What are your thoughts on the Austrian school of economics, or a free market society? Also...

ideally it would be represented by a basket of commodities necessary for the country to run (grain, rice, metals, gold, timber, etc) plus labor (like the reich did)

meaning you print currency if there is a net increase of this basket from one quarter to another.

On this topic, was National Socialism "socialism"? Rightpedia states that it is: en.rightpedia.info/w/National_Socialism

nice chart, thanks

Exactly, it does much to limit average family life. How many of you know your neighbours? Much easier to swindle them.

Bastiat wrote a great book but the Austrian school to me is as flawed as all economic schools. Why? Economics is not a hard science, it's not science at all. It's pseudo-sociology with numbers. The Austrian school is at least right when it comes to "fuck it all" approach more than the idiot keynesian and chicago boys who got us into this horrible mess. But again, economics is bullshit. It's all about knowing how people think or do, not hard numbers. It's just a joke and I say this working in finance.

Why not back the economy with a currency based on kJ/hour?

austirans are very legit, why did you put fucking kike scum in the pic related? are you a faggot?

Tea Party and (((libertarians))) call any form of government financial intervention [socialism], which include the policies of both sides of the NSDAP.
Moderates, Academia (current year), Uneducated commies consider the Hitlerite NSDAP faction as non-socialism, as the means of production was not owned by society (i.e. bosses and employees still existed)

switch between definitons based on context

The Libertarian movement, nurtured in part by widespread disgust or disillusionment with the two major parties and in part by its adherents' yen to be associated with an imagined political and intellectual elite, has expanded in recent years. Most new recruits seem to be gathered from that somewhat nebulous group known as Yuppies: television-weaned, city-centered folk under 40 whose major pursuits in life are a full enjoyment of the standard items on man's pleasure menu, as well as rapid job advancement in some high-tech or otherwise glamorous industry, interrupted occasionally by est encounters, visits to the racquetball courts, and libertarian meetings.

Libertarianism fits the spiritual vistas of many Yuppies like their Calvin Kleins fit their bods. It combines comfortable elements from their radical youth with the nervous economic conservatism of their maturity, and all of it is dressed in the flattering garb of profound philosophy.

The high priestess of libertarianism is the late Ayn Rand, a one-time Hollywood screenwriter and the author of long novels dramatizing her philosophy, known as "objectivism." The salient thesis of Randian thought is that the individual human mind is the prime mover of all progress, and anything that would fetter or restrict it is part of a "collectivist" drag back to primitivism.

Government exists – or should – solely to enforce contracts between free individuals, and perhaps to provide for the common defense, although no one is obligated to pay for the defense or to serve in the armed forces. Libertarians in practice strongly oppose drug control, immigration laws, gun-control laws, social-welfare programs, and taxation. They favor unlimited and uncontrolled capitalism in all its forms.

The type of society favored by libertarians seems to be a sort of loosely-contained anarchy: each intelligent, self-seeking, rational mind goes quietly and peacefully about its business, pursuing its own objectives, not disturbing or interfering with the objectives of other free and rational entities. Government, such as it is, will be called upon only to arbitrate contractual disputes.

While any citizen so inclined can ship himself off to boot camp in order to keep the armed forces going, the ultimate defense against "collectivist" oppressors is . . . an elitist strike. Those possessors of the freest, most rational, and most inventive brains simply will refuse to continue to exercise their competence and ingenuity in the service of "collectivists." After their strike causes the lights of civilization to go out, lo, the objectivist heroes will get into harness once more, having demonstrated to the unappreciative herd the errors of its past ways.

Rand manages to impart a certain appeal to these concepts in the pages of her emotional romances. But the entire movement, from its seminal ideas to its political expression, is a trap for deracinated fools. "Objectivism" is a soul-state for urban Americans dominated by a highly personal and economic Weltanschauung. It is not political thinking at all, merely a thinking about politics. It is, at bottom, a poltroonish mirage for those who will not face the grim facts about a world teeming with hostile non-Whites (who would slaughter with glee all elitists "on strike") and an America rapidly sinking into a multiracial quicksand. The libertarian is oblivious to the fact that present racial trends, if permitted to continue, will at the very least put an end to his treasured concepts of unlimited frontiers, endless space, and wild freedoms, those nostalgic mind-sets that abet the growth of puerile nonsense such as libertarianism.

Rand and most of the early objectivists were Jews; thus the preference for an anarchic bourgeois condition and the primacy of economic thinking. The Jewish communist and the Jewish libertarian may seem to be in violent opposition, but with the emphasis on the material and on what is considered to be the "rational," the two are alike, though one may seek the end of "justice" and other that of "freedom." Both are hostile to movements built on national, racial, or cultural instincts.

To a libertarian the "mind" that creates civilization is spread about indiscriminately among all races and peoples. Racial idealism, cultural dynamism – these are invalid concepts that in the "free marketplace of ideas" will find new buyers, say the libertarians. And so it is that Ayn Rand once wrote: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."

Those who are attuned to facts, to reality, and whose living, race-based impulses are Western, Faustian, will smile – horselaugh, perhaps – at Rand's transparent stupidity and at the pathetic childishness of her followers. Were it not for a tax-supported police force, and for the tax monies that go into the monthly welfare checks, the impoverished urban non-Whites would rise in the night to murder all objectivist Yuppies faster than one could say, "Who is John Galt?"

Let the libertarians continue to weave their fantastic, gossamer webs. Let them add their bit to the chaotic factionalism of America, this bizarre whirlpool with a hollow death at the nadir. The static rationalist concepts of prissy "objectivists" will drown in the steaming vortex; schemes about going "on strike" against mindlessness will bring one day only a sad, head-shaking smile to those who once held them dear.

Libertarians quack loudly and long about "rational thinking," but in reality their program discourages fact-based thinking on the part of intelligent Whites, a few of whom might otherwise be capable of thinking their way through to a realization of their dire straits. Instead, the libertarian movement offers them only a sugared, gingerbread ideology, which will crumble instantly at the first full-blown, feral blast of the dragon's breath.

But they are Akhenazi, you tard.
Even if you support their practices/ideology (try visiting >>>/liberty/ because you wanna fuck niggers :^)), they are undeniably Jewish.

So long as they didn't tax the people and spend it on meaningless shit. Didn't privatization still exist in the Third Reich, and isn't that antithetical to socialism?

Haven't you figured out the kike game? They drop the market, sell shit when we have money, raise it and make the goys sell then rinse and repeat

Jewish bullshit that will lead to a destruction of nations and global corpocraty. Free market if let to itself without a focus for nationalistic interests ends up making what they aim to do. No boders, no regulation, no oversight, no quality control, no worker's rights. Right now governments are bought by corporations who can spend insane amounts of money on lobbyism and who can bribe officials. An unlimited corporation seeks to attain a monopoly and if it's let without oversight can and will try to extend that monopoly on every single area of the economy. Imagine a Wal-mart which produces, manufactures and sells everything, everywhere it wants to, toppling nations and having no one to answer to but their owners and backers. As soon as a competitor opens up, he can buy them out, decide to to bribe any supplier of that opponent or temporarily manipulate the prices so badly that his small opponent would never be able to make a profit and would be forced to close. That is what the world would become under free market principles. If it were implanted right now, you'd have only multinational super giants competing with each other, buying out or crushing every small businesses until one of them manages to crush all the other super giants and he remains the sole victor.

The Third Reich forced businesses to produce shit that was needed by the volk or useful to it. Something was done against the interests of the German people and nation, the business was taken out. They were privately owned but had to respect strict guidelines.

That is precisely my philosophy on social degenerates. Act in the best interests of your body, the nation, God, etc. Why go out and drink yourself into an early death or smoke whatever herbs you can find, as opposed to being respectful of objective standards that benefit the community. Drug use, sexual perversion, and general obscenity benefit nothing and nobody. It revolves around ethocentric heterosexual monogamy, why deviate from that standard which has worked so well in favour of other things under the guise of subversion and relativism?

If I didn't think the autobahn project was created in anticipation of a war, then I would consider it potentially meaningless. Volkswagen took too long.

That's a good 'Ol short sale

In a rightful society, removed for ZOG's tendrills I'd agree with you 100%. In this one, I'm really not sure I want to benefit it, I'm more of the opinion of sabotage until the parasite gets ousted by force or dies with its host. As long as people are complacent drones and willfully work against their interests, why would anyone with a brain help the parasite thrive?

Absolutely, I agree. The subversion process is in its second/third generations, even with complete control and an Overton window that is far-right, it would still take years and years.
Chaos is the name of the game.
I'm just interested in what an ideal economic platform will be. I've heard Keynesian theory is pretty shit because it's just inflation, and the whole interest payments on the Fed's money doesn't make sense, because it relies on profit, and there is no profit wth $1 trillion in social spending for spics and niggers. The gold standard seems to be interesting, but I don't know a whole lot about it. Pure capitalism seems to be a kike's wet dream, as they can swindle the goy endlessly. Socialism can spell degeneracy and collapse (yeah bro, let's protest for wealth redistribution while we slack off and do nothing down with the 1%, which includes businessowners, too!) in a heartbeat if it goes unchecked, which is why I am so opposed to it. Not sure how the Third Reich got it to work as well as it did, probably because they were all white.

The Third Reich had a nationalized central bank that had a labor-backed currency (the Reichsmark) for everything involving domestic economy. It had no inflationary measures and if I remember correctly loans had absolutely no interest. Everything that was traded internationally, was dealt with in gold. The Rothschild bank was illegal and usury was too. Very far from the madness of compound interest modern banks uses.

That sounds quite reasonable, I just have little faith in socialism as a whole because the line between charity for the common good of the people versus degenerate hippie filth chasing after redistribution because they need more weed money is a thin line. It requires a community of wholesome and traditional people.

National socialism is socialism in name only and the name was primarily used to attract te masses before he got elected. You have to think that social democrats were the party of choices for the average German in the 20s, so Hitler played them by using the socialist appeal .That's why he also used the SA (the socialist branch of the NSDAP) in the early days before purging them once he got into power. The system was planned out so there were no shortage of job, hence very few and temporary unemployment. The only people really having social security benefits were old people, family men who got sacked and were looking for a new job and physically crippled people. You'd have been sent to a work camp or forced to military duty if you were found out to be abusing the social service system.

That sounds excellent, was there a system better than that of the Third Reich? Prioritized the people and their good, anything against the future of the people was punished and exiled.

Not that I know of. The thing that pissed off kikes to no end (other than their banks being barred from leeching the country) was that there was no such thing as venture capitalism. Every businesses that required external funds to start-up was being loaned to by the German government. There was no such thing as some fat cat playing the stock market, sitting on his ass, getting rich from interests and dividends. That is why it's called a labor-backed currency. If you wanted to make money, you had to work for it, if only as a manager for your business. TThat is primarly why it had to be erased according to international Jewry. Saddam and Gaddafi both tried to do something similar in their respective countries, while telling the petrodollar to fuck itself, we all know what happened to them.

Herman-Hoppe is da best form of Austrian Econ. Hoppe fucking hates niggers and leftists and believes they must be purged from society for a free society to work.

No more wall street making money off of money.

This is my favourite quote of his: The principled opposition of the libertarians to the Vietnam War coincided with the somewhat diffuse opposition to the war by the New Left. In addition, the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy state and the nonaggression axiom (that one shall not initiate or threaten to initiate physical force against others and their property) imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle?
Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles? Not surprisingly, then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers. Subsequently, the countercultural ambiance and multicultural-relativistic "tolerance" of the libertarian movement attracted even greater numbers of misfits, personal or professional failures, or plain losers. Murray Rothbard, in disgust, called them the "nihilo-libertarians" and identified them as the "modal" (typical and representative) libertarians. They fantasized of a society where everyone would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as a result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity.
Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.
This intellectual combination could hardly end happily. Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modem libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights Gust as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social discrimination and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives.

That's as wrong as saying NS was a Wall Street front. Hitler mixed very orthodox socialist policies (price, wage controls), liberal economics (not sure about the regulatory side, but he was steadfastly against nationalisation), and autarkical trade and banking policies, and stimulus though public works (not rearmament, that came later). He more or less just did whatever seemed right to him from a national point of view, ignoring Schacht, who was a crypto, and Feder, who ended up unfortunately sidelined even if his theories were eventually put into practice.

elaborate on this.
you mean free market principles?

ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

Not quite, the major manufacturers got in good with the state and there was government regulation, though I don't know the extent of it. It's just the best way to describe Hitler's dislike of nationalisation policies, one of the reasons why the Strasserists were purged. That said, he had no qualms about expropriating property from the major Jews, though I believe it was passed back into private ownership for a price.

Better try to distance it from the idea of Marxist socialism (which is what most think of when thinking about socialism).

There were sectors of the economy which were 100% nationalized, like banking, education, health care and the media even during the period which privatization was at its peak. That alone would make adherents of free market principles throw a fit.

How can this:
be true with this:
and
I don't like that Big Brother government making those decisions, they had better be composed of the most brilliant men with the best interests of the people as the penultimate priority. Just the phrase "within reasonable limits" is off-putting. I understand you want to avoid the kike swindling the goy, but if a business prospers, could it not be that it is just determined to be successful? Why penalize success?
Also, the taxation system is not fair, why must the rich pay more proportional tax?

I can understand media nationalization, look at what happens when the Jews get control of it. Same with banking. But education and healthcare? Especially healthcare. I don't see that too much, let the free market produce the most competitive services. State education is what we have now, it is why brainwashed masses are produced at these rates.

Yes, you can get severe shortages or death from starvation.

Education is the same as media but applied to kids, you do not want any Marxist opening in it and needs to be controlled tightly to make sure kids get the best upbringing possible. The US is a thoroughly Jewed country, no wonder why state education is filled with Marxists who turn it into shit. Germany had free healthcare, that's why it was nationalized. It was to make sure it operated at maximum efficiency and also because German hospitals were also used to sterilize people under the Eugenics program. You seem to base your opinion of nationalized industry on corrupt, defective governments, which the Third Reich was not.

I understand the school argument, then. That makes sense, I guess. The healthcare was not 'free', though, it was payed for by the taxpayer, according to the following:
By the rich more so than the poor, which I still do not appreciate. I think a flat tax is more appropriate, taxing the rich excessively seems to socialist "redistribute the wealth" Sanders kike nonsense to me.
You'll have to excuse my cynicism, most of the modern governments are corrupt, hard to imagine this one was not. I guess that's what happens without a ZOG.

You can update that with gold having the same features as Bitcoin with services like Goldmoney.com giving you the ability to trade contracts to vault held gold instantaneously over the net.
So gold now can do what crypto can plus you can actually stash it too.

Germany wasn't an individualist kikehole either. The leading philosophy pushed by the NSDAP was a vision of a big extended family that was the Reich. Individualism is also a part of why kikes can easily drive wedges between people in a nation and tear it apart from the inside and multiculturalism makes sure that unity is impossible unless forced artificially by threat of violence. The goal was the strength of the people and the Reich. The poor were not to be seen as poor or leeches but simply as fellow Germans. Remember "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer". People were in no position of being selfish either, they got fucked over ever since Versailles and knew damn well that unity was an absolute necessity to get themselves out of slavery. Such a vision would never ever work work in a place like the US, the culture is way too different and simply "being white" does not make a strong cultural identity. Proof of it is the self segregation different types of white Americans tend to do (not counting niggers, latinos, chinks, etc.). Which is why national socialism there would most likely take a different approach.

Jumping at shadows, m8. Getting taxed to pay for what you use (state education) is fine so long as the society is healthy enough to be in a proper state of mind and make an informed decision in favour of it.

Taxes were probably the lowest in Europe, at every level, complaining about progressive taxation after that, in favour of a flat tax that would defund the government only makes you look like a reactionary-tier cuck. All taxation is wealth redistribution by default anyway, and all a flat tax does is make it less "onerous".

I am in full agreement with the cancers of individualism, I outlined that here:
I just don't see how there can be this great unification without first purging the undesirables. I mean the AIDS-infested, drug-addicted, hedonists, etc. Do you honestly see them as your fellow brother? They are irredeemable, you cannot un-AIDS them, you cannot un-indoctrinate them in one generation. Otherwise, yes, unification is vital under one banner, nation, and blood.
Still, the question of taxation and profit caps come to mind. I am more of a "capitalism as a tool instead of capitalism as a goal" kind of guy. Respect private property, free markets with limited/no interference (in this case, markets composed of individuals with the German people in their hearts above all else), flat taxes. I don't think it is smart to have a government over-tax the rich, or dominate the markets unless they know what they are doing. Even then, the slightest misstep and you are dabbling in Marxism. I am not sure of the NatSoc stance on private property rights, either.

On the healthcare, I guess, but by that logic, the rich should get access to better healthcare because they pay proportionally more. I doubt that was the case. I think taxpayer money should go towards infrastructure and the military only. Where's that image of that fat fuck boogie going on about how Obongocare is great because you put something into the system, just as you state here, and get some out of it tomorrow? The audacity of fatties is unbearable, you really think some lardass and a physically normal person will have the same visits to the hospital?
Those were some pretty high taxes, though. I just don't understand, if I succeed in my sector, why should I be penalized for it more so than others? Isn't reactionary just right-wing? Still doesn't justify proportionally over-taxing the rich. Are you familiar with the Laffer curve? If that tax rate was at the optimal point, then I stand corrected. If not, then there is similarity with the same rhetoric kikes like Bernie spout about "muh 1%".

Yeah, they increased privatization under Hitler

Once again it depends on your context of what you see as socialism
For the NS, their socialism was summed as "their must be a German worse off than I am, what can I do to help him"

Obscene profits can quickly lead to a situation like we have in the current US where a small number of multinational conglomerates run the entire country and even own the politicans

No issues with it

I highly recommend you check out Hitler's Revolution by Tedor, it covers a lot of this stuff and it's not a long read

I can respect that; one ought to be careful, though, there is a thin line between that and typical kikery.
Of course, but I'm talking about millions, not billions. Some average businessman makes it big and really hits gold, gets to be a rich guy: why should he be punished if he has reached success while being charitable?
Will do, thanks.

Concentrations camps (in the proper sense), cultural revitalisation, and economic recovery. Today's degenerates are not that much worse than those of the 20's, they even had yids turning men into women back then too.

"Single-payer" doesn't mean "no private sector", unless you're a burger raised on the red scare I guess. Personally, my ideal would be a state system focused on education, prevention, early intervention backed up with a fat tax or something like that, and leave the rest to the private sector.

It's justified by the fact that the state can't be run without tax and every tax has a different proportional impact on somebody. Either you end the state (oy vey, who could want this) or you shift the burden, or lucky option three, you could try to run the state without it, but that would most likely be dependent on the state pulling out of the market entirely and acting only as a regulatory body.

Berlin was vice capital of the world in the 20s. Those who were in that situation did manage to become functioning members of society once hope to live a meaningful life came back. You'd notice that most people who are into drugs and other form of escapism, once a viable life purpose is presented to them that they enjoy, will get out of that escapism if you actually knew some of them. Hell, I used to be a methhead 10 years ago until somehow someone gave me an opportunity to make something of myself instead of treating me like garbage, which I was used to since a young teen. Now I'm clean, work and don't ever want to go back to that shit life. Natsoc economy is not capitalist nor is it communist. It tries to take the best of both world and make it work to bring its people upwards instead of fracturing it. The Volk will always prime over the individual in such a vision.

If you both get top-notch healthcare, you can have 200% production output combined but if you have top notch health care and the one on a lower rung gets second grade healthcare you'll have 100% production output and the other one would maybe be at 75%, which ends up at 175% combined. Since the priority is the nation over the individual (while respecting the individual in it, contrary to Marxism), it's better overall to have 200% output and have both get the best treatment possible.

I find that hard to believe. There were brothels and mass obscenity, but AIDS-infested Sodomites and degeneracy seeping into the minds of adolescence? That is unique to the '60's.
I want a mix of the state interference and the private sector. Ideally, just leave it up to the best service to come to the top, unless that best service is from the state (not usual). I'd like your state system except the education part, unless you know who runs the government (trust your ability to lynch them if they start subverting your children).
Of course, there has to be tax and it comes from somewhere, I'm not opposed to taxation. It is a necessary evil, I'm just saying abide by the Laffer curve and don't spend it needlessly, only on infrastructure and military, with interference in a few other areas (paired with the private sector).

Women used to have to pimp their kids and fuck animals to entertain rich people who came there for sex tourism just to be able to buy food for a few days at some point. Instead of AIDS, it was syphilis that was prevalent. Drugs were rampant: cocaine, heroin and hashish. Believe me, Wiemar Germany was a fucking horrible degenerate place.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920s_Berlin
npr.org/2014/12/17/371424790/between-world-wars-gay-culture-flourished-in-berlin
darkmoon.me/2013/the-sexual-decadence-of-weimar-germany/

What would possess somebody. Surely, this is taught. No sane person wishes to destroy their future prospects in life. What would drive somebody to this hopeless and desolate lifestyle?
I do not think the subversion of adolescence can was as overt and successful as it is today, though. I live in a very liberal, urban area, so it might just be more pronounced for me.

Are you totally oblivious to modern history? The treaty of Versailles, after WW1, annihilated Germany. Desperation, poverty and hopelessness is what drove this decadence. Just like it is what leads kids towards their life of drugs and whoredom in modern times. Most girls you see doing porn nowadays usually end up doing so to be able to afford college since they came from lower income households. Others turn to drugs because they were treated like pure trash all their lives, being constantly repeated that they are nothing, will always be nothing and get beat for even expressing themselves as they are kids. Germans at that time were treated like niggers, created to serve everybody else, in their own home country and were expected to be doing so for free. After all, they were the sole people to be blamed for the great war and had to pay back all the costs associated to it.

Of course, there is no denying that. I will admit I was unaware of the exact scope of the decadence in their societies, but still, I do not think there were mass raves with nigger rappers getting top billing. I have seen the mass majority of my peers use marijuana, get piss drunk like a sailor, and even use ecstasy. One of them even had an abortion at 13. The raves and electronic music festivals have corrupted almost every single youth where I live. I am not overstating this, there are about 5% who do not engage in these things, even when given the opportunity to do so. Once in college, it is free range. I do cede that these behaviours are not unique, but there is no comparison to the degeneracy in Woodstock offshoots since the '60's.

I tell you, it was just as bad. Raves and music festivals where you're just tripping your balls off with people are not bad compared to having to dress as a drag queen and do shows in front of everybody or to sell your ass. I've done the rave and festival things myself and it doesn't carry the degradation being a public property does. In term of cultural degradation and mainstream rampant degeneracy 2016 America is very comparable to 1932 Germany though.

Not sure where you live (which state), but that still exists here. We get the best of both worlds.
I hope you stopped, take a look at the biggest ones, Burning Man and Coachella. There are orgy huts at Burning Man and Coachella is a drug haven.

I told you, I've been clean for years. You wouldn't believe the fucked up shit I've seen and stories that were told to me while I was a tweaker. You read the last link posted? Compare that with where you live, even I didn't see things that bad nor was I ever offered some of the things described in it.

I'm proud, good to hear. I never got into that stuff, thank God my parents made sure of that. I only read the first two, even when Jewpedia admitted to it, I was convinced.
I skimmed it right now, some of that is just absolutely immoral in every single sense of the word. I do not think that the West has progressed as that much, especially when you consider miscegenation propaganda and its effects.

That is the thing that is most disgusting about the current state of things. Back then, there was no miscegenation. Lots and lots of degeneracy but niggers and other races still were not considered people and they certainly were not weaponized as they are now. The mass propaganda of race mixing truly is the most dangerous one of the bunch as it can effectively lead to genocide and not simply to fixable (with a lot of work) demoralization.

Precisely correct. Any system that addresses this great social disparity and uplifts the ethnic population has my backing.

Please watch:

To the extent that economics is a science and not just a bunch of hocus-pocus and gibberish, I agree with the (((Austrians))) with the following proviso:

Economics is not the end game of politics. Politicians have many concerns. Economics is only one of those many concerns.

We live in the age of industrialized warfare. For that reason, we need to maintain industry on our native soil because that is the only way that we can safeguard our national security. That means that, even if we embrace a free market in the domestic arena, we need to embrace protectionism in the international arena. This is the only way that we can safeguard our manufacturing industries against our trade partners.

Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that countries that have no health and safety regulations, who ban trade unions and free enterprise, who force the working class to work 18 hour days, without benefits, for shit pay, who, in other words, treat their working class like slaves, will always be able to undersell our own laborers and businesses. If we engage in free trade with these arseholes, then our own laborers will be undersold and put out of business.

Free trade with Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America == the death of American industry (and other Western Industries.)

The ideas of the Austrian School of economics would work great in an idealized perfect world. But we do not live in that world.

How interesting. Great video.
Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that countries that have no health and safety regulations, who ban trade unions and free enterprise, who force the working class to work 18 hour days, without benefits, for shit pay, who, in other words, treat their working class like slaves, will always be able to undersell our own laborers and businesses. If we engage in free trade with these arseholes, then our own laborers will be undersold and put out of business.
Could not agree more. Ties in with the above points about the worker in NatSoc Germany.

because then doctors and engineers will make less than rock dumb labourers in construction

I know jack shit about economy, but what Mussolini did was pretty fucking good and got Italy out of the depression really fast(however there were too many traitors in it)
Autarchy, protectionism,corporativism and a preference for rural areas instead of creation of concentrated urban centers. This could work very well in America considering urbans are a fucking cancer that voted for hillary.

Ridiculous.
Free trade and austerity are the main reason the West is being bled dry.
Gold is also an illusion.

Read "Web of Debt, by Ellen Brown"
Must read for anyone here.

Reminder economics is an ideology not a science.

...

free trade is best in an utopian, completely free world

however there are many many force induce distortions in the economy.
as a result doing naive free trade is going to get you the short end

That's the other thing, the an-caps assume everybody is white in their communities.
I just don't think absolute free trade is good (basically globalism, Jewish wet dream), but distributing the wealth like everybody is in a commune isn't desirable, either. I'd prefer limited state intervention when possible.