Fascists Targetting America's Youth

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
And I would say that a deficit is very important - especially because inflation set in before the war. When the Nazi territory expanded the Reichsmark became legal tender in the occupied territory, significantly reducing the effects of inflation - since the excess in money was made good by adding a larger area of circulation. It might then be said that the deficit was only important in that it meant war would be inevitable.
If for instance Nazi Germany had become involved in a long war in France, it would have meant that the German economy would have crashed very soon.

But if there were effects of the deficit then you should count those effects. Why count the deficit?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Saras


So the Commons can vote itself, or the PM, as dictator for life, and the Lords and the monarch would not have a legal instrument to do anything about it?..

with the state of the opposition at the moment, tony blair might as well be declared dictator for life

it's not quite as simple as that. when the commons passes a bill it goes to the house of lords, the lords have to pass it and then it receives royal assent. if a bill goes to the lords three times in two years and they reject it then the commons may pass it using something called the parliament act, and force it through. this act was brought in the early 20th century to allow the democractic house of commons to triumph over the lords if the two could not agree, it is not used often at all. it will be in the news soon because it's about to be shamefully abused to ban fox hunting in this country.

the queen could in theory refuse to give royal assent, but this has not happend since 1707 and won't happen again.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But in a fascist system the state is only important, not the individuals. So the goal of the economy should be to benefit the state only.

That's the rhetoric of fascism, not the reality. In reality, the purpose of fascism is to restore profitability to the ailing, but most powerful, sectors of the ruling class. These growth rates show massive profitability, but with labor unions crushed and working conditions worsed, and wages surpressed, average Germans weren't benefitting so well, except in that they had a job at all, rather than starving in the Great Depression.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Hey, don't laugh, buddy-boy. In a command economy, you should never have periods of declining growth, since resources shouldn't have been over allocated in unproductive sectors in the first place. It's inevitable in capitalism with its anarchic means of deciding investment, but it shouldn't have happened in the USSR.

edit: Wouldn't have noticed it weren't for Saras. Thanks.

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Hey, don't laugh, buddy-boy. In a command economy, you should never have periods of declining growth, since resources should have been over allocated in unproductive sectors in the first place. It's inevitable in capitalism with its anarchic means of deciding investment, but it shouldn't have happened in the USSR.

quoted to prevent DanS'ing

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Saras


So the Commons can vote itself, or the PM, as dictator for life, and the Lords and the monarch would not have a legal instrument to do anything about it?..

Not without successfully repealing the existing laws on the subject.

Anyway- we're British. We're kind of resistant to totalitarianism. Ultimately, laws or constitutions tend to amount to very little when the chips are down.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's the rhetoric of fascism, not the reality. In reality, the purpose of fascism is to restore profitability to the ailing, but most powerful, sectors of the ruling class. These growth rates show massive profitability, but with labor unions crushed and working conditions worsed, and wages surpressed, average Germans weren't benefitting so well, except in that they had a job at all, rather than starving in the Great Depression.

First, kick ass Bad Santa avatar. I love that movie.



In reality fascism has been very profitable for capitalists, however fascist states don't last long so how do we know that the fascists don't just use the capitalists out of necessity, and then kill them off just like the rest of their so called enemies?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why count the deficit?

Because fiscal policy is one of the primary means of the state to stimulate the economy.

If deficits are not important, why is the EU up in arms about anyone using deficits to stimulate the economy.
I would guess it is because of some very bad experiences with Keynesian economics, the subject of this thread for instance being one of them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
In reality fascism has been very profitable for capitalists, however fascist states don't last long so how do we know that the fascists don't just use the capitalists out of necessity, and then kill them off just like the rest of their so called enemies?

Spain. During the first fifteen years, Franco's government could be considered a fascist government. With the crushing of the working class and the peasants though, they were able to back off and become a more normal military dictatorship.

Fascist Italy lasted more than twenty years, and showed no sign of abolishing the capitalists.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's the rhetoric of fascism, not the reality. In reality, the purpose of fascism is to restore profitability to the ailing, but most powerful, sectors of the ruling class. These growth rates show massive profitability, but with labor unions crushed and working conditions worsed, and wages surpressed, average Germans weren't benefitting so well, except in that they had a job at all, rather than starving in the Great Depression.

Che, could you provide some evidence that wages were suppressed and working conditions worsened under Hitler. Certainly Hitler did suppress the labor unions who were dominated by Communists. This ended strikes that had been hurting the German economy. But the absence of labor unions and the absence of strikes does not necessarily imply that wages were suppressed and working conditions worsened, particularly when one considers that Hitler brought Germany universal health care, autobahns, the Volkswagen, cheap people's resorts and economic prosperity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Because fiscal policy is one of the primary means of the state to stimulate the economy.

If deficits are not important, why is the EU up in arms about anyone using deficits to stimulate the economy.
I would guess it is because of some very bad experiences with Keynesian economics, the subject of this thread for instance being one of them.

The EU isn't saying that the deficit should be subtracted from the member nations GDP. That's silly. What kind of measurement is that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, could you provide some evidence that wages were suppressed and working conditions worsened under Hitler. Certainly Hitler did suppress the labor unions who were dominated by Communists. This ended strikes that had been hurting the German economy. But the absence of labor unions and the absence of strikes does not necessarily imply that wages were suppressed and working conditions worsened, particularly when one considers that Hitler brought Germany universal health care, autobahns, the Volkswagen, cheap people's resorts and economic prosperity.

On 2nd May, 1933, Adolf Hitler ordered the Sturm Abteilung (SA) to arrest Germany's trade union leaders. He then gave Robert Ley the task of forming the Labour Front (DAF), the only union organization allowed in the Third Reich.

A pay freeze was introduced in 1933 and this was rigorously enforced by the Labour Front. Wages were now decided by the Labour Front and compulsory deductions made for income tax, and for its Strength through Joy programme.

The Labour Front also issued work-books that recorded the worker's employment record and no one could be employed without one.

-Labor Front

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


PAX, I once had a good time talking with you here. It is too bad you have junked your sense of civility. You are now on my ignore list.

I was just joking Ned. I really like you even though I disagree with your opinions. Anyway, please accept my real apology.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Not without successfully repealing the existing laws on the subject.

Anyway- we're British. We're kind of resistant to totalitarianism. Ultimately, laws or constitutions tend to amount to very little when the chips are down.

That's what I thought. Would be cool if every country had that sort of 400+ years experience and tradition in running a representative government.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hey, don't laugh, buddy-boy. In a command economy, you should never have periods of declining growth, since resources shouldn't have been over allocated in unproductive sectors in the first place. It's inevitable in capitalism with its anarchic means of deciding investment, but it shouldn't have happened in the USSR.

It's two things - your surprise at it, and the fact that, from a certain viewpoint, the entire thing was one big recession