wacko fantasizing about what he thought the ideal National Socialist state would look like.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was talking about historical Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're quoting some Jew-hating wacko fantasizing about what he thought the ideal National Socialist state would look like.

Its mostly theory seeing as the Jew World order took them out before they could implement most of their ideas. You have to look at what the economist and thinkers of the era were talking about. Gottfried Feder was a big influence. The 25 point program and the "historical" thing you are mentioning was like 4-5 years before everything was a wartime economy under Schact. Its not actually answering the question of what NS economics was about. You keep trying to make NS into this pseudo-communist idea of yours. Like I said it was meritocratic. Your idea of a welfare net was for Germans only it wasn't for a parasitic non-producing underclass to be dependent on the state.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your idea of a welfare net was for Germans only it wasn't for a parasitic non-producing underclass to be dependent on the state.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

create a huge welfare state for German people

I don't think you even know what welfare means in this context. You hear welfare and you think of a black woman and her 6 kids sitting at home getting a check from the government. That's not what I'm talking about, and that's not what anyone is talking about when they mention "welfare state", except ignorant rednecks.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think you even know what welfare means in this context. You hear welfare and you think of a black woman and her 6 kids sitting at home getting a check from the government. That's not what I'm talking about, and that's not what anyone is talking about when they mention "welfare state", except ignorant rednecks.

Of course not. What they mean by it is raping the middle-class out of existence. It's been working too - over the past ~decade. Because once you have no economic middle-class, you just have rich and poor, and so kick off the communist revolution out of that class warfare like other nations have done.

See, it burns their little skulls, because the US mostly invented the middle-class, and so the class warfare tactic has been useless against us. The US is too prosperous, all this freedom leads to exceptionalism in invention, work ethic, economic strength, has led to great advancements never seen in our world history.

Well, that doesn't fit a world socialist/communist system, the US must be overthrown and made into the image of what they think it should be. Broken families, broken economies, endless debt, destroyed economic middle-class. Basically Chicago, but everywhere.

You're new socialist formula doesn't work, not unless you remove the socialism. What was the definition of insanity? Oh yeah, to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course not. What they mean by it is raping the middle-class out of existence. It's been working too - over the past ~decade. Because once you have no economic middle-class, you just have rich and poor, and so kick off the communist revolution out of that class warfare like other nations have done.

See, it burns their little skulls, because the US mostly invented the middle-class, and so the class warfare tactic has been useless against us. The US is too prosperous, all this freedom leads to exceptionalism in invention, work ethic, economic strength, has led to great advancements never seen in our world history.

Well, that doesn't fit a world socialist/communist system, the US must be overthrown and made into the image of what they think it should be. Broken families, broken economies, endless debt, destroyed economic middle-class. Basically Chicago, but everywhere.

You're new socialist formula doesn't work, not unless you remove the socialism. What was the definition of insanity? Oh yeah, to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't grade on a curve. How very progressive of you.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

You linked a graph of wealth inequality as a proof that the USA is a capitalist economy. This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Inequality can be quite high in socialist countries. For example, the socialist paradise Venezuela is bringing back slavery while the government officials are eating a $65,000 cake.

Also, inequality in the US is primarily rising due to (((Bernanke))) transferring huge amounts of money to the 1% by inflating asset prices, not our nonexistent free markets.

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the socialist paradise Venezuela

..who ever said that ? Anyone with his right mind knows venezuela is just an oligarchy.

You think european countries are comparable to venezuela ?

My whole point with my graphic is that the whole "trickle down" doesn't work at all. Of course in the right wing all capitalistic, the poors are just too lazy to get rich. When you work 3 jobs at once working 90 hours per week to barely make a living, you obviously are a lazy asshole.

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

May i remind you that the USA is probably the most all-out capitalistic of all western countries ?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hypothetical for you.

Everyone in the world has the same amount of money, and each individual is free to spend it how they choose. When someone invents the next latest and greatest tech gadget and delivers it to the market and some people choose, on their own, willingly, to buy it, and others don't.... now you've got a group with what they wanted (and less money), a group with what they wanted (and the same amount of money as before), and a group (investors, inventors, workers for the newest inventor guy) with what they wanted (profits from sale of the latest tech device).

At what point exactly did something happen that caused this sudden inequality to be a bad thing?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hypothetical for you.

Everyone in the world has the same amount of money, and each individual is free to spend it how they choose. When someone invents the next latest and greatest tech gadget and delivers it to the market and some people choose, on their own, willingly, to buy it, and others don't.... now you've got a group with what they wanted (and less money), a group with what they wanted (and the same amount of money as before), and a group (investors, inventors, workers for the newest inventor guy) with what they wanted (profits from sale of the latest tech device).

At what point exactly did something happen that caused this sudden inequality to be a bad thing?

I don't think reasonable people make the argument that inequality is inherently a bad thing. There is supposed to be inequality; talented and/or hardworking people are supposed to be rewarded far more than indigents. However, at a certain point, it starts becoming harmful.

Remember that in capitalism, having capital frees you from having to sell your labor for sustenance, and your money works for you. The more money you have, the greater the share of new and existing wealth you capture. Couple that with what Raev said, Bernanke pouring gasoline into the whole thing, and the government providing a corporate safety net to offset some of the risk inherent in investment, and you have a situation where people with capital are performing tremendously well. And before you know it we're in the Gilded Age again.