How did the everyday living condition and consumption improve between 1928 and 1938...

>I'm talking about how it actually affected the actual germans not the jews.
what makes someone an "actual german" and why were German citizens who were jewish not actually german?

It didn't really improve, the economy stabilized due to Hitler's mad dash for war and mass conscription.

Luxury food items went down in the nazi period from the weimar period, pic related

why do people always use this muh word. Its getting overused now.
Interesting pic though

Muh is to mock a meaningless and empty argument. It comes from a meme about how whenever a black man losses an argument, he will revert to talking about how big his dick is, or "muh dick!"

I know what it means I just mean that I see all over the place now. Muh this Muh that muh muh.
A simple (") would suffice

>How did nazi germany make germany a better place to live in?
They didn't.

>I'm talking about how it actually affected the actual germans not the jews
Stormfag confirmed.

Read the Wages of Destruction.

>muh asterisks

>Hitler
>Caring about Germans

By 1939, 17 million people were on state welfare even as the official unemployment rate was at 0% - people were more dependent on the state than ever as the vast-majority of jobs were so lowpaying they had to seek governmental assistance to maintain their basic living standards - a fact often conveniently forgotten by 'economic miracle' mythologisers.
This is all of course, without even getting into the ethical and moral issues surrounding forced work-camps, rampant nationalisation and the suppression of personal economic freedom that accompanies a state-controlled economy like that of Nazi Germany.
You want to talk about economic miracles? Look at Konrad Adenauer. He was able to do far more than Hitler could possibly dream of while having a fraction of the resources (and country) Hitler did and most importantly, Adenauer DID NOT BRING UNTOLD SUFFERING TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

From War and Economy in the Third Reich. Notice the part on real earnings not increasing despite the GDP per capita growing by 31%, interesting to note when people bring up raw GDP all the time.

nice argument and your sources are great too!

>DID NOT BRING UNTOLD SUFFERING TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

calm down reddit it was war

But Adenauer was a free market capitalist that provided a legal and economic framework for the Germans to prosper.

/pol/tards don't want that. The free market, rise through hard work narrative doesn't sell among a bunch of NEETs that want the government to give them a gf.

These people are so damaged they'd rather live in a North Korea-tier bankrupt totalitarian state than in a prosperous frer trade democracy becauae they are under the delusion that they would somehow be the oppressors not the oppressed.

>How did the everyday living condition and consumption improve between 1928 and 1938?
I'm not sure whether Nazi Germany ever reached the standard of living of the Weimar population ca 1928. Based on what I read, I think it is unlikely.

>How did nazi germany make germany a better place to live in?
It didn't improve the material comforts of people. It may have helped with the emotional well being, but such things are always temporary and fickle, especially in an utterly corrupt dictatorship that actively tears itself apart due to inherent contradictions of the system.

>actual germans not the jews
Go to /pol/ and never come back.

> corrupt dictatorship that actively tears itself apart due to inherent contradictions of the system.

How was it corrupt, how did it tear itself apart? How was it contradictory?

I swear this place just throws around words

War that Hitler started.

>free market capitalist
No, he believed that a markets needs to be regulated in order to work efficiently. Germans are, culturally, not a people that believes freedom is an end in itself. Freedom is a tool that is applied where it is useful. Never more than necessary and never without a reason. For example, the German constitution states that virtually all rights can be regulated through lesser laws. There are no universal human rights in German political practice. The only "inalienable" rights are based on the healthy public feeling of the German populace and not specified further: Your rights are what the German lawmakers says they are, which is ideally what the German people think they ought to be.

European countries are not just "little Americas with a foreign language", there are meaningful cultural differences.

> How was it corrupt?
The Nazi establishment vastly enriched themselves, Hitler most of all, using government power to have his debt forgiven and seizing property for his own personal summer getaway in the Alps.
> How did it tear itself apart?
By starting a war that literally ended up tearing it apart?
> How was it contradictory?
Where to begin...

How was Adenauer's "social market economy" of export-led growth not free market based? And what do human rights have to do with economic policy which is what we are debating here?

Finally, why do you assume I'm American?

>How was it corrupt
Officials were relatively free to enrich themselves, due to persecution of corruption being mediated through personal relationships within the wider administrative structure and the difficulty of investigating and publicizing systematic corruption without independent and free media. As a result, many officials lived like kings.

>How was it contradictory?
You can't have an efficient bureaucracy that is also run based on personal relationships and alliances and balances of power between blocks. Either the rules apply, or they do not. You can't have them apply sometimes, whenever it suits someone, and not apply when it suits someone else. Things go sideways more and more as time passes if you try to run a modern administration like that. That shit works okay in 1140, not so much in 1940.

>how did it tear itself apart
Ever more ministries, fiefdoms within the administration, offices, officials vying for power, influence and resources. Less and less legal security, more and more government meddling, more and more overlapping responsibilities and chaos, which lead to a less efficient economy and less efficient administration.

>Where to begin...
do begin i'm waiting

I assume you're American because your premises and positions are typical American and you are ignorant of that things might work differently in another culture, yet ignorant of your ignorance.

seems like a sith hierarchy

but the nazi government was a meritocracy so you advanced by working hard you idiot.

A good paper, focusing more on nutrition and health:
cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo_wp800.pdf
Death rates increased, and the trend of rapidly increasing childrens' height during Weimar halted.

I might believe you more if you backed your assertions rather than resort to childish insults.

>stripping people of their jobs because of their race
>sending people to do slave labour because of their nationality or race
>making people dependent on the State for survival
>crowding out the private sector with rampant spending, making companies dependent on government tenders
>nationalizations, price controls, currency controls
How was any of that meritocratic?
I want /pol/ to leave.

ITT: people with stastically higher than average nose sizes

How was the Japanese ww2 economy though I never read anything about that

They are retarded but nation and race being entirely modern concepts is also a myth, though the way we look at them and their implications always changes with time and place.

LOL, sure it was...

Nationalism is just a scaled up version of tribalism, which seems hard coded into human biology.

The racial competent to tribalism was also always implied. Foreigners joining a tribe was extremely rare and belonging was determined through blood relations above most other things.

Here we see a Nazi in his natural habitat. Without any allies or evidence to turn to, he relies on his natural defense mechanism, calling out everyone else as Jews.

>The racial competent to tribalism was also always implied
Depends on how big the tribe was.

>>nationalizations, price controls, currency controls
literally a good thing if it serves the nation and only the nation

Are there ethnic groups that don't claim a shared ancestry of some sort? I imagine it's pretty rare. I'm not saying the group is actually racially homogenuous, what matters is whether they look similar and think of themselves as related. The Germans are a good example for this, since there's a relatively wide range of phenotypes within that group, which is also one of the most mixed mongrel ethnicity in Europe, and yet one which has traditionally placed special emphasis on the biological component of ethnic affiliation.

In Nazi Germany it served the administration and only the administration. The standard of living stayed depressed and the economy was increasingly unstable because of these practices.

>literally a good thing if it serves the nation and only the nation
Completely idiotic, since it's impossible to predict whether that will be the case in a large modern economy.

>what is rome

Only nation I can think of that's like that today is America and some of Latin America.

>not ethnonationalist

Genius answers

I didn't know we were talking about that
The post i quoted said nationalism

Ethnonationalism is older if you consider tribe and family

Interesting graph

That's a table, not a graph.

Well I'll admit it was mostly rudimentary explanations based on off-hand common knowledge, which obviously only makes it all the more embarrassing that you lot still need told so.
Explains it more in depth and does a much better job than I could hope to, or indeed be assed to. Needless to say, if you look towards Nazi Germany as a model for any form of successful governance, you should kys asap. It was a bloated, corrupt, hypocritical and inefficient system, which ran itself in the ground.

Ya know, liberal societies also have a way in which people can serve the nation. It's called paying taxes, and it's a lot nicer than being part of some conformist cult authoritarian state.

Even if it were a good thing, which anyone with basic knowledge of economic principles will tell you it isn't, it would still be antithetical to meritocracy.

It was successfull though. They only failed because they lost the war. And it is certainly better than any modern day degenerate governance.

>most mixed mongrel ethnicity in Europe
>the germans
holy shit reddit this is top nothch

>literally had less GDP per capita
>corrupt beyond belief
>well they told me it’s great to be white so it’s alright if Hans in the IRS lives like a Noble.

>doesn't realize germans assimilated hundreds of tiny tribes only grouped together by geographical relation
>doesn't realize that germans are more slavic than the french, british, and spanish combined

Successful in what?

Accumulating debt and collapsing its' economy?
Killing off an entire generation of young men and leaving women and children to prostitute themselves on the streets for food?
Enriching its' "men of the people" rulers at the expense of the population at large?

If you really are a national socialist, you should hate Nazi Germany for completely delegitimizing the ideology for all eternity

>couldn't manage to last more than 12 years
>better than modern day

You should check out how those policies are working out at present in Venezuela.

>it was successful

>literally unsustainable except by going to war with everyone
>lose war with everyone
>"they only failed because they lost the war"

>They only failed because they lost the war.
Wow such deep!

yeah they aren't serving the people.
nazis did

When you start from the very bottom aka the Weimar, anything would seem better

>nazis did
See and and and

Literal commie argument

>my special, unique brand of totalitarian government has never been tried!

the Weimar republic gets a bad rep because of Nazi propaganda, but it was infinitely better than what followed.

Which is something of a miracle, considering that it was without a functional government throughout pretty much its' entire history.

except communism never works

Neither does fascism, fruitcake.

lol

Neither does fascism

You forgot Hyperinflation, massive poverty/starvations/insurrections (Commies/Anarchists)/numerous assassinations,
Debt slavery (Because of salty Frenchmen) and that Germans got ousted from the Rhineland & the Polish corridor.

All of this because they are the ones who ended the pointless war

Yet by 1925 all those issues had been solved. If there had been no Great Depression, German democracy would have consolidated and the Weimar Republic would still be around.

Nazis and Commies were fringe parties with no major support until 1931.

1. The market has the ability to recover from economic depressions

2. Loans, loans, loans

3. Intensive war economy, expanding the army lowered the unemployment level

Nothing spectacular or healthy in the long run.

...

As I understand it, the main problem it faced was that the democratic centrist parties were unable to deliver results, largely because the fringe parties would rather watch the country burn than compromise on their meme ideologies. As a result, the people at large had little or no faith in democracy.

Actually "extensive spending" would be more accurate to describe the situation I think.

They're not going to give you your foreskin back

>How did the everyday living condition and consumption improve between 1928 and 1938?
They did? You know the great depression started in 1929, right?

>How did nazi germany make germany a better place to live in?
They didn't, they turned it into totalitarian state.

Yeah, most of the time commie states are like a place where everyone is lazy, pilfering civil servants. Nothing gets done there.

What book?

it does though

We have yet to see a working example of it.

national socialist germany
fascist italy
fascist japan
there you go

It's never been tried, but nice effort.

Terrible, they were essentially com0letely dependent on imported food and oil so when they got embargoed for their autistic empire building in asia they basically had no choice but to go to war or their economy wouldve completely collapsed

>national socialist germany
Lasted only 12 years and failed.

>fascist italy
Lasted only 21 years and failed

>fascist japan
Wasn't even fascist, they were imperialist

Those are your examples of it working?

all of them only failed because they lost the war
they were working in practice and the best form of governments there are

>national socialist germany
Got btfo and split in two
>fascist italy
Got btfo even harder, didnt even make it through 1943
>fascist japan
Literally got nuked

Im quite interested to findout, what is your definition of success?

>ideology based on fighting a fucking colossal war of annihilation against basically the entire world
>lose said war
>best form of governments there are

They all lost the wars that they started.

>they were working in practice
They had inferior economies though. Turns out autarky is a terrible economic policy.

autarky was what hitler tried to achieve with the lebensraum. Had he won the entire economic aspect would have been fixed.

Which brings us back to the point that having an ideology based on war and then losing those wars does not exactly make for a successful ideology.

Because the goal was to stop jewish cabals and agents of subversion, and the only way to do that was to kill all the jews.