Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Krugman, Keynes and Hitler

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391—405).

by Anonymousreply 1603/08/2013

You left out the part where the German industrialists bankrolled the Nazi party to keep the workers in their place. And the fact that the Nazi's first order of business was to declare all unions except their DAF illegal. Don't even try to give the "Free MArket Capitalists" a pass on what went on in Germany.

by Anonymousreply 202/12/2013

Today's Batshit Crazy Libertarian Spew is brought to you by Mort's Discount Gold Emporium. Sell us your gold - or else!

by Anonymousreply 302/12/2013

[quote]bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions,


Confiscated factories and sent the Jewish owners off to death camps.

by Anonymousreply 402/12/2013

Oh Mel -- your father already told us what happened to the Jewish people.

Remember? They moved.

by Anonymousreply 502/12/2013

I see our resident libertarian nutcase has finally figured out how to clear his cookies. I also see that he's just as clueless as ever, just as funny as ever, and is even better at getting his spam threads closed. Too funny.

by Anonymousreply 602/13/2013

The point however- which history has prove to be true is that a thriving economy could very well take care of the deficit and when times are good is when to make the cuts. That's how you resolve long term debt.

The problem with this however is that it also levels out the disparity between rich, middle class and the poor. The rich can still be rich- just not as wealthy as there are now woth their tax cuts and loopholes.

by Anonymousreply 803/05/2013

What is the point of this thread anyway??

by Anonymousreply 903/05/2013

"when times are good is when to make the cuts"

This may possibly be true, r8, but which electorate would vote for a political party or candidate saying we need to make cuts in the good times?

by Anonymousreply 1003/05/2013

Laissez Fairy strikes again.

by Anonymousreply 1103/05/2013

It would seem obvious that when the economy is doing well there would be almost automatic cuts in unemployment, welfare and other social services because people don't need them.

by Anonymousreply 1203/05/2013

So, when the economy goes bad there would be automatic rises in unemployment, welfare and other social services because people need them. In which case, saying "when times are good is when to make the cuts" is meaningless because those cuts don't last beyond the good times, when expenditure on those items in fact rises.

The actual cuts that some argue need to be made, at least in the case of Europe which has very different public spending from the US, are more related to things like raising the age at which a full pension can be taken (no more retiring at 53 on a full public pension), reducing pensions, charging university tuition fees, closing down or merging certain departments or services, restricting the duration for which certain benefits can be claimed, reducing the level of benefits, cutting arts budgets, sports budgets, laying off excess public sector staff, that kind of thing. I can really see governments saying, "hey, voters, we're having good times now, let's make some public spending cuts!"

by Anonymousreply 1303/05/2013

[quote]If someone like Scarborough can destroy Krugman, no wonder he refuses to debate Bob Murphy.

Sure, now if that had actually happened, you'd have a point. Sadly for you, it didn't. And you don't. You really should join us in the real world someday. You might even like it here.

[quote]There are many ways to prick holes in Krugman's argument, but Scarborough didn't come close.

And yet this post didn't come up with a single "hole prick" in Krugman's argument, despite the "many ways" to do so. Funny how that works.

by Anonymousreply 1403/05/2013


If Krugman is right, why won't he debate Bob Murphy?

Murphy has raised $60,000 for NYC food banks that will be donated once Krugman agrees to a debate. I'm sure that once he agrees to the debate the amount will go way over $100K.

If Krugman is so sure he is right, why won't he do this for charity?

by Anonymousreply 1503/07/2013

[quote]If Krugman is right, why won't he debate Bob Murphy?

Because Murphy is an ignorant troll and giving an ignorant troll a national platform would be stupid. We've been through this before; this isn't exactly rocket science.

It really is funny: you start these threads over and over and over again and all you do is demonstrate just how little you know about economics, about Krugman, and about Keynesian economic theory. And, ultimately, the webmaster deletes or locks your threads because he gets tired of your spamming, at which point you start whining about how picked on you are.

by Anonymousreply 1603/08/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!