Ludwig Erhard, against not only many Germans but also the Allied powers, lifted the price controls in 1948, and 20 years later the German economy destroyed by WW2, which they started, was already in a much better state than the paranoid British Fabian economy.

Dr. Havenstein, President of the Reichbank, 1923.

Hilarious. So how much money did these Jewish bankers “create”? I suppose you mean by credit that people asked them for. A number.

And as is typical in a socialist mindset, if the bankers, Jewish or otherwise, had not given them credit, they would have been accused of hoarding the money. The socialist always plays a double game to have an escape route from failure.

“Socialist. Lolz. Is that, like being wayciss or something for you normies? Pepe sad.”

Precisely. Karl Marx was a racist and anti-semitic — because he was a socialist.

Anything of value that got built faster had some debt service behind it. Look at really rich places in medieval Europe like northern Italy or southern and Rhenish Germany. They could have built a cathedral faster and paid off the cost against agricultural surplus over decades, with terms written to allow for poor harvest years if they were smart.

I assume I need hardly add that we all live far more comfortably and securely than any medieval peasant, or indeed prince, on the backs of what a commercial economy has given us.

Like all humans since forever, we find ourselves in difficulty when we take on things we cannot afford. Now, poor men have to take out usurious payday loans to get food to feed their kids. You’re right- in the medieval world they could have escaped that usury. Their spare kids could just have died. And did. Our world is not crueler than theirs.

In the modern world, we also have the option to plan our family and life choices a little more in advance than medievals did. Our responsibility to do so is thus greater. Nobody has to have more kids than they can feed. We can still suffer financial loss due to unexpected health crisis or injury, just as they did, but we can get insurance to cover some of it. They just died.

We can suffer a crisis because of loss of income, and that can put us over the edge. So could they- they could have poor harvest, disease, war, what have you. And lose all. So could they.

Our financial system does not make our world crueler than theirs. It indeed adds options they did not have. They are not risk-free options. But they are an improvement over nothing, and most people now have many more mistakes to make in life or more tragedies to suffer before needing them.

And of course that all applies to a poor man or woman who needs money to bridge wages and get food for kids or self.

Someone who is underwater on a house they couldn’t afford does not warrant any sympathy. That’s called poor planning and ambition exceeding resources. Probably the kind of thing the anti-usury measures were really meant to discourage, except that it was only nobles who then worried about acquiring large pieces of property under mortgage.

I simply cannot understand. If I loan you money, I’ve given you the use of something of value no less than if I’d given you a wagon to use. interest is the fee for service. If you don’t want to pay, don’t hire the money. If you do and then don’t pay, you are just a thief.

My impression from some of the sources is that they assumed every loan of money should always be an act of charity, but for some reason this did not apply to the loan of anything else. One possible explanation is that a person who needs a wagon needs it to perform a gainful service and will make money, and should thus pay for the loaned thing. Or loaned service of work. But a loan of money would always be for survival needs only. And should be charity.

I could see that in an economic system on the permanent edge of survival, but even then the distinction between money and everything else seems artificial. And in an economy with any kind of commerce at all, a loan of money could be for future economic gain no less than any other kind of loan.

We now distinguish between asking for or giving charity, and asking for or giving a loan on business terms. That distinction makes things much clearer and no one should be confused by it.

Ah, I assumed we were previously talking about the hyperinflation that came out of the first war and took place in 1921-4. The groundwork for this was laid by the aforementioned German government policies in which Jews played no significant role [possibly no role, but again I consider that there may have been Jews influencing Reichstag support for the government's war finance policy; still a marginal role].

The London Ultimatum on reparations did set off the worst round of inflation, but then German policy both spurred that ultimatum and determined that hyperinflation would result from German compliance [printing money to buy foreign currency in which to pay reparations.]It was a German government scam to pay reparations faster in rapidly inflated marks, on the backs of the German people but with the desired end state of getting out from under the reparations faster. The marks involved were the government’s marks.

Germany decided to finance the war with pure debt, Germany lost the war, Germany determined how to deal with its circumstances in the wake of defeat. And the hyperinflation was the natural, if not indeed inevitable, result. Desired, if not to that degree perhaps, by German ministers as a matter of policy to ultimately benefit the German state.

As for any reference to the Hitler government’s policies, they would not be relevant at all. We were not discussing the effects in Germany of the post-1929 worldwide Depression, but rather the WW1-caused hyperinflation of 1921-4. Which was long over before 1929 and the Depression [note- DEPRESSION, not INFLATION] and had been dealt with by the Weimar governments. Hitler had no role in it.

Hitler, in response to the later DEPRESSION, was actually running what in a free market would actually have been a massive debt-financed stimulus policy which would have had hyperinflationary effects of their own. Possibly a valid response to conditions of DEPRESSION, but if it had been the policy of the German government during a period of existing hyperinflation it would have made things even worse.

Can’t see any evidence that “the Jews” owned Germany’s private banks at the time. You can find individual prominent Jews [Bamberger was a founder of Deutsche Bank in 1870]and I’m sure there was plenty of money, but not more than there were prominent non-Jewish Germans in the industry and, presumably, their money. At any rate, these institutions were not significant causes of the hyperinflation of 1921-4, which was over determined by German government policy alone.

Worth noting as an aside that one of more of the biggest German banks was nationalized by the German state in 1931 [pre-Hitler] and subsequently privatized in 1937 by the Hitler government. I think it was Dresdner bank. Or Commerzbank. Hitler was not running a pure nationalization economy, and certainly not with regard to the big banks.

I’d rather have gone on a strength through joy trip than hanged myself in a lonely Kansas barn myself. And that might be relevant in a discussion of German versus American responses to crises in agricultural prices and/or the rural environment in the Depression of the 1930s. Has nothing at all to do with German responses to the rather different [more or less opposite] financial problems of the early 1920s, or the entirely different causes at play.

Not sure what you’re getting at about “owing debt to the private bankers”. Again, the currency involved in the hyperinflation was the government’s mark, the inflation was caused by economic circumstances pertaining to reparations in part, in part by German war policy, and in part by the government’s decision to print money in response to the reparations requirements, which got out of control fast. Government currency, government printing, government policy. Issued, overprinted, signed and sealed by Reich authorities.

It’s hard to imagine any workers being happy by 1918, considering that government lack of planning and incompetence made Germany’s economic mobilization among the weakest of any power, and was generating shortages even of food from early in the war. Hardly surprising there would be unrest by the end. Most of these were not Jews. Most of the people striking and rioting were not Jews. DO they not have the right to be remembered?

Communists and Jews were overlapping, not identical groups. And, again, most of the workers, soldiers and sailors were not Jews.

Also, and I can’t stress this enough, these were not causes of defeat. Germany was defeated militarily already when all that got going. If Germany had had any chance of winning by October 1918, none of that unrest would have overthrown the government. Germany was not winning, it was obviously losing. Worse, Ludendorff set off a lot of the unrest when his premature panic and the tresulting German request for talks got leaked to the press. His army was clearly losing, and he made it worse at home by briefly panicking. If anything, he created the conditions for his BS stab in the back legend.

Your general point about the optimism of powers entering wars and the general errors of war finance is spot on, as far as it goes. But Germany did a poorer job, made worse choices, and set themselves up for catastrophe. There’re two ways to see it. Arguably the Allies would have been in a slightly better position if defeated, insofar as they had more robust finances for some of the time and made more use of taxation. Germany erred in not doing the same. On the other hand, maybe the Allies would have done as badly if they had lost. Except they didn’t lose. Germany’s mistake was to finance the war on pure debt on the gambler’s assumption they would win against long odds, and then not to win.

I’m sure the Germans did expect better terms. Although I don’t know why. They were not themselves known for generosity in such situations, and had in 1917 imposed a punitive peace on the Russians, with a Russian government they had effectively installed in order to make a Carthaginian peace possible [they sent Lenin back, they got a revolution and a peace at any price Leninist government, and they exploited that for all it was worth]. And, more generally, Germany was losing the costliest and most destructive war in history up to that point. With those two factors in mind, the Germans must have been insane to expect any better terms than they had given Russia. And, yet, they did get better terms than they had given Russia.

Given the terms of the armistice they signed, the Germans should have had some additional inkling of what the peace might look like, if the above wasn’t enough clue. Perhaps they wouldn’t have surrendered. Except they had no choice- they signed the armistice because they were losing and they didn’t want to lose worse. The armistice made resumption of the war by Germany untenable- loss of their fleet, loss of occupied territory, loss of munitions, collapse of the army and government.

The Germans signed the armistice because they were losing badly and needed to sign it. They asked for it and when it seemed harsh they knew they could not refuse. If they thought they could fight on, they would have. Once signed, they were unable to hold themselves together or maintain public support that could have taken them back to war, and had lost the means to do so.

If they had skipped the armistice and fought on, they would have been defeated even more decisively on German soil in 1919 and they knew that perfectly well.

None of which required the presence of any Jews.

Usurious once upon a time meant charging any interest. Exceptions were, of course, made for princes and other of the noble elite, but when local economies collapsed when their war debts and interest could no longer be paid, it was simple to point out the evil loan sharks, and the peasants were happy to expel the handy scapegoats.

We have once again reached a precipice of yet another economic collapse of a host empire, but all the normies are as yet uneducated as to who has finagled this chaos — again. When usury (of any kind) was strictly forbidden by the Catholic church, every little stagestop village in europe had a fine cathedral — a testimony to the labor and money they had, when they did not have to suffer under the chains of debt.

Our cathedrals stand in Wall Street with the golden calf at their doors; our people worship the shekels and slave in this global debtor’s prison so the chosen “can sit, and eat, like effendi”. Oh! Maybe I do have something in common with some earlier National Socialists. They may not have been a “supreme” white race; neither were they too stupid to figure out who was turning nation into a decadent pit of despair and debauchery. Unlike our normies.

The Jews owned the private banks and could create currency themselves. They did so in vast quantities until the government(Hitler) stopped them and then the Reich Marchs was issued without owing debt to the private bankers. While farmers were hanging themselves in their barns in Kansas Germans were going on vacations.

I would trade the Jews for Muslims one for one any day. Every country they go to they destroy.

As for Germany in WWI the Jewish communist rebellion, strikes and slow downs didn’t help the war much.

As for financing all the belligerents thought the war would end quickly. Everyone always thinks this. It’s a fatal error that happens over and over.

It also can be reasoned without too much a stretch that the Germans expected better terms than those that were finally agreed upon. If they would have known the final terms they probably wouldn’t have surrendered.

The Jews betray everyone where ever they go.

I might think also the number of immigrants to Finland is too small to make reasonable statistical inferences.

“Usurious rate” is a typical socialist expression. Which is not surprising to see from said persons.

If you don’t like the price, then don’t buy.