The National Socialists had radical reforms in mind. The “unalterable” 25 point 1920 program of the party proposed, among other things, “that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished”; “the nationalization of all trusts”; “profit-sharing in large industries”; and “an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.” FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9179/nazi-economic-policy/
Nazi Economic Policy
Previous post: Does Law Require Legislation?
Next post: Freedom Book Club
{ 68 comments }
← Previous Comments
Then Roosevelt stepped in and called for a “national bank holiday,” putting a stop to it all. With great leadership he calmed the nation. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
At this point, it’s obvious that Gene isn’t serious. He had me going too, though.
Richard, don’t attack us 14 yrs. old because of a mentally delusional troll.
Sincerely,
Luis
Troll? interesting. It could be that “Gene’s” views are so mainstream that it would seem that way to Mises.org thinkers. When I recently went on a highly read education blog and stated that teacher unions are remnants of medieval protection rackets that ought to be abolished along with pub.admin of schools, the regular bloggers there- most of them educrats- replied to me similarly: “You must be joking” “I am assuming you are being facetious” “Don’t answer the troll” “That blogger is in crisis, flailing about as he tries to deal with the destruction of his free market world…”
Even if “Gene” is a troll his comments are representative of the vast majority of educated folk. Well, there is a war on for minds. Maybe Sgt. Gene was merely spot checking the Austrian troops?
anyway, gene only told half the story about thyssen. notwithstanding his early bankrolling of the nazis, he split with hitler after kristalnacht and the religious persecution. fled to switzerland and then to france. sent back to germany by the vichy government and spent the rest of the war in a concentration camp.
after the war he was ordered to cede 15% of his property to nazi victims.
i eagerly await america’s new autobahn programme.
i eagerly await america’s new autobahn programme.
There will probably be a new “people’s car” too.
Gene,
The same could be true of industry under socialism; e.g. a government could nationalize industries and increase the pay of its workers and management.
Socialists cannot fight other socialists? If you look at the two parties as competing groups vying for power, their ideologies aren’t that important.
Of course industrialists would support fascism; they have something to gain under it, just as union workers may stand to gain under socialism.
For what its worth, I agree with you that calling fascism socialist is a poor choice of words. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Fascism is government direction of private industry, which owns the means of production. Although their results may be similar (as in both systems the state controls the commanding heights of the economy), their system of control is definitely not the same. A better way to express the similarity between socialism and fascism is to say they are both statist systems with different means of control.
Well, I see that libertarians can make snide little comments and make pointless put downs with the best of them. Way to make yourselves irrelevant.
My thoughts on Gene’s posts: Personally, I’m only interested in a consistent philosophy. The problem with Social Security is that it’s inconsistent. It does some good for people in the short run but it’s not possible to invent a system of administering it that will work in the long run.
When those that are for SS say, ‘we don’t want the elderly to starve do we?’ they are activating our pc gland. It’s a point that I will have to give you. You’re correct we don’t want that to happen. I wonder though, how do we know that would happen if we didn’t have SS? I mean, I’m estranged from my mother and haven’t spoken to her for years. But the fact is that I wouldn’t let her starve, no matter how I feel about her. So, I want to know how we know that the elderly would starve?
As far as administering the program the current method is inconsistent. Do you know that the Amish don’t pay SS tax? That’s because SS was sold (to Americans) as insurance and the Amish are religiously against insurance. Or is it a tax? I suppose that if it really was insurance that would send our argument down a different road, but it’s a tax. The philosophy of the system is to take a little from all and give it to the eligible. This method of funding can be shown to be broken at some point in the future (which means it’s broken from the beginning).
So, it may do some good today, it causes bigger problems in the future. It’s an inconsistent philosophy.
“When those that are for SS say, ‘we don’t want the elderly to starve do we?’ ”
I reply to those people that I, ME, MYSELF don’t want to starve…but social security and all other government taxes rob me of my hard earned money.
I end up with less money to save and invest and even when I make money with after tax dollars, I am taxed again on the profits of my investment.
I reply that less people would starve if government would mind it’s own business and leave us alone.
I also reply that WHY do you want government to forcibly take money away from you to help the elderly ? Why don’t you help them yourself with your own money right now ?
I also reply to them that I’d rather starve as a free man than pig myself out as a subject of the government.
Live free or die !
Finally, I reply that if you need to take away my freedoms and my hard earned honest money away in order to feed the elderly, LET THEM STARVE !
And finally, if you try to take away my freedoms and my hard earned honest money, there is a high probability that you will find a quicker way to hell than starvation.
IHT,
Can I submit that you don’t really want to starve people but you’re exaggerating to make a point? Unfortunately, it’s not a good point. The emotional outburst might be therapeutic but I wish you’d do it on a platform where you don’t appear to represent what I consider to be a sound life philosophy.
I submit that this argument for a libertarian life can be summed up in one word, selfish. But, I think that you’re just repeating what you think are cool sayings but I doubt you’d really use the tone and words as these.
Actually, I feel sorry for if you’ve missed the point of libertarian philosophy. Possibly because it’s the irony of ironies. All of the competing philosophies claim to benefit all of society. Socialism, communism, democracy, theocracy. Even the worst dictators through time say they will benefit the people ‘I’m good for the people.’ But when each is analyzed, they are actually enslaving the people.
Only one philosophy has the outcome of the good of all; the philosophy of individual liberty.
gooddebate says:
“So, it may do some good today, it causes bigger problems in the future. It’s an inconsistent philosophy.”
consistency or viability of any programme doesn’t make it moral or right. any institutionalized “aid” weakens familial bonds that may still exist, notwithstanding estrangement. for the few that really fall through the cracks, civil organizations and churches would step in. their biggest rival is currently the government.
any talk about people starving in their old age is nonsensical hyperbole. hong kong hasn’t had a universal social welfare programme and there’s none of the extreme poverty that would have old folks croaking for want of food.
“I submit that this argument for a libertarian life can be summed up in one word, selfish.
another way of putting it is that altruism is a rocky foundation on which to build the social edifice. “ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man”, and the rest is history….
Gooddebate wrote “The problem with Social Security is that it’s inconsistent. It does some good for people in the short run but it’s not possible to invent a system of administering it that will work in the long run.”
Would you accept an approach as being consistent and long term if it aimed to phase the system out? While that doesn’t give you a continuing system, and the latter stages don’t match the earlier ones, it strikes me as producing a long run effect with a consistent purpose.
to fix the rabbit plague, we introduce the fox, to solve the fox plague we bring in poison 1080….
“Well, I see that libertarians can make snide little comments and make pointless put downs with the best of them. Way to make yourselves irrelevant.”
wow, so if you include a valid argument and a snide putdown, your whole argument is invalid and irrelevant! what an understanding of logic you have…
But 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) is different in kind to the others on that list: it doesn’t breed and spread itself.
1080…touche!
but schemes to solve schemes still does win me over.
….still doesn’t win me over.
I have a friend who defines Fascism as:
Socialism that allows you to pay taxes.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.