Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Helgoland]

Spoiler: flameish (click to show/hide)

Anything that will damage Russian economy and\or war potential can be only good for Ukraine... and humanity

Russia 2010s = Germany 1930s only a blind one can't see that

Not gonna argue on that. I am bad at arguing about anything obvious

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

After years of constant fall, patriotism grows, as well as economy, all under a rule of a competent leader?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Competent? Competent? I can come up with a ton of terms to describe that tiny Austrian fuckhead with a bad taste in beards, yes even positive ones, but competent is very much not one of them.
Also, post-1933 economic boom was pretty much a straw fire - it relied on borrowing with a declaration of war taking the place of paying back.

Hey. HEY! You don't go around insulting Mr. Chaplin. Chaplin is off-limits.

Chaplin was Austrian?

[Darvi]

"terrible taste in beards" most likely being what's discussed there.

[miauw62]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

protect the ethnic aliens in crimea

[da_nang]

It's that time of the year again, folks.

Obligatory comic

[scrdest]

It's that time of the year again, folks.

Obligatory comic

Oddly enough, the latest, as of writing this, comic is also about the Faroes.

[mainiac]

-Paid women in the form of vouchers to stay at home instead of looking for work. Since you have to be looking for a job to be considered "unemployed", this improved Germany's unemployment rate substantially on paper. In real terms, however, this basically cut German production of goods substantially (women that would have had actual jobs were now sitting around at home) and cut the German workforce, without actually getting many new jobs created (since women were looking for different jobs from men, so those unemployed German men's prospects weren't much improved).

-German unions were basically destroyed by raids and made powerless, so they were no longer capable of demanding higher wages, which resulted in more hiring. This is in contrast to the situation in most other countries affected by the Depression, where unions held wages higher for existing workers, resulting in higher unemployment.

-Those remaining unemployed were basically forced to take jobs by the government that often paid less than they had received from welfare previously, with the alternative being the threat of getting tossed into a concentration camp. So these several million Germans were nominally employed, but were literal wage slaves that were barely getting by.

So yeah, the Germans had "full employment", though that's pretty meaningless when it comes through literal slavery to the state. Source is Richard Evans' Third Reich trilogy, in case you're wondering.

Hitler didn't invent sexism in german politics, that had been there since unification.  The female labor participation rate stayed static at a low rate until the war started pulling women into the labor force.  So there was no exodous of women to hold back production, which rose:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Nazis attacked unions for political reasons but they also established fixed wages.  They were pretty "bread and butter" oriented until the war got into full swing and the economy changed to total war.  And either way, we are talking about a demand side recession, not a supply side one.  Even before Keynes got big, Fisher was pointing out that a deflationary solution (depressing wages for supply side reasons) could just as easily depress output as increase it.  Also I was saying that Hitlers first few years of economic policy were effective, not that they were humane.

Putting about half a million people into forced labor programs (we are talking pre-WWII, not when the concentration camps were in full swing) would reduce the unemployment rate by maybe one and a half to two percent.  (Rough estimate here off the top of my head).  It would have little effect on wages because the government was already controlling those by law.  Again, talking effectiveness here, not humanity.

Germany when Hitler became chancellor was suffering from severe underproduction.  Germany by '36 or '37 had risen to pre-crash levels.  Of the four major economies to get depressed (US, UK, France, Germany), it was Germany that made the most rapid recovery.  That is what I'm talking about when I say that Hitlers economic policy in the early years was effective.

[Owlbread]

I'm trying not to get too involved in independence-related discussion these days (I've found myself just getting angry all the time at things) but here are the results of the latest three polls conducted around the issue of Scottish independence, "don't knows" excluded:

Survation: Yes 47 No 53.
Panelbase Yes 48 No 52.
ICM: Yes 45 No 55

Yet Better Together often like to speak of a "20 point lead".

I don't have the results for other pollsters just yet. Wading through poll results is a pastime I hope to never partake in after this year. But yes, as I said a few days ago, Yes Scotland are claiming undecideds are moving to Yes over No at a rate of 2:1. The "don't knows excluded" polls don't take that into account. If what Yes Scotland are saying is actually true this may provide us with some hope.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We're going to need an "It's happening" image for this. Who would you say the best Scottish analogue is to Ron Paul (RON PAUL RON PAUL)?

[GreatJustice]

Hitler didn't invent sexism in german politics, that had been there since unification.  The female labor participation rate stayed static at a low rate until the war started pulling women into the labor force.  So there was no exodous of women to hold back production, which rose:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Certainly Hitler didn't create German sexism, but he definitely encouraged women to not bother entering the labour force, which (artificially) dropped the unemployment rate. From 1931 to 1937, the female percentage of the German workforce declined from 37% to 31%, a fairly drastic decrease.

Furthermore, while overall production increased, production of things Germans actually desired (consumer goods, food, etc) didn't increase, and there were shortages and rationing of basic goods even before the war began, which hardly makes a good case for the German economic model.

The Nazis attacked unions for political reasons but they also established fixed wages.  They were pretty "bread and butter" oriented until the war got into full swing and the economy changed to total war.  And either way, we are talking about a demand side recession, not a supply side one.  Even before Keynes got big, Fisher was pointing out that a deflationary solution (depressing wages for supply side reasons) could just as easily depress output as increase it.  Also I was saying that Hitlers first few years of economic policy were effective, not that they were humane.

Putting about half a million people into forced labor programs (we are talking pre-WWII, not when the concentration camps were in full swing) would reduce the unemployment rate by maybe one and a half to two percent.  (Rough estimate here off the top of my head).  It would have little effect on wages because the government was already controlling those by law.  Again, talking effectiveness here, not humanity.

Germany when Hitler became chancellor was suffering from severe underproduction.  Germany by '36 or '37 had risen to pre-crash levels.  Of the four major economies to get depressed (US, UK, France, Germany), it was Germany that made the most rapid recovery.  That is what I'm talking about when I say that Hitlers economic policy in the early years was effective.

In terms of effectiveness, well, I suppose that depends on perspective. It certainly wasn't effective in the sense of creating an efficient allocation of resources, since there were severe shortages as a result of nearly every available idle resource being put into the production of war materials. It was debatably effective at furthering the interests of the state and the Nazis in that it pre-emptively geared the German economy for war, but even that isn't absolutely the truth, either. After all, the Soviet Union, hardly an example of a nation with an efficient or effective economic model, outproduced the Germans substantially in every way, with a much smaller workforce (only catching up in 1945), every year of the war (including 1942, when the industrial base of the USSR was occupied by the Germans). Really, if you want to talk about effective economic policy, in terms of raw production, Stalin might be a better example than Hitler, though few would advocate the Stalinist method of economic recovery.

[Owlbread]

We're going to need an "It's happening" image for this. Who would you say the best Scottish analogue is to Ron Paul (RON PAUL RON PAUL)?

I've been thinking very long and hard about this. I think the point of the Ron Paul images is that it's Ron Paul saying "I told you so, you could have elected me and this would never have happened". Should I try to think of a Unionist who said that independence was a real possibility and has been sidelined/rubbished, ideally a crazy one?

[Descan]

It's either "Ron Paul Could Have Saved You" or the whole, "proponents of an insanely low chance idea (Ron Paul getting elected) getting over-zealous and saying things like 'America is waking up, Ron Paul will be elected!'".

At least that's what I always saw it as.

KnowYourMeme says it's used as the former, as in The Apocalypse Comes Because No Paul

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We're going to need an "It's happening" image for this. Who would you say the best Scottish analogue is to Ron Paul (RON PAUL RON PAUL)?

I've been thinking very long and hard about this. I think the point of the Ron Paul images is that it's Ron Paul saying "I told you so, you could have elected me and this would never have happened". Should I try to think of a Unionist who said that independence was a real possibility and has been sidelined/rubbished, ideally a crazy one?

That would work excellently, yes. Alternatively, you could go for a more radical separatist who was previously disregarded by the unionists as a nutjob, only to come back in force later and now be a threat against them.

Essentially, Ron Paul (RON PAUL RON PAUL) comes in two flavors: "You could have stopped this from happening, now it's too late." and "All that has transpired has done so as I have foreseen, now who's crazy?".

[mainiac]

Certainly Hitler didn't create German sexism, but he definitely encouraged women to not bother entering the labour force, which (artificially) dropped the unemployment rate. From 1931 to 1937, the female percentage of the German workforce declined from 37% to 31%, a fairly drastic decrease.

All my googlefu finds is that in 1939 the female labor participation rate was still at 37%.

Furthermore, while overall production increased, production of things Germans actually desired (consumer goods, food, etc) didn't increase, and there were shortages and rationing of basic goods even before the war began, which hardly makes a good case for the German economic model.

German production almost doubled from '33 to '37 and military spending increases only accounted for a fraction of that increase.  That is a very, very rapid increase in non-military economic activity.  Even if a railways eventual purpose is military activity in 1940, it can still be used for civilian activity in 1937 and it's construction still puts money in the pockets of working men in 1936.

I am unaware of rationing in Germany before the war started in 1939.  There would of course be material shortages but that's just because of a lower total productivity factor and capital accumulation compared to the standard we in the US are used to.  The per capita gdp of 1930s germany was about 1/6 of todays, putting them a little below where Ukraine or Georgia is today even before you account for that military spending.  At that level of per capita gdp, shortages happen.  Unless you can show that shortages were worse in 1937 or so compared to 1929 or 1928, the existence of shortages doesn't really tell us much.  Unless the economy gets derailed first, people in 2080 will talk about the shortages of consumer goods that plagued the US in the year 2014.

In terms of effectiveness, well, I suppose that depends on perspective. It certainly wasn't effective in the sense of creating an efficient allocation of resources, since there were severe shortages as a result of nearly every available idle resource being put into the production of war materials.

I was talking about 1937 or so, when the economic recovery was finishing up but before massive mobilization of the economy started.  I'm well aware that Hitler inflicted a huge human cost on humanity.  But in 1937 or so the economic effects of his evil hadn't really showed up yet.  Although he was already a brutal dictator who imprisoned countless people, he was a rather unintentionally successful dictator who presided over a rapid economic improvement.

[misko27]

Scottish Independence Happening levels at DEFCON 3:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Note: Defcon is traditionally inverted from it's popular understanding that the higher the worse. In reality, it's DEFCON 5 = All Clear, to DEFCON 1 = Light'em up.

[GreatJustice]

All my googlefu finds is that in 1939 the female labor participation rate was still at 37%.

Well, my googlefu says that the female labour participation rate did indeed rise from 1937 to 1939... by 2%, to 33%. Oh well.

German production almost doubled from '33 to '37 and military spending increases only accounted for a fraction of that increase.  That is a very, very rapid increase in non-military economic activity.  Even if a railways eventual purpose is military activity in 1940, it can still be used for civilian activity in 1937 and it's construction still puts money in the pockets of working men in 1936.

True, a lot of the gearing up for war consisted of infrastructure spending, but in real terms, it was pretty close to useless infrastructure spending. It didn't help the German government simply due to design incompetence; for example, many new German roads were created for the purpose of allowing fast transportation of Wehrmacht forces (tanks and heavy artillery in particular) from one front to another, yet it was discovered that they couldn't bear the weight of armoured columns, which had to use older modes of transportation anyway. Further, they shined so brightly (they were painted white) that they made easy targets for Allied bombers.

For civilians, the new infrastructure had its uses, but it certainly didn't promote economic activity since, to all intents and purposes, Germany had a planned economy at the time. Actual economic decisions were largely made by high officials in the Nazi party, with limited decision making being granted to betriebsführers, the former capitalists. Any economic benefit of the new infrastructure went almost entirely to the German state (and that benefit wasn't necessarily great either, see above). And again, if you want to compare planned economies, the Soviet Union was simply more efficient than Nazi Germany in raw production despite many disadvantages, yet even those that say Hitler's stimulus was successful wouldn't support simple nationalization of the entire economy.

I am unaware of rationing in Germany before the war started in 1939.  There would of course be material shortages but that's just because of a lower total productivity factor and capital accumulation compared to the standard we in the US are used to.  The per capita gdp of 1930s germany was about 1/6 of todays, putting them a little below where Ukraine or Georgia is today even before you account for that military spending.  At that level of per capita gdp, shortages happen.  Unless you can show that shortages were worse in 1937 or so compared to 1929 or 1928, the existence of shortages doesn't really tell us much.  Unless the economy gets derailed first, people in 2080 will talk about the shortages of consumer goods that plagued the US in the year 2014.

German economic shortages and rationing existed even relative to the standards of the time. Even a German living prior to WW1 would be in better shape economically than one living in the 1930s. So far as evidence goes, well, here you go (warning: LONG). I suppose Richard Evans is a Marxist so you might consider him biased, but his analysis is worthwhile.