Best explanation for Weimar Republic Inflation I ever read....

Sorry, but I don't even know what this means.

 

With the mention of Weimar Germany in the OP, one example that comes to mind along with some interesting quotes is the following:

"Jews Declare War on Germany 1933"
https://archive.org/stream/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933_djvu.txt
"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but
soon." - Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted in his book "The New Holy
Alliance").

"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United
Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson,
page 188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).

"We want to bring about a deep hatred for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and
airmen. We must hate until we win." - Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich
Goitsch.

"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the
most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." -
Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S. A will be
formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." - Paul Dreyfus, "La
Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938.

 

Economics naturally separates into exchange theory and conflict theory. The fake libertarians ignore the latter and rely on an utopian understanding of the former (which is so ignorant of reality that it makes perfect competition look like a more probable outcome!)

 

So do you know what it means for a group of countries to wage "economic war" against another country? Maybe you can explain the question.

 

Definition of economic war in English:
economic war


NOUN

• 1An economic strategy based on the use of measures (e.g. blockade) of which the primary effect is to weaken the economy of another state.
  
  
  
• 2The use of such measures.
  

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/economic_war

 

Oh, you mean war. Yes, I do believe that a group of countries can wage war against another country.

And this pertains to economics how?

 

Um, because the blockade is economic, not militaristic.

Here see if this helps...

"Economic warfare, the use of, or the threat to use, economic means against a country in order to weaken its economy and thereby reduce its political and military power. Economic warfare also includes the use of economic means to compel an adversary to change its policies or behaviour or to undermine its ability to conduct normal relations with other countries. Some common means of economic warfare are trade embargoes, boycotts, sanctions, tariff discrimination, the freezing of capital assets, the suspension of aid, the prohibition of investment and other capital flows, and expropriation."

That's from Brittanica.

 

A blockade is an act of war.

 

Read again:

Some common means of economic warfare are trade embargoes, boycotts, sanctions, tariff discrimination, the freezing of capital assets, the suspension of aid, the prohibition of investment and other capital flows, and expropriation."

I know this is hard for you to process. That it's possible to cause suffering and harm without "force".

 

See how difficult it for LS? The realization that it's possible to hurt people via economic manipulation without using "force". A perfect example of what you just said.

 

Capitalism is based on survival of the fittest and some people are not fit to survive well in a capitalist economy. And????

 

Blockades are typically applied via military force so yes...a blockades is an example of force.

The thing that the ignorant do not realize that all trade embarhos actually is an application of force and/or coercion. For example if the US places a trade embargo against Russia the US is actually restricting it's citizens freedom of association with those who live in Russia. The force is applied again it's own citizens.

 

Blockades. Enacted by force.

Trade embargoes. Enacted by force.

Boycotts. Actually not enacted by force. Totally voluntary. There's your one example.

Sanctions. Enacted by force.

Tariff discrimination. Enacted by force.

The freezing of capital assets. Enacted by force.

The suspension of aid. Enacted by force.

The prohibition of investment and other capital flows. Enacted by force.

Expropriation. Enacted by force.

I still find it fascinating that the self-proclaimed economists on the board are in favor of using force against the person or property of others in order to accomplish their ends.

 

Boycotts by individuals are an exercise of freedom of association. Boycotts by nations are forcing that countries citizens to restrict it. It iall depends upon if state force is applied or not.

 

Several countries can ban together and agree not to trade with another without imposing force. I mean, of course, it can be imposed that way, but that's not the only way to do it. OPEC routinely drives prices up via production cuts in order to increases costs. They don't use force, it's a form of economic warfare.

Suspending aid? That's enacted by force? No, that's simply denying aid.

You live in a very strange world, my friend.

 

Interesting.

I still find it fascinating that this board's self-proclaimed economists, such as you and @Reiver, are in favor of using force against the person or property of others in order to accomplish their ends.

 

I find it fascinating that you deny that people can cause harm and suffering to other people without resorting to violence.

 

why so afraid to give us your best example of this?

 

Of course I don't deny that. I mean, I could refuse to be your friend. That would harm you, and it doesn't involve violence at all. Also, if you were my neighbor and I knew that you hated roses, I could plant roses in my yard where you could see them, and that would harm you. And that also doesn't involve violence.

Of course, none of those things actually involve violating your body or property.

But "economists" like you and @Reiver propose violating others' body and property to make people do your bidding. How very anti-economic.

 

I get it, the free market causes suffering and harm and thus we need libcommies to determine what the harm and suffering is, who must pay compensation for it, and how much to alleviate it. With liberals it always gets back to a violent central govt. Good thing our Founders were the opposite.

 

Ignoring the importance of zero sum games is a major defect in fake libertarian dialogue. They ignore it as they need to peddle myth: monopoly can only result from government; the market is only characterised by exchange theory; mutually beneficial exchange is necessarily exhausted in laissez faire environments etc. It's all based on utopianism, where real world economics is ignored, in order to enforce continuation of market failures.

 

Zero sum games? Can you give an example that would occur in a free market?

 

Well, authoritarians...that's what they do.

 

Why do you think right wing authoritarianism dominates psychological experiments? Is it another academic conspiracy because reality refuses to support your ideology?

 

Real world is 132 examples like East/West Germany, USA/USSR. We know that you are truly a genius and are the one to have finally figured out how to do govt monopoly communism well but still we'd rather stick with freedom.