Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Nazi Germany Economics

Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
Rosalie
Posts: 4,604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 2:21:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Why do you find their system fascinating?
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 2:31:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 2:21:30 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Why do you find their system fascinating?

One of the fastest economic recoveries out of a depression not to mention unemployment fell below 1 percent

I wanted to debate minddrag on it but he chickened out
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,805
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Hitler had a very "different" approach to economics than the other fascist countries. He was both anti-communist as well as anti-capitalist, unlike Fascism which has corporations ruling. Nazis promised social policies like a national labor service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program. The Nazis stressed that Germany must honor its workers. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:10:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 2:31:53 PM, Reformist wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:21:30 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Why do you find their system fascinating?

One of the fastest economic recoveries out of a depression not to mention unemployment fell below 1 percent

I wanted to debate minddrag on it but he chickened out

I think that is debatable. Of course unemployment was low... You were expanding the military and creating infrastructure. But the government can't create wealth--only the market can. The government can create jobs, which the Germans did, but they did not create wealth.

The wealth they did create, the increased production, is biased upwards by increased military spending. More military spending and investment would increase the size of GDP, but it doesn't translate into an increase in living standards. You can't eat a tank. Not only that, but the German government instituted strict rationing in order to provide more mat"riel to the military. Of course, this came at a cost to the civilian population.

Plus, any discussion of Hitler's economic policies without the context of the brutal atrocities he committed are disrespectful to the victims and the men and women who died trying to fight the regime. His entire economic policy was about securing lebenstraum, which fueled his murderous agenda.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:33:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:10:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:31:53 PM, Reformist wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:21:30 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Why do you find their system fascinating?

One of the fastest economic recoveries out of a depression not to mention unemployment fell below 1 percent

I wanted to debate minddrag on it but he chickened out

I think that is debatable. Of course unemployment was low... You were expanding the military and creating infrastructure. But the government can't create wealth--only the market can. The government can create jobs, which the Germans did, but they did not create wealth.

That's true. I've never really thought of it that way. You can be employed and still have a low quality of life. That's why policies that only focus on employment aren't necessarily the best.

The wealth they did create, the increased production, is biased upwards by increased military spending. More military spending and investment would increase the size of GDP, but it doesn't translate into an increase in living standards. You can't eat a tank. Not only that, but the German government instituted strict rationing in order to provide more mat"riel to the military. Of course, this came at a cost to the civilian population.

Hm. How does increased production AND military expenditures conflate to a higher GDP? What you're saying, though, is true. I mentioned it above... employment doesn't make a flawless transition to a good quality of life.

Maybe Hitler tried eating a tank once, and that's why he did what he did.

Plus, any discussion of Hitler's economic policies without the context of the brutal atrocities he committed are disrespectful to the victims and the men and women who died trying to fight the regime. His entire economic policy was about securing lebenstraum, which fueled his murderous agenda.

True. Good analysis, dude. You need to do more writing for the Albuquerque Journal. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:07:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:33:35 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:10:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:31:53 PM, Reformist wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:21:30 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Why do you find their system fascinating?

One of the fastest economic recoveries out of a depression not to mention unemployment fell below 1 percent

I wanted to debate minddrag on it but he chickened out

I think that is debatable. Of course unemployment was low... You were expanding the military and creating infrastructure. But the government can't create wealth--only the market can. The government can create jobs, which the Germans did, but they did not create wealth.

That's true. I've never really thought of it that way. You can be employed and still have a low quality of life. That's why policies that only focus on employment aren't necessarily the best.

The wealth they did create, the increased production, is biased upwards by increased military spending. More military spending and investment would increase the size of GDP, but it doesn't translate into an increase in living standards. You can't eat a tank. Not only that, but the German government instituted strict rationing in order to provide more mat"riel to the military. Of course, this came at a cost to the civilian population.

Hm. How does increased production AND military expenditures conflate to a higher GDP? What you're saying, though, is true. I mentioned it above... employment doesn't make a flawless transition to a good quality of life.

GDP: C + I + G + (X - M)

Or, in normal language:

Private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

GDP is simply the monetary value of goods and services produced within the borders of a country. So more production, by definition, means more GDP. Government spending is included in the calculation, so if you dramatically increase military spending GDP will grow with no increase in living standards. That is why GDP is a good but imperfect statistic, and why it can be misleading sometimes.

This happened during WW2 in the U.S., too. The economy began to grow and unemployment tanked in WW2, but we had a draft and high military spending. You can have zero unemployment during a draft, but living standards wont rise, so it isn't a real recovery. Or, as it was eloquently said in the Hayek v. Keynes rap battle, "Creating employment is a straight forward craft when the nation"s at war, and there's a draft. If every worker were staffed in the army and fleet we"d have full employment - and nothin' to eat."

Maybe Hitler tried eating a tank once, and that's why he did what he did.


"Ja, can I haz der number #2 wit a side und GERMAN STEEL"

Plus, any discussion of Hitler's economic policies without the context of the brutal atrocities he committed are disrespectful to the victims and the men and women who died trying to fight the regime. His entire economic policy was about securing lebenstraum, which fueled his murderous agenda.

True. Good analysis, dude. You need to do more writing for the Albuquerque Journal. :)

. :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 1:55:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 5:07:39 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Hm. How does increased production AND military expenditures conflate to a higher GDP? What you're saying, though, is true. I mentioned it above... employment doesn't make a flawless transition to a good quality of life.


GDP: C + I + G + (X - M)

Or, in normal language:

Private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).

GDP is simply the monetary value of goods and services produced within the borders of a country. So more production, by definition, means more GDP. Government spending is included in the calculation, so if you dramatically increase military spending GDP will grow with no increase in living standards. That is why GDP is a good but imperfect statistic, and why it can be misleading sometimes.

Ah, I see. Never knew that. That's interesting. I always knew it wasn't the optimal measure of wealth (the US has a lower GDP, and correct me if I'm wrong, than some other countries).

This happened during WW2 in the U.S., too. The economy began to grow and unemployment tanked in WW2, but we had a draft and high military spending. You can have zero unemployment during a draft, but living standards wont rise, so it isn't a real recovery. Or, as it was eloquently said in the Hayek v. Keynes rap battle, "Creating employment is a straight forward craft when the nation"s at war, and there's a draft. If every worker were staffed in the army and fleet we"d have full employment - and nothin' to eat."

Hahaha xD I've seen that. Yeah, that's something some people don't consider (*cough* Reformist *cough*)

Maybe Hitler tried eating a tank once, and that's why he did what he did.


"Ja, can I haz der number #2 wit a side und GERMAN STEEL"

Lol :P Totally.

Plus, any discussion of Hitler's economic policies without the context of the brutal atrocities he committed are disrespectful to the victims and the men and women who died trying to fight the regime. His entire economic policy was about securing lebenstraum, which fueled his murderous agenda.

True. Good analysis, dude. You need to do more writing for the Albuquerque Journal. :)

. :P

;)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 2:41:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
I've taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

I have studied the same and have also found it quite fascinating.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 2:43:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:33:33 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Hitler had a very "different" approach to economics than the other fascist countries. He was both anti-communist as well as anti-capitalist, unlike Fascism which has corporations ruling. Nazis promised social policies like a national labor service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program. The Nazis stressed that Germany must honor its workers. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.

Interesting, do you care to share your source/s?
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 2:54:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:10:03 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:31:53 PM, Reformist wrote:
At 2/23/2016 2:21:30 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Why do you find their system fascinating?

One of the fastest economic recoveries out of a depression not to mention unemployment fell below 1 percent

I wanted to debate minddrag on it but he chickened out

I think that is debatable. Of course unemployment was low... You were expanding the military and creating infrastructure. But the government can't create wealth--only the market can. The government can create jobs, which the Germans did, but they did not create wealth.

The wealth they did create, the increased production, is biased upwards by increased military spending. More military spending and investment would increase the size of GDP, but it doesn't translate into an increase in living standards. You can't eat a tank. Not only that, but the German government instituted strict rationing in order to provide more mat"riel to the military. Of course, this came at a cost to the civilian population.

I like what you said here, I find it interesting and also modestly believable.

Plus, any discussion of Hitler's economic policies without the context of the brutal atrocities he committed are disrespectful to the victims and the men and women who died trying to fight the regime. His entire economic policy was about securing lebenstraum, which fueled his murderous agenda.

I don't think I can agree with you here. It doesn't have to be automatically assumed as disrespectful. (not saying it may have been to you) I see no problem talking about the growth the German economy went through in that time. I actually find it interesting.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,805
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:00:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:43:39 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:33:33 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Hitler had a very "different" approach to economics than the other fascist countries. He was both anti-communist as well as anti-capitalist, unlike Fascism which has corporations ruling. Nazis promised social policies like a national labor service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program. The Nazis stressed that Germany must honor its workers. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.

Interesting, do you care to share your source/s?

Wikipedia on Nazism, but also from people like Friedrich List, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Gregor Strasser, Georg Ritter von Sch"nerer, and Oswald Spengler. These people are where National Socialism comes from. Hitler, however, as he progressed began to turn Germany into a totalitarian, racist, and supremacist state that committed many atrocities. As for the fascism one, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."-Benito Mussolini

As for Hitler, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today"s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."- Adolf Hitler, 1927
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:03:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:00:44 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:43:39 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:33:33 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Hitler had a very "different" approach to economics than the other fascist countries. He was both anti-communist as well as anti-capitalist, unlike Fascism which has corporations ruling. Nazis promised social policies like a national labor service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program. The Nazis stressed that Germany must honor its workers. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.

Interesting, do you care to share your source/s?

Wikipedia on Nazism, but also from people like Friedrich List, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Gregor Strasser, Georg Ritter von Sch"nerer, and Oswald Spengler. These people are where National Socialism comes from. Hitler, however, as he progressed began to turn Germany into a totalitarian, racist, and supremacist state that committed many atrocities. As for the fascism one, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."-Benito Mussolini

As for Hitler, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today"s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."- Adolf Hitler, 1927

Thanks for the share.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 12:52:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.

Because Privatization puts people over profits. That is the simplest way of putting it, but if you really believe that privatization has brought more good then harm, I ask you, why has privatization failed to bring development to the third world? Why has it increased global inequality and the disparity between the rich and the poor?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 1:01:45 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 12:52:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.

Because Privatization puts people over profits. That is the simplest way of putting it, but if you really believe that privatization has brought more good then harm, I ask you, why has privatization failed to bring development to the third world? Why has it increased global inequality and the disparity between the rich and the poor?

No offense, but you do not know what you are talking about. America is a capitalist country, yet is ranked the most generous country in the world. Americans make money and they donate, they volunteer, they help others out. That's what great about Capitalism, because you make money and you redistribute it yourself. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, is single-handly made it his goal to end Polio, he has donated billions of dollars to end poverty, and improve education in places like Africa and India. Please name one socialist country that donates has much aid as Americans do. Privatization does not equal no morals, and only an ignorant person would believe that.

The income gap is no longer an issue with 1st world are 3rd world countries. The poor are continuing to improve. As a son of immigrants who came from a 3rd world country, they have always told me how the country has improved. The whole the poor is getting poorer is a half-truth. Not everybody is getting poorer.

Regarding actual Americans, people don't realize we just had a recession, so obviously its not going to be in great shape. The problem is not Capitalism, it's Cronyism and Corporatism, which leads to people being exploited. In a true free market, none of this would happen, because anti-competitive laws would be enforced.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 1:02:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 12:52:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.

Because Privatization puts people over profits. That is the simplest way of putting it, but if you really believe that privatization has brought more good then harm, I ask you, why has privatization failed to bring development to the third world? Why has it increased global inequality and the disparity between the rich and the poor?

Looks like the U.S lost it's 1st place ranking, but it's still pretty good at 2nd place. It was first the year before.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 1:19:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?
sounds like a d!ck move to me
https://www.google.com...
root word of both fascism and fascinate
In ancient Roman religion and magic, the fascinus or fascinum was the embodiment of the divine phallus. The word can refer to the deity himself (Fascinus), to phallus effigies and amulets, and to the spells used to invoke his divine protection.

fascism - root word = fasces -noun historical
(in ancient Rome) a bundle of rods with a projecting ax blade, carried by a lictor as a symbol of a magistrate's power, and used as an emblem of authority in Fascist Italy.
ormid noun: fascia16th century: from Latin, "band, doorframe," related to fasces

fascinatelate root 16th century (in the sense "bewitch, put under a spell"): from Latin fascinat- "bewitched," from the verb fascinare, from fascinum "spell, witchcraft."

Overall a BAD idea on account of the root word meanings for both fascism and fascism.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:31:25 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 1:01:45 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:52:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.

Because Privatization puts people over profits. That is the simplest way of putting it, but if you really believe that privatization has brought more good then harm, I ask you, why has privatization failed to bring development to the third world? Why has it increased global inequality and the disparity between the rich and the poor?

No offense, but you do not know what you are talking about. America is a capitalist country, yet is ranked the most generous country in the world. Americans make money and they donate, they volunteer, they help others out. That's what great about Capitalism, because you make money and you redistribute it yourself. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, is single-handly made it his goal to end Polio, he has donated billions of dollars to end poverty, and improve education in places like Africa and India. Please name one socialist country that donates has much aid as Americans do. Privatization does not equal no morals, and only an ignorant person would believe that.

The income gap is no longer an issue with 1st world are 3rd world countries. The poor are continuing to improve. As a son of immigrants who came from a 3rd world country, they have always told me how the country has improved. The whole the poor is getting poorer is a half-truth. Not everybody is getting poorer.

Regarding actual Americans, people don't realize we just had a recession, so obviously its not going to be in great shape. The problem is not Capitalism, it's Cronyism and Corporatism, which leads to people being exploited. In a true free market, none of this would happen, because anti-competitive laws would be enforced.

Okay, let me see if this is a correct summary of your argument.
-America is the most generous country in the world as evidenced by people like Bill Gates trying to end poverty and capitalism allows people to redistribute their wealth on their own.
-The income gap isn't an issue because 1st world and third world nations, and the lives of the poor are getting better because my dad told me.
-The problem isn't capitalism, its cronyism.

Okay 1) What does this have to do with privatization?
2) Charity will not solve poverty because poverty is the inevitable result of capitalism. We need justice, not charity in the world.
3) Global inequality is on the rise and it is a serious issue! Have you not been paying attention or have you been living on a diet of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?
http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 5:05:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 4:31:25 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 1:01:45 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:52:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.

Because Privatization puts people over profits. That is the simplest way of putting it, but if you really believe that privatization has brought more good then harm, I ask you, why has privatization failed to bring development to the third world? Why has it increased global inequality and the disparity between the rich and the poor?

No offense, but you do not know what you are talking about. America is a capitalist country, yet is ranked the most generous country in the world. Americans make money and they donate, they volunteer, they help others out. That's what great about Capitalism, because you make money and you redistribute it yourself. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, is single-handly made it his goal to end Polio, he has donated billions of dollars to end poverty, and improve education in places like Africa and India. Please name one socialist country that donates has much aid as Americans do. Privatization does not equal no morals, and only an ignorant person would believe that.

The income gap is no longer an issue with 1st world are 3rd world countries. The poor are continuing to improve. As a son of immigrants who came from a 3rd world country, they have always told me how the country has improved. The whole the poor is getting poorer is a half-truth. Not everybody is getting poorer.

Regarding actual Americans, people don't realize we just had a recession, so obviously its not going to be in great shape. The problem is not Capitalism, it's Cronyism and Corporatism, which leads to people being exploited. In a true free market, none of this would happen, because anti-competitive laws would be enforced.

Okay, let me see if this is a correct summary of your argument.
-America is the most generous country in the world as evidenced by people like Bill Gates trying to end poverty and capitalism allows people to redistribute their wealth on their own.
-The income gap isn't an issue because 1st world and third world nations, and the lives of the poor are getting better because my dad told me.
-The problem isn't capitalism, its cronyism.

Okay 1) What does this have to do with privatization?

Is Microsoft a private company? Yes or No? Capitalism and privatization go hand in hand.

2) Charity will not solve poverty because poverty is the inevitable result of capitalism. We need justice, not charity in the world.

Poverty is because of Capitalism? So you are saying poverty never existed prior? And what your definition of justice? Give money to those who don't work to those who do?

3) Global inequality is on the rise and it is a serious issue! Have you not been paying attention or have you been living on a diet of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?
http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...

Ok, I could have worded that a bit better. Income equality is an issue, but regarding 3rd world countries, they are better of than they were several decades ago. Globalization contributes to this. They weren't any better off than they were before Capitalism.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's the best system we have. Market reforms and anti-competitive laws are needed to keep it from spiraling out of control.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 5:39:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 5:05:54 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:31:25 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 1:01:45 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:52:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:38:58 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

How the heck is privatization a bad thing? It's certainly brought more good than harm.

Because Privatization puts people over profits. That is the simplest way of putting it, but if you really believe that privatization has brought more good then harm, I ask you, why has privatization failed to bring development to the third world? Why has it increased global inequality and the disparity between the rich and the poor?

No offense, but you do not know what you are talking about. America is a capitalist country, yet is ranked the most generous country in the world. Americans make money and they donate, they volunteer, they help others out. That's what great about Capitalism, because you make money and you redistribute it yourself. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, is single-handly made it his goal to end Polio, he has donated billions of dollars to end poverty, and improve education in places like Africa and India. Please name one socialist country that donates has much aid as Americans do. Privatization does not equal no morals, and only an ignorant person would believe that.

The income gap is no longer an issue with 1st world are 3rd world countries. The poor are continuing to improve. As a son of immigrants who came from a 3rd world country, they have always told me how the country has improved. The whole the poor is getting poorer is a half-truth. Not everybody is getting poorer.

Regarding actual Americans, people don't realize we just had a recession, so obviously its not going to be in great shape. The problem is not Capitalism, it's Cronyism and Corporatism, which leads to people being exploited. In a true free market, none of this would happen, because anti-competitive laws would be enforced.

Okay, let me see if this is a correct summary of your argument.
-America is the most generous country in the world as evidenced by people like Bill Gates trying to end poverty and capitalism allows people to redistribute their wealth on their own.
-The income gap isn't an issue because 1st world and third world nations, and the lives of the poor are getting better because my dad told me.
-The problem isn't capitalism, its cronyism.

Okay 1) What does this have to do with privatization?

Is Microsoft a private company? Yes or No? Capitalism and privatization go hand in hand.

2) Charity will not solve poverty because poverty is the inevitable result of capitalism. We need justice, not charity in the world.

Poverty is because of Capitalism? So you are saying poverty never existed prior? And what your definition of justice? Give money to those who don't work to those who do?



3) Global inequality is on the rise and it is a serious issue! Have you not been paying attention or have you been living on a diet of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?
http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...

Ok, I could have worded that a bit better. Income equality is an issue, but regarding 3rd world countries, they are better of than they were several decades ago. Globalization contributes to this. They weren't any better off than they were before Capitalism.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's the best system we have. Market reforms and anti-competitive laws are needed to keep it from spiraling out of control.

1) Those who don't work are already getting the money from those who do. They are called owners, stock brokers and executives. As workers toil to generate profit, the owners and executives sit high and mighty and keep their hands clean.
2) I am going to suggest three books to you and I high suggest you read them. They are quite interesting and very good books in general, but I think they will provide a better perspective on the issues we are discussing. The first is The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, which talks about Globalization and Privatization, the Second, also on this topic is Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky, and the third is Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism by Richard Wolff. If you want something less enjoyable, but just as informative, read Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Pikkety, but that one is a tough read.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 1:10:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 12:28:13 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 12:36:01 PM, Reformist wrote:
Ive taken an interest in the economic study of Nazi Germany. Its really fascinating

Any thoughts?

Yeah slave labour, privatization and military build up are really great things. I am being sarcastic of course.

check out my post here - it shows were the root word of fascism and fascination originates
http://www.debate.org...