![Inflation nation [1024x1024 - 116KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/vjs5cg.jpg){kind=link}
How exactly did the way Hitler structured the currency work?
Like what does it mean to be backed by work in practice.
"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.
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.
Thank you very much for your informative reply!
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.
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).
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.
people worked, the govt issued currency for their work.
The creation of their currency was based on human work and backed by it. This limited inflation and meant that there was a potentially infinite supply of wealth that was tied directly to the worker. This also meant that there really werent any budgeting constraints other than how to most efficiently utilize your workforce.
To compare it to today: If the government wants a statue built, in our society it asks the federal reserve to print money, it borrows that money at interest to pay for a worker to build the statue. This is the cost of the statue + interest and the debt that needs to be paid back.
In Nazi Germany, the government would commission a worker to build the statue and issue the currency straight to him. The government doesnt need to pay anything back, the worker just managed to essentially create wealth simply by doing work.
This is a really crazy concept, we are conditioned into thinking in order to create wealth we need to earn money, but WE ARE THE WEALTH, and the Germans knew this and skipped the slimy middle men and created wealth at the worker.
I'll be honest, i'm not an expert on anything and there are probably a lot of things im missing but i think on a basic level everything should be easy to understand outside of jargon and nonsense. This i think makes a lot of sense and is very simple, our current system loans 'wealth' into existence backed by nothing and we are conditioned to accept that as 'real' currency, as opposed to receipts for genuine human labour.
The currency wasnt backed by nothing like the weimar currency, or like the federal reserve note. It wasnt backed by precious metals. It was backed by labour. Labour hours I believe.
I'm not a scholar on the subject, but I believe that the currency issued, based on labour, is what brought the german people out of their "economic/ power bondage".
I so not know the exactly how the system operated, but that is a great question that deserves some looking into.
I'm not to keen on the overall idea of facism except as a knee jerk reaction to rebound from bolshevik nonsense. I separate the economic system the Germans had then from the socio/political because the economic system is interesting to analyze on it's own. That economic system may be useful in different situations, like now currently for example; if we chose to do away with the federal reserve note. It is a useful tool during transitions in power struggles of the sociopolitical flavor.
The Austrian economists have a lot of interesting ideas as well. Von Mises, Hayeck come to mind.
I hope we figure something solid out for the progenys sake.
@NaturalSelectionistWorker (Including you so you can yell at me.)
Hitler's money (via currency) didn't work. His gold reserves were depleted due to his grand social works. While I support most of what Hitler was trying to accomplish, his economic theory was stupid. Money cannot be tied to labor. There is no known value of one given labor over another (how much is digging a ditch valued over brain surgery per hour?). EDIT: I fucked up here. How does labor per hour (under Hitler) make a ditch digger the same as a brain surgeon per hour? That is what I meant to say. Capitalism obviously says they get paid at much different rates.
Money's purchase power versus goods and services is more like the stock market. You have bidders and sellers, and eventually under a stable system, the goods and services settle at a given price, regardless of the medium of money ... think bitcoin, think gold, think US dollars. The medium of money does not matter. EDIT: And I fucked up again. The medium of money does matter depending on its intrinsic trust. Some might not even accept bitcoin, for example. This shit is complicated.
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. -- NaturalSelectionistWorker
Completely wrong. The notion everyone subconsciously knows is this: If I accept this medium exchange, I expect to be able to buy another good or service at its going rate tomorrow (or some day later) at the expect value. That is the purpose of money. Stability of future expectation of money's purchasing power.
If the system is all fucked up like Zimbabwe, no one trust the system, and no one wants the "money." Black markets for merely money arise.
Anyway, I am not an expert, but I am saying that NaturalSelectionistWorker is not an expert either. Go read some books on economics or somethings, haha. EDIT: Even if you read every economics book in the world, you still won't know shit. The topic is so complex. Even @NaturalSelectionistWorker will probably agree with me that modern economics are mostly all wrong. E2 (and I'm done): Because they are mostly now commies and leftists churned out by the socialist university propaganda wing of the ...
So Hitler didn't get his country out of debt?
That depends on what you mean. I am saying, to my knowledge, Hitler burned through Germany's gold reserves.
"Debt" is a difficult question. If I owe you a lot of debt and tell you I am not paying it, did I get out of debt? If might is right on my side, I think I did!
(post is archived)