Political Crossfire Forums

[Colt_45]

Quote: Centralizing the government and becoming less transparent, at the same time socializing programs through the government.

Ok, where's the fascism? This can merely be socialism, which s*cks too, but in order for it to be fascism it must be enforced with some kind of fear or force.

Quote: Fascism is more practice then law. Fascism is more of a result rather then a policy. I was only pointing out that we still basically leading up to the same commies. Socialist or fascist... what ever.

Leading up? Maybe, but we did at least ditch 2 of those three programs.

[Gremlin]

Colt_45 wrote: Quote: Centralizing the government and becoming less transparent, at the same time socializing programs through the government.

Ok, where's the fascism? This can merely be socialism, which s*cks too, but in order for it to be fascism it must be enforced with some kind of fear or force.



...The terrorist have bio weapons... Come on, are you seriously going to ask that?

Its only men in black stomping boots when they need it.



Quote: Quote: Fascism is more practice then law. Fascism is more of a result rather then a policy. I was only pointing out that we still basically leading up to the same commies. Socialist or fascist... what ever.

Leading up? Maybe, but we did at least ditch 2 of those three programs.


batting .333... not bad but those are the obvious ones that just poped to mind, your still asking the same commie to do everything else. The worst part is these commies have some guys with several Jon Doe's that they are workin for. Corporatist, thats American Fascism. Its not always brown shirts, the brown shirts now a days are on mass media.

bill oreilly wrote: Shut Up!

[Colt_45]

Quote: ...The terrorist have bio weapons... Come on, are you seriously going to ask that?

Its only men in black stomping boots when they need it.

Do terrorist with bio weapons make you salivate at the mouth for NCLB? Didn't think so. Also, the message has never been that they have them, but that they may get them. You should get your propaganda updated.

Quote: Corporatist, thats American Fascism

Maybe so, but is it any worse then say regular social programs? Are they all fasicsts? You seem to be wanting to do a lot of finger pointing.

Quote: Shut Up!

Real classy, you tell me to shut-up because I don't agree with you..... :lol:

[Gremlin]

Colt_45 wrote: Do terrorist with bio weapons make you salivate at the mouth for NCLB? Didn't think so. Also, the message has never been that they have them, but that they may get them. You should get your propaganda updated.



Well maybe i should have said the Media is doing all the fear mongering.



Quote: Quote: Corporatist, thats American Fascism

Maybe so, but is it any worse then say regular social programs? Are they all fasicsts? You seem to be wanting to do a lot of finger pointing.



Ya im getting better at it every day...



Quote: Quote: Shut Up!

Real classy, you tell me to shut-up because I don't agree with you..... :lol:


Just stating a reality, dont take the words literaly.

[bob.appleyard]

Fascism is about the supremacy of the state above all else, a kind of radical ultra-nationalism. Society, the economy, information ... all would become mere arms of the state. Rampant authoritarian policies stem naturally from this equation, as does imperialism. Both Mussolini (the fasces was a Roman symbol of juridicial authority) and Hitler (he started the Third Reich and tried to conquer Europe) were obsessed with their countries' imperial pasts. Hitler even read -- and said he enjoyed -- Wiersukowzki's biography of Frederick II; a clear case of his love of empire overriding even his rabid anti-semitism. In the case of Germany, the nationalism was disinctly racist, but Italy wasn't all about lovin the dark skinned fellas either (nor did they like the Germans much). Vehemently opposed to both communism and liberalism, they have been hard to put on the left-right line.

The economy wasn't exactly the same as the USSR, nor did it spring from the same goals, but there isn't a great deal that distinguishes them. The economy was basically a heavily militarised version of Keynsianism, to get Germany to the stage where full reunification could take place, lebensraum won, France put in her place etc etc. To be frank, the Nazis didn't know much about running an economy, they didn't really have that many ideas. They knew what they wanted, and they had made some pretty tall claims when out of power, so they needed to deliver. So they got some experts in, who were peddling this new theory that promised wonders. Basically they did what the IMF goes crazy about nowadays -- stuck it to the debt they owed (which had been slowly been whittled down by previous governments) and going on a defeceit-spending holiday, building roads and public buildings and increasing welfare provision (which in Germany had quite a tradition by that point) and state pensions, subsidising industries, and then, most importantly, building weapons and assembling armies. Meanwhile they built a series of currency controls to try to guard against inflation and currency manipulation. They made a special kind of mark for foreign exchange, and sharply controlled its issuance. They accumulated gold and hard currency reserves, instead of using them to service debt. They engaged in mass barter agreements (I can't remember the official name, but that's what they amounted to) with poor eastern European countries, to attempt to guarantee inputs. And they persued some enquiries, most of which fruitless, into autarky technologies. So while it wasn't quite the planned economy, there was massive state intrusion, in order to get the country to war. Note that this policy was in some ways similar to the New Deal in the USA and the postwar consensus in the UK, although there are marked differences, which I will not discuss here.

Were they failures. Well, as you can tell, I don't really know about Italy's economy, but Germany had certainly achieved its aim -- it had mobilised the country to a war of expansion with some initial successes. Germany's big failures in the war were strategic, rather than economic. That isn't how I would measure success, though. There was a noticeable upturn in production in Germany at this time, and while incomes improved and unemployment was drastically reduced, the standard of living was not improved as much as the stellar macro numbers might imply. Most of the gains went into the war effort, rather than into improving people's lives.

[malignantpoodle]

Colt_45 wrote: malignantpoodle wrote: Chymical wrote: Bal-Der-Dash

there has never been a 'strong economy' in the history of this whole stinking diseased mass of humanity, be it fascistly governed or not. Show me a place where the poor are not poor and do not feel poor and suffer the consequences every day of their lives, then success canbe measured and governmental systems can metaphorically puff their chests out....until then gre aiohbaefl awdf wcd knicknasq2anjafb af KNICKERS...

I don't like mondays...sorry....
Luxembourg? :P

GDP - per capita (PPP):
$55,600 (2005 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1%industry: 13%services: 86% (2005 est.)
Labor force:
316,500 of whom 121,600 are foreign cross-border workers commuting primarily from France, Belgium, and Germany (2005 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture 1%, industry 13%, services 86% (2004 est.)
Unemployment rate:
4.9% (2005 est.)
Population below poverty line:
NA%

55k per capita! wow. NA% below poverty line.

chymical; was that what you were looking for?


Luxembourg has less then 500,000 citizens, and relies heavily on out-of-country workers. In a sum, they have it made, especially with the foreign workers since they won't use much of the nation's social services, like stuff other than general usage items (roads, sewers.)

But I have to ask how a nation with 4.9% unemployment has no one under the poverty line, especially given that they rely on foreign workers, who are not included in the 4.9%.

4.9% of 474,413 (Luxembourg pop) is around 23,000. Somebody in that category has to be below the poverty level, especially if a foreigner took their job.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:cnafGWhMzF0J:www.socstats.soton.ac.uk/staff/micklewright/M_S_New%2520Economy.DOC+poverty+level+of+luxembourg&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

According to this Luxembourg has an income poverty rate of 14%.

Be that as it may you can have people unemployed but not below the poverty line. Maybe rich families, elderly on pension, hell I dunno. My info came from CIA world factbook, your link looks like an abandoned school project from 1992. :) Therefore, I win. (j/k man)

It was kind of a joke towards chymical anyway, I know almost nothing of the place.