Richard Mourdock compares U.S. economic woes to Nazi Germany

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I am sure you are correct but Von Mises seems to disagree with you.

The second pattern [of socialism] (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production, and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. These are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (theReichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham.

https://mises.org/daily/3274

Murdock was more correct than I thought.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Care to enlighten us how 2008-2014 USA is like 1920's through 1930's Germany on all fronts?

Sure, it is the intertwining of government and industry that is exactly like Germany during this time period.

 

[John Galt]

I view the "Ism's" - Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Progressive Liberalism, etc. as nothing more than siblings of the same family, the State. It's too easy to get bogged down in the nuanced labels of each when it really just boils down to the State versus the Individual. Everything else is a distraction from the creeping tyranny and oppression.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sure, it is the intertwining of government and industry that is exactly like Germany during this time period.

Germany had lawyers during the time period that the Nazis came to power. We also have lawyers.

Yet another reason Old Billy was right.

[video=youtube;CJ4fD3rJt8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ4fD3rJt8E[/video]

 

[Bravo-4-2]

Can't pretend like there isn't this sort of newspeak protocol out there but this is a so much ado about nothing.

The only story here is that Mourdock said it. Had it been anyone else, the media wouldn't have touched it.

 

[jamil]

I disagree, and I've done a little research. Now what?

Care to enlighten us how 2008-2014 USA is like 1920's through 1930's Germany on all fronts? I'm particularly interested in our equivalent of a master race and extreme nationalism.

Care to enlighten us how anyone anywhere on INGO or in the article defined what Mourdock said to this specification?

Yup, take on debt, next you know you're shoving Jews in an oven and invading your neighbors.

Japan's national debt to GDP is double ours, so they should start any time now.

Again, no one's saying that.

...in a crowded field of non-nationalistic socialist and communist parties, most of which were further left than the burgeoning Nazi party. They were not the only party campaigning on socialism, and not the most hard core socialists. Their draw was nationalism and the resulting call for expansionism, and Aryan superiority over "lesser" races, which they could scape goat for the problems facing working class "pure" Germans.

Which is why its not an appropriate comparison.

Yep.

Sure, it is the intertwining of government and industry that is exactly like Germany during this time period.

^THIS

Mourdock isn't saying that the populist direction we're heading will lead to Naziism. He's saying that a public capable of falling for populist politicians without really understanding the politicians themselves, leave it only to chance that once in power, that person won't move the nation towards tyranny.

We elected a community organizer, for cryin' out loud. He told America the things he thought America wanted to hear, and it worked. He had no scalable experience managing anything. He was elected on little more than a slew of populist promises, the sum of which were billed as "hope and change" and most of which he has broken, and he offered the opportunity for America to show it is capable of electing a Black President. I watched the Charlie Rose interview where he marveled that we're about to elect the first black president and we know nothing about him; and we really didn't seem to care.

The point is, if we're such sheep that we're capable of electing a president on such weak reasoning, are we capable of electing a well spoken tyrant?

I think a lot of you want to see a boogie man in what Mourdock said. But the boogie man you think you see is only made of straw.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But the boogie man you think you see is only made of straw.

That has a nice ring to it...

 

[jamil]

That has a nice ring to it...

Think we can get Al Yankovic to make a rap video about it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Think we can get Al Yankovic to make a rap video about it?

 

[mrjarrell]

Sure, it is the intertwining of government and industry that is exactly like Germany during this time period.

Then it's been that way for the last 60 years or better. That's not a new phenomenon.

 

[Twangbanger]

Every person that voted for this idiot instead of Sen Richard Lugar should be embarrassed

Actually, I'm ok with it. We got rid of Lugar in that primary, which could have never have happened in a general election in Indiana. We got Donnelly out of the deal. He will have to defend his seat in 2016, Hillary's first mid-term election (the type of election where the party of the President usually always loses seats). In a Republican state like Indiana, he'll have a bullseye on his back. We have a better chance of getting rid of Donnelly in a Dem. Prez midterm, than we had of getting rid of Lugar in any type of general election.

Which is better? A sort of moderate-ish Democrat who now has to watch his back every single minute, for fear of losing his job in 2016...or an automatic-renewal, check-the-box liberal Republican for whom most elderly Hoosiers would continue to blindly vote without a single thought in their heads, just because he had that magic "R" next to his name?

Nah, we are better off.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Then it's been that way for the last 60 years or better. That's not a new phenomenon.

Yes, but it has accelerated to new heights under Obama.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes, but it has accelerated to new heights under Obama.

Have some examples for us?

 

[Twangbanger]

Yup, take on debt, next you know you're shoving Jews in an oven and invading your neighbors....Japan's national debt to GDP is double ours, so they should start any time now.

This is pretty irrelevant, because we're talking about standard of living here (although the Paulbots would say we've already invaded other countries, and club Gitmo is still open, lol). If the average American citizen saw how the average Japanese citizen lives, he wouldn't trade places with him for anything. Stuff is really expensive there, and your blue-collar Union American would run screaming away from the prospect of trading in his truck, selling all his guns, and going to live in an apartment on the 10th floor across from the train station. Americans aren't supposed to have to measure their living standard against what people in other countries are willing to "settle for," no matter how much the Global Warming Zealots have brainwashed people to believe otherwise.

Now that America has just unwrapped a "Lost Decade" of our own, it might be time to start thinking about the ways in which the unwise economic decisions of other nations have manifested themselves in damage to peoples' standard of living, and how best not to repeat the example here. If that is in the direction of what Mourdock is trying to say, good on him.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

As an outgoing elected politician, Mourdock found it expedient to make a stronger comparison between the situation in pre-Nazi Germany and our potential future. It's not like he hasn't been warning anyone who would listen that if we don't stop spending money we don't have, our economy is going to collapse. If our economy collapses, the same idiots who voted for Obama and his empty promises would jump at the chance to elect some other charismatic scoundrel who promised to "fix" things. That some of you had to focus on "Nazi" and not "economic collapse" is scary in itself.

 

[Bennettjh]

Every person that voted for this idiot instead of Sen Richard Lugar should be embarrassed

Seriously?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Have some examples for us?

YOU need examples? 6 Trillion worth perhaps?

ZIL (GM), Solyndra, Fisker, NVGeotherm, A123, Azure, Beacon, inter alia.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Care to enlighten us how anyone anywhere on INGO or in the article defined what Mourdock said to this specification?

This is is quite possibly one of the most absurd things I've seen on here in a long time. Heaven forbid someone make a comment drawing a comparison between the rise of the Nazi party and the direction we are headed now. This is on all fronts, not just economic.

Emphasis added to make it easier to spot.


Again, no one's saying that.

Hyperbole for hyperbole. That's what the Nazis are famous for and why they are pulled up as the ultimate bad guy. "The Nazis did this, so it must be bad." No one outright states "so you'll shove Jews in an oven if you do this" but that's why you go to the Nazi well for your analogies. You get to infer your opponent is on a path just as evil. Obviously there are a bajillion things the Nazis did that other countries do without becoming the ultimate evil. Like have lawyers. Obviously there's a bunch of other countries that have excess debt, countries that have tried socialist approaches, countries that have handled those issues with more or less grace than others...but does he reference any of those? Of course not, that'd ruin the power of the inference made.

See answer in blue.

 

[jamil]

See answer in blue.

Okay. Can you show me where Mourdock's comments are anything close to what you're saying he's saying? I read it how I said it and I don't see how people can take it the way you took it. Why make him out to be saying more than he's saying? People did that about his rape comments too. I didn't agree with his comment about that. I didn't particularly like how, as a politician he wore his religion on his sleeve. But I have to be intellectually honest and I can't imagine he's saying more than he's saying just because I don't agree with his social viewpoint. I think if you're looking for a boogie man, you'll find him in the first guy you think is the boogie man.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That some of you had to focus on "Nazi" and not "economic collapse" is scary in itself.

If that was truly his goal, and not the desire to fling poo at his opponents by comparing them, with a wink and a nudge, to Nazis, then he doesn't know his history very well. The Nazis were only one party in a pool of MORE socialist and COMMUNIST offerings. The Germans didn't elect them based solely, or even mostly, on their economic woes and promises to fix them. There were multiple parties promising that, only more so. So why the Nazis over the non-nationalistic socialist parties or communist parties that were campaigning right along side them if the primary motivation was as Mourdock states:

“The people of Germany in a free election selected the Nazi Party because they made great promises that appealed to them because they were desperate and destitute,” Mourdock said.

If that's true, why did they originally lose elections to the communist and socialist parties like the "Social democratics" and the "Communist Party of Germany"? Why did they begin to win elections after they became more nationalistic and less socialist?

They won because they gave them someone to BLAME for those woes, which was an easy sell with Germany having the millstone of WWI Reparations payments to make. They won because they restored pride to the Germans. "Hey, our army didn't really lose, they just got sold out by those Jews and Communists within our country" type arguments. They won because the established parties got comfy and fell into backbiting and discrediting each other. They won because of effective marketing. They did not win because they made promises to a people who were desperate and destitute, there was plenty of folks doing that.

Okay. Can you show me where Mourdock's comments are anything close to what you're saying he's saying?

Read the above. Its either that or he failed Western Civ. My WW1-WW2 history is basic at best on the European side of the house. I've focused most of my reading and study on how that time period affected the Middle East. However even from the drips and drabs I know, I know his comparison isn't a good one.