These guys are pretty based.
They support FREE MARKETS and NATIONALISM.
Two things that make a country great.
Sometimes when you see these right wing parties in europe they're retarded and mix socialism into their policies.
The right wing should support economic freedom and real wealth creation.
I hope they take over the government next election.
>FREE MARKETS and NATIONALISM.
But they are opposites.
No they aren't kill yourself eurocuck.
free market is about making a profit
nationalism is taking care of your own
not the same, amerilard
>free market is about making a profit
Yes, making a profit for white people, making your entire country rich.
This is how many european countries became rich.
>not the same, amerilard
Nobody said they were the same you brainwashed eurocuck. It's just that they are both great and compliment each other.
It's hilarious watching brainwashed leftist euros desire socialism and hate free markets.
It's like they WANT to be poor.
maybe because we realise that capitalism and big corporations are the biggest enemies of the white race
it's brain washing us into desiring material wealth
to climb to the top of the corporate ladder, which is really a pile of corpses
tribalism or national socialism is the only way
>maybe because we realise that capitalism and big corporations are the biggest enemies of the white race
But they're not.
We need WHITE corporations building things and making society more productive?
Why the fuck would you want white people to be poor?
Holy shit kill yourself you commie cum licker.
>it's brain washing us into desiring material wealth
There's nothing wrong with acquiring material wealth to improve the wellbeing and happiness of yourself and your family. Also nobody ever said material wealth is the only thing people should strive towards.
>tribalism or national socialism is the only way
Nobody wants to be poor and work 12 hour days you commie faggot.
You are correct. The Founding Fathers were both. You can be anti-government, nationalist and a free marketer. They were. Nice flag! :)
>You are correct. The Founding Fathers were both. You can be anti-government, nationalist and a free marketer. They were. Nice flag! :)
BASED user
capitalism is subversive as hell. why did capitalists for migration? because they could make a buck from it. they gave no fuck about their people, it was all about personal profit. free market radicals, namely the bongs and burgers were the ones suffering the most from immigration, and are now. after institutionalizing capitalism in germany we started sharing their fate too.
so no, fuck capitalism. free market radicals are almost as bad as commies, probably even worse.
>capitalism is subversive as hell
what is it subverting?
>why did capitalists for migration?
Because many of them are leftists and jews.
You're fucking stupid though, Japan has a fuckton of corporations and they have extremely restricted immigration policies.
How do you explain that?
Gas yourself commie.
>after institutionalizing capitalism in germany we started sharing their fate too.
LMAO
You don't even have anything resembling a free market in Germany.
If you did then you would become as rich as Switzerland or how Sweden used to be.
>so no, fuck capitalism. free market radicals are almost as bad as commies, probably even worse.
We want to make you rich, make it so you have a shorter workweek, increase your living standards and you're somehow against this?
Why are you such a cuck that hates white people?
Capitalism is eugenic and based as fuck as long as it doesn't turn into crony phoney capitalism based on elastic phoney money. The end of the Gold Standard and the start of phoney Central Bank money was the start of the end.
>The end of the Gold Standard and the start of phoney Central Bank money was the start of the end.
omg this.
This is the ultimate redpill but people just can't accept it and they want to be poor.
Wanna get rid of progressivism and all the gimme dats? End Central Banking. As soon as we go back to an economy where you have to PRODUCE to make money or get ahead (instead of leeching off taxpayers) this whole thing changes for the better. I would recommend constitutional money, gold or silver. Get your own mint and become your own bank. When people realize how easy it would be to take their country back....
Why not just have a constitutional amendment that it's illegal for the government to print money.
It would basically be the same thing and we wouldn't have to carry gold around, and gold could be used in things like electronics.
That or cryptos.
They don't print money. That's how the Fed got around that loophole. Besides the govt is corrupt as the founding fathers knew it would be. This will have to be organic and come from the population on its own until they have wrestled control away from central powers.
It always amazes me how Eurofags think that the political mores of the time are universal truths.
AfD seems Naziesque to me, though. Yes, their stated platform is pretty reasonable, but then you have their party officials saying inflammatory shit, like close the borders all the way, Germans need to a do a 180 on their opinion of the holocaust, etc. Reactionary parties are rarely a good thing.
This thread yet another reason showing us that the greatest enemy of the white race are the americans.
I would dance the day america got nuked
>get btfo
>whine about it and claim you're right 45 minutes later
Socialist eurocuck genocide best day of my life.
>what is it suverting
national unity. why? because it is easier to exploit fragmented people, than united people. also capitalism pushes for mindless consumerism and wastes a fuckton of otherwise useful resources for petty bullshit.
>b-but japan
memeflagfag names one country, that is a unique case. well done, but even japan imports foreigners. name any other capitalist society, and you see how much they care for unity.
>You don't even have anything resembling a free market in Germany.
bullshit. and we could have been just as rich as the swiss or sweden, if we hadn't to pay reparations, had to rebuild eastern germany.
>Why are you such a cuck that hates white people?
meme flag faggot calls someone else a cuck. you are the biggest cucks on earth, sucking dicks, the moment your bull waves some fiat money in front of your face, because of muh free markets.
>They support FREE MARKETS
Are we talking the actual meaning (ie free access to markets), or are we talking the corporatist shill meaning (corporations should be able to do whatever they want without the government regulating them.
Is there any difference?
>national unity. why? because it is easier to exploit fragmented people, than united people
Free markets don't prevent you from uniting people.
>also capitalism pushes for mindless consumerism and wastes a fuckton of otherwise useful resources for petty bullshit.
No, it doesn't, the government is what wastes resources.
>memeflagfag names one country, that is a unique case. well done
Because it's right and btfo your stupid argument, many countries can do this, it's not impossible.
>but even japan imports foreigners
A really tiny amount, who cares?
>bullshit.
AHAHAHA
Fuck you
Germany is one of the most over regulated shitholes on earth.
>and we could have been just as rich as the swiss or sweden, if we hadn't to pay reparations, had to rebuild eastern germany.
Bullshit, you need a free market to be rich.
You would have been richer than those countries if you had a real free market with no central bank.
>meme flag faggot calls someone else a cuck.
You literally want yourself and everyone around you to live in poverty.
How are you not a cuck?
>the moment your bull waves some fiat money in front of your face,
I literally don't support fiat money lol.
>because of muh free markets.
Yes, I want myself and my family to be well off.
You don't because you're a kike.
>Are we talking the actual meaning (ie free access to markets), or are we talking the corporatist shill meaning (corporations should be able to do whatever they want without the government regulating them.
There is only one meaning, free markets, economic freedom.
Businesses can do what they want but have to follow the rule of law. If they fuck with people and ruin their lives they will be punished etc
Didn't you get BTFO twice already?
Gas yourself you commie piece of shit.
Can you be any more teenager? I want you and your ilk to go back to plebbit
>Can you be any more teenager?
Look I found a picture of yourself.
Absolute manchild that wants mommy government to change his diapers.
It's hilarious you got btfo and had no argument and are now whining like a faggot.
Please gas yourself already.
>There is only one meaning, free markets, economic freedom
Neg, the original meaning of the term referred to free access to markets. For example if it costs noone any money to travel to a local marketplace or start a business selling food, that is a free market, but if they have to pay a toll to use a road or bridge to access the market, or pay a bunch of fees to legally set up that business, that is not a free market.
>the original meaning of the term referred to free access to markets
who gives a shit?
Nobody uses the term in that way anymore.
>or pay a bunch of fees to legally set up that business,
If the fees are from the government, then yes, it's not a free market.
>its okay for oligarchs and monopolists to create a locked down market that noone else can profit off of, as long as it isnt the government.
you libtards crack me up
Yes they are.
Sounds pretty great to me.
>close the borders all the way
>180 on their opinion of the holocaust
What's wrong with these though?
No they aren't faggot. The US was nationalistic and had nearly a free market for almost the entire time it's been a country (up until the late1800s).
>he actually thinks it's possible for firms to monopolize a market without the government's help
It's actually not and there is loads of evidence supporting this.
Why do you think these large corporations lobby the government to be more controlled?
Anti-libertarians are usually corporate whores themselves.
You support central banking right? lol
>if I keep pretending it is, it will be
lol
Socialism is at odds with nationalism.
It hurts people in the country and makes them reliant on the government instead of being self-sufficient.
Free market nationalism is best.
Nobody wants to live in a poverty stricken shithole.
Oh wow yeah you sure showed me with all that evidence your claims rely upon
No, they're not. They have nothing to do with each other
Okay,
During the 1800s in USA there was massive market competition and zero anti-trust laws.
Every time companies tried forming monopolies, the market itself would break them up, it would simply create a massive profit opportunity for another company to take the market share of the "monopoly". They were proven impossible time and time again.
Surely in this period of time there would be an example of a real monopoly that wasn't formed from government intervention.
Go on, post one, I'm waiting cunt.
inb4 debeers(government created and maintained)
inb4 standard oil(63% market share a year before the government foolishly broke them up)
oh yeah sure mate, the thing thats going to resolve this argument is whether or not ANY monopolies began without government intervention 200 years ago in the USA.
Lets clarify some shit, yeah? You're saying that it is impossible for any monopolies to form without government influence, Y/N? If Y, all it takes to prove you wrong is one monopoly in the history of the planet to have formed without the government. If N, then we don't disagree.
Let me be clear, I am not saying the government is a good guy or corporations are bad guys, I am saying that whether or not the rich cunts trying to leech money out of the masses are part of the government or part of a private organisation is irrelevant.
>the thing thats going to resolve this argument is whether or not ANY monopolies began without government intervention 200 years ago in the USA.
Yes.
It was the most free market period in American history and lasted for decades.
Surely there would be free market monopolies created during this time.
Oh wait, they didn't and you are an idiot.
They don't even form now and you are completely clueless on economics.
>I am saying that whether or not the rich cunts trying to leech money out of the masses are part of the government or part of a private organisation is irrelevant.
All you have to know is a free market with no central banks and very low taxes will result in a massive increase in living standards for the average person.
You didnt answer the question. Do you believe that no monopolies have ever been created without government interference, yes or no? As far as I can tell, you mean to say yes, but even you can see how retarded this is so you're dancing around the issue.
>All you have to know is a free market with no central banks and very low taxes will result in a massive increase in living standards for the average person.
No, that gets you invaded/overthrown by the USA.
>Free markets and pride in your country are inversely related
>thinking OP was saying they were
Take off your helmet, Olaf, it stifles your vision
>Do you believe that no monopolies have ever been created without government interference, yes or no?
Yes I do.
Show me one existing.
I'll wait.
>No, that gets you invaded/overthrown by the USA.
It's worth a fucking try.
You people are fucking pussies for supporting all of this other radical political shit but when it comes to central banks it's "oh no, that's too radical, USA would destroy whatever country did that, oh so scare"
>socialism and nationalism are interrelated
kike detected
Whats their gun rights policy?
I remember reading their leader was encouraging germans to arm up in case of terrorists.
National socialists basically want modern Venezuela but with white people lol
Every monopoly in history that came about as a result of one company buying out all the competitors. Right now, australian media is trending towards a monopolistic state because media ownership laws are being dismantled. Other examples of companies that achieved monopoly or near monopolies not due to government action include Luxottica, Steam (the online vidya distribution platform), Unilever, Microsoft, and Facebook.
>It's worth a fucking try.
Not if we don't know it will work, or know that it wont work. I'm sorry if I dont have absolute faith in one retards ramblings on Sup Forums when it comes to economic theory.
They lost because their party emblems and posters look exactly like ready for hillary
It's like Krautanons don't know how to meme-war.
...
"Wealth creation" is just a euphemism for exploiting hundreds to make a few rich.
With the amount of wealth that currently exists in 1st world countries everyone could live comfortably, but you fucks are brainwashed into thinking we need to make more and more
>Every monopoly in history that came about as a result of one company buying out all the competitors.
But these were never monopolies.
Just because they got a large portion of market share didn't make them monopolies.
Your argument is wrong.
>Right now, australian media is trending towards a monopolistic state because media ownership laws are being dismantled.
Oh so, it's not actually a monopoly. Okay.
You're wrong.
Also news is fucking everywhere and television is dying, this argument is fucking stupid.
>Luxottica, Steam (the online vidya distribution platform), Unilever, Microsoft, and Facebook.
Literally NONE of these are monopolies.
What a pathetic post, just close the tab already, holy shit.
I cringed hard.
>I'm sorry if I dont have absolute faith in one retards ramblings on Sup Forums
What ramblings, there is actual evidence of it working perfectly.
USA during the 1870s to 1890s was very close to a free market and had massive economic growth year after year while wages constantly grew and prices fell.
lmao you actually support central banks too, I wonder what it's like being a legit cuckold.
>"Wealth creation" is just a euphemism for exploiting hundreds to make a few rich.
I wonder what it's like to be this fucking stupid.
You fucking retard.
Wealth creation means more machines, factories, warehouses, businesses etc so the economic productivity of workers goes up, prices go down so workers can afford to buy more.
The main benefactor of economic production and wealth creation is the poor and middle class.
The working class buys and consumes 99% of all consumer goods in the economy, the capitalist class consumes almost nothing compared to them.
What don't you understand about this?
You are a complete fucking moron.
Holy shit we need to kill these economic illiterates, they are destroying humanity with their ignorance.
>With the amount of wealth that currently exists in 1st world countries everyone could live comfortably
Bullshit, all of the wealth either goes to governments and wall street, thanks to the federal reserve OR it simply gets wasted.
America is actually LESS economically productive than it was in the 50s-60s. That's why living standards have stagnated.
Based user, dont listen to him. I'm portuguese, a proud minarchist and patriot of my country. Keep sending them truth bombs user
Thanks.
I'm just so sick of these socialist cucks.
When will there be a country that implements free markets?
All it takes is ONE fucking country to implement a real free market and said country would be economically productive as fuck, people would see that it works.
We have something close to free markets in Europe. It's called Switzerland user
liar
Every monopoly in history that came about because that company lobbied the government to created a large regulatory overburden that crushes all the smaller businesses and/or would-be competitors. They make it to where only companies with a massive legal team and massive lobbying arm can succeed. You are retarded if you think giving the state more control over the economy will solve anything.
I wish I lived in Switzerland.
I love their mostly private healthcare system. It really proves socialist cucks wrong.
Also their living standards are extremely high.
Whenever I bring up switzerland, the responses I get back are "well they are a banking country and thats why they are rich and it won't work anywhere else hurrrr"
Only it wouldn't be poor
Because white people
>This
Switzerland is run largely like how the USA was suppose to be run.
Also bring up Singapore since they have arguably the most market based healthcare systems in the modern world and it's also the most efficient healthcare system in the world by a long shot
yes because white people have magic anti-poverty genes infused in their DNA which makes them immune from the laws of economics
this is how retarded you sound
Thanks.
Also this
this too
>Its a banking
Yeah, I've heard that argument way to many times. They have one of the most patents per capita in the world, inovation in Europe comes from there. People are just plain ignorant.
Also user, I think discussing with commies is just a waste of time, for example my country has the socialist party in power atm, and I couldn't give less shits. A day or another and this shit will blow up because socialism is unsustainable in the long run as you know. What we are looking for will happen in time user, people have to learn first.
Yeah because NS Germany was such a third world shithole that achieved nothing and was on-par with African shitholes
Fuck off back to plebbit with your meme lolbiterian ideology
>Free Markets and Nationalism
>Are opposites
Please explain to us how those two things are mutually exclusive....
We will wait.
NS Germany only succeeded because at the start they implemented sound money, the very thing libertarians want
Also they later fucked this up and went keynesian as fuck which destroyed their economy.
NS Germany was only good at the very start.
There are a lot of retards under them but its not like there are other options. Economic plans seem to be rather decent tho.
Nice
>Implying it's National Socialism and not National Capitalism
We need something new....something fresh.
National-Capitalism. It's the same idea with respect to Ethnicity, but with the Free Markets open, and a limited government.
Win/WIN.
I'm okay with this.
But USA pre 1913 basically had this system.
Anyway, another thing I am in support of is severely limiting democracy by having an extremely long and complex constitution that forces free markets on the country and BANS socialist and social democratic parties from running in elections.
A country like this would be really amazing.
Banning political parties wouldn't be very democratic would it? What would be left to choose if they are banned?
lol fucking lying lolsperg, Germany succeeded because National Socialism is the only political, economical,social and governmental system created for the white race an white nations.
What have you lolbiterians ever done?
America and the Anglo-Sphere were all Fascist States in their creation.
Fascism is the natural European society , Sparta was one of the first Fascist nations in European History.
Your lolsperg ideology was created by a fucking kike, that tells me everything i need to know about you faggots, also other things like lolbiterians being civicucks and anti-third reich propagandists.
>The party insists on the primacy of "traditional" German culture and rejects Islam as a part of German society. It also questions the notion that climate change is man-made and wants to reverse Germany's ongoing transition to renewable energy sources
Why are all these "nationalist" parties always against alternative energy, I mean you even have alternative in your party name for fucks sake. These people want to protect their country but dont want cleaner air for their people? Seems like varg is right these parties are probably all koshered
>Banning political parties wouldn't be very democratic would it?
Exactly, democracy needs to be limited.
>What would be left to choose if they are banned?
Any other free market nationalist parties.
They would mostly compete on competence and loyalty to the people instead of actual political views.
>Germany succeeded because National Socialism is the only political, economical,social and governmental system created for the white race an white nations.
LMAO
Holy fuck you're a brainwashed cuck.
The USA made white people much more richer than Nazi germany ever did.
Socialism is literally for faggots.
You want the government to control every single thing you do because you're a pussified "man" that can't do things on his own.
>America and the Anglo-Sphere were all Fascist States in their creation.
No they weren't USA was basically a free market nationalist country.
>Your lolsperg ideology was created by a fucking kike
No, it wasn't.
There are some jews in the ideology yes, it doesn't mean they're bad simply because they're jews.
You can't refute what they said so you blame their ancestry. lol
>like lolbiterians being civicucks and
I'm more of a white nationalist, but okay.
>anti-third reich propagandists.
Nazi germany wasn't perfect you brainwashed bootlicker.
the market is what is going to get us off fossil fuels, the government is just fucking us over
The 1800s was a period whoch was dominated by local monopolies. The tech wasn't there for the nationwide monopolies we'd see later on, but much of the economy was not free nor competitive.
Regulations, tariffs, etc.
There's a reason so many of the richest of the time were smugglers, people who broke the law to ensure free trade (and we rewarded for the market).
Free trade is legalized smuggling, and smuggling is the most competitive you can get.
We'll be here forever.
To be democratic we have to ban those that are tearing apart the democracy from within. This is the paradox of democratic systems. They are never democratic as long as Marxist are tearing everything apart from the inside, but they also aren't democratic if you forcibly ban/remove Marxism/Marxist. Take your pick on which undemocratic democracy you want, I prefer the one without all the Marxist subversion and demoralization.
>The 1800s was a period whoch was dominated by local monopolies.
No it wasn't.
There weren't any monopolies.
Several companies tried to form monopolies but the free market destroyed them.
>The tech wasn't there for the nationwide monopolies we'd see later on
Even with technology, later on there was also NO monopolies.
You're a liar.
>but much of the economy was not free nor competitive.
The late 1800s was the most free and competitive time in american history actually.
Remember, this was the time of free banking.
>Regulations, tariffs, etc.
Top kek, there is far FAR more regulations and government intervention in the economy today than there was back then.
Compared to today, that time would be classified as a radical free market experiment.
THIS
Also america was founded on a republic.
I want to strengthen the republic aspect to the point of BANNING leftist political parties.
I want a nation where Hans-Hermann Hoppe is taught in the school systems, not Karl Marx.
THIS
>Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly
>US Steel wasn't a monopoly
>ALCOA wasn't a monopoly
>Public schools aren't a monopoly
What, please explain the steps which came to you coming up with that.
Also, that period of time was dominated by local monopolies, often run by families who would dominate a certain local industry. So you had Sam the fisher, whose family would own and run most of the ships out of the port. It's wasn't a monopolistic corporation, but the family still held a monopoly on fishing in the town.
Additionally, the 1800s was not the time of free banking. First you had regulations which made it illegal to have nationwide banking, additionally, for the first decade you had the National Bank still in existence.
The closest we got to free banking was the decade after the National Bank was dissolved, and that caused a depression because smalltime bankers can't be trusted.
plsplspls
Yep, this is how the USA was subverted. The US banking cartel was nearly destroyed in many instances (Jackson nearly killed it) but it unfortunately never died off. Nearly 100% of the problems in the world we face today can be traced back to the US and British banking cartels. God damn you Hamilton!
>>Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly
>>US Steel wasn't a monopoly
>>ALCOA wasn't a monopoly
None of these were monnopolies, just because you have a large market share because you were able to benefit society more doesn't make you a monopoly.
By the time standard oil was broken up, it only had 63% market share.
>>Public schools aren't a monopoly
These are owned by the government. Yes they are a monopoly, a government monopoly.
>Also, that period of time was dominated by local monopolies, often run by families who would dominate a certain local industry. So you had Sam the fisher, whose family would own and run most of the ships out of the port. It's wasn't a monopolistic corporation, but the family still held a monopoly on fishing in the town.
Lol even if this is even remotely true, it wasn't ILLEGAL to start your own fishing company. If it was illegal, that only proves my point about government intervention.
If stupid companies tried to form a monopoly in a free market and kept their prices high, it creates a massive profit opportunity for another firm to take their market share.
>Additionally, the 1800s was not the time of free banking.
the 1870s to 1890s were the period of mostly free banking, the rest of the 1800s were mixed systems to say the least
During this time of free banking, wages increased year after year, prices fell year after year and economic productivity increased dramatically year after year.
Banking cartels are so fucking evil.
The problem is that people are brainwashed and either don't know they exist or somehow think central banks benefit them.
/ncg/ - National Capitalism General
Like National Socialism, without the socialism label, swastika baggage, and dictatorship.
Capitalism, but with Nationalism to prevent (((globalism))).
Like Libertarianism, without the faggots, drugs, and mass migration.
Thread for discussion of the Jewish Question, Race Realism, National Capitalism, Anti-Communism, Fascism, Traditionalism, Physical Removal and Ethno-Nationalism. Share links, PDFs, reading, videos, and propaganda.
> SMASH MARXISM!
> PURGE DEGENERACY!
> DISMANTLE (((INTERNATIONAL BANKING)))!
What is National Capitalism?
National Capitalism is the recognition that all economic activity is practiced through the reality of capitalism. One cannot choose to participate in capitalism or not, they can only modify the position they participate in capitalism from. In National Capitalism, the nation works as a unit to compete with other nations in the global free market, preventing multinational corps from running the nation into the ground in favor of profits for the international cliques.
>Capitalist economic systems exist to provide private individuals with profits
No, economic systems exist within the reality of capitalism. There is no 'capitalist economic system'. There is no choosing whether or not you want to be a participant in capitalism. Every time you compete in the dating game you participate in capitalism. National Capitalism is the choice to compete within capitalism as a nation rather than as an individual. Socialism is the idea that you can circumvent capitalism through the state via wealth distribution, which is going to be inefficient 100% of the time, as opposed to the state working to compete more effectively within capitalism, thereby creating more wealth. In a socialist state, steel workers will look to the state for subsidies, in a capitalist one, the state will just help those workers find more competitive jobs doing something else.
>But Capitalism is about profits, Nationalism is about Nation, those things can’t go together right?
National Capitalism is about profits for the nation.
POLITICAL POSITION
nolanchart.com
1stirregulars.com
A good briefing that fails to mention race. Nations cannot be multiracial.
>What about race?
National Capitalism recognizes that real nations can only be made up of a single people. Multiracial societies will inevitably be balkanized by politicians that drive wedges between the groups, this cannot happen in a society with a single-race supermajority. America was explicitly built by Europeans, for other Europeans, as per the views of the founders and the Naturalization Act of 1790. The solution to the race problem is simple, close the borders and increase the White birthrate to 3-4 children per family until the demographics have been fixed. The Black birthrate is already below replacement, and the Hispanic birthrate is plummeting. Shut borders, increase birthrate, problem solved nonviolently.
foxnews.com
>Don’t we already have National Capitalism right now?
No, our current system is one of Globalism and welfare states.
International Capitalism or Globalism: A system where national sovereignty is broken down in favor of international business organizations, meant to serve business interests. Examples of this would be outsourcing, low or no tariffs, the destruction of labor unions, and open borders.
National Capitalism: Sovereignty is put ahead of international organizations, tariffs are applied, and borders are closed. The nation works to out compete rival international organizations and nations, and the profits are kept within the country. In National Capitalism, materialism is not the end goal, the betterment of the nation is the end goal.
pretty based
You should REALLY include more things about central banks in there
Monopolies aren't that it's illegal to start a business, that's socialism.
Monopolies are when a company has a dominant market share, either internationally, domestically, or locally, and can use that market share to insure that competitors cannot compete.
Standard Oil only had a 63% market share for the entire oil industry, but it held 90% of US refining assets, meaning it controlled the usage of oil, and use that power to ensure competitors and did not build any new refining assets with the help of local and state governments under its thumb.
In my example, Sams fishing family, while they do the community good by providing them fish, they could use both their social assets (Bob can't fish because he's not one of us) or financial assets (buying up all the waterfront) to ensure that no one except them fishes. Monopolies aren't by their nature bad (why we allow Google to exist), but they can use their power to harm to collective.
Additionally, between 1870 and 1890 was a period of fragmented and stifled banking. Regulations of capitalization and the ability for banks to operate branches in multiple states meant that every year, around harvest time, the US would face a liquidity crisis and often recessions because small banks didn't have the money to do buisness, and it would take months for that physical money to reach the farmers from the financial hubs (mostly Chicago)
That's the main reason Chicago banks argued against the founding of the fed, it would allow other banks in other cities to provide liquidity and services to the farmers of the Midwest.
Banking cartels are what stifle innovation, freedom, and the economy.
t. Banker
Will do bud, variety of topics are being fleshed out more now. This is a fusion of American Nationalism, Right Libertarianism, and National 'Socialism'. Obligatory discord shilling: 2Rngkg
>What about race?
National Capitalism recognizes that real nations can only be made up of a single people. Multiracial societies will inevitably be balkanized by politicians that drive wedges between the groups, this cannot happen in a society with a single-race supermajority. America was explicitly built by Europeans, for other Europeans, as per the views of the founders and the Immigration Act of 1790. The solution to the race question is simple, close the borders and increase the White birthrate to 3-4 children per family until the demographics have been reset. This is a non-violent, primarily cultural solution that can be implemented in large part without elections.
Libertarianism is a heavily divided ideology, the altright is dead, and National Socialism is a dead label. National Capitalism places all these groups, who already agree with one another, under the same label and flag. It is also a much more accurate label than any of these groups currently use, infinitely more advantageous to appeal to the public, and it drives the left to attack American imagery and ideals even more.
>Altright label is obviously dead since Charlottesville.
>Libertarians decided become ethnonationalists since non-whites keep voting to destroy the Constitution
>Natsocs are not actually socialists. Every time someone brings up the socialist label they shirk from it.
The 1930's National Socialists were not even Socialists. They either adopted the label to appeal to the atmosphere of the era, or at most the used a radically different definition of 'socialism' that in no way matches the modern understanding of the term.
I think USA was designed as a blueprint for a one world government. It started out great and looked to be just a melting pot and home away from home for Europeans. But the devil was in the details.