RE: New York Times, CNN, others barred from press briefing
February 27, 2017 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: February 27, 2017 at 9:57 am by Anomalocaris.)
There were 6 million unemployed in Germany in 1932.
The number of concentration camp inmates in Germany before 1939, while very large by the standard of political repression, was very small by the standard of impact on the economy. In 1939 there were less than 10,000 people incarcerated in the camps. The number of inmates didn't really rise very steeply until after 1940. A large percentage of the Jews were removed from major professions under the nazis, but the total number of Jews living in Germany in 1932 was less than a million. So the removal of Jews from employment didn't come close to offseting the increase in employment overall.
The mass mobilization for public works project nonetheless created employment, although at the cost of inflationary pressure.
The number of women in the workforce in Germany was never very high before 1939.
The Large number of mostly foreign slave labor incorporated into the German economy was largely a wartime phenomenon. It was largely inapplicable to pre-1939. Incidentally, impressed foreign slave labor is a phenomenon made necessary by the existence of near full normal employment. It is not a thing used to pad employment figures to create the impression of full employment.
So the fact is the nazis did create a large net increase in employment Between 1933 and 1938. But they did not create a large sustainable increase in net productivity. So Germany was staring at renewed inflation again by 1939. Had Hitler not started a war, Germany would likely be back in a severe economic crisis by 1940-1941.
Again, what the nazis did with the economy between 1933 and 1938 bear a striking resemblance to what trump is proposing to do and what the supposedly "conservative" GOP is pivoting instantaneously to embrace. Short of a war, what is trump's plan to deal with the inflationary pressure and reduction in overall productivity of American economy that comes with his contempt for trade and his atavistic employment formula?
At the bottom end, for a few years, the scraps may be spread a little more evenly, but so will the poverty. The net impact of moving jobs back to America is to make those uncompetitive workers work again for a while, but make the economy less efficient by making those things the economy ought not to be doing represent an ever larger proportion of what it does. It also makes daily cost of living of those on the bottom of pay scale who have jobs higher because American made refrigerators and iPhones are not better or has more utility than those made in Mexico or china, they just cost more while offering nothing more.
In the long run, it is pretty clear the growth of national economy will decline due to loss of trade, embracing of make work projects like the wall, and injection of inefficient jobs that should be better done by other countries back into the US. It seems inconceivable that even those fat cats who supported trump would continence any reduction in their inflated share of the national economy. Would the billionaires accept a long term loss in the growth of their wealth? Probably not. What they would insist on is an even greater share of the nation's total wealth to offset the reduction in growth rate in the nation's total wealth.
So those idiot trumpomatic morons in the blue state should know what trump is offering them is in effect a path to working harder on things that's not worth doing while taking a ever smaller share of a smaller pie.
The number of concentration camp inmates in Germany before 1939, while very large by the standard of political repression, was very small by the standard of impact on the economy. In 1939 there were less than 10,000 people incarcerated in the camps. The number of inmates didn't really rise very steeply until after 1940. A large percentage of the Jews were removed from major professions under the nazis, but the total number of Jews living in Germany in 1932 was less than a million. So the removal of Jews from employment didn't come close to offseting the increase in employment overall.
The mass mobilization for public works project nonetheless created employment, although at the cost of inflationary pressure.
The number of women in the workforce in Germany was never very high before 1939.
The Large number of mostly foreign slave labor incorporated into the German economy was largely a wartime phenomenon. It was largely inapplicable to pre-1939. Incidentally, impressed foreign slave labor is a phenomenon made necessary by the existence of near full normal employment. It is not a thing used to pad employment figures to create the impression of full employment.
So the fact is the nazis did create a large net increase in employment Between 1933 and 1938. But they did not create a large sustainable increase in net productivity. So Germany was staring at renewed inflation again by 1939. Had Hitler not started a war, Germany would likely be back in a severe economic crisis by 1940-1941.
Again, what the nazis did with the economy between 1933 and 1938 bear a striking resemblance to what trump is proposing to do and what the supposedly "conservative" GOP is pivoting instantaneously to embrace. Short of a war, what is trump's plan to deal with the inflationary pressure and reduction in overall productivity of American economy that comes with his contempt for trade and his atavistic employment formula?
At the bottom end, for a few years, the scraps may be spread a little more evenly, but so will the poverty. The net impact of moving jobs back to America is to make those uncompetitive workers work again for a while, but make the economy less efficient by making those things the economy ought not to be doing represent an ever larger proportion of what it does. It also makes daily cost of living of those on the bottom of pay scale who have jobs higher because American made refrigerators and iPhones are not better or has more utility than those made in Mexico or china, they just cost more while offering nothing more.
In the long run, it is pretty clear the growth of national economy will decline due to loss of trade, embracing of make work projects like the wall, and injection of inefficient jobs that should be better done by other countries back into the US. It seems inconceivable that even those fat cats who supported trump would continence any reduction in their inflated share of the national economy. Would the billionaires accept a long term loss in the growth of their wealth? Probably not. What they would insist on is an even greater share of the nation's total wealth to offset the reduction in growth rate in the nation's total wealth.
So those idiot trumpomatic morons in the blue state should know what trump is offering them is in effect a path to working harder on things that's not worth doing while taking a ever smaller share of a smaller pie.
