wew lad, this was derailed pretty quick. The question was,
"Redpill me on the banks Sup Forums
What were Hitler and Jackson onto? What about the banks and removing their influence allowed for a completely decimated Germany to become a prospering nation within just a few years? Why is it that the (((banks))) are advertised as the only option when every single time that someone has shit on them they've experienced unparalleled success?"
Start here, a simple way of understanding (((international finance))).
I like to think of money as a fluid, or a source of energy. This might be high level but stick with me.
Currently, money is created simply by creating debt, which is in turn just the promise to repay even more money than has been originally created.
In a closed economy, this is essentially grand scale theft. The federal reserve bank (a private entity) loans money at interest to the government, which is then dispersed through loans or funding etc.
From there the government taxes the population to pay back its debt to the federal reserve. If an economy was closed, this simply amounts to a cycle of pushing x amount out and getting x + interest back from the population through taxes.
Where does the money come from? Well the only place funding outside of a closed economy can come from is net positive trade from external economies.
If have done Econ 101 you'll know that if a perfect scenario trade is just a result of exchange in which an economy may receive a better suited allotment of goods based on their needs, the net value is still equal to the production of the economy.
Of course, one may profit off the trading of goods by exchanged at rates which favour their trade.
But given that all countries exist within the same system of debt based money, they are essentially funnelling cash around the world, hoping that their strategy will result in a net positive inflow and make their country rich. (This is of course overly simplistic, but you get the drift)
All the while the actual profiteers of the entire global economy is the initial lender of debt. That means on an infinite timeline, all money is siphoned to back to those lenders.
Hitler based the German economy off publicly funded labour, as in labour from the German people generated the basis for value. (It makes sense to hear, and turns the complexity of economics on its head).
Thank you based aussie for restarting this thread after derailing, this really helps explain the central problem with banks
...
It's called currentcy, for a reason
Paper money is representative of our labor, backed by our birth certificates which are actually surety bonds
question though: How do you simply "base" an economy off of labour? How does that work?
t. zero econ understanding
To continue, I'd just say that it was Hitler's monetary policy not his social policy that made him into the most vilified man in history.
Hence the holocaust was used to put down this idea forever, and turning a great European leader into the boogeyman.
I fear that the amount of disinformation out there combined with the power the words anti-semite and racist hold today, means we may never well see this crime brought to justice as it was in Nazi Germany.
Unless there is another Hitler, we could be doomed. Even Sup Forums is slowly being led astray.
It's important to note that Hitler is important not because Nazism is a perfected ideology, but because understanding what happened from 1933-1945 is the key to all of it, thats why is has forever been cast into the shadows as humanities worst hour.
It's fairly simple really, you trade paper money for labour or hours worked. This is how hitler rebuilt Germany's infrastructure.
From there, the Nazi Party focusses on becoming as self reliant as possible and maximising the efficiency of production, then used trade to source goods which they could not produce.
This is how it is supposed to work, because it drives an economy to be efficient and effective. This is why Nationalism is important and a sense of national greatness, it's the psychological driving force behind the economies growth.
If you feel like modern nations have something sick inside them, at the heart of them, they do. The value that we create as a population does not serve our nation and than in turn our people and ourselves, it serves the debt collectors.
you can still have labour-based currency administered through a strong national government, but you have to outlaw private lending to individuals. you can still allow for modern economic tools like investment but they would be heavily regulated instead of looking like the abortion that is today's global marketplace
And this is the essence of Socialist economics, USSR under Stalin had the same.