The three books Tom recommends in the beginning. For the love of god like this comment so people can quickly/easily see this lol Rainer Zitelman, "Hitler: the Policies of Seduction" Günter Reimann, "The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism." Adam Tooze, "The Wages of Destruction: the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy"
I was really hoping for him to mention the Vampire Economy because I actually subscribed to TIK, he's made a bunch of videos about WW2 and that subsequently requires understanding Hitler's economics. Great content.
The point of this talk was to show that Hitler's economic policies were anything but the natural outgrowth of a free market or in any way capitalistic, and in that way it is a good and enlightening talk. I would like to see a talk about his policies, how they relate to classical economic theory, and their efficacy, however.
Hitler did socialism correctly, which is why both the right and the left feel compelled to attack him. For example, under his leadership germany offered state backed loans to newly married German to start their new life together on the condition that they buy German manufactured goods. Further, 1/4 of the loan would be forgiven for every child they had. And guess what happened? A german economic miracle. Every socialized society we have seen except germany faces the inverted population pyramid as women decide to not have children as they don't have to be worried about being taken care of by their family, the state is their husband and children that will care for them in their dotage. This once economic policy if implemented today would fix the inverted population pyramid and would restore domestic manufacturing to nations across the world, make nations independant and self reliant and less stressed due to a host of economic factors. But (((why) don't we do it? (((who))) benefits from socialism done wrong?
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” ― Thomas Sowell
we can feed the world. maybe this belive i a legitimisation for letting people suffer hunger even if we could help them? I think the disregard of human life is more importan. we can still argue over economic theory. or do i become a traitor and a fashist if i do recoment change?
@Jj ChenScarcity of money is a banking issue, solved by a free banking system, or the business community, as in when whiskey was used as money. Hamilton taxed it, destroying that solution, resulting in the Whiskey Rebellion, put down by Washington and betraying the American battle cry "No Taxation Without Representation". The state (central gov, the bigger state) intervened in the market to stop a private (capitalism) solution. There is no need for the state to ever, ever, ever, intervene. When it does, people suffer and sometimes die.
@@rifleman4005 - Not even with that proviso. Republicons talk all 'free market,' but when it comes time, they are quite 'socialist.' Fascists did have a mixed economy, to be sure, but regulation is quite different from command.
@coachhannah2403 Nope. Socialists are about the government owning everything. Fascists are about the government controlling everything. Both have huge welfare states.
Tom, your work for liberty is astonishing. But here is a suggestion: Please consider whether you overuse the terms "Nazi" and "Fascist." Or that you use them with too little explanation. Have you noticed how the Liberty Movement is ignorant that Hitler never self-identified as “Nazi” nor “Fascist”? Libertarians and Conservatives share this widespread ignorance. In your misesmedia link you use "Nazi" repeatedly and the first time that the word 'socialist' occurs is from Hitler himself - you directly quote him. It is amusing that you refer to Hitler as an N-word or F-word, and then when you quote Hitler he self-identifies as "socialist." Today the N-word and F-word are used to cover up the fact that Hitler self-identified as a "SOCIALIST" by the very word in voluminous speeches and writings. Here are other items your fans would enjoy learning from you - 1. Hitler never self-identified as a "Nazi". 2. Hitler never self-identified as a 'Fascist'. 3. The term 'Nazi' never appears in "Mein Kampf" nor in "Triumph of he Will." 4. The term 'Fascist' never appears in Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. 5. The term "Socialist" appears throughout Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. Hitler and his followers self-identified as 'socialists' by the very word in voluminous speeches and writings. 6. Hitler used the swastika to represent 'S'-letter shapes for 'socialist'. 7. Hitler was influenced by American socialists - the USA's Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was the origin of Nazi salutes and Nazi behavior. 8. Before he coined the term 'Fascist,' Mussolini was a long-time socialist leader, with a socialist background, raised by socialists to be a socialist. 9. German socialists partnered with Soviet socialists to launch WWII, invading Poland together, and going onward from there, killing millions.
Help your audiences learn the amazing revelations above. More about it is in the book “Come Inside My Head: Karl Marx.” Thanks again.
You are completely right, there is a German article by Henrik Broder with even more citations from many NSDAP leaders, who all use the term socialist: “Broder: Waren die National-Sozialisten nicht Linksextremisten?” (TH-cam doesn't like the link).
Rex Curry is the great historian who showed that the swastika was used by Hitler to represent "S for SOCIALIST" shapes. Woods seems ignorant of that. Your comment is correct. Woods let the audience (including young students) leave believing a lie: that Hitler gave speeches about his "Nazis" and "Fascists" (Hitler didn't). I hope Woods improves. You have probably heard that Marxist professors teach socialist BS in colleges. But so-called "conservatives, republicans, and libertarians" teach socialist BS because they aren't bright enough to know it and they just repeat popular socialist BS. The book “Come Inside My Head: Karl Marx” is very good. Thanks for your reply.@@erastvandoren
Lor Miller what do you think it means to hate capitalism? In my opinion, it is sufficient to use capitalism as a slur. So, if someone said that an institution was supporting globalism, which is obviously used as a slur, by promoting unfettered capitalism, another slur, and that same someone used capitalism in all caps to describe what is wrong with something, that would constitute hatred of capitalism. But maybe you arent a nazi. By any reasonable definition, someone who supports Hitler's policies unapologetically is a nazi. Since you clearly do, and want the USA to adopt Hitler's policies with a clear reference to Hitler, then you are a nazi who hates capitalism.
Lor Miller sorry for thinking that words have meaning lol. All statements are either true or false. You're absolutely right to say that criticism is not hate. However, I didnt say that you hated capitalism because you criticized capitalism, but because you used capitalism as a slur. Also, lol at "unfettered capitalism is only a slur if you don't think child labor is good". Like, who is for 8 year olds working in factories? Even those who think it should be legal will admit that it sucks. Slurs are not uncomfortable truths. Slurs only reveal hatred. There are uncomfortable truths out there. That children might need to work in factories to avoid starvation is a very uncomfortable truth. "Globalism is caused by libertarian's unfettered capitalism" is a slur, meant only to communicate that you dont like globalism or libertarians' view of capitalism. Theres no uncomfortable truth there because every substantive word there is undefined, it's impossible to know what that sentence means. Like, is globalism support for international trade? That sounds like a good thing. Is globalism a lack of national sovereignty in favor of one world government? That sounds like a bad thing. Is unfettered capitalism men with top hats enslaving everybody? That sounds like a bad thing. Is unfettered capitalism everybody working together to solve societies problems without the government messing it up with stupid rules that make everything worse? That sounds like a good thing. Using nebulous terms as slurs makes it sound like you're saying profound things, but all you're really saying is "I dont like these words".
Lor Miller ah yes, you comfortably throw around globalism and unfettered capitalism as slurs, and the moment you are called out for it, suddenly you are the definition master. Thanks for refuting my point that words have different definitions to different people, which is why you should lead with your definitions with a completely irrelevant dictionary definition. Quality argumentation right there. If you led with that definition of globalism, and stated why it was bad, that would not be a slur. Maybe you dont like tapping cheaper labor markets, because it is exploitative. That would have at least been an argument. Saying "they promote a globalist worldview" as a reason to not like the mises institute is a slur. It provides no information. All it says is "I dont like the mises institute or globalism". And no, that wasnt a slur. I disagree that without government we are subjected to the law of nature/the jungle. I dont think that governments create civilization. But I still think its clear that you arent a fan of capitalism. My claim that you are a nazi went completely unremarked upon. So my original comment is completely correct.
PERCEPTION QUIZ: Are U able to perceive "S"-letter shapes in the symbol on Hitler's flag? Research shows that modern socialists are unable to discern any "S" shape. Good news: if you can identify "S" shapes then U aren't a socialist. Learn from the work of historian Dr. Rex Curry
Dr. Rex Curry is the American Historian Laureate who showed that the swastika was used by Hitler to represent "S for SOCIALIST" shapes. Woods seems ignorant of that. Your comment is correct. Woods let the audience (including young students) leave believing a lie: that Hitler gave speeches about his "Nazis" and "Fascists" (Hitler didn't). I hope Woods improves. You have probably heard that Marxist professors teach socialist BS in colleges. But so-called "conservatives, republicans, and libertarians" teach socialist BS because they aren't bright enough to know it and they just repeat popular socialist BS. The book “All Historians Did Not See” explains a lot.
Hey TIK, awesome videos you made on Hitler and National Socialism. I bought 'The Vampire Economy' as a starter on doing my own research. You are one of the few historical youtubers I've watched, who quote and show their sources in their videos. I really appreciate that. Keep up the good work.🤘🏻
I don’t get it, selfish interests? That’s all the government cater to. Demographics, groups, beuracrats, lobbyists, special interests. Politicians, judges, city councils, they’re just as selfish as anyone else
Friendly reminder that trade unions/syndicates are fascist literally. Did read the vampire economy and the only disclaimer before reading it is that he commonly references socialist things (state control of the means of production and distribution) as Capitalist (private individual control of the means of production and distribution).
This is the battle of the centuries: Capitalism versus Socialism If a capitalist compromises, even temporarily, no matter how inconsequential the issue, he losses. "Temporary" becomes permanent. It establishes a precedent, as in "You admitted you were wrong once, how do know you're not wrong again?" Now you have to explain you weren't wrong but made a concession based on political expediency. Don't expect the socialists to apply that same standard to themselves, or be logical, or play fair. Why? All is justified by the goal, by any means necessary. Even the goal is not as expounded, e.g., the means, coercion, becomes the real goal.
@@mweskamppp Not sure I understand or if I think I know what you are saying I would disagree. At least from the USA perspective. Yes overall we have creeped towards more social programs, but have pulled back on some too with the more conservative governments over the past 40 years. Either way it's not the programs that are the problem it's the political structure that is getting us to them. Our constitution is so antiquated that it is being manipulated by the politicians.
@@carterjackson8033 Maybe because social security in germany was introduced by Bismarck in 19th century. He was monarchist and the chancellor of Willi II and very very conservative. To counter some workers movement he invented for us the health insurance, accident insurance and government pension for people above 65 what only few people made it to anyway. Nobody ever questioned that general idea since then. Maybe because the far right invented it. Even my grand grandpa didnt know it any different.
@@mweskamppp I'm not sure I understand, So what is the problem. A social security plan for seniors is no big deal, as long as the people elect governments that don't mess up the funding for it.
Hans Hoppe gave a talk about Hitler at a Mises U conference (2006 I think). He pointed out similar things but he also pointed out that in terms of actual economics, many of Hitler's policies, while not free market, where actually less interventionist than those implemented by Rosevelt. In other words, using Austrian principles, Hitler was less economically destructive than the American politicians of the day. It was the war which wrecked Germany. In actual practice, Hitler seems to have been neither economic genius or idiot. He had a flawed view of economics. Whether or not he was right about other things can be debated.
It could be argued that the war destroyed the USA if you were expecting to return to the same country you left after fighting in Europe. But hey we have grills, air conditioning, electricity, television, the internet, and single family dwellings. So there is that.
Have you read the vampire economy? The first few years of Hitlers government, the finance minister was a conventional economist. As they consolidated power they become extremely interventionist. Very socialist like.
Sowell has some great articles on Fascism too. Like Woods, he found some very surprising facts. When I try to talk about it with friends, I get some very “angry” replies. I think it’s because so many people have been lead to believe that their values and ideas are original and/or good and it’s very difficult to reconcile your beliefs when they are similar to Hitler’s.
There is a strong tendency for people to believe that fascism is the opposite of socialism. There is also a strong tendency for people to believe that the National Socialists weren't socialists. Both are glaringly wrong. This in part stems form the very friendly treatment the Soviets get both during and after the war, and too this day (especially relative to the Nazis).
Thanks for this. I try to learn more about what hitler actually stood for and did, but all you find is people saying fascism means being a racist and wanting to tell everyone what to do, or neo nazis saying hitler ws right. Some actual facts are nice.
38:00 The tone here of Woods reading Hitler, really reminds me of the same tone Vladimir Putin uses. It's just a coincidence, meaningless. But I found it fun enough to point out.
Martin Bergman le JEWS!1!1! You are no different from communists or any other regime, you think if you just get the right people in power everything will be fine, power corrupts and all governments do is steal from us and make society worse as a result, now sure you might have a good government once in a while but how long does that last? That's the point of libertarianism that society is better off when we can limit the power of the government and ideally do away with it all together
Hahaha! I've studied economics and I learned that governments are so corrupt you can not give them the power over money. Instead you need to give the power over money to the bankers because they are really reliable people. Yeah right that makes so much sense... Actually go study history of economics you will se jews totally dominate the theory of free markets. That is due to their long historic knowledge of international trade. But this system of free trade takes the power from government and puts it in the hands of international bankers. Who use their money to buy lobbying firms who in their turn bribe politicians. So yes I believe that you start by finding the right people.
Interestingly, ignoring obvious war-related injuries, business flourished under these conditions... Also, too, Germany was, not necessarily solely by decree, autarkic, which was a severe disadvantage as compared with more empiric nations. What might work in Germany is not necessarily applicable to other nations (especially those with access to enforced trade).
ad hominem. Hitler was against a "gold standard," yet one of his first acts is to collect vast amounts of material wealth (i.e. gold, antiquities). ... Demands are made upon my wealth by 'the state' constantly it seems - or is debt not considered in this equation. Prosperity is conditional; who decides the outcomes of prosperity? ... Just saying - many holes in this man's logic.
This guy is basically using the tired old argument that an idea is bad because Hitler agreed with it. Hitler obviously was a bad guy, but that doesn't mean absolutely every little thing he said or did was concentrated evil. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian it doesn't mean that there is anything evil about eating vegetables. Likewise, just because Hitler thought that a country's industry should serve the needs of the country doesn't mean that that idea is evil.
As much as I respect Tom Woods, he should have given a more objective look at the policies of Germany in this time period. While I disagree with many economic views held by National Socialists (I do not consider lending with interest to be "evil" or "usurious," as it is simply a reward for low time preference), their social policy bears examination beyond that which is politically correct. Indeed, such policy may have had a greater impact than any intervention or "debt-free money," as a country with confidence in itself will tend to be more productive and forward-thinking.
8:54 _"As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights. The state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger .... But that is only theory. _*_In reality, there is only a single economic system: responsibility upwards, authority downwards. It has been like that for millennia and it cannot be else-wise._*_ The system is just, and there cannot be any other. _*_The system today only lacks responsibility before the nation._*_ A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions, it engenders anarchy and Bolshevism. That is clear from even the nature of the production process, which knows no distinction between capitalism and socialism.”_ - Adolf Hitler, 1930
Fascism was basically socialism with a nationalist aim for the Italian nationals with a few differences with how they wanted to run things. National socialism was just a racial socialism for the German racial group where as Marxism was a class socialism for the proletariat class group. All of them needed a strong state. There’s really not much between them.
DOCTOR WOODS is a GENIUS. LOVE YOU! I recommend the album by The Residents, "Hitler was a Vegetarian" Also- Ayn Rand pointed out how similar the 1920 Nazi Platform was to FDR's New Deal...
soapbxprod FDRs new deal was under the fed (since 1913). FDR's NRA set about fixing prices and prescribing production and distribution in a over centralized command economy that was nearly as bad as in soviet Russia. the NDASP primarily incentivised production, increasing wages and the return of women to the home. this turned around the death spiral of debt, decreasing wages and growing unemployment that was sucking germany into the drain. hitlers germany and mark became the most prosperous & valued in the world respectively. many of the publicized theory or propaganda was similar but not the results or the actual efforts.
Actually if Hitler had not started the war his Economic plan would cause economic loss (short term gains, long term loss) FDR began his new deal at a time of Economic loss which his policies made it worse.
That's interesting soapbxprod as FDR and Hitler(the bolscheviks too) were funded by the same financial interests! See the work of Antony Sutton for the evidence for that :-)
Pretty much EVERYTHING Thomas has sarcastically read from Hitler personal memoirs, and the Nazis financial policies and problems with the economic situation back then, defines to perfection what we are living...so...what’s the point Tom...history repeating itself???🤨
18:30 My definition of fascism ranking the state as more important than the people. In part embodied in his phrase: "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nobody against the state." Yeah, try to achieve the third proposition after the first two were achieved.
I would suggest to consider H.'s statement in regard to the circumstances. Germany had been plundered of its gold reserves and he was looking for a way to stabilize its economy.
ok ... “The idea that the State is capable of solving social problems is now viewed with great scepticism - which foretells a coming change. As soon as scepticism is applied to the State, the State falls, since it fails at everything except increasing its power, and so can only survive on propaganda, which relies on unquestioning faith.” ― Stefan Molyneux
Of course you can abstract some universal economic principles, but that doesn't mean there still aren't some economic regularities which exist on the racial level, Europeans have a lower time preference than Africans for example, and that is a function of the environments each evolved in. The higher scarcity experienced by proto-europeans during the last Ice Age contributed to a greater need to plan for the future.
I subscribe to the Austrian/Chicago school also, but challenge Thomas E. Woods on his interpretation of the gold standard. The gold standard is a default standard, it is the correct thing to run to when government, or the private Federal Reserve, turn to the printing press as their favorite pain medication. Hitler didn't have any gold and as a pariah of the Ashkenazim bankers, was unlikely to get any. So he turned to German fiat currency, probably based on Abraham Lincoln;s experiencve, and he fought the world almost to a stanstill. Had his jet engines and rockets been farther along and had he not allowed the British army to go free at Dunkirk, he might very well have won the war; yes little Germany against the whole world on a currency based on labor. Labor trumps gold but not in a Communist state, that is the rub.
Germany had population in 1941 - 114 mln. With axis allies for barbarossa (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland) - 148 mln. Total Axis in Europe (include Italy, Croaty, Bulgaria ) - 207 mln. Total human resources in Europe (include France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark) - 290 mln. Plus Japan and colonies. So, you confuse little Germany and the world war.
It appears from my study that whomever started WWII thoought that Britain and France together would end Germany. Then they added the Soviet Union and ooops. that didn't work either, so they added the United States. That finally did it.
Because you are looking at the modern borders of Germany, but then they were much larger. You also do not take into account the population of the Czech and Poland, which became part of Great Germany. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Nazi_Germany.svg
right. poles and czechs where germans.. if anything they made everything more difficult. there where only 80 mio germans in germany. that's it. btw the soviet union also invaded half of poland and some other countries and the soviet union had almost twice the population of germany to begin with. you also forgot to include that the netherlands alone had a population as large as germanys (colonies) as well as 1/4 of the earths population was british (colonies). all considered germany with allies had 100 mio people and the western allies and the soviet union had 10 to 15 times as many people (not even including the US)
Honestly hitler makes SOME points. Sometimes it sounds like he is disregarding basic laws like supply and demand or profit motives. But other times it seems like he is just shitting on Keynesian economics. Which is actually bullshit.
18.30... I think he is suggesting that the value of a currency depends on the amount of products that currency area produces, because if you want to buy those products you need to get that currency, petroleum dollar works in that way, you want oil you need dollars and that with tax is what backs the currency... He could be seen as correct, after all the fact you need dollars to buy oil, increases the value of the dollar and seen in that way, production of goods increases the value of the currency you buy them in, esp if you can only buy those products in that currency.... Are you sure your ecconomics friend is actually an economist? Because I think Hilters point is rather obvious, only took me a moment to see it.
Wow. You really don't see you've proposed a logical paradox. Another win for progressive propaganda completely decimating even a modicum of critical thought.
@@martinbergman3836 Yes. And some countries want it to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency. The petrodollar is a cryptocurrency. cryptointelhub.com/what-is-petrodollar-xpd/
Question - if all country's still used the gold standard then wouldn't country's that have no gold resources be forever doomed to be impoverished? And then how would you level the playing field on a global market?
Matthew Cowan, good question, what would happen is they don’t have their own unique currency but use a currency from a successful country, in today if that happened it would likely be US dollars or chinese yuan. Similar to how most of Europe uses Euros instead of french franc, german mark or british pound
The United States during the colonial era worked just fine with Colonial Script until the British (under the financial influence of the Rothchilds, of course) intentionally regulated the script out of use to assert british dominance over the colonies. The finest colonial minds were able to set the quantity of money with the tools of the day and the result was prosperity. Hitler generalized the value of gold and other specie to all other goods. This is actually a more robust and resilient system than just precious metal. The economic theory behind colonial script worked for the colonies, and it worked for Germany, and it is generally the foundation of every fiat system in play.
This history of the colonies is believed only by Greenbackers. The issuing of colonial scrip (not "script") would have been illegal. Greenbackers believe in it based on some fake quotations from Benjamin Franklin. Half the Greenbacker position is based on fake quotations. I've never seen an intellectual movement like it.
Its very fascinating to study the economic miracle success of 3 countries in the 1930s when the rest of the world was in the worst depression in history. These 3 countries removed private independent control of their central banks and instead used these banks for the good of the state, by providing just enough interest free cash to companies that they could use to increase production, increasing economic output and creating millions of jobs. The quantity of extra free cash was carefully matched for how fast companies could grow (therefore not inflationary) and not used for public consumption because that is very inflationary (look whats happening 2020 & 21 after 6000bn was just printed). The 3 countries had no gold anyway so the value of the money was measured in GDP. Between 1933 and 1936 7 million jobs were created in DE, millions also in Italy and Japan with strong economic prosperity for the people. Their GDPs more than doubled from 1933 to 41. While at the same time USA UK and the rest were experiencing the worst triple dip depression in history. The privately owned FED cut rates to 2% in 1926 to fuel a boom, told their friends to sell up and cash out all investments early in 1929 because they were going to hike rates to 6% and crash the world economy later in the summer. Then all the people in the know who sold beforehand could buy up huge amounts of companies for a tiny fraction of their worth after the crash. Research how Mr Kennedy Sr was one the lucky ones who cashed out in spring 1929 before the crash. When his son became president he tried to shutdown the Fed and replace it with US treasury notes, he got killed shortly afterwards..... Check his Executive Order 11110. All this info of history is really true and it happened. I have a feeling the economic boom in those 3 countires was a big factor in why WW2 happened. Stopping them from becoming too powerful.
Very sharp comment ! The speaker had propably never heard about the MEFA's in germany. That explains the grows of the economy and keep the currency for the people stable at the same time.
@@torstenbeck640 The OP is merely describing the "business cycle", where money creation via expansion of credit fuels the boom/bust cycle. Tom Woods is an economist of the Austrian school, whose principal contribution is the theory of the business cycle, so this is exactly his area of expertise. The theory of the business cycle shows that the boom must always result in a bust, and when all is said and done it's a net destruction of wealth. They were called Mefo (or MEFO) bills, by the way, not MEFA, and they were just a sneaky way for the German government to print vast sums of money for rearmament via a shell corporation and launder it through the Reichsbank without attracting international attention. All of this economic stimulus, the boom, was unsustainable and by 1938 the economy of Germany was on the verge of complete collapse. By that time the economy had become dysfunctional -- the government had taken direct control over allocation of all resources and implemented widespread fixing of prices and rationing of consumer goods. It was only the Anschluss and the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, which provided new influx of gold, foreign currency, and resources to Germany, that temporarily delayed the collapse for long enough to complete the rearmament necessary for the invasion of Poland and the start of World War Two. Once the war started the bust was complete -- the economy had ceased to exist. During WW2 Germans were either conscripted into the military or assigned to work to support the war effort, and were paid in worthless paper. Workers were paid with marks from the money printer but was nothing to buy with them, as the minuscule supply of consumer goods was strictly rationed and prices were fixed. It's easy to have full employment when you're conscripting workers to be slaves and paying them with monopoly money that they can't buy anything with.
@@mniskin My Grandparents had a pretty good life, bevor the ww2 started. It's called Mefa in German language btw. And one question germany started ww2 ?
@@torstenbeck640 "MEFO" is derived from MEtallurgische FOrschungsgesellschaft, m.b.H., the name of the shell corporation formed by Hjalmar Schacht for the purpose of issuing these bills. Some people do well during the boom, because it allows people to live beyond their means via credit. Of course things might seem amazing while racking up massive debts, that's why it's called a "boom". However, this reckless spending is always unsustainable and a "bust" always follows. The bust then destroys massive amounts of wealth. It's like if you get a mortgage on a house you can't afford and you max out all your credit cards buying cars and furniture... eventually the bank forecloses on your house, the cars and furniture are repossessed, and you're in worse shape than when you started. I don't think it's fair to say that Germany started a world war by herself, but she did invade Poland knowing that a worldwide coalition of countries had agreed to a mutual military protection pact with her. I'd say it takes two to tango, so to speak, but I think it's reasonable to say that Germany was the aggressor. Anyway, AH was crystal clear about his intention to conquer vast territories in the East (ie. the western USSR), there is no doubt that a large scale war was inevitable.
Disagree with this. Historicism does not say they are no laws to economics. Read Capital, Marx’s entire thing is that capitalism has laws and develops through stages. He does think capitalism is the most productive economic system by far, and far better than feudalism. But it’s self contradictory nature leads it to develop into socialism. Strawman. Marxists and Libertarians have a lot in common, both are effectively trying to find the scientific laws that underpin the economy. Many in “socialist” states never read Marx. Communism is the real movement! Free time and nothing else!
Disagree with you. If you want "real" communism look at religious movements like the kibbutz and the Amish. Not so impressive. Socialist have been claiming that capitalism will fall any time now and I am still waiting. The main superiority of capitalism is that , if done properly leads to constant innovation which is the source of higher standards of living. The problem with capitalism is that politicians , who think they know better keep meddling. Going down the path to socialism/fascism.
BTW ... Nazism isn't Fascism. The two are closely related branches of socialism, but they are not the same. Moreover, the founder of Fascism - Benito Mussolini - often stated that he didn't consider Adolf Hitler a fellow fascist.
@@violet6968 Communism, national socialism (nazi's), and Fascist are all socialist movements. Where the state is in control of the means of production. They all have group thinking in common poor/rich, ethnic German/foreign, and Nationality /foreign.
This was a disappointing lecture since I hoped to hear what happened, rather than what the politics was. Also, I don't see the problem of basing a currency on the value of labor, if that was not just political talk, especially since it was so successful! And especially if you want to be isolated from international controls that they had been under the thumb of.
Because the labor theory of value is complete bunk. Labor only describes one aspect of prices and not all labor is equal nor is all labor valuable. You can't base a currency on an inconsistent, incomplete factor of value.
@@billmelater6470 All labor could be given equal value, on the theory that all labor is necessary. There are other ways you might do it. All labor could be combined to make a stable pool of labor.
@@jgunther3398 You're speaking very broadly without really saying anything (as I see it. I'm not trying to be insulting). So how would you give all labor equal value as you say it could? Second; how do you support that all labor is necessary? I would also ask you to define what a "stable pool of labor" is and how combining it would make an impact on its value.
Wikipedia: The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the adoption of paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views by some of its leading figures, on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[6] A 2000 "Intelligence Report" by the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate, "devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics."[7]
I'm a little confused about the implication of criticism of Hitler's view that business is subordinate to politics. The idea is rather vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Surely in all political ideologies there is a balance between businesses and the state and the state holds primacy as it regulates the practises of the businesses. On one hand you can have a communist state which stifles entrepreneurship and on the other you can have a situation where businesses can literally enslave workers. Even in liberal states, the government prevents businesses from practices that will harm the consumer. So I would agree that business should always be subordinate to the state but it's the extent of state intrusion on business that is the issue. I assume what Hitler is advocating that business interests should be directed to towards the direct interests of the government.
It’s a little strange that he said that if he were to ask for a definition of fascism he’d get a different answer from the dictionary definition. How can he then suggest it is the responders fault if even the political scientists formally disagree with what it means?
Try explain this to the thousands of kids who can't scratch around in the bins for food anymore and subsequently dying of starvation. Maybe they should of thought about this before they shut everything down.The saying goes..When North America gets a cold economically speak Africa gets pneumonia 😪
I do not think race has anything to do with it. But intelligence seems to run in families. Of course there are exceptions. This is my own observation having lived a long time now,
The three books Tom recommends in the beginning. For the love of god like this comment so people can quickly/easily see this lol
Rainer Zitelman, "Hitler: the Policies of Seduction"
Günter Reimann, "The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism."
Adam Tooze, "The Wages of Destruction: the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy"
Thank you. Wish he had put those in his own comments above.
He hasn't learnt the concept of pinned comments.
what was the name of the european historian that recomended him the first book? Ralph something
@@usernamebot8021 Ralph Raico.
I was really hoping for him to mention the Vampire Economy because I actually subscribed to TIK, he's made a bunch of videos about WW2 and that subsequently requires understanding Hitler's economics. Great content.
"It's almost spooky how similar they are."
I'm from 2021, and I can assure you it has only gotten worse.
Oh my. With that title and source, this video is gonna be gold one way or another.
The point of this talk was to show that Hitler's economic policies were anything but the natural outgrowth of a free market or in any way capitalistic, and in that way it is a good and enlightening talk. I would like to see a talk about his policies, how they relate to classical economic theory, and their efficacy, however.
Hitler did socialism correctly, which is why both the right and the left feel compelled to attack him. For example, under his leadership germany offered state backed loans to newly married German to start their new life together on the condition that they buy German manufactured goods. Further, 1/4 of the loan would be forgiven for every child they had.
And guess what happened? A german economic miracle. Every socialized society we have seen except germany faces the inverted population pyramid as women decide to not have children as they don't have to be worried about being taken care of by their family, the state is their husband and children that will care for them in their dotage.
This once economic policy if implemented today would fix the inverted population pyramid and would restore domestic manufacturing to nations across the world, make nations independant and self reliant and less stressed due to a host of economic factors. But (((why) don't we do it? (((who))) benefits from socialism done wrong?
@@TheScamr no one did socialism “correctly.” I’m sure you’d give up everything to live in Germany under Hitler. Zzzz
Where is he getting these quotes again?
"you didn't build that". What US president said this? Anyone remember?
I would have said a great source on economics and Hitler and Stalin would be a book called Socialism by Mises
“H!tler’s Beneficiaries” is great book as well!
That's some good economic views, Economy serving the nation, not the nation servng the economy.
5:00
35 min. UNQUALIFIED RESPECT FOR STALIN!!!!
Sounds like Trumpian economics.
ZIONIST SHILL
Should learn to lecture on the facts, and not inject his opinion every other sentence.
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
― Thomas Sowell
Love Sowell
we can feed the world. maybe this belive i a legitimisation for letting people suffer hunger even if we could help them? I think the disregard of human life is more importan. we can still argue over economic theory. or do i become a traitor and a fashist if i do recoment change?
Took me a second to understand that. That’s clever.
th-cam.com/video/o_B7LJIV4l8/w-d-xo.html
@Jj ChenScarcity of money is a banking issue, solved by a free banking system, or the business community, as in when whiskey was used as money. Hamilton taxed it, destroying that solution, resulting in the Whiskey Rebellion, put down by Washington and betraying the American battle cry "No Taxation Without Representation". The state (central gov, the bigger state) intervened in the market to stop a private (capitalism) solution. There is no need for the state to ever, ever, ever, intervene. When it does, people suffer and sometimes die.
Incredible! There's a reason they don't teach this stuff in public (i.e. state) schools.
Republicons definitely do not want definitions of Fascism out in the public.
@@coachhannah2403 If you look at economic policies alone, fascists are more in line with Bernie Sanders and AOC.
@@rifleman4005 - Not even with that proviso. Republicons talk all 'free market,' but when it comes time, they are quite 'socialist.'
Fascists did have a mixed economy, to be sure, but regulation is quite different from command.
@coachhannah2403 Nope. Socialists are about the government owning everything. Fascists are about the government controlling everything. Both have huge welfare states.
@coachhannah2403 Another thing. The two parties in the US have been called the uniparty as their methods and outcomes are very similar.
1:41 Anne Frankly
I heard it, too.
Either it is there, or we all hallucinate together.
Lol. You beat me too it.
...i did nazi this coming
Ah...I left a comment on this, and then saw you beat me to it. Well done, HeavenAblaze. Well done.
I heard that too. lol
Tom, your work for liberty is astonishing. But here is a suggestion: Please consider whether you overuse the terms "Nazi" and "Fascist." Or that you use them with too little explanation.
Have you noticed how the Liberty Movement is ignorant that Hitler never self-identified as “Nazi” nor “Fascist”? Libertarians and Conservatives share this widespread ignorance.
In your misesmedia link you use "Nazi" repeatedly and the first time that the word 'socialist' occurs is from Hitler himself - you directly quote him. It is amusing that you refer to Hitler as an N-word or F-word, and then when you quote Hitler he self-identifies as "socialist."
Today the N-word and F-word are used to cover up the fact that Hitler self-identified as a "SOCIALIST" by the very word in voluminous speeches and writings.
Here are other items your fans would enjoy learning from you -
1. Hitler never self-identified as a "Nazi".
2. Hitler never self-identified as a 'Fascist'.
3. The term 'Nazi' never appears in "Mein Kampf" nor in "Triumph of he Will."
4. The term 'Fascist' never appears in Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler.
5. The term "Socialist" appears throughout Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. Hitler and his followers self-identified as 'socialists' by the very word in voluminous speeches and writings.
6. Hitler used the swastika to represent 'S'-letter shapes for 'socialist'.
7. Hitler was influenced by American socialists - the USA's Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was the origin of Nazi salutes and Nazi behavior.
8. Before he coined the term 'Fascist,' Mussolini was a long-time socialist leader, with a socialist background, raised by socialists to be a socialist.
9. German socialists partnered with Soviet socialists to launch WWII, invading Poland together, and going onward from there, killing millions.
Help your audiences learn the amazing revelations above. More about it is in the book “Come Inside My Head: Karl Marx.” Thanks again.
You are completely right, there is a German article by Henrik Broder with even more citations from many NSDAP leaders, who all use the term socialist: “Broder: Waren die National-Sozialisten nicht Linksextremisten?” (TH-cam doesn't like the link).
Rex Curry is the great historian who showed that the swastika was used by Hitler to represent "S for SOCIALIST" shapes. Woods seems ignorant of that. Your comment is correct. Woods let the audience (including young students) leave believing a lie: that Hitler gave speeches about his "Nazis" and "Fascists" (Hitler didn't). I hope Woods improves. You have probably heard that Marxist professors teach socialist BS in colleges. But so-called "conservatives, republicans, and libertarians" teach socialist BS because they aren't bright enough to know it and they just repeat popular socialist BS. The book “Come Inside My Head: Karl Marx” is very good. Thanks for your reply.@@erastvandoren
Today: Democratic statist anti-capitalist agenda. Then: National Socialist plan. Synonyms.
Glad the Mises Institute is out there putting these lectures on for the public.
Lor Miller by promoting an ideology that strips governments of their powers to steal from us? Ok
Lor Miller very glad that you admit that nazis hate capitalism.
Lor Miller what do you think it means to hate capitalism? In my opinion, it is sufficient to use capitalism as a slur. So, if someone said that an institution was supporting globalism, which is obviously used as a slur, by promoting unfettered capitalism, another slur, and that same someone used capitalism in all caps to describe what is wrong with something, that would constitute hatred of capitalism.
But maybe you arent a nazi. By any reasonable definition, someone who supports Hitler's policies unapologetically is a nazi. Since you clearly do, and want the USA to adopt Hitler's policies with a clear reference to Hitler, then you are a nazi who hates capitalism.
Lor Miller sorry for thinking that words have meaning lol. All statements are either true or false.
You're absolutely right to say that criticism is not hate. However, I didnt say that you hated capitalism because you criticized capitalism, but because you used capitalism as a slur.
Also, lol at "unfettered capitalism is only a slur if you don't think child labor is good". Like, who is for 8 year olds working in factories? Even those who think it should be legal will admit that it sucks.
Slurs are not uncomfortable truths. Slurs only reveal hatred. There are uncomfortable truths out there. That children might need to work in factories to avoid starvation is a very uncomfortable truth. "Globalism is caused by libertarian's unfettered capitalism" is a slur, meant only to communicate that you dont like globalism or libertarians' view of capitalism. Theres no uncomfortable truth there because every substantive word there is undefined, it's impossible to know what that sentence means. Like, is globalism support for international trade? That sounds like a good thing. Is globalism a lack of national sovereignty in favor of one world government? That sounds like a bad thing. Is unfettered capitalism men with top hats enslaving everybody? That sounds like a bad thing. Is unfettered capitalism everybody working together to solve societies problems without the government messing it up with stupid rules that make everything worse? That sounds like a good thing.
Using nebulous terms as slurs makes it sound like you're saying profound things, but all you're really saying is "I dont like these words".
Lor Miller ah yes, you comfortably throw around globalism and unfettered capitalism as slurs, and the moment you are called out for it, suddenly you are the definition master.
Thanks for refuting my point that words have different definitions to different people, which is why you should lead with your definitions with a completely irrelevant dictionary definition. Quality argumentation right there.
If you led with that definition of globalism, and stated why it was bad, that would not be a slur. Maybe you dont like tapping cheaper labor markets, because it is exploitative. That would have at least been an argument. Saying "they promote a globalist worldview" as a reason to not like the mises institute is a slur. It provides no information. All it says is "I dont like the mises institute or globalism".
And no, that wasnt a slur. I disagree that without government we are subjected to the law of nature/the jungle. I dont think that governments create civilization.
But I still think its clear that you arent a fan of capitalism. My claim that you are a nazi went completely unremarked upon. So my original comment is completely correct.
I love what Tom Woods brings to the table. Way underrated!
Fantastic video.
PERCEPTION QUIZ: Are U able to perceive "S"-letter shapes in the symbol on Hitler's flag? Research shows that modern socialists are unable to discern any "S" shape. Good news: if you can identify "S" shapes then U aren't a socialist. Learn from the work of historian Dr. Rex Curry
Dr. Rex Curry is the American Historian Laureate who showed that the swastika was used by Hitler to represent "S for SOCIALIST" shapes. Woods seems ignorant of that. Your comment is correct. Woods let the audience (including young students) leave believing a lie: that Hitler gave speeches about his "Nazis" and "Fascists" (Hitler didn't). I hope Woods improves. You have probably heard that Marxist professors teach socialist BS in colleges. But so-called "conservatives, republicans, and libertarians" teach socialist BS because they aren't bright enough to know it and they just repeat popular socialist BS. The book “All Historians Did Not See” explains a lot.
Hey TIK, awesome videos you made on Hitler and National Socialism. I bought 'The Vampire Economy' as a starter on doing my own research. You are one of the few historical youtubers I've watched, who quote and show their sources in their videos. I really appreciate that. Keep up the good work.🤘🏻
I don’t get it, selfish interests? That’s all the government cater to. Demographics, groups, beuracrats, lobbyists, special interests. Politicians, judges, city councils, they’re just as selfish as anyone else
@36:17 “I guess if you have labor camps everybody finds work”. 😂😂😂
Friendly reminder that trade unions/syndicates are fascist literally.
Did read the vampire economy and the only disclaimer before reading it is that he commonly references socialist things (state control of the means of production and distribution) as Capitalist (private individual control of the means of production and distribution).
Wow, great presentation. You are one of the greats, Tom
This is the battle of the centuries: Capitalism versus Socialism
If a capitalist compromises, even temporarily, no matter how inconsequential the issue, he losses. "Temporary" becomes permanent. It establishes a precedent, as in "You admitted you were wrong once, how do know you're not wrong again?" Now you have to explain you weren't wrong but made a concession based on political expediency. Don't expect the socialists to apply that same standard to themselves, or be logical, or play fair. Why? All is justified by the goal, by any means necessary. Even the goal is not as expounded, e.g., the means, coercion, becomes the real goal.
So if I vote for a political leader who favors a health care systems that provides for all people, am I a socialist?
@@carterjackson8033 Yes, funny connection. hardly anybody in europe would see it that way. Socialism was ended 1990.
@@mweskamppp Not sure I understand or if I think I know what you are saying I would disagree. At least from the USA perspective. Yes overall we have creeped towards more social programs, but have pulled back on some too with the more conservative governments over the past 40 years. Either way it's not the programs that are the problem it's the political structure that is getting us to them. Our constitution is so antiquated that it is being manipulated by the politicians.
@@carterjackson8033 Maybe because social security in germany was introduced by Bismarck in 19th century. He was monarchist and the chancellor of Willi II and very very conservative. To counter some workers movement he invented for us the health insurance, accident insurance and government pension for people above 65 what only few people made it to anyway. Nobody ever questioned that general idea since then. Maybe because the far right invented it. Even my grand grandpa didnt know it any different.
@@mweskamppp I'm not sure I understand, So what is the problem. A social security plan for seniors is no big deal, as long as the people elect governments that don't mess up the funding for it.
Hans Hoppe gave a talk about Hitler at a Mises U conference (2006 I think). He pointed out similar things but he also pointed out that in terms of actual economics, many of Hitler's policies, while not free market, where actually less interventionist than those implemented by Rosevelt. In other words, using Austrian principles, Hitler was less economically destructive than the American politicians of the day. It was the war which wrecked Germany.
In actual practice, Hitler seems to have been neither economic genius or idiot. He had a flawed view of economics. Whether or not he was right about other things can be debated.
It could be argued that the war destroyed the USA if you were expecting to return to the same country you left after fighting in Europe. But hey we have grills, air conditioning, electricity, television, the internet, and single family dwellings. So there is that.
@@HablaCarnage63 what
@@cheesemccheese5780 Where, When, or How?
Have you read the vampire economy?
The first few years of Hitlers government, the finance minister was a conventional economist. As they consolidated power they become extremely interventionist. Very socialist like.
Will Hitlernomics become a word?
not if the grammer nazis, with they're strict philology and all, have any say!
Now that you mention it, the Feminazis will object to the implied patriarchy, too.
AHAHAHAHA! Rimshot! :)
All hail USURY !
Nick 1989 yep
Rainer Zittelmann - Hitler: The Policies of Seduction
Günter Reimann - The Vampire Economy
Adam Tooze - The Wages of Destruction
What was the mises article tho?
We must upvote the list to the top
Thank you!
The vampire economy is garbage. And disagrees with tooze on numerous points.
@@simonsarevski6532 here it is: mises.org/library/historical-setting-austrian-school-economics-0
Sowell has some great articles on Fascism too. Like Woods, he found some very surprising facts. When I try to talk about it with friends, I get some very “angry” replies. I think it’s because so many people have been lead to believe that their values and ideas are original and/or good and it’s very difficult to reconcile your beliefs when they are similar to Hitler’s.
There is a strong tendency for people to believe that fascism is the opposite of socialism. There is also a strong tendency for people to believe that the National Socialists weren't socialists. Both are glaringly wrong. This in part stems form the very friendly treatment the Soviets get both during and after the war, and too this day (especially relative to the Nazis).
@@randallkelley3600 I agree.
Brilliant lecture. Really good.
Thanks for this. I try to learn more about what hitler actually stood for and did, but all you find is people saying fascism means being a racist and wanting to tell everyone what to do, or neo nazis saying hitler ws right. Some actual facts are nice.
th-cam.com/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/w-d-xo.html
Thomas Woods is amazing. Thanks for the lecture.
38:00 The tone here of Woods reading Hitler, really reminds me of the same tone Vladimir Putin uses. It's just a coincidence, meaningless. But I found it fun enough to point out.
In Capitalism Man finds work.
In Socialism Work finds man.
You mean Work Camp?
Plus almost all the time extra vacancies.
@@sjmousavi8754
In capitalism there's vacancies because there's too many businesses
In socialism there's vacancies because there's not enough people
This sounds a lot like the Chinese
Communist party
one of the best analyses of how Fascism and Communism were the same totalitarianism
Tom is very sharp and easy to understand
Martin Bergman the Jews are just smarter than you and more financially literate. Don’t be jealous.
Martin Bergman le JEWS!1!1! You are no different from communists or any other regime, you think if you just get the right people in power everything will be fine, power corrupts and all governments do is steal from us and make society worse as a result, now sure you might have a good government once in a while but how long does that last? That's the point of libertarianism that society is better off when we can limit the power of the government and ideally do away with it all together
Hahaha! I've studied economics and I learned that governments are so corrupt you can not give them the power over money. Instead you need to give the power over money to the bankers because they are really reliable people. Yeah right that makes so much sense... Actually go study history of economics you will se jews totally dominate the theory of free markets. That is due to their long historic knowledge of international trade. But this system of free trade takes the power from government and puts it in the hands of international bankers. Who use their money to buy lobbying firms who in their turn bribe politicians. So yes I believe that you start by finding the right people.
Rainer Zitelmann's "Hitler's National Socialism" is a republishing of his original "Hitler: The Policies of Seduction"
All you need to know about who has the correct take on economics is to look at how inflation took over Germany and caused famines.
Interestingly, ignoring obvious war-related injuries, business flourished under these conditions...
Also, too, Germany was, not necessarily solely by decree, autarkic, which was a severe disadvantage as compared with more empiric nations.
What might work in Germany is not necessarily applicable to other nations (especially those with access to enforced trade).
All these kids in the comments who watched an amateur documentary on TH-cam and are now experts on German economic history....
ad hominem. Hitler was against a "gold standard," yet one of his first acts is to collect vast amounts of material wealth (i.e. gold, antiquities). ... Demands are made upon my wealth by 'the state' constantly it seems - or is debt not considered in this equation. Prosperity is conditional; who decides the outcomes of prosperity? ... Just saying - many holes in this man's logic.
This guy is basically using the tired old argument that an idea is bad because Hitler agreed with it. Hitler obviously was a bad guy, but that doesn't mean absolutely every little thing he said or did was concentrated evil. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian it doesn't mean that there is anything evil about eating vegetables. Likewise, just because Hitler thought that a country's industry should serve the needs of the country doesn't mean that that idea is evil.
As much as I respect Tom Woods, he should have given a more objective look at the policies of Germany in this time period. While I disagree with many economic views held by National Socialists (I do not consider lending with interest to be "evil" or "usurious," as it is simply a reward for low time preference), their social policy bears examination beyond that which is politically correct. Indeed, such policy may have had a greater impact than any intervention or "debt-free money," as a country with confidence in itself will tend to be more productive and forward-thinking.
Usuary is the American economic plan
This talk didn't explain why what Hitler did worked. It didn't even acknowledge how he rebuilt Germany. I didn't learn a thing.
Lol, planning worked so well for the Nazi war effort. It worked so well we're still all today speaking German. Oh, wait ....
I really enjoyed "The wages of destruction" by Tooze
8:54 _"As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights. The state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger .... But that is only theory. _*_In reality, there is only a single economic system: responsibility upwards, authority downwards. It has been like that for millennia and it cannot be else-wise._*_ The system is just, and there cannot be any other. _*_The system today only lacks responsibility before the nation._*_ A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions, it engenders anarchy and Bolshevism. That is clear from even the nature of the production process, which knows no distinction between capitalism and socialism.”_
- Adolf Hitler, 1930
Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing. They were both socialist but they are not the same. Nazism is racial socialism Fascism is not that
Fascism was basically socialism with a nationalist aim for the Italian nationals with a few differences with how they wanted to run things. National socialism was just a racial socialism for the German racial group where as Marxism was a class socialism for the proletariat class group. All of them needed a strong state. There’s really not much between them.
sounds a lot like kennedy. "don't ask what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country".
i swear i heard him say "Anne Frankley"
Where is the next step? That is, what is the difference between Hitler and FDR?
DOCTOR WOODS is a GENIUS. LOVE YOU! I recommend the album by The Residents, "Hitler was a Vegetarian" Also- Ayn Rand pointed out how similar the 1920 Nazi Platform was to FDR's New Deal...
soapbxprod FDRs new deal was under the fed (since 1913). FDR's NRA set about fixing prices and prescribing production and distribution in a over centralized command economy that was nearly as bad as in soviet Russia. the NDASP primarily incentivised production, increasing wages and the return of women to the home. this turned around the death spiral of debt, decreasing wages and growing unemployment that was sucking germany into the drain. hitlers germany and mark became the most prosperous & valued in the world respectively. many of the publicized theory or propaganda was similar but not the results or the actual efforts.
Al Gore after /pol/ MUH ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES!!!
soapbxprod they should look similar since they both come from the same source
Actually if Hitler had not started the war his Economic plan would cause economic loss (short term gains, long term loss) FDR began his new deal at a time of Economic loss which his policies made it worse.
That's interesting soapbxprod as FDR and Hitler(the bolscheviks too) were funded by the same financial interests! See the work of Antony Sutton for the evidence for that :-)
25:47 what's the name of the video of the guy quoting hitler in a rally receiving cheers from the leftists?
Pretty much EVERYTHING Thomas has sarcastically read from Hitler personal memoirs, and the Nazis financial policies and problems with the economic situation back then, defines to perfection what we are living...so...what’s the point Tom...history repeating itself???🤨
18:30 My definition of fascism ranking the state as more important than the people. In part embodied in his phrase: "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nobody against the state." Yeah, try to achieve the third proposition after the first two were achieved.
Anyone have a link to the video of the kid doing the Hitler quotes at leftist rally? That would be Hitlerious
I would suggest to consider H.'s statement in regard to the circumstances. Germany had been plundered of its gold reserves and he was looking for a way to stabilize its economy.
(And seems like he did)
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
― Thomas Sowell
magnus4g63 keep quoting a guy who denies the biological basis for black dysfunction
ok ... “The idea that the State is capable of solving social problems is now viewed with great scepticism - which foretells a coming change. As soon as scepticism is applied to the State, the State falls, since it fails at everything except increasing its power, and so can only survive on propaganda, which relies on unquestioning faith.”
― Stefan Molyneux
STARK&STOLZ ... well i guess thats true depending on your definition of failure ... but yes the world is in a sad state.
Yes statism is a powerful religion.
A religion based in the violent subjugation of others is not fine, if fine is to be understood as a moral imperative.
Of course you can abstract some universal economic principles, but that doesn't mean there still aren't some economic regularities which exist on the racial level, Europeans have a lower time preference than Africans for example, and that is a function of the environments each evolved in. The higher scarcity experienced by proto-europeans during the last Ice Age contributed to a greater need to plan for the future.
Not 'Political Spectrum'.
Rather: 'Political Map' :Two dimensional.
Williams George Johnson Edward Taylor Frank
...anne frankly, I think it is distasteful to make puns about tragic events.
I subscribe to the Austrian/Chicago school also, but challenge Thomas E. Woods on his interpretation of the gold standard. The gold standard is a default standard, it is the correct thing to run to when government, or the private Federal Reserve, turn to the printing press as their favorite pain medication. Hitler didn't have any gold and as a pariah of the Ashkenazim bankers, was unlikely to get any. So he turned to German fiat currency, probably based on Abraham Lincoln;s experiencve, and he fought the world almost to a stanstill. Had his jet engines and rockets been farther along and had he not allowed the British army to go free at Dunkirk, he might very well have won the war; yes little Germany against the whole world on a currency based on labor. Labor trumps gold but not in a Communist state, that is the rub.
Germany had population in 1941 - 114 mln.
With axis allies for barbarossa (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland) - 148 mln.
Total Axis in Europe (include Italy, Croaty, Bulgaria ) - 207 mln.
Total human resources in Europe (include France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark) - 290 mln.
Plus Japan and colonies.
So, you confuse little Germany and the world war.
It appears from my study that whomever started WWII thoought that Britain and France together would end Germany. Then they added the Soviet Union and ooops. that didn't work either, so they added the United States. That finally did it.
germanys population in 1941 was 80 mio. a lot less then what you just made up.
Because you are looking at the modern borders of Germany, but then they were much larger. You also do not take into account the population of the Czech and Poland, which became part of Great Germany.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Nazi_Germany.svg
right. poles and czechs where germans.. if anything they made everything more difficult. there where only 80 mio germans in germany. that's it. btw the soviet union also invaded half of poland and some other countries and the soviet union had almost twice the population of germany to begin with. you also forgot to include that the netherlands alone had a population as large as germanys (colonies) as well as 1/4 of the earths population was british (colonies). all considered germany with allies had 100 mio people and the western allies and the soviet union had 10 to 15 times as many people (not even including the US)
Honestly hitler makes SOME points. Sometimes it sounds like he is disregarding basic laws like supply and demand or profit motives. But other times it seems like he is just shitting on Keynesian economics. Which is actually bullshit.
18.30... I think he is suggesting that the value of a currency depends on the amount of products that currency area produces, because if you want to buy those products you need to get that currency, petroleum dollar works in that way, you want oil you need dollars and that with tax is what backs the currency... He could be seen as correct, after all the fact you need dollars to buy oil, increases the value of the dollar and seen in that way, production of goods increases the value of the currency you buy them in, esp if you can only buy those products in that currency.... Are you sure your ecconomics friend is actually an economist? Because I think Hilters point is rather obvious, only took me a moment to see it.
100 % correct. But the libertarians do not acknowledge the petro-dollar they say dollar is backed by "nothing". Thats kind of funny...
Wow. You really don't see you've proposed a logical paradox. Another win for progressive propaganda completely decimating even a modicum of critical thought.
@@martinbergman3836 When a Libertarian says the dollar is backed by nothing, the implication is the US dollar, not the petrodollar.
@@allie8442 Hahaha seriously? Do you believe they are two different currencies or what?
@@martinbergman3836 Yes. And some countries want it to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency. The petrodollar is a cryptocurrency. cryptointelhub.com/what-is-petrodollar-xpd/
Why do all these scholars talk in dude speak these days to try and look cool?
He's not that old (46) and he works on a college campus.
I understand, but it sounds a bit forced and cringey.
where is the video of the kid that goes to the socialist rally with hitler quotes?
Question - if all country's still used the gold standard then wouldn't country's that have no gold resources be forever doomed to be impoverished? And then how would you level the playing field on a global market?
Matthew Cowan, good question, what would happen is they don’t have their own unique currency but use a currency from a successful country, in today if that happened it would likely be US dollars or chinese yuan. Similar to how most of Europe uses Euros instead of french franc, german mark or british pound
And then their money becomes backed by another countries wealth
Turkey has a dictator too, who has his own economic ideas...
The United States during the colonial era worked just fine with Colonial Script until the British (under the financial influence of the Rothchilds, of course) intentionally regulated the script out of use to assert british dominance over the colonies. The finest colonial minds were able to set the quantity of money with the tools of the day and the result was prosperity. Hitler generalized the value of gold and other specie to all other goods. This is actually a more robust and resilient system than just precious metal.
The economic theory behind colonial script worked for the colonies, and it worked for Germany, and it is generally the foundation of every fiat system in play.
This history of the colonies is believed only by Greenbackers. The issuing of colonial scrip (not "script") would have been illegal. Greenbackers believe in it based on some fake quotations from Benjamin Franklin. Half the Greenbacker position is based on fake quotations. I've never seen an intellectual movement like it.
Oh good thing he didn't editorialize or anything...
14:12 I call bullshit.
He is not describing the far right. He is describing the left.
I honestly thought he said "Anne Frank-ly" at 1:42.
Great lecture.
Tom looks like he needs to get more sleep.
Its very fascinating to study the economic miracle success of 3 countries in the 1930s when the rest of the world was in the worst depression in history. These 3 countries removed private independent control of their central banks and instead used these banks for the good of the state, by providing just enough interest free cash to companies that they could use to increase production, increasing economic output and creating millions of jobs. The quantity of extra free cash was carefully matched for how fast companies could grow (therefore not inflationary) and not used for public consumption because that is very inflationary (look whats happening 2020 & 21 after 6000bn was just printed). The 3 countries had no gold anyway so the value of the money was measured in GDP. Between 1933 and 1936 7 million jobs were created in DE, millions also in Italy and Japan with strong economic prosperity for the people. Their GDPs more than doubled from 1933 to 41. While at the same time USA UK and the rest were experiencing the worst triple dip depression in history. The privately owned FED cut rates to 2% in 1926 to fuel a boom, told their friends to sell up and cash out all investments early in 1929 because they were going to hike rates to 6% and crash the world economy later in the summer. Then all the people in the know who sold beforehand could buy up huge amounts of companies for a tiny fraction of their worth after the crash. Research how Mr Kennedy Sr was one the lucky ones who cashed out in spring 1929 before the crash. When his son became president he tried to shutdown the Fed and replace it with US treasury notes, he got killed shortly afterwards..... Check his Executive Order 11110. All this info of history is really true and it happened. I have a feeling the economic boom in those 3 countires was a big factor in why WW2 happened. Stopping them from becoming too powerful.
Very sharp comment !
The speaker had propably never heard about the MEFA's in germany.
That explains the grows of the economy and keep the currency for the people stable at the same time.
@@torstenbeck640 The OP is merely describing the "business cycle", where money creation via expansion of credit fuels the boom/bust cycle. Tom Woods is an economist of the Austrian school, whose principal contribution is the theory of the business cycle, so this is exactly his area of expertise. The theory of the business cycle shows that the boom must always result in a bust, and when all is said and done it's a net destruction of wealth.
They were called Mefo (or MEFO) bills, by the way, not MEFA, and they were just a sneaky way for the German government to print vast sums of money for rearmament via a shell corporation and launder it through the Reichsbank without attracting international attention. All of this economic stimulus, the boom, was unsustainable and by 1938 the economy of Germany was on the verge of complete collapse. By that time the economy had become dysfunctional -- the government had taken direct control over allocation of all resources and implemented widespread fixing of prices and rationing of consumer goods. It was only the Anschluss and the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, which provided new influx of gold, foreign currency, and resources to Germany, that temporarily delayed the collapse for long enough to complete the rearmament necessary for the invasion of Poland and the start of World War Two.
Once the war started the bust was complete -- the economy had ceased to exist. During WW2 Germans were either conscripted into the military or assigned to work to support the war effort, and were paid in worthless paper. Workers were paid with marks from the money printer but was nothing to buy with them, as the minuscule supply of consumer goods was strictly rationed and prices were fixed.
It's easy to have full employment when you're conscripting workers to be slaves and paying them with monopoly money that they can't buy anything with.
@@mniskin My Grandparents had a pretty good life, bevor the ww2 started.
It's called Mefa in German language btw.
And one question germany started ww2 ?
@@torstenbeck640 "MEFO" is derived from MEtallurgische FOrschungsgesellschaft, m.b.H., the name of the shell corporation formed by Hjalmar Schacht for the purpose of issuing these bills.
Some people do well during the boom, because it allows people to live beyond their means via credit. Of course things might seem amazing while racking up massive debts, that's why it's called a "boom". However, this reckless spending is always unsustainable and a "bust" always follows. The bust then destroys massive amounts of wealth. It's like if you get a mortgage on a house you can't afford and you max out all your credit cards buying cars and furniture... eventually the bank forecloses on your house, the cars and furniture are repossessed, and you're in worse shape than when you started.
I don't think it's fair to say that Germany started a world war by herself, but she did invade Poland knowing that a worldwide coalition of countries had agreed to a mutual military protection pact with her. I'd say it takes two to tango, so to speak, but I think it's reasonable to say that Germany was the aggressor.
Anyway, AH was crystal clear about his intention to conquer vast territories in the East (ie. the western USSR), there is no doubt that a large scale war was inevitable.
@@torstenbeck640no, they did not start ww2. And life was great in Germany before the war.
I could listen to Thomas all day long.
Disagree with this. Historicism does not say they are no laws to economics. Read Capital, Marx’s entire thing is that capitalism has laws and develops through stages. He does think capitalism is the most productive economic system by far, and far better than feudalism. But it’s self contradictory nature leads it to develop into socialism. Strawman. Marxists and Libertarians have a lot in common, both are effectively trying to find the scientific laws that underpin the economy. Many in “socialist” states never read Marx. Communism is the real movement! Free time and nothing else!
Disagree with you. If you want "real" communism look at religious movements like the kibbutz and the Amish. Not so impressive. Socialist have been claiming that capitalism will fall any time now and I am still waiting. The main superiority of capitalism is that , if done properly leads to constant innovation which is the source of higher standards of living. The problem with capitalism is that politicians , who think they know better keep meddling. Going down the path to socialism/fascism.
Marx drops the ball on a lot. He really doesn’t make much sense.
you are mixing up nazi with fascist. They are not the same. the Italian fascist never had any death camps.
Italian fascism did not promote racial superiority until their alliance with Germany 16 years after they came to power.
Anti facism is not laissez faire nor regulations fascism
Excellent! Thank you, Tom Woods!
BTW ... Nazism isn't Fascism. The two are closely related branches of socialism, but they are not the same. Moreover, the founder of Fascism - Benito Mussolini - often stated that he didn't consider Adolf Hitler a fellow fascist.
Bruh neither are even inherently socialist, the Nazis weren’t socialist
@@violet6968 Communism, national socialism (nazi's), and Fascist are all socialist movements. Where the state is in control of the means of production. They all have group thinking in common poor/rich, ethnic German/foreign, and Nationality /foreign.
@@levivanoverloop lm sure Hugo Boss made plenty of profit under Nazism
@violet. Wrong. Fascism and Nazism were both born out if socialist ideals, and had socialist goals.
Hitler and Goebbels were dismissive of fascism in their private discussions (Hitler in his table talks, Goebbels in his diaries).
Zitelmann is pronounced Tsitelman
All-time favorite
This was a disappointing lecture since I hoped to hear what happened, rather than what the politics was. Also, I don't see the problem of basing a currency on the value of labor, if that was not just political talk, especially since it was so successful! And especially if you want to be isolated from international controls that they had been under the thumb of.
Because the labor theory of value is complete bunk. Labor only describes one aspect of prices and not all labor is equal nor is all labor valuable. You can't base a currency on an inconsistent, incomplete factor of value.
@@billmelater6470 All labor could be given equal value, on the theory that all labor is necessary. There are other ways you might do it. All labor could be combined to make a stable pool of labor.
@@jgunther3398 You're speaking very broadly without really saying anything (as I see it. I'm not trying to be insulting). So how would you give all labor equal value as you say it could? Second; how do you support that all labor is necessary? I would also ask you to define what a "stable pool of labor" is and how combining it would make an impact on its value.
DONT LIE TO INDIAN GOV. DONT EVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE.
14:30 sounds like short Tom's good friends at Liberty Hangout.
are there still people who believe that economic forces alone determine any part of the world economy?
Wikipedia:
The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the adoption of paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views by some of its leading figures, on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[6]
A 2000 "Intelligence Report" by the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate, "devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics."[7]
Wow amazing video
1:41 no pun intended..... sorry
Could someone provide the references for these passages by Hitler?
Check out the books I recommend at the beginning
I'm a little confused about the implication of criticism of Hitler's view that business is subordinate to politics.
The idea is rather vague and can be interpreted in different ways.
Surely in all political ideologies there is a balance between businesses and the state and the state holds primacy as it regulates the practises of the businesses.
On one hand you can have a communist state which stifles entrepreneurship and on the other you can have a situation where businesses can literally enslave workers.
Even in liberal states, the government prevents businesses from practices that will harm the consumer.
So I would agree that business should always be subordinate to the state but it's the extent of state intrusion on business that is the issue.
I assume what Hitler is advocating that business interests should be directed to towards the direct interests of the government.
It’s a little strange that he said that if he were to ask for a definition of fascism he’d get a different answer from the dictionary definition. How can he then suggest it is the responders fault if even the political scientists formally disagree with what it means?
Try explain this to the thousands of kids who can't scratch around in the bins for food anymore and subsequently dying of starvation. Maybe they should of thought about this before they shut everything down.The saying goes..When North America gets a cold economically speak Africa gets pneumonia 😪
All I want is for someone to show me the peer-reviewed research saying that intelligence is genetically tied to race.
hjp14 Do your own research, it’s not hard to find.
I do not think race has anything to do with it. But intelligence seems to run in families. Of course there are exceptions. This is my own observation having lived a long time now,