Braineack

iTrader: (62)

He was already in power at that point. Remember he was convicted of treason in the 1920s -- after which he led the ***** to power legitimately -- the outlawed all other political parties.

But the way I understood it is that Hitler joined the Worker's Party and used that to get into power, then went hog wild.

Would I ultimately describe ***** and **** Germany as being socialist -- very much so. Arguably more socialist than countries we consider socialist today.


But I will be the first to admit -- as an Russian alt-right racist **** trump-voting conservative -- my knowledge on the fake ***** is sadly below-par.

z31maniac

They absolutely should be. Just like everything else in the world.

That sounds very fascist of you.

RalliartRsX

In this/my particular instance, it was not a political stance, but a general question for the audience. Neg cat for asking a question as I am genuinely interested in the discussion behind it and how history has played out over time??

Who knew the two were one in the same.....

I guess when you hit a nerve, you get neg cat, regardless of political stance

chiefmg

iTrader: (5)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Ok, now I'm really confused. You are literally saying the exact opposite thing in two adjacent posts in the same thread of conversation.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I was merely suggesting Hitler used the socialists to get into power and was going beyond mere socialism. I'd read plenty of arguments saying was a left-wing socialist or he a was a conservative capitalist depending on who the author was. I have little to no interest in Hitler, but many like to use him for agenda on both sides of the table. I know he has spoken/written against Marxism. I brought up the Night of the Long Knives, because from what I understood, he felt threatened by the socialist leaders who believed too much in National Socialism, and not with his own plans for colonizing Europe.

But when you look at the actual economic policies of the state at the time...

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

What a shock

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Stroke victim talking:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

chiefmg

iTrader: (5)

RalliartRsX

I wish folks would have been more honest with blue collar workers and accept the fact that automation has decimated that class of workers. Also, instead of various unnecessary tactics, just use the funds generated by Tarriffs (for example) to retrain the workforce into new roles. We all know China isn't paying for those tarriffs....

Atleast that way, you are indirectly stimulating the economy and also, allowing the same manufacturers/American citizens who indirectly paid to train these works, turn around and hire the very same workers.

Win win. However, that is not as sexy as a sound bite as "Mexico is going to pay for the wall" or "China is going to pay for the tarriffs!"

Automation has been an issue for well over a decade now. However, when you have to fund a war and a recovery from a financial sector collapse, well, here we are.

When is infrastructure week again??

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

But that would require 1. honesty on the part of all politicians and 2. a self-reflection on the part of voters who, by the time they've reached retirement age, or close enough, realize that they've not had the life that the "American Dream" said they would... sorry, just a bit of sarcasm.

An interesting read on the subject of What Manufacturing Can Teach Us About How Automation Impacts Jobs. One of the highlights is that automation has had it's greatest impact in the richest countries i.e. America because it's where the application of capital can cause the greatest impact on costs. If you only pay labor $1/day it makes no sense to deploy capital to reduce it unless it's the largest driver of costs vs. other things. And, it helps that China, Vietnam and other Asian countries just so happen to have an abundance of people who're willing to work for $1/day (or whatever the rate is today).

I have a mfg customer who I've dealt with for over 25 yrs. When I first started working with the company they employed 400 people at 1 site. Today that site has 98 workers producing more "product" (both in units and dollars). Product design accounted for 50-75 of the reduction. Workflow improvements (cellular mfg etc) accounted for another 40-60 and automation (robot assemblers, robotic packaging, robotic machine loaders etc) accounted for the rest.

That same customer just announced a new plant in Mexico because it's now more economical to deploy capital dollars there. In time, the work will move there.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Rally,
Automobiles put most wagon builders out of business. The government should have taxed automobiles heavily and subsidized the horse drawn wagon industry.

Redesigning the assembly lines to use robots was extraordinarily expensive. The unions made it cheaper and more reliable to automate than to deal with human labor so the change was made. If autoworkers were more competitive then more of them would be employed. They didn't try to keep up with the technology and were eclipsed by it. Not my job to send other adults to school.

Residential garbage collection used to require a truck driver and two fellows hanging onto the back of the truck. Many modern trucks only have the driver and a mechanical arm. Shall we be forced to pay for retraining for the two gents who used to ride on the back and sling cans?

Obsolescence through technology is inevitable and nobody's "fault". It's quite difficult to get employed as a muleskinner, wheelwright, miller, smith, or cooper compared to years past. Keep it in perspective.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Bahurd's example shows how technology brings the cost of individual items down.

Henry Ford brought the price of his Model T down to $350 by not using skilled craftsmen and handbuilt components. Other cars were $1000-2000 dollars or more at the time. Less people produced more cars for less money and therefore more poor people could afford to buy them.

Yes, streamlining the cost by mechanization helps the poor. If you want to build affordable automobiles for the poor and middle class, using some of the most expensive labor in the world and making it a very labor intensive process is not advisable. And it isn't very bright.

We don't build televisions or mobile phones here and people on public assistance can afford both. If they were built here and by hand they would be many times more expensive. The poor and middle class would be either unable to afford them or would have a greater portion of their income devoted to them.

RalliartRsX

^^ all great points sixshooter and bahurd. I purposely didn't address the shift in labor to $1/day worker capitals, as that involves an entirely new discussion that tarriffs surly will not fix, or even begin to address. Tarriffs also do a **** job of addressing the real cusp of the thorn in regards to China and outside of cheap labor rates; the constant infringement of intellectual rights/production quality (which is hinted on in sixshooters post).

Now, sixshooter, I never mentioned we as the citizens should be held accountable for retraining the workforce. However, if we are going to implement tarriffs (which we the citizens will end up paying for anywho), that is a forced tax on the citizen. If we are forcing such a tax, why not go ahead and properly leverage this "tax" like how property tax is leveraged (for instance) for funding schools and local roadways. Education leads to more lucrative jobs, the ability to have be "flexible" in your career and overall be a higher earner in most cases. My argument is to properly leverage the tax. If I am going to be "forced" to do something, atleast let it benefit us as a whole and not just a select few.

If I am going be forced to pay for tarriffs, then lets use it wisely.

The blue collar folks have always been left behind. Yes, it is not my job to educate them. However, if the entire motivation behind tarrifs as has been voiced by this admin has been to bring back jobs to the blue collar workers (which it does not), this seems like a very solid way to begin to deliver on that promise.

This is a solid article on how tarrifs have not worked as they were voiced to the public
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...an-steelmakers

However on the flip side for all this; if the tarriffs end up failing, that revenue generation has dried up, as well as the US steel manufacturing industry. A double gut punch :(

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Serious question: what would you define as "the American Dream" in this context?


By any reasonable measure, the majority of Americans enjoy a much higher standard of living* today than they did 100 years ago, and also a much higher standard of living than the global mean average for all persons today.

Or are you speaking of something entirely different? (Example: Brainack's version of the American Dream is one in which there are no non-white people.)

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Purely rhetorical and based on nothing more than life experiences and meeting lots of people, it means different things to different people. The poorer the person/family the more local it is. It used to mean having the ability to afford that 2 week family vacation in the summer in a place not called home i.e. the beach, the mountains etc.. It used to mean having that color tv when the norm was black & white or the 2nd car back when the wife wasn’t required to work because of the need for money.

To the person living in way rural, small town USA it might mean having a better trailer than Dan up the street. What I mean by more local.

While I do think it’s easy to compare yourself against the “averages” for the most part I think the “American Dream” is a mental state of affairs. Make sense?

I agree with your statement but to a normal person on the street that comparison means nothing. 100yr frame of reference isn’t something they can relate to. Nor is a comparison to some unknown in China, Africa or any other place they’ve likely never been to.

Also, my experience with most (not all) people is a lack of personal responsibility to truly take ownership of themselves, including whatever circumstance they find themselves in. I realize that sounds harsh. Life is harsh... Own it early on!

I’m not one of those guys who thinks immigration is bad at all. I do feel that to be in our country you should make all effort to be here legally and our govt should make all efforts to accomodate those trying to do it legally. But that’s another topic.

Hopefully that answered some.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

If the American Dream means always having it better than Dan up the street, then it is, by definition, un-achievable, presupposing that Dan also wishes to live the American Dream.

My personal opinion is that being locked into an unending race to have a nicer trailer [boat / car / airplane / TV / cat tower / vibrating аnal plug / iThing / etc] than Dan is entirely antithetical to the American Dream.

The American Dream is to be secure, content, and comfortable in your own life.