Nazi Economics

Abolition of interest and the creation of a state bank ensures that there is essentially no national debt, no inflation, excessive taxes, and thereby allows for a far greater retention of personal wealth. The state also has far more money in order to finance public works, cultural endeavours and industrial ingenuity.
This is how the Germans were strong and creative enough to hold back the entire world for more than half a decade.

Attached: E592C9ED-8996-4CF0-8B26-26CA8DFE64C3.jpg (1259x1769, 813.53K)

Argentina proved that right wing socialism is only marginally better than left wing socialism in terms of pure economics. Arguably its much better culturally but not economically.

complete abolishment of debt-based money (first thing Hitler did was to forbid taking interest) solves almost all problems instantly.
source : the fucking "German miracle" that happened as soon as Hitler did. educate yourself, shill

>Abolition of interest
So, no private loans at all? What made people even return state issues loans as well?
>no inflation
Minimal inflation of 1-2% yearly incentivizes investment and spending to boost the economy - lack of it makes big money often pocketed for reserves since there is no economic penalty for doing so
> no excessive taxes
> also far more money to spend for the government
Where do they get the "more money" part then?

>educate yourself, shill
Nigger, I am asking a genuine question to exactly educate myself since most docs on Nazi Germany are about how "ebil and bed jormany was"
>complete abolishment of debt-based money
So, nobody gives anybody loans at all then? What is the point otherwise?
And how does the government ensure debts being paid?

'Reprivatisierung,' or re-privatization of industry, the thing that makes the npc-nazi seethe. NS is NOT socialism.

Better than the EU enslaving Germany to support the mongrel EU countries amerimongrel.

Basically the NatSoc shut down the private banks ability to create money (credit) and transferred that over to the government

> alongside the 'Mefo' bills, were now non-interest-bearing Reichsschatzanweisungen ('U-Schiitze': Reich treasury notes) and LieJerschatzanweisungen (supply treasury notes), which came into circulation from 1938/9 onwards.
> From 1934 to 1938, the Nazis funded rearmament through 12 billion RMs worth of MeFo bills.19 These MeFo bills allowed the government to exclude this figure from their official expenditure statements (so no inflation could occur)
> An ancillary effect of increased private reinvestment was that large investment banks lost a considerable amount of business since companies no longer needed industrial loans to finance newprojects.31 Consequently, companies became more dependent on the Reich than investment banks because the Reich controlled the imports of raw material that production required. The Nazis’ capital controls handcuffed the investment banks and they essentially became depositories for MeFo bills

So basically money printing except currency was only issued in proportion to the amount of new goods and services. Interest rates were controlled by the government and private banks lost their control over the nations credit (money supply).

Exchange controls were also implemented to stop speculators from being able to crash the RM and to reduce dependence on foreign loans. Barter was introduced to circumnavigate the fact that Germany had no gold or foreign exchange and refused to take out loans from London or New York to finance its foreign trade like it had in the 20's.

Attached: Hitler Smashes International Finance.jpg (552x800, 369.39K)

I am seeing a lot of economic policies that would usually suck massive sub-saharan balls if used for a long time or under wrong leadership, and simply worked because Adolf was a god-tier leader

>re-privatization of industry
So, basically capitalism?

>Exchange controls
Price capping to stop inflation?

"To put industry in the hands of the government as you would have it would result in an end of all progress." Hitler, to Strasser

It's true that a lot of power was centralized in the government. An incompetent or malicious government would have been had more of a negative impact than the same government in charge of a more libertarian economy. Either way you have a problem because power consolidates (in corporations, in banks, or in the government).

A big motivating factor for the U.S and U.K to fight the war was in order to maintain the gold standard which German foreign trade methods were eliminating world wide.

> British Colonel John C. Scott who gave an election speech on August 14, 1947 revealed the real underlying issues of the World War II. Scott claimed that at the conclusion of military operations in Poland a war by telegram was waged between the Allies and the German Foreign Office. He was one of the transmitters in those negotiations.
The Allies gave the Reich two conditions, and their acceptance would have brought about an immediate cessation of hostilities, and a free rein for Germany in Poland. Those conditions were, Germany must return to the Gold Standard and the Leage of Freemasonry must be readmitted to Germany. This was not published until November 6, 1947 in “Tomorrow”, which closed its article by stating:
“Some 55 million people had to die to make the Gold Standard in Germany permissible.”

When Hitler was defeated the U.S imposed the Bretton Woods system on most of the world which was the gold standard. A Nazi victory would have made the U.S gold stock worthless and made international finance lost its profits it makes through financing world trade.

Attached: Gold Stock to become Uselss.jpg (1134x985, 172.02K)

>American education

No, exchange controls is when the government disallows citizens or foreigners to exchange its currency for another or take its currency out of the country and use it internationally.

wtf kind of answer is this lmao
wtf are you talking about lmao

It was an economic system that resembled China's, except where they started was different, and their overall goals were other. Yet, they functioned in much the same way.

China has a hybrid between socialism and capitalism, but its original philosophy is that property is theft. And the land belongs to the people, but people buying real estate are merely leasing the land from the people. Yet, with Germany's National Socialism, people still owned property but weren't free to do with their property as they were willing.

Klaus Schwab's Stakeholder Capitalism resembles Adolf Hitler's National Socialism. Schwab says he has taken characteristics from Chinese socialism and Western capitalism. Most people won't own anything, but those who do have to answer to a board of "stakeholders" who are supposed to represent the people. This is still very much like Hitler's National Socialism because German businesses and private corporations had owners and shareholders but were required to work with the German government closely.

However, the key to Hitler's success was that the German military invaded other countries and took their gold and put that gold into the German government's vaults. This enabled Germany to print its way out of a depression while keeping the value of its currency high.

Attached: blonde-with-ak-and-leather-jacket.jpg (622x479, 48.93K)

Oh yeah, Strasser was almost a Marxist, I remember. However your original comment still doesn't explain what exactly was so original about natsoc economics

Distributism could mostly solve the issue of power in corporations or big banks - can't happen if big corps or big banks don't exist

The (((Gold Standard))) was the key to Great Britain and the City of London's control over world trade and credit.

Attached: Rothschild Octopus.jpg (800x522, 140.56K)

most pol nazis think the nsdap was basically socialism for White people. Absolute retarded cowardice. The term "Privatization" was coined in NS Germany ffs. Personal tax rate was 0%-2%

Attached: reprivatisierung.jpg (1068x987, 847.25K)

Free markets with restrictions on the bankers instead of the innovators. What's so hard to figure out?