Socialism is an overloaded and kind of useless term. This lesson is about collectivization. Even very supportive, social white societies like the Amish have family plots such that each reaps what he sows.
Yes. And another important difference is that within those Amish communities it's immediately obvious if someone is freeloading. Social insurance and mutual support is possible in small communities because slackers stick out like a sore thumb and get kicked out. The moment you hit dunbar's limit though all bets are off. It's completely possible for welfare cheats to live isolated in their own community and feel no shame for their behaviour.
In a white ethnostate, socialism would be unnecessary. Without niggers draining our prosperity and education, and jews propagating the usury you speak of, sweatshop jobs wouldn't exist in our country in the first place.
First you'd have to define usury. Only one person has ever provided me a definition that didn't come down to "investment is bad mmkay." His definition was investors being bailed out using public funds when they lose. Which I can certainly agree with but I don't see how that could be solved by giving the corrupt politicians bailing them out more power.
The factory owner has certain nonfungible powers he can exert over his employees. The solution of unions and violence is inefficient and welcomes alien subversion. Allowing citizens to be made into commercial slave units is unacceptable.
What is "nonfungible" supposed to mean in this context? Did you mean "informal"?
Anyhow, if you think that giant monopolies controlling everyone's labour and ability to produce are a problem then I'd certainly agree. But if your solution is "let's beat them by having an even bigger monopoly," then I can only facepalm.
Having the state moderate the power of the factory owner,
is retarded. There are a thousand ways you can work around the factory owner if you really hate him that much. You cannot work around the state except by overthrowing it in a violent revolution. There is no scenario where politicians have less opportunities for corruption than private businesses.
while still allowing the making of reasonable profits tied to real production of value, is good.
Ah yes, and now you just need central planners to calculate those "reasonable profits." Enjoy your knowledge problems.
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 21:19:23 ago (+1/-0)
First you'd have to define usury.
It's literally just the loaning of money with interest. Loan sharking. jews don't do it to each other, but we do because we've forgotten the power of it. Q There's a reason it's considered a sin and forbidden in the Bible.
It's literally just the loaning of money with interest. Loan sharking.
I've been down this discussion many many times but ok, let's go.
If interest isn't charged, how do you account for risk and the value of time? Lending becomes a losing proposition if there's no incentive. At least some loans will fail so it's not even break-even.
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 10:55:51 ago (+1/-0)
So you aren't arguing the definition, you are arguing that it is logical? That isn't what you stated, but fine. I will give you my take.
You shouldn't worry so much about return on investment or material wealth. Concern about material wealth is what is destroying our world. Invest in people. I would loan money to my children, parents, or siblings at any time because I know and trust them. Loaning them money isn't a "losing proposition", as their investment should improve my community which helps myself and my descendants. They could give me reasons to distrust them or think that not investing in them is the correct action (sometimes people need hard lessons), at which point I would not. I would also loan money to several friends with no questions asked. This is because I have formed friendships with good and honest people who are very similar to myself.
You are too greedy, and you need to realize that people are more important than money. Stop living in cities where there are no tight knit communities.
So you aren't arguing the definition, you are arguing that it is logical? That isn't what you stated, but fine. I will give you my take.
There is no well agreed definition for usury, every time I ask I get a different one. You provided a definition so I'm agreeing to discuss it.
You shouldn't worry so much about return on investment or material wealth. Concern about material wealth is what is destroying our world.
Yes I should. We are not pure beings, we exist in a material world where material production matters.
Invest in people. I would loan money to my children, parents, or siblings at any time because I know and trust them. Loaning them money isn't a "losing proposition", as their investment should improve my community which helps myself and my descendants.
That's a lovely squishy sentiment but unless your family produces every material good you could possibly need then you're eventually going to have to trade and invest with outsiders.
And it's entirely possible you will lose wealth and waste opportunities for your community by only ever giving money to relatives.
I would also loan money to several friends with no questions asked. This is because I have formed friendships with good and honest people who are very similar to myself.
Again, very nice of you, but that doesn't address the core purpose of investment which is to ensure that the most efficient providers have access to the resources they need.
You are too greedy, and you need to realize that people are more important than money. Stop living in cities where there are no tight knit communities.
You are hopelessly impractical. If resources only get distributed on the basis of some kind of hippie kumbaya nonsense then your community will squander it's wealth and fail.
Banks add no value.
False. Banks exist to calculate risk and distribute resources. This is arguably one of the most important tertiary functions in any economy (bar possibly media), which is why the jews are so avid about taking it over.
Usury is evil.
Competitive lending is more efficient than "sure, whatever brah, just pay me back whenever." A community which does not embrace competition will stagnate and be conquered. The only reason you're in a position to be this idealistic is because there hasn't been a major famine in living memory. You should expect that to change.
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:03:54 ago (+1/-0)
The only reason you're in a position to be this idealistic is because there hasn't been a major famine in living memory. You should expect that to change.
Implying I'm not a prepper with lots of land and livestock.
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:13:54 ago (+1/-0)
Your reply is demonstrative of how brainwashed you are by jews. You think that there is ANYTHING more important than your heritage and lineage. False. All material wealth will one day return to dust. Lineage, heritage, and family is ALL that matters. What do I care if I don't get all of my money back, it's just money. I can make more of it.
Guessing game time: you are mid 20s, fresh out of eco 201 (or even a BS in eco...as if it's a real science), and think you are the next Gordon Gecko. Son, just wait. Hopefully one day you will care more for another than you do yourself. Make enough to get by, and then be giving with the rest. Give to your community. Give to your family. Don't be a cuckold by any means, but be willing to lose for those you love.
Land, family, heritage. Defend all 3 with your life. You are too willing to sell what your ancestors bought with blood. You care nothing for the sacrifices they made to get you here. You are the culmination of thousands of years of survival, and look at you. You are a greedy coward. You are a child. Material wealth is NOTHING. You must learn courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. You must read Enchiridion by Epictetus. This is the path you need to be on. Start walking it.
You will die. You take nothing with you. Cultivate more than money.
Guessing game time: you are mid 20s, fresh out of eco 201 (or even a BS in eco...as if it's a real science), and think you are the next Gordon Gecko.
Wildly wildly off.
Look, there's really no point in continuing this. You're arguing against some other guy who only cares about money and hasn't a clue about economics and your points are pretty much solely emotional.
If you made an economic defence of your anti-interest viewpoint I could take it down pretty easily, but you don't seem to have one so have a nice evening and don't give all of your money to your uncle's fidget spinner factory.
Guessing game time: you are mid 20s, fresh out of eco 201 (or even a BS in eco...as if it's a real science), and think you are the next Gordon Gecko.
Wildly wildly off.
Look, there's really no point in continuing this. You're arguing against some other guy who only cares about money and hasn't a clue about economics and your points are pretty much solely emotional.
If you made an economic defence of your anti-interest viewpoint I could take it down pretty easily, but you don't seem to have one so have a nice evening and don't give all of your money to your uncle's fidget spinner factory.
[ - ] canbot 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:48:54 ago (+2/-1)*
Unions work great, and in time they will only improve as communication technology improves. Your claim that they are not enough is dubious. Subversion of unions is less likely then subversion of government. The bigger the institution gets the more prone it is to subversion. That is why unions big enough to be effective, but no bigger, are the perfect solution.
The state is corrupt. The elections are rigged.
White countries tried communism and it destroyed thier countries too. You have to look no further than west Berlin to see what communism does to even the most industrious people.
The main problem with real world communism, is that it's only ever been tried in poor countries, when the idea was conceived for rich countries...still think it's a shit idea tho.
Unfortunately what the article describes is communism, not socialism.
Socialism is basically just having communal resources.
That is properly said. I know a lot of dumb ass white people who simply won't lift the spoon to their own mouth. Socialism is impossible, there must be incentive for the productive people.
No. Communism is a stateless moneyless classless utopia that the communists claim will happen if they do socialism hard enough. The issues I've described are problems with socialism, or at least with the notrealsocialist systems that socialists create in practice.
National Socialism worked so well it took the entire world to stop it.
So what? If the only metric of success we're going to use is military prowess then the soviet union was even more of a success. It was a crumbling godawful mess breeding generation after generation of obedient mindless sheep but no one was able to stop it and it lasted almost a century.
In reality the third reich had all kinds of economic problems building up due to it's socialised economy. You'll just never hear about them because there were far more dramatic things going on all around it. If it had somehow survived the war the problems hitler had sown would have become impossible to ignore.
All I have to ask is which kiked version of events are you believing? Your scope is so restricted I don't see any purpose trying to enlighten you, all I see is cognitive dissonance.
Germany ran out of workers. In 2 years they created 6 million jobs from 1933-1935. They had to contract out to other countries to support their industry.
Why are you restricting the measurement of success to JUST the military? They had the best economy in the world.
You are STILL confusing socialism with communism because actual, non Marxist kiked socialism builds instead of weakens. Your view on it is so misconstrued I don't think you would believe it even if hard proof was shoved in your face.
Germany ran out of workers. In 2 years they created 6 million jobs from 1933-1935.
"Creating jobs" is not a metric of success. Anyone can print a load of money and use it to pay people to dig canals with teaspoons. Boom, jobs. They'll never run out either.
The problem with doing this is that (aside from eventual hyperinflation) it's soft central planning. Whenever a government tries to make economic decisions for everyone they end up missing things, because 50 guys in Berlin can't possibly know as much as 50 million people communicating with price signals.
All that said, Hitler's decisions could be defended on the basis that Germany needed to aggressively rearm, so long term economic pain might have been necessary to secure the country.
They had to contract out to other countries to support their industry.
To my knowledge the foreign labour programs started after the war began, which again isn't really a sign of success so much as a sign of "our men are busy fighting a war."
That said even if they did start before the war then see point 1. Anyone can print money and create jobs.
Why are you restricting the measurement of success to JUST the military?
Because that was the metric you set. You said "it took the entire world to stop them." What were they stopping them with? Stock options?
They had the best economy in the world.
No, they had an inflating economy. The bubble was bursting even before the war started.
You are STILL confusing socialism with communism because actual, non Marxist kiked socialism builds instead of weakens. Your view on it is so misconstrued I don't think you would believe it even if hard proof was shoved in your face.
No. The german economy was not significantly structurally different to the soviet economy and had all of the same problems.
And yes I'd prefer to live in the third reich because at least it wasn't run by rapist pedophile kikes like Beria, but "this socialist regime wasn't as bad as that one" isn't an argument for socialism.
>Germany ran out of workers. In 2 years they created 6 million jobs from 1933-1935.
"Creating jobs" is not a metric of success. Anyone can print a load of money and use it to pay people to dig canals with teaspoons. Boom, jobs. They'll never run out either.
So what stimulates economic growth then? Printing money? Trading shekels? Where did the goods traded internationally come from, "digging ditches with spoons"?
The problem with doing this is that (aside from eventual hyperinflation) it's soft central planning. Whenever a government tries to make economic decisions for everyone they end up missing things, because 50 guys in Berlin can't possibly know as much as 50 million people communicating with price signals.
Which is why the NSDAP was created, consisting of slightly more than "50 people in Berlin". Explain where hyper inflation came from within National Socialism, I've yet to hear of it. And for "soft central planning" you're talking about one country, you're going to have a center for something sooner or later. Otherwise capitol cities shouldn't exist.
All that said, Hitler's decisions could be defended on the basis that Germany needed to aggressively rearm, so long term economic pain might have been necessary to secure the country.
Re-arming doesn't happen without economic strength. It wasn't the main focus. Getting people out of poverty and getting the country back to where it was before the war was the focus. And it was accomplished via labor backed currency and policies prioritizing the people. Without a people, there is no state. You don't grow a garden from the top down or by arming it.
They had to contract out to other countries to support their industry.
To my knowledge the foreign labour programs started after the war began, which again isn't really a sign of success so much as a sign of "our men are busy fighting a war."
That said even if they did start before the war then see point 1. Anyone can print money and create jobs.
That's not how it worked, you're completely delusional if you really believe that. That's capitalist thinking. The currency was reinvented based on labor productivity and without usury. Like any business model, the profits were reinvested into programs that benefited the populace which increased production. Ergo, technology improved and overall quality with it. Printing more money devalues the economy.
No, they had an inflating economy. The bubble was bursting even before the war started.
Source that isn't kiked?
>You are STILL confusing socialism with communism because actual, non Marxist kiked socialism builds instead of weakens. Your view on it is so misconstrued I don't think you would believe it even if hard proof was shoved in your face.
No. The german economy was not significantly structurally different to the soviet economy and had all of the same problems.
Again, non kiked source? I didn't see the Holodomor happening in Germany. Nor the banishment of all religions. Don't tell me you believe the 6 gorillion story too?
And yes I'd prefer to live in the third reich because at least it wasn't run by rapist pedophile kikes like Beria, but "this socialist regime wasn't as bad as that one" isn't an argument for socialism.
Yet you said it compared to the Soviet Union? They "had all the same problems"?
So what stimulates economic growth then? Printing money?
In this case yes. Printing money does stimulate the economy but it doesn't come for free. Once the impact of that inflation hits people stop spending and become more conservative. It's effectively borrowing from the future. If Hitler had continued printing his way out of trouble eventually they would have hit Wiemar level inflation again.
Trading shekels? Where did the goods traded internationally come from, "digging ditches with spoons"?
Germany already traded goods before Hitler. In fact he inherited an already stabilised economy and a sound currency (mostly) based on the gold standard.
The jobs he created were related to rearmament and building national defences. They weren't trade goods.
Which is why the NSDAP was created, consisting of slightly more than "50 people in Berlin". Explain where hyper inflation came from within National Socialism, I've yet to hear of it.
If you haven't heard of it it means you haven't been looking. Germany's inflation was consistantly going up before the war, the only sources I've seen complain otherwise are coming from hitler fanboys who think he invented the reichmark and put germany on a labour backed currency (or sometimes a gold backed currency depending what they're arguing).
To put it bluntly he's highly mythologised.
And for "soft central planning" you're talking about one country, you're going to have a center for something sooner or later. Otherwise capitol cities shouldn't exist.
I kinda get the feeling you aren't familiar with the term central planning. It's an economic concept which describes the degree to which the economy is directed by the public and the degree to which it's directed by the government.
As a rule, centrally planned economies are inefficient, by which economists mean they tend to fail to meet basic needs. The reason for this is because central planners can't be experts in enough fields to make all the decisions they're required to.
The long term result is places like North Korea or the Soviet Union. They tend to be very good at producing one or two things (like rockets) and completely worthless at producing anything else (like food).
In the case of the third reich they adopted the soviet model where private enterprise was allowed but was heavily directed by the state. So the majority of industry was carrying out government contracts while a smaller percentage were still trading directly with the public, albeit with prices set by the government.
Re-arming doesn't happen without economic strength. It wasn't the main focus. Getting people out of poverty and getting the country back to where it was before the war was the focus. And it was accomplished via labor backed currency and policies prioritizing the people. Without a people, there is no state. You don't grow a garden from the top down or by arming it.
Ok. The NSDAP had some anti-poverty programs (like the winter relief fund) but they were largely fronts for rearmament. The funds were not actually spent on their stated cause.
I have researched as much as I can and I have never found any evidence of any labour backed currency. Nor has anyone who has made that claim been able to describe it or explain how it worked in detail.
Hitler inherited the gold backed reichmark along with fiat Offa bills (essentially small scale reichmark printing). He hugely expanded the Offa system and created a parallel MEFO Bill which was also printed in huge numbers to help fund rearmament.
Neither were labour backed. They were both reichmark backed which was gold backed. Although by that point he was printing more bills than he had gold, which would eventually have caused hyperinflation.
That backs up my point. Foreign labour programs began after the war began. Your claim was that the german economy was so successful that they had to import workers. The reality is that the war was absorbing so much manpower they had to import workers.
As an aside there are some particularly obvious half truths in that article. For example the Volkswagon savings program funds had been raided to fund rearmament, so if the war hadn't kicked off it would have collapsed or had to be refinanced somehow (probably more printing).
That's not how it worked, you're completely delusional if you really believe that. That's capitalist thinking. The currency was reinvented based on labor productivity and without usury.
Sorry, but as above that's simply not true.
Like any business model, the profits were reinvested into programs that benefited the populace which increased production. Ergo, technology improved and overall quality with it. Printing more money devalues the economy.
And yet that's what they did. Again, the decision is arguably defensible since Germany had an urgent need to rearm, but that's a very different argument.
Those are lovely sentiments but they don't prove any of your points.
Do you think economic sanctions aren't a thing? 80% of Germany's food had to be imported. What do you think jews around the world did?
I don't see your point here.
Source that isn't kiked?
Source that isn't hitler worship?
Look, even if we reject every historical source from the time, you'd still need to explain how printing money on that scale (which he absolutely did do) fails to cause inflation.
For what it's worth, after the war the soviets did the exact same thing on a grander scale with Reichmark plates provided for them by the allies. They funded their occupation by inflating the germans' currency out from under their feet. Within a year or two the reichmark was only useful as toilet paper and they had to switch to commie scrip.
Again, non kiked source? I didn't see the Holodomor happening in Germany. Nor the banishment of all religions. Don't tell me you believe the 6 gorillion story too?
I never mentioned any of those things, we were talking about the economy.
Yet you said it compared to the Soviet Union? They "had all the same problems"?
Yes, their economy had all the same problems. Like constantly building inflation and knowledge problems.
[ - ] whitemail 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:17:48 ago (+1/-0)
I noticed once that a band gave song writing credit on every song to the band name. The band uses rapping and singing for vocals and has two singers. One of the singers seems to be a predominant songwriter as well. Meanwhile, the drummer probably doesn't write a lot and mostly just provides the drums. In the music industry the songwriters get extra money, so now they have it being distributed among the whole entire band. Now the one doing the most songwriting loses some of his money he was entitled to for the benefit of one who does the least. This person happens to be his friend and is part of the band, though.
Now if a record company decided that all the bands on their label were going to make the same amount of money, this is where things become a problem. Now bands that do the most work are getting paid less and bands that do very little are getting paid more. The bands that have garnered the most attention don't get to benefit from that, while bands that play music "nobody" wants to hear get more than they deserve. Meanwhile, band A is one that should be making the most money, and their profits are going to band B that they can't stand. They think their music sucks and the members are a bunch of dicks.
If everyone is good, serious, trying, and part of your extended family, things can sort of work. There needs to be a trash filter, though. There always needs to be a trash filter. That's what the modern left is all about, though, letting in unfiltered trash and even qualifying the unqualified trash that's already here.
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 00:15:37 ago (+2/-1)
Socialism,like all Marxism,doesn't work. By design. It's only use is to bring idiots under jewish control with promises of "fairer shares". Promises made,again,with no intention of fulfilling them.
The only way "socialism" would work is if your reworked it from the ground up and called it something else. Like fascism. But the jews would never let you use their bullshit against them. They'd call down the whole world on you.
Actual Socialism is based on Christianity and it worked for thousands of years. It was built on "help thy neighbor" and many aspects were adopted even in America. What you think is Socialism today is nothing more than Communism masquerading as Socialism. Simply put, Socialism is everybody helping everybody. Communism is government forcefully taking what people earn and giving it to the most undeserving. It fails because it robs the populace of everything and gives it to the government.
It's a sad day when promoting Christianity gets you accused of kikery. Care to refute my points instead of hiding behind a cliche catch all projection?
Why would they? The outcome is virtually the same whether they work hard or not. Plus there's the added salt in the wound of working hard to reward a freeloader.
Thank you! What that experiment is practicing is not Socialism at all - it's communism. It's as frustrating to see people falling for this ploy as it is people blaming Fascism for the practices of Communism.
Socialism is Christian.
Communism is Jewish.
Christianity helps each other, Jews lie and steal.
The twist is socialism works perfectly…. within ones race. The same way a mans life benefits directly from his wife and children’s lives getting easier off his labour. And history proved this math works at the racial level within a nation.
It works because it’s the natural order. The reason communism works absolutely nowhere is cause it’s like looking for straight lines and dead symmetry in the forest, nothing about it is represented in nature.
Now we KNOW why "racism" is a THING, and it's NOT about skin color so much (JUST an INDICATOR). Liberals would turn us ALL into black people, so nobody is unhappy? DEATH TO LIBERALS.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 10 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:35:05 ago (+11/-1)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 6 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:39:48 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 5 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:49:45 ago (+6/-1)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 8 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:56:31 ago (+8/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:48:18 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Cinj
[ - ] Cinj 6 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:57:37 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 19:12:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:44:01 ago (+2/-0)
First you'd have to define usury. Only one person has ever provided me a definition that didn't come down to "investment is bad mmkay." His definition was investors being bailed out using public funds when they lose. Which I can certainly agree with but I don't see how that could be solved by giving the corrupt politicians bailing them out more power.
What is "nonfungible" supposed to mean in this context? Did you mean "informal"?
Anyhow, if you think that giant monopolies controlling everyone's labour and ability to produce are a problem then I'd certainly agree. But if your solution is "let's beat them by having an even bigger monopoly," then I can only facepalm.
is retarded. There are a thousand ways you can work around the factory owner if you really hate him that much. You cannot work around the state except by overthrowing it in a violent revolution. There is no scenario where politicians have less opportunities for corruption than private businesses.
Ah yes, and now you just need central planners to calculate those "reasonable profits." Enjoy your knowledge problems.
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 21:19:23 ago (+1/-0)
It's literally just the loaning of money with interest. Loan sharking. jews don't do it to each other, but we do because we've forgotten the power of it. Q There's a reason it's considered a sin and forbidden in the Bible.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 22:59:10 ago (+1/-0)
I've been down this discussion many many times but ok, let's go.
If interest isn't charged, how do you account for risk and the value of time? Lending becomes a losing proposition if there's no incentive. At least some loans will fail so it's not even break-even.
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 10:55:51 ago (+1/-0)
You shouldn't worry so much about return on investment or material wealth. Concern about material wealth is what is destroying our world. Invest in people. I would loan money to my children, parents, or siblings at any time because I know and trust them. Loaning them money isn't a "losing proposition", as their investment should improve my community which helps myself and my descendants. They could give me reasons to distrust them or think that not investing in them is the correct action (sometimes people need hard lessons), at which point I would not. I would also loan money to several friends with no questions asked. This is because I have formed friendships with good and honest people who are very similar to myself.
You are too greedy, and you need to realize that people are more important than money. Stop living in cities where there are no tight knit communities.
Banks add no value. Usury is evil.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 14:28:57 ago (+0/-1)*
There is no well agreed definition for usury, every time I ask I get a different one. You provided a definition so I'm agreeing to discuss it.
Yes I should. We are not pure beings, we exist in a material world where material production matters.
That's a lovely squishy sentiment but unless your family produces every material good you could possibly need then you're eventually going to have to trade and invest with outsiders.
And it's entirely possible you will lose wealth and waste opportunities for your community by only ever giving money to relatives.
Again, very nice of you, but that doesn't address the core purpose of investment which is to ensure that the most efficient providers have access to the resources they need.
You are hopelessly impractical. If resources only get distributed on the basis of some kind of hippie kumbaya nonsense then your community will squander it's wealth and fail.
False. Banks exist to calculate risk and distribute resources. This is arguably one of the most important tertiary functions in any economy (bar possibly media), which is why the jews are so avid about taking it over.
Competitive lending is more efficient than "sure, whatever brah, just pay me back whenever." A community which does not embrace competition will stagnate and be conquered. The only reason you're in a position to be this idealistic is because there hasn't been a major famine in living memory. You should expect that to change.
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:03:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:41:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Had
[ - ] Had 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:13:54 ago (+1/-0)
Guessing game time: you are mid 20s, fresh out of eco 201 (or even a BS in eco...as if it's a real science), and think you are the next Gordon Gecko. Son, just wait. Hopefully one day you will care more for another than you do yourself. Make enough to get by, and then be giving with the rest. Give to your community. Give to your family. Don't be a cuckold by any means, but be willing to lose for those you love.
Land, family, heritage. Defend all 3 with your life. You are too willing to sell what your ancestors bought with blood. You care nothing for the sacrifices they made to get you here. You are the culmination of thousands of years of survival, and look at you. You are a greedy coward. You are a child. Material wealth is NOTHING. You must learn courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. You must read Enchiridion by Epictetus. This is the path you need to be on. Start walking it.
You will die. You take nothing with you. Cultivate more than money.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:44:20 ago (+0/-0)
Wildly wildly off.
Look, there's really no point in continuing this. You're arguing against some other guy who only cares about money and hasn't a clue about economics and your points are pretty much solely emotional.
If you made an economic defence of your anti-interest viewpoint I could take it down pretty easily, but you don't seem to have one so have a nice evening and don't give all of your money to your uncle's fidget spinner factory.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 15:44:21 ago (+0/-0)
Wildly wildly off.
Look, there's really no point in continuing this. You're arguing against some other guy who only cares about money and hasn't a clue about economics and your points are pretty much solely emotional.
If you made an economic defence of your anti-interest viewpoint I could take it down pretty easily, but you don't seem to have one so have a nice evening and don't give all of your money to your uncle's fidget spinner factory.
[ + ] canbot
[ - ] canbot 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:48:54 ago (+2/-1)*
The state is corrupt. The elections are rigged.
White countries tried communism and it destroyed thier countries too. You have to look no further than west Berlin to see what communism does to even the most industrious people.
[ + ] WanderingToast
[ - ] WanderingToast 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 17:18:01 ago (+2/-0)
Unfortunately what the article describes is communism, not socialism.
Socialism is basically just having communal resources.
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 05:34:12 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 19:00:21 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Mopar_or_nocar24
[ - ] Mopar_or_nocar24 3 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:32:23 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 05:14:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath -2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:44:50 ago (+1/-3)
[ + ] Mopar_or_nocar24
[ - ] Mopar_or_nocar24 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:57:35 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 18:58:35 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Mopar_or_nocar24
[ - ] Mopar_or_nocar24 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 20:41:19 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 20:48:03 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Mopar_or_nocar24
[ - ] Mopar_or_nocar24 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 21:00:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 22:56:39 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Mopar_or_nocar24
[ - ] Mopar_or_nocar24 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 01:52:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 3 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:35:57 ago (+4/-1)
No it doesn't. See every face-planting socialist hellhole in Africa.
Even if we restrict that claim to only white ethnostates it's still not true: Those states will simply fail less hard than brown socialist hellholes.
Anything will work better if mostly white people are doing it. That doesn't mean that thing is white people's best option.
[ + ] KeepPoal4fags
[ - ] KeepPoal4fags 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 23:09:00 ago (+2/-1)
I know a lot of dumb ass white people who simply won't lift the spoon to their own mouth. Socialism is impossible, there must be incentive for the productive people.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 23:24:50 ago (+1/-0)
- Lack of incentives to work
- Corruption
- Inefficiency of central planning
I've never seen a socialist tackle more than one of those, let alone solve it.
Whites are some of the most creative and intelligent people on the planet. We're easily capable of doing better.
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 05:16:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 09:16:21 ago (+0/-0)
No. Communism is a stateless moneyless classless utopia that the communists claim will happen if they do socialism hard enough. The issues I've described are problems with socialism, or at least with the notrealsocialist systems that socialists create in practice.
So what? If the only metric of success we're going to use is military prowess then the soviet union was even more of a success. It was a crumbling godawful mess breeding generation after generation of obedient mindless sheep but no one was able to stop it and it lasted almost a century.
In reality the third reich had all kinds of economic problems building up due to it's socialised economy. You'll just never hear about them because there were far more dramatic things going on all around it. If it had somehow survived the war the problems hitler had sown would have become impossible to ignore.
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 24, 2021 02:08:55 ago (+0/-0)
Germany ran out of workers. In 2 years they created 6 million jobs from 1933-1935. They had to contract out to other countries to support their industry.
Why are you restricting the measurement of success to JUST the military? They had the best economy in the world.
You are STILL confusing socialism with communism because actual, non Marxist kiked socialism builds instead of weakens. Your view on it is so misconstrued I don't think you would believe it even if hard proof was shoved in your face.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 24, 2021 08:34:26 ago (+0/-0)
"Creating jobs" is not a metric of success. Anyone can print a load of money and use it to pay people to dig canals with teaspoons. Boom, jobs. They'll never run out either.
The problem with doing this is that (aside from eventual hyperinflation) it's soft central planning. Whenever a government tries to make economic decisions for everyone they end up missing things, because 50 guys in Berlin can't possibly know as much as 50 million people communicating with price signals.
All that said, Hitler's decisions could be defended on the basis that Germany needed to aggressively rearm, so long term economic pain might have been necessary to secure the country.
To my knowledge the foreign labour programs started after the war began, which again isn't really a sign of success so much as a sign of "our men are busy fighting a war."
That said even if they did start before the war then see point 1. Anyone can print money and create jobs.
Because that was the metric you set. You said "it took the entire world to stop them." What were they stopping them with? Stock options?
No, they had an inflating economy. The bubble was bursting even before the war started.
No. The german economy was not significantly structurally different to the soviet economy and had all of the same problems.
And yes I'd prefer to live in the third reich because at least it wasn't run by rapist pedophile kikes like Beria, but "this socialist regime wasn't as bad as that one" isn't an argument for socialism.
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 25, 2021 02:18:38 ago (+0/-0)
So what stimulates economic growth then? Printing money? Trading shekels? Where did the goods traded internationally come from, "digging ditches with spoons"?
Which is why the NSDAP was created, consisting of slightly more than "50 people in Berlin". Explain where hyper inflation came from within National Socialism, I've yet to hear of it. And for "soft central planning" you're talking about one country, you're going to have a center for something sooner or later. Otherwise capitol cities shouldn't exist.
Re-arming doesn't happen without economic strength. It wasn't the main focus. Getting people out of poverty and getting the country back to where it was before the war was the focus. And it was accomplished via labor backed currency and policies prioritizing the people. Without a people, there is no state. You don't grow a garden from the top down or by arming it.
Read https://files.catbox.moe/tb0rd0.png
That's not how it worked, you're completely delusional if you really believe that. That's capitalist thinking. The currency was reinvented based on labor productivity and without usury. Like any business model, the profits were reinvested into programs that benefited the populace which increased production. Ergo, technology improved and overall quality with it. Printing more money devalues the economy.
https://files.catbox.moe/fsez7o.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/7ctjvk.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/x8qrlh.png
https://files.catbox.moe/fqq3x6.jpg
Do you think economic sanctions aren't a thing? 80% of Germany's food had to be imported. What do you think jews around the world did?
https://files.catbox.moe/biwls5.png
Source that isn't kiked?
Again, non kiked source? I didn't see the Holodomor happening in Germany. Nor the banishment of all religions. Don't tell me you believe the 6 gorillion story too?
Yet you said it compared to the Soviet Union? They "had all the same problems"?
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 25, 2021 07:22:58 ago (+0/-0)
In this case yes. Printing money does stimulate the economy but it doesn't come for free. Once the impact of that inflation hits people stop spending and become more conservative. It's effectively borrowing from the future. If Hitler had continued printing his way out of trouble eventually they would have hit Wiemar level inflation again.
Germany already traded goods before Hitler. In fact he inherited an already stabilised economy and a sound currency (mostly) based on the gold standard.
The jobs he created were related to rearmament and building national defences. They weren't trade goods.
If you haven't heard of it it means you haven't been looking. Germany's inflation was consistantly going up before the war, the only sources I've seen complain otherwise are coming from hitler fanboys who think he invented the reichmark and put germany on a labour backed currency (or sometimes a gold backed currency depending what they're arguing).
To put it bluntly he's highly mythologised.
I kinda get the feeling you aren't familiar with the term central planning. It's an economic concept which describes the degree to which the economy is directed by the public and the degree to which it's directed by the government.
As a rule, centrally planned economies are inefficient, by which economists mean they tend to fail to meet basic needs. The reason for this is because central planners can't be experts in enough fields to make all the decisions they're required to.
The long term result is places like North Korea or the Soviet Union. They tend to be very good at producing one or two things (like rockets) and completely worthless at producing anything else (like food).
In the case of the third reich they adopted the soviet model where private enterprise was allowed but was heavily directed by the state. So the majority of industry was carrying out government contracts while a smaller percentage were still trading directly with the public, albeit with prices set by the government.
Ok. The NSDAP had some anti-poverty programs (like the winter relief fund) but they were largely fronts for rearmament. The funds were not actually spent on their stated cause.
I have researched as much as I can and I have never found any evidence of any labour backed currency. Nor has anyone who has made that claim been able to describe it or explain how it worked in detail.
Hitler inherited the gold backed reichmark along with fiat Offa bills (essentially small scale reichmark printing). He hugely expanded the Offa system and created a parallel MEFO Bill which was also printed in huge numbers to help fund rearmament.
Neither were labour backed. They were both reichmark backed which was gold backed. Although by that point he was printing more bills than he had gold, which would eventually have caused hyperinflation.
That backs up my point. Foreign labour programs began after the war began. Your claim was that the german economy was so successful that they had to import workers. The reality is that the war was absorbing so much manpower they had to import workers.
As an aside there are some particularly obvious half truths in that article. For example the Volkswagon savings program funds had been raided to fund rearmament, so if the war hadn't kicked off it would have collapsed or had to be refinanced somehow (probably more printing).
Sorry, but as above that's simply not true.
And yet that's what they did. Again, the decision is arguably defensible since Germany had an urgent need to rearm, but that's a very different argument.
Those are lovely sentiments but they don't prove any of your points.
I don't see your point here.
Source that isn't hitler worship?
Look, even if we reject every historical source from the time, you'd still need to explain how printing money on that scale (which he absolutely did do) fails to cause inflation.
For what it's worth, after the war the soviets did the exact same thing on a grander scale with Reichmark plates provided for them by the allies. They funded their occupation by inflating the germans' currency out from under their feet. Within a year or two the reichmark was only useful as toilet paper and they had to switch to commie scrip.
I never mentioned any of those things, we were talking about the economy.
Yes, their economy had all the same problems. Like constantly building inflation and knowledge problems.
[ + ] whitemail
[ - ] whitemail 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:17:48 ago (+1/-0)
Now if a record company decided that all the bands on their label were going to make the same amount of money, this is where things become a problem. Now bands that do the most work are getting paid less and bands that do very little are getting paid more. The bands that have garnered the most attention don't get to benefit from that, while bands that play music "nobody" wants to hear get more than they deserve. Meanwhile, band A is one that should be making the most money, and their profits are going to band B that they can't stand. They think their music sucks and the members are a bunch of dicks.
If everyone is good, serious, trying, and part of your extended family, things can sort of work. There needs to be a trash filter, though. There always needs to be a trash filter. That's what the modern left is all about, though, letting in unfiltered trash and even qualifying the unqualified trash that's already here.
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 00:15:37 ago (+2/-1)
The only way "socialism" would work is if your reworked it from the ground up and called it something else. Like fascism. But the jews would never let you use their bullshit against them. They'd call down the whole world on you.
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler -3 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 05:21:05 ago (+0/-3)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 05:42:58 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 24, 2021 02:11:36 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 24, 2021 17:27:30 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 25, 2021 01:44:20 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 25, 2021 20:27:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler -1 points 2.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 00:34:28 ago (+0/-1)
Checks out.
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 27, 2021 03:11:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 8 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:55:55 ago (+8/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 5 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:45:53 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] fnbs
[ - ] fnbs 8 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:55:36 ago (+8/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 12 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:36:39 ago (+12/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 5 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 16:47:18 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] AdolfHitler
[ - ] AdolfHitler 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 05:26:36 ago (+1/-1)
Socialism is Christian.
Communism is Jewish.
Christianity helps each other, Jews lie and steal.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 11:22:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 4 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:35:41 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 16:39:01 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 14:41:18 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 23:41:13 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 22:16:02 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] RomanCommander
[ - ] RomanCommander 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 21:40:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ForgottenMemes
[ - ] ForgottenMemes 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 20:59:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 17:12:02 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dalai_llama
[ - ] dalai_llama 1 point 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 16:56:43 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 23, 2021 02:26:20 ago (+0/-0)
And history proved this math works at the racial level within a nation.
It works because it’s the natural order.
The reason communism works absolutely nowhere is cause it’s like looking for straight lines and dead symmetry in the forest, nothing about it is represented in nature.
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 16:20:49 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 2.4 yearsNov 22, 2021 15:14:19 ago (+0/-0)