Political Roundtable Part IX

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

I just don't see how you can look at the performance of Germany's economy during that era relative to everyone else and conclude that it wasn't an economic success, at least for a decade or so.

Nate, this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

First of all, the German economy had absolutely cratered right after the US demanded their money back during the great depression. When Hitler came to power, there was nowhere to go but up.

But that doesn't even matter. He "improved" the economy by straight up ignoring the Treaty of Versailles and invading other countries.

All those reparations we had to pay after WWI? Nah, we're not paying them! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh, we can't re-militarize our country and force involuntary military service on whoever we choose? Too bad! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Austria doesn't want to be absorbed by Germany? The Nazi party will just overthrow their government and then "vote" on it! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How about any other country we want to occupy for their resources and cheap labor? Everyone is afraid of another world war, let's fire up the tanks! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hitler had economic "success" because he was simply willing to take (read: steal) land, resources, people, entire countries for German profit. He kept doing this until, you know, WWII happened.

I don't disagree with any of this. I never said Hitler's policies were just, fair, or even sustainable. I simply said that Germany's economy thrived to a much greater degree under Hitler than the other economies of the West. That's it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Hitler was a horrible person who killed millions. Nobody is denying this. But to understand his rise to power you have to fairly acknowledge that his policies were successful for a majority of the German population, at least for a while. He rose to power with the consent of the people, not via a military coup.

[gtn130]

I just don't see how you can look at the performance of Germany's economy during that era relative to everyone else and conclude that it wasn't an economic success, at least for a decade or so.

Nate, this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

First of all, the German economy had absolutely cratered right after the US demanded their money back during the great depression. When Hitler came to power, there was nowhere to go but up.

But that doesn't even matter. He "improved" the economy by straight up ignoring the Treaty of Versailles and invading other countries.

All those reparations we had to pay after WWI? Nah, we're not paying them! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh, we can't re-militarize our country and force involuntary military service on whoever we choose? Too bad! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Austria doesn't want to be absorbed by Germany? The Nazi party will just overthrow their government and then "vote" on it! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How about any other country we want to occupy for their resources and cheap labor? Everyone is afraid of another world war, let's fire up the tanks! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hitler had economic "success" because he was simply willing to take (read: steal) land, resources, people, entire countries for German profit. He kept doing this until, you know, WWII happened.

I don't disagree with any of this. I never said Hitler's policies were just, fair, or even sustainable. I simply said that Germany's economy thrived to a much greater degree under Hitler than the other economies of the West. That's it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Hitler was a horrible person who killed millions. Nobody is denying this. But to understand his rise to power you have to fairly acknowledge that his policies were successful for a majority of the German population, at least for a while. He rose to power with the consent of the people, not via a military coup.

None of his domestic economic policies worked. All of the Volks initiatives provided little to no economic impact.

The German economy prospered when they tore up the Treaty of Versailles and decided to militarize and invade other countries for their land, resources and labor.

If Trump invaded Canada and the US absorbed their economy, would you also be saying, "See guys, Trump is helping the US economy grow! A real economics wizard, this Trump guy!" ?

[montestewart]

Shenanigans? Nate... stop chiming in.

WTF?

I was talking about currency manipulation! Why is everybody always trying to get offended?

I think it was a joke. We can joke in this thread, right?

[nate33]

Shenanigans? Nate... stop chiming in.

WTF?

I was talking about currency manipulation! Why is everybody always trying to get offended?

I think it was a joke. We can joke in this thread, right?

Didn't seem like a joke to me.

[nate33]

None of his domestic economic policies worked. All of the Volks initiatives provided little to no economic impact.

The German economy prospered when they tore up the Treaty of Versailles and decided to militarize and invade other countries for their land, resources and labor.

This is just not true. His economic policies did work, at least at first. And they worked prior to the Germans invading anybody.

Hitler achieved notable economic and diplomatic successes during the first five years of his rule. Hitler substantially revived the economy. Unemployment, so pivotal in bringing him to power, had dropped from 6 million to less than 1 million between 1933 and 1937, this at a time when the US was still wallowing in the Depression. National production and income doubled during the same period. This was partly owing to Hitler's rearmament policy, but also to more benign forms of public spending. The world's first major highway system, the autobahns, began snaking across the country, and there was talk of providing every citizen with a cheap, standardized car, the people's car, or Volkswagen.

Nazism took root in the world's most powerful scientific culture, boasting half of the world's Nobel Prizes and a sizable fraction of the world's patents. German science and medicine were the envy of the world, and it was to Germany - the "land of scholars and poets" - that many academic hopefuls flocked to cut their scientific teeth.

The Third Reich cannot be thought of as an icebound retreat into intellectual slumber: think of television, jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, electronic computers, the electron microscope, atomic fission, data processing, industrial murder factories, and racial research-all of which either were first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at that time. There are innovations in the area of basic physics (nuclear fission, discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1938), hormone and vitamin research, automotive engineering (the Volkswagen was supposed to be the "people's car"), pharmacology, and synthetic gasoline and rubber (I. G. Farben in 1942 controlled more than 90 percent of the world's synthetic rubber production). The nerve gas sarin and the chemical warfare agent tabun are both I. G. Farben inventions of Third Reich vintage - as is the opiate methadone, synthesized in 1941, and Demerol, created about this time with the name "pethidine."

There are many other examples. Nazi aeronautic engineers designed the first intercontinental ballistic missiles-never actually assembled-and it was Germans in the 1940s who built the first jet ejection seat. German engineers built the world's first autobahns, and the world's first magnetic tape recording is of a speech by Hitler. The first television broadcast strong enough to escape the planet featured Hitler's speech at the opening of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-drittes-reich-economy.htm

I think it is fair to criticize that much of this prosperity was due to massive, unsustainable deficit spending. But let's not act like there weren't some economic successes.

And, to reiterate, I'm not defending Hitler, advocating for his policies, or in any way endorsing him. I'm just being historically accurate about the German economy in the 1930's. Tragically, Hitler utilized the fruits of his success to administer one of the worst genocides of all time.

[AFM]

No funny business guys. No horseplay allowed daddy.

[JWizmentality]

Glad to see these voter ID laws struck down. Such brazen, disgusting, blatant discrimination.

[Induveca]

Looks like Trump might have finally gone too far. Insulting the parents of a dead soldier .... not a great idea. I am pretty sure he is incapable of apologizing. Should be interesting watching him try to wiggle out of this.

Yeah well played by the Democrats. Trump was never appealing but I found him amusing. He can't keep his mouth shut....

[montestewart]

WTF?

I was talking about currency manipulation! Why is everybody always trying to get offended?

I think it was a joke. We can joke in this thread, right?

Didn't seem like a joke to me.

I forget where, (this board, Hannity?) but somewhere recently the Nazi's activities were referred to as shenanigans. Anyway, that's how I read it.

[nate33]

I think it was a joke. We can joke in this thread, right?

Didn't seem like a joke to me.

I forget where, (this board, Hannity?) but somewhere recently the Nazi's activities were referred to as shenanigans. Anyway, that's how I read it.

Oh. I had no idea. I was honestly referring solely to currency manipulation. I wasn't at all trying to make light of Hitler's horrific genocide.

[nate33]

Looks like Trump might have finally gone too far. Insulting the parents of a dead soldier .... not a great idea. I am pretty sure he is incapable of apologizing. Should be interesting watching him try to wiggle out of this.

Yeah well played by the Democrats. Trump was never appealing but I found him amusing. He can't keep his mouth shut....

Yup. It's always 3 steps forward 2 steps back with Trump. He'll recover, but he's making this so much harder on himself than it needs to be.

[gtn130]

None of his domestic economic policies worked. All of the Volks initiatives provided little to no economic impact.

The German economy prospered when they tore up the Treaty of Versailles and decided to militarize and invade other countries for their land, resources and labor.

This is just not true. His economic policies did work, at least at first. And they worked prior to the Germans invading anybody.

Hitler achieved notable economic and diplomatic successes during the first five years of his rule. Hitler substantially revived the economy. Unemployment, so pivotal in bringing him to power, had dropped from 6 million to less than 1 million between 1933 and 1937, this at a time when the US was still wallowing in the Depression. National production and income doubled during the same period. This was partly owing to Hitler's rearmament policy, but also to more benign forms of public spending. The world's first major highway system, the autobahns, began snaking across the country, and there was talk of providing every citizen with a cheap, standardized car, the people's car, or Volkswagen.

Nazism took root in the world's most powerful scientific culture, boasting half of the world's Nobel Prizes and a sizable fraction of the world's patents. German science and medicine were the envy of the world, and it was to Germany - the "land of scholars and poets" - that many academic hopefuls flocked to cut their scientific teeth.

The Third Reich cannot be thought of as an icebound retreat into intellectual slumber: think of television, jet-propelled aircraft, guided missiles, electronic computers, the electron microscope, atomic fission, data processing, industrial murder factories, and racial research-all of which either were first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at that time. There are innovations in the area of basic physics (nuclear fission, discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1938), hormone and vitamin research, automotive engineering (the Volkswagen was supposed to be the "people's car"), pharmacology, and synthetic gasoline and rubber (I. G. Farben in 1942 controlled more than 90 percent of the world's synthetic rubber production). The nerve gas sarin and the chemical warfare agent tabun are both I. G. Farben inventions of Third Reich vintage - as is the opiate methadone, synthesized in 1941, and Demerol, created about this time with the name "pethidine."

There are many other examples. Nazi aeronautic engineers designed the first intercontinental ballistic missiles-never actually assembled-and it was Germans in the 1940s who built the first jet ejection seat. German engineers built the world's first autobahns, and the world's first magnetic tape recording is of a speech by Hitler. The first television broadcast strong enough to escape the planet featured Hitler's speech at the opening of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-drittes-reich-economy.htm

I think it is fair to criticize that much of this prosperity was due to massive, unsustainable deficit spending. But let's not act like there weren't some economic successes.

And, to reiterate, I'm not defending Hitler, advocating for his policies, or in any way endorsing him. I'm just being historically accurate about the German economy in the 1930's. Tragically, Hitler utilized the fruits of his success to administer one of the worst genocides of all time.

No, he tore up the Treaty of Versailles in 1933. Thereafter they had economic success. Again, Hitler's authoritarian regime was an economic power only after they decided to stop playing by the rules.

[BigA]

Looks like Trump might have finally gone too far. Insulting the parents of a dead soldier .... not a great idea. I am pretty sure he is incapable of apologizing. Should be interesting watching him try to wiggle out of this.

Yeah well played by the Democrats. Trump was never appealing but I found him amusing. He can't keep his mouth shut....

Yup. It's always 3 steps forward 2 steps back with Trump. He'll recover, but he's making this so much harder on himself than it needs to be.

Trump makes so many outrageous statements that the impact of any one of them is diminished. The media is getting itself worked up about the Khan family, but probably later today he'll say something else that will knock that off the news. For his supporters, I guess that's part of the appeal. But anyone who expected Trump to "pivot" to acting more "presidential" is going to be disappointed.

[montestewart]

Didn't seem like a joke to me.

I forget where, (this board, Hannity?) but somewhere recently the Nazi's activities were referred to as shenanigans. Anyway, that's how I read it.

Oh. I had no idea. I was honestly referring solely to currency manipulation. I wasn't at all trying to make light of Hitler's horrific genocide.

No, I didn't think so, that's why I thought it was some ribbing related to the prior instance.

[nate33]

No, he tore up the Treaty of Versailles in 1933. Thereafter they had economic success. Again, Hitler's authoritarian regime was an economic power only after they decided to stop playing by the rules.

Germany had to pay 2.5% of GDP per year in reparations. That alone does not explain their turnaround. Their GDP advantage over the competition throughout most of the 1930's was much higher than 2.5%.

[BigA]

At the same time, Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on so many different issues that a competent campaign would have a ton of material for ads, etc. At this point, Trump isn't really hitting her on any of it.

For example, from the reporting by the NY Times, WaPost, etc., since last year, we now know that all the promises and representations that she made about the Clinton Foundation and Bill's speaking fees when she became Secretary of State (e.g. no donations from entities with business before the State Dept., full disclosure of donors, etc.) were broken.

Is she going to be asked by anyone what will happen if she's elected president, with much greater influence over the entire government? Will the Clinton Foundation be free to accept donations from entities seeking favorable treatment from the government? Will there be any restrictions on who Bill and Chelsea can accept speaking fees from? I can't wait for Chelsea's first $500K speech to business groups in favor of the TPP, followed in short order by Hillary's decision that she'll be able to support TPP after all. Will the Clinton Foundation refrain from setting up offshore affiliates in order to accept offshore donations without disclosure requirements? To the extent that she makes any promises, why should we believe them given all the promises made in 2009 were broken?

I'm not expecting George Stephanopoulo or Andrea Mitchell to raise any of these questions (Jake Tapper might, but Hillary hasn't had a press conference since last year). There's a good chance that she'll skate into the White House with the entire Clinton pay-to-play machinery in tact and not even seriously scrutinized.

[payitforward]

Well don't dip out of the thread like that. Your pedantry is more suited for this thread than anywhere else (and I really mean that as a compliment).

Awww... dawg!

[BigA]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Not really surprising. To the extent that we can discern Trump's actual positions on issues, he's running to Clinton's left on just about everything except immigration. Trump's actual plan to deal with ISIS is substantively the same as Clinton's (and Obama's btw), he'll just add angry tweets to complement the ineffective military action.

Many of the people who think of themselves as conservatives notice this. The foundation of the Trump movement is not ideological, it's based on class resentments. People who believe that they're being screwed by the so-called establishment.

[DCZards]

At the same time, Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on so many different issues that a competent campaign would have a ton of material for ads, etc. At this point, Trump isn't really hitting her on any of it.

For example, from the reporting by the NY Times, WaPost, etc., since last year, we now know that all the promises and representations that she made about the Clinton Foundation and Bill's speaking fees when she became Secretary of State (e.g. no donations from entities with business before the State Dept., full disclosure of donors, etc.) were broken.

Is she going to be asked by anyone what will happen if she's elected president, with much greater influence over the entire government? Will the Clinton Foundation be free to accept donations from entities seeking favorable treatment from the government? Will there be any restrictions on who Bill and Chelsea can accept speaking fees from? I can't wait for Chelsea's first $500K speech to business groups in favor of the TPP, followed in short order by Hillary's decision that she'll be able to support TPP after all. Will the Clinton Foundation refrain from setting up offshore affiliates in order to accept offshore donations without disclosure requirements? To the extent that she makes any promises, why should we believe them given all the promises made in 2009 were broken?

I'm not expecting George Stephanopoulo or Andrea Mitchell to raise any of these questions (Jake Tapper might, but Hillary hasn't had a press conference since last year). There's a good chance that she'll skate into the White House with the entire Clinton pay-to-play machinery in tact and not even seriously scrutinized.

Agree that some of Clinton's vulnerabilities are linked to the Clinton Foundation and questions that could be raised regarding money accepted by the foundation from foreign countries while she was Sec. of State.

However, the answer to the questions regarding the future are an easy "No." If Hillary is president, there would (I believe by law ) restrictions put on the money that members of her family can accept as speaking fees, donations to the foundation, etc. At a minimum, the Clinton's and their allies are politically savvy (and have been in the White House before) so I doubt that they leave themselves open to getting burnt by doing things like hiding money offshore or showing favor to a country or corporation that dropped big money on Bill or Chelsea or the Clinton Foundation.