Let's look back on what Trump has actually accomplished despite all the naysayers in the lying press, shall we?
>Rebuilt Congress after it was burned down by communists >Ended the western demilitarized zone imposed on us by France >Rebuilt the army, making it on par with other great powers >Saved the economy by empowering private corporations with state funds for stimulus >Built our nation's first freeway system >Fortified the border >Drastically lowered unemployment >Drastically boosted our GDP >put the Jews into labor camps >reformed the executive branch with many modern administrative departments >ended democracy >inspired millions upon millions to be patriotic again with mass rallies >burned degenerate books >passed miscegenation laws to protect our future >gained us numerous allies in an anti-Soviet alliance that we lead
I truly believe that by the end of Trump's second term in 1941, America will once again be the premier world power and conquer our neighbors and enemies for the greater glory of the American race!
>Hitler >doesn't want gun control He's doing a bad job
Luke Price
>>Rebuilt Congress after it was burned down by communists You mean swarm it with even more neoliberals, right? Right?
Jaxon Diaz
...
Brayden Barnes
No, I'm talking about the building itself. Antifa burned it down on February 27th. Maybe it did not get much coverage in Britain?
Isaac Bailey
If you don't want the hard right to come to power, stop progressing into weimar you fucking idiots/ >Wiemar degeneracy, increased distrust of the media, aggression from antifacists, increased awareness of international and central banking's grip on the world You are one economic disaster away from pre-nazi germany and when it comes the world won't be able to stop it this time. It's going to be glorious
Hunter Ward
>the lying press, yeah, the press is the one who can't get anything done and golfs all fucking day
Isaac Williams
So you're saying Trump really turn out to be literally Hitler?
Ayden Cruz
Honestly user, Weimar's problems were pretty much entirely caused by the Triple Entente and the Great Depression. Their economy was well on the way to recovery before Hitler wormed his way into power and he just took credit for it.
Parliamentary democracy and weak politicians caused the rise of Hitler.
Isaiah Watson
He literally changed the finacial policy of the country to be value based instead of debt based and printed a new currency, the reichsmark after expelling thre jewish bankers. To say he did nothing and just took credit for the speed of recovery of germany is laughable.
When your currency goes from being loaned to you from a private bank that controls printing to being printed by the government itself it is simple economics that that system will be better.
Would the economy have recovered? yes. Germany is in an amazing trade position and the people work hard. Would it have recovered as fast? almost certainly not.
Joshua Long
...
Parker Perry
He devalued the currency and hid it with deficit spending and creative accounting. Your argument is based on subjective ideals, rather than any particular economic reality. The value and stability of the currency is what matters, private vs public control is a behind the scenes factor. It makes no difference to how people spend or earn money. Your argument resembles the old "do I borrow or spend from savings" argument. Savings is safer, borrowing is riskier, but neither is objectively better as an absolute rule.
Real GDP growth under Hitler was practically flat. Hitler borrowed enormous sums to pay for his domestic policies, not to mention for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Hitler was a Keynesian. Here's a link if you want to know more about the house of mirrors that was the German Economic Miracle. >mises.org/library/hitlers-economics
Kayden Russell
...
Luis Cruz
His actions economically were in context of preparing for an upcoming war with the bolsheviks and friends. GDP to debt ratio, currency valuation, are completely secondary to survival of the nation. Not to mention the possibility of growing the nation to expanded territory - the value of an empire and sovereignty. This is more important than measures of the economy in high flux
Joshua Myers
A Hitler enthusiast with some understanding of economics is refreshing.
But conquest was a goal, not any kind of necessity. The anti-Comintern pact would have had France and the UK on board if it weren't for Hitler's aggression. France banned communism in 1939. The UK considered declaring war on the Soviets after the invasion of Finland and only decided against it because of the ongoing war with Hitler. Japan allied with Hitler largely to deter Soviet aggression. If Hitler had disregarded his desire for lebensraum, he could have led an international anti-Soviet coalition.
I also think Weimar would have done so if Hitler hadn't seized power. Stalin was going to invade Poland sooner or later and without Hitler. Moscow probably would have fallen by 1941 and the Cold War would have never happened. Not to mention China would be a republic now.
Aiden Torres
>Your argument is based on subjective ideals, rather than any particular economic reality. I'm not natsoc. I'm anti-central and fractional reserve banking. His economic policies were for his situation perfect, (high unemployment, hyperinflation and depression) to start massive industry and war efforts as well as implement socialism, not a free market nation in global peacetime.
The most important part is the value based currency and removing the central banks, please tell me why you think a system of banking that does not tie the currency to gold and makes every penny in circulation have to be paid back to the central bank with 5% interest is economically superior to government controlled currency
Dominic Bell
>banking that does not tie the currency to gold
Fiat currency has its problems. The perpetual debt/inflation cycle is certainly foremost.
Hard currency has its problems, too. That's why the world switched to fiat. There is no longer enough gold in the world to tie all the money to it. If we still did, the current trade in value of a dollar would be 0.024 grams of gold and. realistically, much less if gold was still used to back currency.
Hard currencies are vulnerable to supply and demand of the commodity used to back them. A gold/silver shortage (liquidity crisis) was one of the primary causes of the decline of the Roman empire and lasted so long that the crisis was ultimately solved centuries later by the implementation of feudalism, where labor was substituted for currency.
Fiat currencies don't have to have Fed style corporatism. Governments can, and some do, control the money supply directly, which I do think is preferable to a Fed style system.
Furthermore, there are a lot of economists who think that removing government from control of the money supply would have a lot of advantages. Government control of money means a shared currency across multiple economic regions. That means that a lot of work must be done to prevent something like the Eurozone/Greece crisis, because the weakness of one economic region pulls down the value of all other economic regions using the currency. If you have a single currency in a single economic region, the money supply actually has naturally self-correcting effects on unemployment and purchasing power.
Nathaniel Lewis
You may grasp economics but you do not grasp the reasons for the war. Hitler himself said he was building an army because he feared being invaded by countries under the control of the rootless international clique, Judea had already declared war on him, Poland were considering war, and as has happened every time in history when you remove the rothschild owned central bank they come after you in every way they can until it is set up again.
It happened in your country twice, Lincoln being assassinated after implementing the greenbacks and the countless attempts on Jackson for not renewing the bank of america's charter, as well as the financing of wilsons campaign in return for the implementation of the same system.
He did start the war but in my opinion he did it out of fear of being attacked, best to strike before they are prepared for their attack, like he did with russia
Evan Hall
...
Tyler Edwards
I don't think I've heard or read of anyone who denied that Hitler was paranoid. That was the primary cause of most of Germany's internal political problems and it's a popular hypothesis that his paranoia cost him victory against the Soviets.
Isaac Gutierrez
>Governments can, and some do, control the money supply directly, which I do think is preferable to a Fed style system. You agree with me then, it doesn't have to be tied with gold, I am not against printing money but the fed system is horrendous, it's draining the economies of the world. Also the only countries that do are Russia, NK, Cuba and Iran to my knowledge, all coincidentally enemies of the US.
I honestly think future historians will look back at this period and shake their heads in disbelief.
Paranoia implies it was irrational, it wasn't. Also the pact with Stalin was a formality, they both knew it.
Kayden Morales
>You agree with me then, That the Fed and its imitators are terrible? Absolutely. I am not in favor of corporatism except for time-limited projects like construction.
Asher Jackson
You're a year late...
Jacob Brown
Well the fed is an imitation of the bank of england but yes. Now have your civil war see what happens if you dismantle it, it's all I want from your country.
I can tell you there will be endless intrigue, manufactured market crashes, coups, assassination attempts, funding of insurgents, funding of political allies that will re implement it, etc. These people have been working to build this empire of central banks (and therefore controlled governments) since the 17th century, when the bank of england was set up, and it will never end until it is forcibly removed.
