Fascism might have worked pretty well, if it weren't so war-mongering. Strong state, protectionism, unity, etc...

Fascism might have worked pretty well, if it weren't so war-mongering. Strong state, protectionism, unity, etc. The economy would be as stable as Japan or Asean countries, and even better with socio-cultural progress that isn't shitty commie modernism.

Yeah, it's a shame Mussolini was so autistic about Ethiopia.

Pretty much everything we know about economics shows that protectionism is not beneficial for economies.

Too bad there's more to consider than just what's most beneficial to the economy.

Yes.

OP said
>"The economy would be as stable as Japan or Asean countries"
When this is not accurate at all, the economy would not be stable. There would be constant shortages due to a lack of trade and prices would be much higher than they otherwise would be, leading to an impoverished nation.

Yeah op is a tard, but protectionism is far from being shit. In fact, it's only a bad idea when you're putting up barriers between very similar markets.

>it's only a bad idea when you're putting up barriers between very similar markets.
What exactly do you mean by this? If you are referring to national markets with similar levels of development, similar production, and similar incomes, then this is completely false. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Poorer countries often produce things very cheaply that richer countries cannot afford to produce, while rich countries create an output of services efficient enough to outcompete those in poorer nations, as poorer nations do not achieve high levels of efficiency. Trading between nations with entirely different market structures allows for countries to specialize in producing certain resources and services which they can do more efficiently. For example, it would be nonsensical for Italy to try and self-sustain itself in the energy sector when it is much cheaper to import from nearby oil-rich countries like Libya.

..and then you're out of your pruduction base and have seas of unemployed low level workers, like all the western world.
..and then the geopolitical situation changes and your economy is fucked. Like Italy with Lybia's oil and Russia's gas.
Hasn't the current situation taught you anything? Your way of thinking is narrow-minded, the economy is a much smaller element of society than you think. Or rather, your vision of the economy is too narrow.

>and then you're out of your pruduction base and have seas of unemployed low level workers, like all the western world.
You don't have seas of unemployed workers, you simply retrain them to work in another sector, or in a similar job. Either that or they have to find a way to compete with foreign countries offering cheaper products. Either way, the fact that some people lose their jobs does not outweigh the benefits of massively cheaper prices for the vast majority of people.

This goes without mentioning that some types of employment would simply be impossible. There is no oil in Italy for Italians to make a viable oil industry, it makes much more sense to import.

>and then the geopolitical situation changes and your economy is fucked. Like Italy with Lybia's oil and Russia's gas.
If economies are too inter-dependent to function without one-another then the result will be general peacefulness. Geopolitics are a lot less turbulent today than they were 100 years ago when economies were much more protectionist and high tariffs were the norm.

>Hasn't the current situation taught you anything? Your way of thinking is narrow-minded, the economy is a much smaller element of society than you think. Or rather, your vision of the economy is too narrow.
I disagree. The economy plays an undoubtably massive role in society, I would argue the main role in society, in fact.

>You don't have seas of unemployed workers, you simply retrain them to work in another sector, or in a similar job.
Extremely costly, and that requires you to have other sectors needing manpower anyway, which is not a given.
>Either that or they have to find a way to compete with foreign countries offering cheaper products.
Top fucking kek, the only way you can do that is by plunging your country back to third world living conditions, and you know it.
>Either way, the fact that some people lose their jobs does not outweigh the benefits of massively cheaper prices for the vast majority of people.
Yes user, keep closing your eyes to the world around you. I'm sure all those unemployed people with no money at all will be very happy that the shit they can't afford now costs less.
>Geopolitics are a lot less turbulent today than they were 100 years ago when economies were much more protectionist and high tariffs were the norm.
On the other hand, nowadays the economy is extremely disturbed by the smallest geopolitical turbulence, so the result is the same.
>I disagree. The economy plays an undoubtably massive role in society, I would argue the main role in society, in fact.
From my point of view, you confuse the end with the mean. You don't adjust society to benefit the economy, you adjust the economy to benefit society.

>Extremely costly, and that requires you to have other sectors needing manpower anyway, which is not a given.
Not nearly as costly as having artificially inflated prices for everyone and regular shortages caused by economic nationalism. Reeducating workers in certain specific sectors would require short-term investment and would result in a massive long-term gain. There will always be sectors that need more manpower or new innovations to be made until we enter post-scarcity, at which point this won't even be relevant anymore. Take a look at how America has a shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc even though these are well-paying jobs. Entitlement culture and the university meme has made these jobs undesirable, even though there is nothing realistically overly terrible about them. Jobs are available, we just have an economy which encourages laziness.

>Top fucking kek, the only way you can do that is by plunging your country back to third world living conditions, and you know it.
Not even close to true in most cases. While it is true that you would literally need third-world conditions for Hawaii to more efficiently produce bananas, for example, in comparison to the Dominican Republic, most manufacturing jobs could be brought back to the United States from countries like China by deregulation and lower taxes. The cost of producing in China and exporting to the United States is not significantly lower than producing in the United States at the moment.

>Yes user, keep closing your eyes to the world around you. I'm sure all those unemployed people with no money at all will be very happy that the shit they can't afford now costs less.
Items become significantly more accessible to the vast majority of people and, as said before, unemployment is more a result of entitlement culture than free trade. Switching to another occupation can be a costly investment, but it is certainly possible and has a good pay-off.

1/2

>On the other hand, nowadays the economy is extremely disturbed by the smallest geopolitical turbulence, so the result is the same.
Despite the geopolitical disturbances with Russia, quality of life in the United States and Europe continues to rise, and the economy has not significantly changed for better or for worse since. Even with OPEC's drop in oil prices, only Venezuela has faced serious economic difficulties as a result. Countries like Canada are doing fine even though economic activity in oil-rich Alberta has suffered. 100 years ago, "geopolitical turbulence" resulted in war and blockades, something which rarely happens anymore.

>From my point of view, you confuse the end with the mean. You don't adjust society to benefit the economy, you adjust the economy to benefit society.
Economics cares little for the specifics of societies and what they want. At the end of the day, the laws of supply and demand still hold, regardless of how much a people want their benefits and their high standards of living without having to put in significant competition to earn it.

>Reeducating workers in certain specific sectors would require short-term investment
The only sectors that require more workers need very expensive and time consuming training, because it's all high specialization work. You're not gonna be able to retrain Billybob, car mechanic, into a surgeon, and if you retrain him into a competent factory worker there's no demand for him.
I don't know about the US specifically, but in Europe there's no sort of shortage of plumbers and electricians and other technical professions. The only reason why third worlders can compete in the sector when they come here is because they accept to work off the books and not pay taxes. All this entitlement talk is babyboomer bullshit.
Not to mention that it's not short term nor cheap to retrain people into plumbers, it takes a couple years during which not only Billybob needs money to live on, but is even costing society the schooling costs. Not to mention that requiring retraining means you've basically wasted your first period of training.
>could be brought back to the United States from countries like China by deregulation and lower taxes
Too bad that those regulations and taxes are there for a reason, which is to keep your country in first world level living conditions. I don't want shitty chinks products that are more poison than a tank of arsenic, thank you very fucking much. And I don't want my city to constantly surrounded by hell-like industrial fogs like most of China's industrial districts are. See this is what I mean by confusing ends with means.
>as said before, unemployment is more a result of entitlement culture than free trade
Said but not proven. There's literally only one sector of employment in my country which is actively requiring manpower, and it's medical care. Are you gonna retrain Billiboy into an orthopedic surgeon?

Jesus fuck I hate the character limit.

Government seizure of wartime industry during times of war is a good idea but Mussolini wanted to control it at all times. They probably could have made bank if they manufactured weapons for export during the interwar period

>The only sectors that require more workers need very expensive and time consuming training, because it's all high specialization work. You're not gonna be able to retrain Billybob, car mechanic, into a surgeon, and if you retrain him into a competent factory worker there's no demand for him.
Reeducating him into a surgeon may take years and be rather costly, but when taking into account how much surgeons make Billybob will become a valuable asset. Even if he can't be retrained into a surgeon, there are plenty of other jobs which require less training.

>I don't know about the US specifically, but in Europe there's no sort of shortage of plumbers and electricians and other technical professions. The only reason why third worlders can compete in the sector when they come here is because they accept to work off the books and not pay taxes. All this entitlement talk is babyboomer bullshit.
No doubt that the government has to do a better job of keeping track of illegals and making sure the market is fair. If the playing field is levelled and you are still being outcompeted by foreigners that may be your fault, not someone else's.

>Not to mention that it's not short term nor cheap to retrain people into plumbers, it takes a couple years during which not only Billybob needs money to live on, but is even costing society the schooling costs. Not to mention that requiring retraining means you've basically wasted your first period of training.
Your first period of training was not wasted as it provided you with a living for a while. It served it's purpose, but if you are no longer profitable then it is time to switch professions. What you specialize in at age 20 shouldn't necessarily be the same thing you are doing at age 50. As for the costs, Billybob can take loans. Meme degrees in psychology sure won't lift you of your burden, but becoming a surgeon or something else profitable will certainly pay off student debts.

1/2

>Too bad that those regulations and taxes are there for a reason, which is to keep your country in first world level living conditions. I don't want shitty chinks products that are more poison than a tank of arsenic, thank you very fucking much. And I don't want my city to constantly surrounded by hell-like industrial fogs like most of China's industrial districts are. See this is what I mean by confusing ends with means.
No doubt that many of these taxes and regulations are very important for maintaining high standards of living and general welfare. However, it would be ludicrous to deny that the US tax code and regulatory agencies are filled with unnecessary red tape which could be cut or at least decentralized. Regulation is important as long as it is covering for externalities, but is generally useless and counterproductive when it does things like preventing healthcare agencies from competing across state lines. Not to mention that lowering taxes can bring more tax revenue if it makes the economy more competitive. A large corporate tax break for manufacturers could bring in thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue.

>Said but not proven. There's literally only one sector of employment in my country which is actively requiring manpower, and it's medical care. Are you gonna retrain Billiboy into an orthopedic surgeon?
I don't know what country you live in but in America there are massive shortages of many decent paying jobs such as educators, technicians, plumbers, etc. There is also plenty of potential for more manufacturing if the US economy was more competitive.

The fact is that if you build up unmarketable skills that is your fault, not the system's. When you get an arts degree in African Studies while you could have gotten the arts degree in more marketable subjects such as economics, or you could have gone to business or trade school, of course you will have a hard time competing with Jesus Gonzalez in the job market.

>Fascism might have worked pretty well, if it weren't so war-mongering

So if fascism wasn't fascism, it might have worked?

This. The idea that you can build an authoritarian state without it being aggressive is retarded idiocy.

> Strong state, protectionism, unity, etc. The economy would be as stable as Japan or Asean countries,

The problem is that you can't have all of that without warring and expansionism. If you enact protectionist policies, everyone else acts protectionist policies against you, at which point trade becomes considerably more expensive. If you don't have a completely autarkic economy, you're in trouble. Since that pretty much never happens, you get pushed into wars of expansion to acquire primary resources that your home country lacks.

>strong-state and protectionism
>HURR DURR STRONG LIRA HIGH IMPORTS

So same as it is right now?

Thanks democracy! - An Italian

I want to hear it from you, why do you think Italy entered an alliance with Germany?

Go on... I'll wait.

>why do you think Italy entered an alliance with Germany
Not him, but because they needed a strong trade partner and resources to industrialize, and the SoN embargo burned bridges with anglos and french.

Economy < Society
Also he said more stable, not more efficient

>Economy < Society
One can not be more important than the other, that is a simplistic view on society. An unstable society leads to an unstable market. an unstable market leads to an unstable economy.

The current practice of globalism ensures a relatively stable market that allows for complex goods to be produced from many materials imported from different countries for a consuming market.

Current practice of globalization has shifted since the 1980s with the securitization in the financial sectors. This phenomenon coupled with the shrinking pool of people who are coincidentally connected to financial sector as well as policy making will place disconnect between that privileged class and everyone else. This iteration of globalization is placing profitability for capital owning class over social harmony in a way that is jeopardizing both capitalism and nation-states.

Argentina is a nonagressive fascist country with a fascist economy. It's pretty shit, but low crime rate and nice people as long as you're white.

I used to shill for fascism a lot on here and /pol/, but lately the country that's really getting my dick hard is Canada. Post national Byzantine legalism is pretty cool.

Canadian here, what about Canada is getting your dick hard?