WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

851

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt (edited )

So he was essentially the barometer for prices? Ie. There were no "over valued" or "under valued" but he was responsible for setting prices? Or he did he ensure people were being fairly compensated for the "work" being done?

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the laws implemented and how he was able to ensure it was a 1:1 work for money?

Thanks again.

[–] 2 pts

Some parts of the party platform include ending all sources of unearned income, performance-based profit sharing with workers in large companies, and the nationalization of large chain stores to be replaced by local small businesses that must compete individually. Hitler created some jobs programs, a lot of infrastructure at first as well as improving Germany's agriculture and manufacturing, because he believed it would be useful to a large portion of the population. Hitler's government did make some decisions on price controls if they felt the price of a good was being manipulated but they also gave a lot of market share to local businesses that were free to set their own prices for most goods. Sometimes they invested in things they expected to pay off, like their financial support for motherhood and children, because raising quality children is a job too (one the husband/father usually pays for by working). That doesn't really violate the spirit of economic law as long as you can realistically expect it to pay off.

The main difference between Nazi economic interventions and communist, progressive, and left socialist economic intervention is the Nazis respected the natural laws of reciprocity, individual competition to improve the population (individual natural selection), and the importance of uniting as groups against threats that are bigger than what a lone individual should be expected to handle (group natural selection). Leftists actively try to subvert it by taking from all according to their ability but giving to all according to their need, rather than giving according to what they contribute (or at least have potential to contribute).