WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

698

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

"Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism." - Dawkins

Money has always represented work. When you buy something from someone with money, you're giving them a symbol that represents the good they've done for you and the amount they're owed for it. They can then give that money to the next person they need something from in exchange for what they need. If you grow food and need shoes, you give money to the shoemaker as a formal symbol that you owe him for giving you shoes and he gives it back to you when you give him food as a symbol that he owes you for the food. Hitler guaranteed that workers would be paid based on what their work was worth to the rest of society, or at least as close to that amount as they could reasonably get.

The problem with the Weimar Republic and now western civilization in general is there are too many ways to acquire money without working for it, circumventing the purpose money is supposed to serve. Welfare, pay for play political schemes, inflationary banking, usury, grifting: these are all ways that someone can receive money without providing other people with things they want and need first. These are signs that your economy is broken and that money has lost its purpose. Crack down on all the ways that people can receive something for nothing and you return the economy to its natural state where you can only get something for something else of similar value.

Hitler didn't revolutionize the economy, he just made laws against all the things kikes and their comrades were doing to cheat the basic laws of economics and enforced them.

[–] 2 pts

Thanks for this comment. As I get old, I've started to notice that the same unheard words that I speak, from day to day, have already been spoken a thousand times. You've put it better than any way I could, and will use this wording going forward. Thanks for that.

[–] 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).

[–] 1 pt

Thank you very much for your informative reply!

[–] 0 pt

Crack down on all the ways that people can receive something for nothing and you return the economy to its natural state where you can only get something for something else of similar value.

Honestly, you don't even need to crack down on anything, you just need to remove the government from the economy and the currency. With no politicians to bribe it's much harder to grift for a living.

there are too many ways to acquire money without working for it

Was wondering if this was the reason everything was locked down March of Last year. People were to mobile and free to move about and make money the way they wanted to without being held to someone else's timetable or way of making that money. If they plandemic a reset they teach the younger generation learned helplessness.