[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke

We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations

Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin

Methylene Blue Benefits

Another Mossad War Crime

80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class

Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks

Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files

In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks

Digital Prison in the Making?

In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine

Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station

Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA

6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history

First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet

I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA

Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike

I heard libs might block some streets. 🤣

Jimmy Dore: What’s Being Said On Israeli TV Will BLOW YOUR MIND!


History
See other History Articles

Title: Hitler's Monetary System
Source: Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general77/hitn.htm
Published: Jul 15, 2007
Author: Rense
Post Date: 2007-07-15 00:50:08 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 1218
Comments: 85

Hitler's Monetary System 7-14-7

"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency coverage of gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank." -Adolf Hitler, 1937 (CC Veith, Citadels of Chaos, Meador, 1949.)

"And it proved sound. It worked. In less than ten years Germany became easily the most powerful state in Europe. It worked so magically and magnificently that it sounded the death knell of the entire (Zionist) Jewish money system. World Jewry knew that they had to destroy Hitler's system, by whatever means might prove necessary, or their own [system of usury] would necessarily die. And if it died, with it must die their dream and their hope of making themselves masters of the world. The primary issue over which World War II was fought was to determine which money system was to survive. At bottom it was not a war between Germany and the so-called allies. Primarily it was war to the death between Germany and the International Money Power." --William Gayley Simpson, 'Which Way Western Man' (p.642)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-44) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#45. To: Red Jones (#7)

not backed by gold, money is just made out of thin air & spent

Gold doesn't have any more innate value than any other commodity (including labor).

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2007-07-15   13:36:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Pinguinite (#43)

seems to offer nothing that a gold standard couldn't do

Not true. The fallacy of the gold standard is the one that bankrupted the world for thousands of years.

The supply of gold is finite. You must have a set price or the value is identical to the printing presses running all night...i.e. a pure monetarist inflation of the currency.

Currency based on productivity is far different, elastic and accommodating in both directions. The RICH do not get RICHER from the blood of the serfs and the manipulations of the bankers as is and always has been the case with the discredited 'gold standard'.

I do appreciate and respect your skepticism. I argued with George for two years over it, mostly as a devils advocate, but it is strikingly similar to the system which is the subject of this thread and is eminently sound.

Gold does NOT allow for expansion to the people based on productivity and personal wealth accumulation while simultaneously allowing a 'storehouse of value' determined exclusively by productivity and released to once again PRIME that productivity instead of serving as the "King's Horde" while the masses and middle classes and more successful all starve.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   13:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: JCHarris (#33)

An attractive theory. But, IMHO, there would be much too abundant opportunity for corruption under your system to guarantee that the self-interest of the "money managers" would correlate with the public interest. Thus, we would have a situation where the types of people who currently identify the government's official inflation rates in the US would be determining the appropriate levels of money production or withdrawal. Additionally, Congress and its special interest puppet masters would maintain incessant pressure for more money to be produced to be applied to their pet causes.

The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-07-15   13:42:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: DeaconBenjamin (#47)

Would this work in a Jew infiltrated and usurped society? Of course not...no more likely than you now pay an honest price for a diamond or a bank loan or a gold coin....which you do NOT.

I inserted Constitutional LAW as the mandate and a spelled out formula.

Nothing could be more corrupt than our European Rothschild banking and voodoo economics right now !

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   13:47:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: JCHarris (#39)

Your system sounds similar to a that of a book that I have purchased and read -- Money Creators by Gertrude Coogan, published by Sound Money Press in 1935. She does not mention Lennox, but she does reference Charles Lindbergh Sr. several times

The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-07-15   13:48:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: DeaconBenjamin (#47)

self-interest of the "money managers"

BTW.... that is why I do not buy gold to any extent today....the Jew banks in Europe manipulate that like it is hotcakes to a starving crowd for their own enrichment and the scalding of honest people who try to LOGICALLY embrace a gold portfolio, which you can not do over any important period of time .

Hell, cotton candy can be speculative in a starving crowd but its lasting value is ephemeral...thus it is with gold too.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   13:49:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#45)

Gold doesn't have any more innate value than any other commodity (including labor).

From the beginning of time, mankind would disagree - gold and silver have always been an earthly store of value.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Lod  posted on  2007-07-15   13:50:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: JCHarris (#48)

I guess in your reference to Constitutional Law, you indicate that your monetary system is under the same handicap as our Constitutional system of government, as identified by John Adams:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 564. Letter from John Adams to Dr. Prince, April 19, 1790.

The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-07-15   13:57:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: DeaconBenjamin (#49)

Lennox, George , Sr. I believe; did spend some years in Greenwich Village during the 20s and 30s when it was not a kook neighborhood but rather a gathering place for people actually trying to figure out a system for the United States not tied to the European strangle hold on productivity and a fairer upward access to personal wealth creation that was so evident in the entanglements and millstone on the European nations imposed by the bankers and their gold hoarding/capital withholding leading to productivity stagnation....as the elite bankers want it..."I got mine a thousand years ago now SCREW YOU."

Is it any wonder that Germany was the industrial/science/invention/productivity capital of the world?? Scientific Literature was until recently preferred in German. Wissenschaftlicher Deutsch was a necessity before WWII.

They ( Lennox et al.) were also the last thing to socialists and reminded me in reading of Ayn Rand.

Lots of math, even then !! LOL but it WAS Isaac Newton who invented the calculus (slope-finding and limits) to simplify the convoluted algebraic calculations (-;

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   13:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: DeaconBenjamin (#52)

Always.

Identify the overall problem and throw the bums out.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   13:59:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Cynicom (#44)

"It was the gold standard that led to the bankers wrecking the U.S. economy in 1932 by shipping Treasury gold as a bail-out to England, at the same time the U.S. was trying to recover from the crash of 1929. The 1932 gold and currency contraction was the real cause of the Great Depression. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt removed this danger by eliminating the domestic gold standard in 1933."

The Fed Reserve bank was already in place at that time, so how can this be blamed on the gold standard?

But even when paper currency was supposedly convertible to gold, or even gold and silver, the metallic standard always was a fiction. There never was and never could be enough for banks to hand over the requisite quantity to the “bearer on demand” if more than a fraction of the currency in circulation was presented for redemption at the same time."

If so, then that itself should be/have been a capital crime.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   14:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Pinguinite (#55)

If so, then that itself should be/have been a capital crime.

Congressman Louis McFadden tried his best to strangle the Fed Res and paid for it with his life.

Someone in this discussion mentioned Congressman Lindbergh. He also tried to derail the Fed and its crooks and he was ruined politically. The hate that was put on his son the pilot was hate for the Father that the bankers never forgave.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-07-15   14:37:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Pinguinite (#55)

The Fed Reserve bank was already in place at that time, so how can this be blamed on the gold standard?

As JC explained gold or any physical commodity can be manipulated, exploited and speculated.

Two Presidents in our history have defied the bankers and issued money on their own. Both were assassinated.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-07-15   14:41:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: JCHarris (#46)

Not true. The fallacy of the gold standard is the one that bankrupted the world for thousands of years.

The gold standard bankrupted the world for thousands of years??? Sorry, I'm not buying that -- no pun intended. The premise it requires is pretty absurd.

The supply of gold is finite. You must have a set price or the value is identical to the printing presses running all night...i.e. a pure monetarist inflation of the currency.

Yes, the supply is finite, but it cannot be manufactured, which is key. A printing press, on the other hand, can manufacture money, in which case you place your trust in the intergrity of the printer, and man has demonstrated time and time again that corruption will take root, given the chance.

With a gold standard, the free market decides how much an ounce of gold will buy. Government, as per the Constitution, merely gives Congress the authority to decide how much gold defines an "dollar", so that the free market can negotiate commerce more easily.

Gold does NOT allow for expansion to the people based on productivity and personal wealth accumulation while simultaneously allowing a 'storehouse of value' determined exclusively by productivity and released to once again PRIME that productivity instead of serving as the "King's Horde" while the masses and middle classes and more successful all starve.

The supply of gold as money will still fluxuate according to market demand. If gold becomes too common such that inflation begins to take hold, gold will natural seep from the market into it's many commercial and industrial uses, such that inflation is suppressed. If it becomes too rare such that an ounce of gold buys too much, market forces reopen mines and scrap gold is remonetized back into circulation. It's self regulating.

Why do you find it reasonable for people to trust a government money printing bureaucrat to not exploit his powers to his advantage? Gold has the advantage of not being creatable out of thin air.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   14:47:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: JCHarris (#50)

BTW.... that is why I do not buy gold to any extent today....the Jew banks in Europe manipulate that like it is hotcakes to a starving crowd for their own enrichment and the scalding of honest people who try to LOGICALLY embrace a gold portfolio, which you can not do over any important period of time .

Then how do you store your wealth? FRNs? Another commodity? Land? Stocks?

You have to store it somehow, and FRNs are a bad choice as we all know. Commodities are good, and gold is a commodity.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   14:51:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: lodwick, Rupert_Pupkin (#51)

Gold doesn't have any more innate value than any other commodity (including labor).

From the beginning of time, mankind would disagree - gold and silver have always been an earthly store of value.

I don't disagree. Other commodities (tin, lead, wood) have innate value too. But gold and silver (gold especially) have many unique properties and attributes that make it a good choice for money. (I.e. doesn't burn or rust).

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   14:55:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Cynicom (#57)

As JC explained gold or any physical commodity can be manipulated, exploited and speculated.

He didn't explain that, or at least explain how it happens. He just said it does.

The obstical with such manipulation in a gold standard economy is that as someone hoards gold, the reduced gold in circulation drives prices up, which makes it harder (more expensive) for the hoarder to continue to sap gold from the economy. The more successful he is, the higher the price he has to pay to continue. The reduced supply of gold simultaneously creates pressure to mine more gold and reintroduce gold from other places (jewelry and elsewhere).

He'd have no more success in removing gold from circulation that the DEA has in removing drugs from circulation, and for the exact same reason.

And if the hoarder ever wants to participate in the economy, he has to spend the gold he's trying to hoard. And if he never does, then economically speaking, it's a non-issue as it just means he contributed goods & services to the economy while never accepting any in return.

Two Presidents in our history have defied the bankers and issued money on their own. Both were assassinated.

Yes, and this flies in the face of any proposition that bankers LOVE gold standards. Why would they kill people for wanting to institute gold standards if it plays into their favor???

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   15:08:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Pinguinite (#61)

Yes, and this flies in the face of any proposition that bankers LOVE gold standards.

Bankers do love the gold standard or any other physical commodity they can control, or manipulate.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-07-15   16:01:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Pinguinite (#61)

As JC explained gold or any physical commodity can be manipulated, exploited and speculated.

He didn't explain that, or at least explain how it happens. He just said it does.

Elementary !!

If I have a monopoly on gold...and the bankers have since before the Crusades...I can declare any value I want to for the gold and then it is the same as fiat.

This is done all the time.

There have been many times the "dollar price " of gold should have been $1000 but was a fifth of that and vice versa...this is strictly a regional reserve bank decision...and YES you can be made to sell your "gold" in many ways.

In addition, the expansion and contractioon of gold, and the fact it always stays in the ownership of the monarchy/banker prevents it allowing flexibility in increased productivity for the reasons stated previously.

Gold is NEITHER a good medium of exchange...it is not exchanged...NOR is it a good storehouse ov value since its price can be manipulated by the essentially sole owners at will.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   17:08:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: All (#63)

In addition, the expansion and contractioon of gold,

Gold cannot be expanded to meet production needs in good times without it simply being fiat.

Likewise it cannot contract during bad times to prevent inflation, which is currency without the counterbalancing productivity.

This gold is a POOR medium and de facto a poor storehouse of value.

Public works are a better storehouse of value and a medium of FISCAL policy to move the monetary needs in the right direction depending on productivity and inventory expansion or contraction.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   17:14:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Pinguinite. gold naysayers here (#60)

But gold and silver (gold especially) have many unique properties and attributes that make it a good choice for money. (I.e. doesn't burn or rust).

So true.

If gold's so bad, give me all that you've got, and I'll give you some banana's.

Deal?

Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Lod  posted on  2007-07-15   17:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Cynicom (#62)

Bankers do love the gold standard or any other physical commodity they can control, or manipulate.

When the FRS was created, we were on a gold standard, but now we are not. How can one conclude, then, that the powers behind the fed would prefer a gold standard? It's just not logical.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   20:04:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: JCHarris (#63)

If I have a monopoly on gold...and the bankers have since before the Crusades...I can declare any value I want to for the gold and then it is the same as fiat.

You can try to get a monopoly on many things, but you can't have a monopoly on money, as to obtain more of it you would have to buy it with something. With what would you buy money?

There have been many times the "dollar price " of gold should have been $1000 but was a fifth of that and vice versa...this is strictly a regional reserve bank decision...and YES you can be made to sell your "gold" in many ways.

Obviously you're speaking of times when there was no gold standard. How can you criticize the gold standard over the number of FRNs ascribed (by bankers) to a certain amount of gold?

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   20:12:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: JCHarris (#64)

Gold cannot be expanded to meet production needs in good times without it simply being fiat.

Sure it can. More gold enters circulation as demand increases. Doesn't happen overnight, but it happens. Market forces require it?

Likewise it cannot contract during bad times to prevent inflation, which is currency without the counterbalancing productivity.

Again, reduced demand would mean cheaper gold for industrial and commercial applications, which would mean no new gold is mined and existing gold currency is removed from circulation. Again, it doesn't happen overnight, but it happens.

I don't suggest a gold monetary system would perfectly guarantee that prices never change for goods and services. They would go up and would go down, but such things would be relatively temporary. As for your alternative, it's major hazard is that it gives a certain bureaucrat somewhere all the power of contemporary bankers, ready to be abused.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   20:18:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Pinguinite (#67)

You can try to get a monopoly on many things, but you can't have a monopoly on money, as to obtain more of it you would have to buy it with something. With what would you buy money?

That's one point exactly...

"Hey guys I know the population has grown and we need more ships and olive groves and and and and and ...but our mines won't allow it because all we can haul up is a few ounces a day..."

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   20:42:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Pinguinite (#68)

More gold enters circulation

duuuhhhhh only if it is mined.....

that is a silly way to expand your economy...or to contract it for that matter...

and the princes own the gold...always have always will....hoarding, no good to ANYONE...

I was buying gold in the 70s .... have traded it successfully....

I stay out of gold most of the time as it is silly and a drag on my portfolio....

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-15   20:46:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: JCHarris (#70)

duuuhhhhh only if it is mined.....

duhhh.. no. Gold has many practical uses, jewelry being but one. If it's cheap, gold is absorbed into those uses, out of circulation and the money supply shrinks. If gold is rare, such uses are more restricted and gold can even be converted from those things, such as jewelry, back into money and the money supply expands. The beauty of it is the market both decides how much gold is needed, and provides the incentive for ANYONE to add to or subtract from the economy's money supply. The right is not restricted to a few privileged elite as it is now and would be under your proposal.

and the princes own the gold...always have always will....hoarding, no good to ANYONE...

Well, I own gold and I ain't no prince. So far as anyone has told me, at least.

I stay out of gold most of the time as it is silly and a drag on my portfolio....

If you're trading to make money, sure, stay out of gold. Gold is for people who just want to keep their money safe.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-15   23:25:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Pinguinite (#71)

If you're trading to make money, sure, stay out of gold. Gold is for people who just want to keep their money safe.

That logic is exactly backwards. Trading is the only way to keep anything safe with gold.

My gold (and silver) activity was in going long in the early 70s and stopping it in the mid-80s. I was young, smart, schooled in economics and technical fields and languages ...and not too staid to put my money where my mind was. I made $36,000 in six weeks from a $5000 investment in gold and never lost a cent in those early years.

I bought things you see now for 50 cents a share.

This had little to do with gold and a lot to do with the fact I watched macro-economics like a hawk.

I bought and leveraged gold in many forms including importing hundreds of finished chains from Florence Italy ! Great for the importer, pretty for the buyer, but absolutely NO investment value whatsoever. Calculate the 1000 fine gold for yourself. The manufacturing cost is less than pot metal because the gold is easier to work on the machinery.

By the way, back then I also bought Nuclear Medicine, the original company OTC! which is the magnetic resonance imaging you know now after myriad buyouts, licensing, splits and morphs, at 50 cents a share.....it made gold look anemic!

I never touched gold or silver again until the mid-90s when I started accumulating again at 50 cents a share, $1.00 a share, $3.00 a share.....just for the hell of it...and BTW I was COMPLETELY out of the tech and all but 10% of the core stock market in February 2000 and told all my friends to do the same !

Did not touch that again until gingerly right after 9-11..rocky, bought the hell out of airlines when the markets re-opened the next few months, bet on a fed bailout and sold as soon as it came through, then in earnest from 2001 to the present mostly in small/mid growth ( 90%) now large value (90%).

Made the same FED theft bet on Providian Financial, the third largest credit card company giving YOUR money to ghetto blacks and illegal aliens, bought it at 50 cents, a few thousand shares , bet on the Jew Bankers taking care of their own with YOUR money, was right and rode that until the day it was bought by Washington Mutual....neat 6000% increase !

I rode Wheaton from its first days at what $1 - $3.00 , leveraged and split and sold and departed at $30 -$32. Again, I now own no gold, a little silver as stocks and coinage, a minuscule %, except for a few coins, most old, worth maybe $20,000.

Wheaton was sweet but never even touched my several buys of BE Aerospace...

BEAV three separate buy-sell cycles....looked at Amin Khoury, the owner, who bought the hell out of ir when it bottomed on fears for the airlines. When he bought, I bought ! :arge buys were at 2.25 2.70 to 3, sold at over 12 each time, plowed all multiples back in ( 2400% increase before the last buy) back in and half sold again at $33. Still hold half and have gains in the thousands of % !! I stopped looking at 3400% ! I will sell the other half when it touches 40.

If you are not going to trade, stay out of gold as it is a long loser and the stuff of late night TV commercials.

Gold as a long term holding is like putting your money under your mattress gloating at your friends and refusing to admit its usefulness is eroding at 5% a year or more, over the long term.

The concept of productivity is far more rewarding....but you have to learn and work.

There IS no free lunch.

1776 $1 in stocks is $1,ooo,ooo now...

that same $1 in gold is around $30 now.

You choose.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-16   4:06:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Red Jones (#9)

I have stamps from Germany that I collected when I was young with Hitler's face on them, some of them marked up to 10 million Deutsche Marks.

"They must find it difficult... Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." ~ Gerald Massey

wudidiz  posted on  2007-07-16   4:27:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: robin (#19)

I'll have to read that book, seems interesting. What I've read indicates that Speer did have a great deal to do with the peaking of German war materiel in late 1944 (for the Germans, it would have been better if it had peaked in early 1942). In December 1941, the Wehrmacht was screaming for anything that had tracks on it, and there really wasn't anything available. I think sometime in mid-1942, Hitler was told that the Soviets were producing between 1000 and 1600 T-34s per month, which he thought was fabrication. The Germans at the same time were producing 25 Tiger tanks per month. (I'm quoting everything from memory, so the timeframes and numbers might be a little off). To characterize the Soviet achievement, they moved something like 1000 industrial works to the Urals to try to save them from the advancing Germans, put it back together, and then built stuff the entire time. Both in Stalingrad and Leningrad there were times when the factories would finish assembling the vehicle, the crew would load it and get into it, and it would leave the factory and join the battle, sometimes without being painted.

The Germans had a problem with over-engineering a lot of things, and diverging on what should have been immediately obvious as fools errands. They built a massive 48in howitzer that they maintained throughout the war, and it fired a grand total of under 50 rounds. At Sweden. Two of my favorites were the bunkenschlebber (sp?) and the Maus (I think that was its name). The bunkenschlebber was a mobile bunker built on railroad tracks. This was built in 1944, and it had the possibility of being mobile, on the surface, a decent idea. It only moved west, at a time when the Wehrmacht on the Western Front was retreating back east. The Maus was a 100 ton tank that had multiple engines in it that only very late in the war did they even get to move. Think of the Ferdinand only much heavier. The Maus had something like three or four cannons on it, and I know one was 152mm, I think there was a long barreled 88mm on it too. American soldiers who captured German artillery noted that the cannons were of first rate manufacture, but whereas a US made breech block might have 7 parts, the German one would have 35 to do the same job. They also used vehicles of dozens of different manufacturers to do the same job. If you have 20 two and a half ton trucks, and there were 10 different manufacturers of them, you've got a logistics nightmare, one that the German system was ill equipped to deal with. The US logistics system might be able to handle something like that, but the German one was incapable of doing so.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-07-16   9:16:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: historian1944, robin (#74)

Tooze clearly shows that even absolute dictatorships just can't afford to neglect the balance of payments. He argues, convincingly, that Speer's "armaments miracle" wasn't much of a miracle after all,

I have not read Tooze but from your excerpt, he is totally wrong.

Anyone that discredits the work done by Speer destroys his own credibility at the outset. Tooze first of all overlooks the fact that when you are working with or for a dictator that is willing to shoot you at any moment, you are working under a handicap.

Secondly, anyone researching what transpired at the collapse of Germany would disagree with Tooze. For weeks following the end of the war, British and American intelligence people were debriefing Speer as to how he accomplished what he did under such circumstances.

In fact Speer is credited to be the first "technocrat" of this age.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-07-16   9:31:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Cynicom (#75)

Good points.

Everything I've read indicates the same thing, and even just looking at the vehicle production figures in a vaccum (no context, just numbers) it's a really tough sell; as I've indicated, numbers increase until late 1944, and it appears that the only reason that production starts to decrease is because we and the Soviets started capturing areas where things were being produced. It also shows that the strategic bombing campaign wasn't all that effective (unless one wanted to kill many thousands of civilians). If the Germans would have gone on a war footing in 1939, things would have been much more difficult for all sides, since there would have been a great deal more materiel available for them to use.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-07-16   9:39:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: historian1944, robin (#76)

Everything I've read indicates the same thing,

The Germans are meticulous record keepers. American intelligence people were astounded at what Speer had accomplished.

My friend was a design engineer for Messerschmidtt and I doubt very much if he would agree with Tooze.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-07-16   9:50:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: JCHarris (#72)

If you're trading to make money, sure, stay out of gold. Gold is for people who just want to keep their money safe.

That logic is exactly backwards. Trading is the only way to keep anything safe with gold.

No, I had it right. If you're looking to make your investment grow, you don't simply put your money in any one thing, including gold, and forget about it. You trade, which means you convert it from one form to another form as market conditions change. That's exactly what you did as you described, and it's called, of course, trading.

But the topic we were discussing was not how to trade and make your money grow. It was what type of monetary system works best. You seem to be equating monetary systems with investment opportunities, and I'd never do that. It is plainly NOT the purpose of a monetary system to make everyone a rich, successful investor. Rather, it's simply to lubricate the economy to make it much easier for people to trade their goods and services since bartaring is a very inefficient system. That's it. It doesn't go beyond that at all.

Gold as a long term holding is like putting your money under your mattress gloating at your friends and refusing to admit its usefulness is eroding at 5% a year or more, over the long term.

You also said it appreciated 30x over since 1776, so how can it do that while losing 5% a year?

that same $1 in gold is around $30 now.

FRN's are depreciating at 5% a year. If you are going to put your money somewhere and forget about it, then gold is a far better place to put it than FRNs.

You have obviously had lots of success at trading, so congrats. But that has nothing to do with whether gold should be money or not. You seem to be confusing gold as an investment with gold as a monetary base. Apples and oranges.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-16   15:47:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Pinguinite (#78)

You also said it appreciated 30x over since 1776, so how can it do that while losing 5% a year?

that same $1 in gold is around $30 now.

Real simple!!

The cost indexes are FAR FAR higher than 30x since 1776.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-17   9:13:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: JCHarris (#79)

The cost indexes are FAR FAR higher than 30x since 1776.

Riiiiiiight. So gold has lost value due to inflation such that it is now worth 30x more than in 1776. Real simple.

This conversation has been enlightening. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in the gold standard.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-17   14:28:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Pinguinite (#80)

Riiiiiiight. So gold has lost value due to inflation such that it is now worth 30x more than in 1776. Real simple.

This conversation has been enlightening. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in the gold standard.

http://Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite

Are you REALLY that dense??

In 1776 you have two gold coins.

One you "give away" and buy a gold coin (`$20) of stocks.

The other you keep in your glass jar.

Today your glass jar has your gold coin, worth `$600-$700

Today your stock is VALUED at $20,000,000 ; with which you can BUY 31,000 gold coins.

The difference is the stock WORKED, innovated, developed intellectual property,technology, consumer goods, capital property and ENHANCED the expansion and contraction of the human endeavor in a meaningful and organic manner.

Your gold coin just sat there as dumb as a stump, unable to accommodate the needs of you or your humankind.... it was the hidden talent.

Your gold standard is thus to be whipped and banished as the lazy and scared servant who hid the talent....and was justly punished.

The gold standard is anathema in an even semi-modern world and did not formerly work that well even in an incredibly advanced world as the Romans oversaw or the European continuation of that world.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-17   17:57:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: JCHarris (#81)

Today your glass jar has your gold coin, worth `$600-$700

Today your stock is VALUED at $20,000,000 ; with which you can BUY 31,000 gold coins.

Pray tell, how did a conversation about what makes a sound money system turn into an investment seminar? It is you who are too dense to understand the difference between the two. Seems you advocate a system where money consists of certificates of a huge mutual fund of an entire country's capital investment. Sounds fun.

Again, it is NOT the purpose of a monetary system to convert everyone into a speculative investor, even if the end result makes everyone a millionaire. Indeed, if everyone were a millionaire, which it seems everyone would be if your 1776 statistical claim is correct, then being a millionaire would mean you are a middle class citizen. No more, no less.

Again, the SOLE purpose of a monetary system is to allow people to efficiently negotiate commerce. That's it. It doesn't go beyond that. At all. Period. End of story. That someone of your supposed background doesn't get it is astounding.

You say gold has done little to nothing since 1776. I say that's exactly what it's supposed to do. Little to nothing. Why? Because it means it's value is stable, which is EXACTLY what you want (or what most people want) in a currency. Stability. If in a gold based economy you want to invest in stock, you can do that, believe it or not. All you do is give your gold coins to someone else in exchange for share ownership in a company, and you're on your way to being as rich as you are. That being the case, what's the problem? We can have the economic system I want with the investment opportunities you want and we're both happy.

The gold standard is anathema in an even semi-modern world and did not formerly work that well even in an incredibly advanced world as the Romans oversaw or the European continuation of that world.

Yet another paradox you lay out: The Roman empire was an incredibly advanced civilization that used gold as money, and yet.... it was in spite of such a failing economic system, an ..... incredibly advanced civilization.

Do you really believe a civilization can become so incredibly advanced with a disfunctional economic system?

Honestly, you really need to sit back and take another look at the big picture. You have posted a number of things on this thread that are plainly illogical.

Pinguinite.com

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-07-18   1:14:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Pinguinite (#82)

Seems you advocate a system where money consists of certificates of a huge mutual fund of an entire country's capital investment.

The point lost on you is that a monetary system MUST have the flexibility to accommodate economic expansion and contraction. That is a prime asspect of a monetary system.

Gold lacks even any semblance of that function.

Thanks.

JCHarris  posted on  2007-07-18   7:54:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: JCHarris (#83)

a monetary system MUST have the flexibility to accommodate economic expansion and contraction. That is a prime asspect of a monetary system.

Noun 1. tenacitytenacity - persistent determination doggedness, perseverance, persistency, pertinacity, tenaciousness, persistence determination, purpose - the quality of being determined to do or achieve something; "his determination showed in his every movement"; "he is a man of purpose"

Cynicom  posted on  2007-07-18   8:09:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: robin (#0)

What matters more than the medium of exchange is with whom you are willing to exchange.

Burn up that quarter mile! Burn up that quarter mile! (Listen to 'em whine, whine whine. Listen to 'em whine, whine, whine.)

Tauzero  posted on  2007-07-19   14:05:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]