China's New Leader Signals Signs of Economic Reform

[Questor]

I thought people were arguing with me because I said the Nazis weren't free marketeers? I entirely agree that the Nazis and their cartels and nationalised industries were an anti-market movement. Schacht tried to restrain their insanity to at least some extent, and largely failed. He was appointed to appease the British/American creditors, not because the Nazis actually liked him.

Like I said, I got confused as to who was arguing what.

See above for the rest, it's not so much that Nazis were Anti- or Pro-market as they conceived of the market as a tool of the state and used it in whatever way worked best for them politically. This resulted in some cases where the "private"* sector had more freedom than even the robber barons of the USA dreamed of, other cases were very central planning. but to argue that they were inconsistent would be to assume that they ever created an economic policy as such, instead of as a political tool.


* The amount of the private sector that ended up being owned by high political figures does not make it public sector.

[Iron Bridge]

I agree, I'm sure if they thought free markets would let them buy more tanks or something they would've tried to promote it. But still, it's difficult to exercise total control over a society without taking a lot of substantive control of the economy. It is important to distinguish between "markets" and "businesses". Some businesses did very well out of the Nazis, but by agreeing to dance to the government's tune in exchange for a share of tax-funded spending. That isn't the same as being a free market.

[Questor]

I agree, I'm sure if they thought free markets would let them buy more tanks or something they would've tried to promote it.

Well, except for the fact that free markets wouldn't have done that, and free markets would absolutely have interfered with their other, more important (to their minds, at least) projects.

But still, it's difficult to exercise total control over a society without taking a lot of substantive control of the economy.

I disagree entirely, and your choice of examples to prove that this happened is actually a rather bad one. Direct control of the economy was not exerted until relatively late in the process of the Nazi government's takeover of everything from culture to politics, as you yourself pointed out with the mention of Schacht.

It is important to distinguish between "markets" and "businesses". Some businesses did very well out of the Nazis, but by agreeing to dance to the government's tune in exchange for a share of tax-funded spending. That isn't the same as being a free market.

Would you consider the US military industrial complex a free market? There's open competition between about 4 different conglomerates.

[Iron Bridge]

To the last one, no not really, since all military spending is by the government. I'm not necessarily saying we should try something else because we have to have a military and I don't want to privatise the military (whatever that even means), but I agree that the military industrial complex is corporate welfare to some extent.

[Thanas]

The Third Reich had also been a democracy like 12 years before it collapsed, unless you think the wealth should all disappear overnight.

Imperial Germany had bugger all to do with democracy, and still fought its democratic neighbors to a standstill in a conflict where outproducing your enemy was more important than outmaneuvering him. Your argument has, like, a flaw.

Imperial Germany had a lot to do with democracy actually. It was at least as democratic as Great Britain was at the time (arguably even more so considering it integrated minorities far better) and much more democratic than, say, Russia. It was a constitutional monarchy with equal and free voting.

Are you claiming that the Weimar Republic's choice of political system caused the Great Depression?
That's amazing.
More amazing even than thinking Germany became poorer during the Kaiserreich? Although that was an imperfect democracy to say the least.

Thanas isn't sayint that the Weimar Republic caused the Great Depression, just that it did nothing to halt the destruction of the wealth of its citizens, although Brüning's boneheaded economical decisions regarding national debt surely didn't help. In a more deliberate example, in the early 20's the Weimar Republic deliberately caused massive inflation to get around the reparation payments and so willfully accepted destroying the monetary savings of its people.

Indeed.

Lead collapse apparently thinks that freedom = wealth. Too bad that the republic which followed a constitutional monarchy suddenly did not increase the wealth of its citizens, far from it.

[K. A. Pital]

Then what do you think they are? Do you think they opposed markets or favoured them? Do you think Nazi Germany was more of a free market economy than the Weimar Republic? It's all vacillation and deliberately twisted and misleading statements from you.

There's nothing misleading; the Nazis, like already explained, obviously kept a market economy for their own goals. Before the war mobilization, when all powers who went on total war footing had to expand direct controls, Germany was using a version of an indicative planning. As one can see, private property was not abolished in Germany, so trying to say the Nazis had a command economy would be a deliberate lie. Building grandiose government projects inside the framework of a market economy with a mix of soft and hard controls is something which long predates Nazi Germany - Britain, the USA and France all did this with some success both before and after the Third Reich.

To the last one, no not really, since all military spending is by the government.

The contractors offer price bids to the government on a given project. That's the difference between a market system and a planned one. In a market system, the price of goods is determined at the transaction. In a planned system, the price is fixed in advance by a planning agency which also fixes all other prices in the economy. Do you understand this, or are you simply economically illiterate? Does the US determine in advance the price of a missile supplied by a contractor? No. It makes a buyer's offer; the sellers then make their offers and the final price is fixed by a written supply agreement. A planned economy would say X missiles at the price of X should be supplied from factory X, and that would be it. There's almost no bidding in the system; the planning agency estimates the costs of making missiles on certain enterprises and takes their best shot. Perhaps the enterprises may even provide the planning agency with cost figures, but they do not make profits; reinvestment is likewise done by the planning agency.

This is very basic stuff, something that a person even in the first year of study of economics is supposed to know. So once again I'm wondering - did you skip your classes or something?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Imperial Germany had a lot to do with democracy actually. It was at least as democratic as Great Britain was at the time (arguably even more so considering it integrated minorities far better) and much more democratic than, say, Russia. It was a constitutional monarchy with equal and free voting.

Sorry, herr.

This is very basic stuff, something that a person even in the first year of study of economics is supposed to know. So once again I'm wondering - did you skip your classes or something?

How can I put this... ah, fuck it: Bridge is the one in his class most likely to work in the IMF one day.