Hitler Economy?

.

Attached: 1496542961683.png (2560x1321, 3.93M)

He made it illegal for women to seek employment, and so the unemployment rate was halved.

Half the men were conscripted into the military, and so the unemployment rate was halved once more.

Is any of this true? No.

he did same as the US did after the great depression, through public inversion to stimulate the economy.
if you want to know more and deeper about it look for the Keynesian theory of public expend

Try this...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBQeMH5mEI

I bet you unironically believe this

It's basically Keynesianism, set up by Hjalmar Schacht. Such demand driven policies were already discussed in the proto-socnat party before Hitler. Search Funk plan for international monetary settlement. Haven't found any books about it, so everything has to be picked up from papers.
- Keynes and the economic activists of pre-hitler germany (Garvy)

Yes Hitler's economy was so chad tier it built zero aircraft carriers when Britain (which had a smaller GDP) built dozens of them, and zero four-engine bombers when Britain was churning them out in the thousands.

Attached: tfw you're outproduced by a communist third world country.jpg (1280x631, 142K)

Correction.
According to The lost science of Money (Zarlenga), Hitler was exposed to fiat-money solution when he was assigned by army intelligence to watch the german workers party after W1. He attended a meeting that made a deep impression on him; views of Gottfried Feder:

The basis of Feder's ideas was that the stat should create and control its money supply through nationalized central bank (no interest payments).... derived the conclusion that finance had enslave the population by usurping the nation's control of money.

So basically Keynesian fiscal policy with government created money.

I've heard Hitlers economy described as Proto-Keynesian by a few economists.

The exciting thing about the economics of the interwar period is that you reach the epistemological limits of economic thought altogether, because the war was ABOUT breaking the chains of debt slavery and destroying the rootless international banker class. Even if you say "that's stupid, that was Nazi propaganda," the Nazis at least sincerely believed this, and so did decade after decade of Germans before them.

People were getting fucking pissed about the disproportionate ownership of capital of people like the Rothschilds since the 1870s. Max Weber himself saw around 1900, well before WW1, that the "unlimited" growth of Germany's industrial revolution was not unlimited, that it would sputter out by 1920, that they were borrowing against their future on interest, and that there was a massive and increasing tendency toward coalitions of finance/venture capitalists and bankers detaching from their host nations and internationally monopolizing capital distributions, meaning they could soon manipulate geo-politics (much like Soros types nowadays crash entire national economies when they don't like what those nations do with their domestic policy, that is, with their own sovereignty).

ALL of this writing was on the wall for decades and many many were not happy about it. Again whether you agree with them or not, Germany's whole respectable academic world was looking for "alternative" forms of economics in this period. It's only postwar that "neo-classical" economics of infinite growth becomes the "sane, default" form of economics that everyone assumes from birth is simply capital-E Economics. And recently this has been smashed down too, as leading historical economists like Brenner are increasingly showing that "unlimited growth" was ... surprise ... wait for it ... an ideology invented around 1970, when real growth ceased but the international finance classes wanted to continue experiencing infinite growth, so they practically invented speculation - the most advanced form of usury and debt-slavery ever created. Guess what? We're right back where we started after WW1: we need new definitions of what economics even IS, because our definitions have been monopolized by these fucks to give themselves seven-figure bonuses for decades on end, while REAL WAGES have stagnated for literally 50 years among the middle class (which now barely exists anymore).

Long story short: The fascist regimes were trying to break out of these economic forms to begin with, so when you read histories written by people who simply ASSUME the universal validity of those forms, maybe keep this in mind. Especially given that we are currently re-treading the same crisis and breakdown in those forms that was experienced in 1930, which made escape from them so appealing in the first place. This is a point on which BOTH Marxists and right wingers agree.

counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>REAL WAGES have stagnated for literally 50 years
believing this is embarrasing

Why even bother with such a contentless reply? Do I reply back, "Not believing it is embarrassing" or what?

If you want to disagree, substantiate your disagreement. At least say where you're coming from, what school of thought, something. Don't just quote something and go "imho no." Good to know, thanks for treating Yea Forums like twitter, phoneposter.