Evidence Hitler and Mussolini Despised Unions

by bluesapphire 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bluesapphire

  Farkel, I also don't claim to know all the answers. But I am pro Union still. Because I know that without unions, the worker would be even more screwed. Did you look at that link and see that there is no reference to that Hitler courted the unions????

  Beks, I hear ya on Reagan, he gets all this credit from the right and is almost glorified. But he was an ass and made our country worse. If the worker makes a fair wage, the economy prospers and so do the businesses both large and small because we buy more autos, more tv's, take more vactions, etc. His trickle down economics makes no sense. Big businesses, the more they make, the more they KEEP. Bull shit they "trickle it down". They are greedy!!! Stock holders freak out at the thought of giving higher wages. But the opposite is true of the regular joe blow. The more he makes, the more he spends. And the more he spends, the more businesses make. And the more businesses make, the healthier our economy is. We would not be in this economic mess if it were not for idiots like Reagan and Bush!

  Still, I want to learn more about Hitler/Unions and I don't quite understand the correllation or even if there is one. Why did Hitler hate unions? Was it as the right claims, just because they would compete for power?

  Or did he in fact have more in common with the right in his hatred of unions?

  Where is Sixy? I think he might have some input I need.
• 

  beksbks

  Just going out on a limb here Blue. I would tend to think that for H and M, power hungry as they obviously were, an oganized group of men would be trouble. In other words, if they could not be brought in to the fold, they might prove a threat. I think our American history of labor unions is actually a more valuable lesson.
• 

  choosing life

  Every time I hear that phrase "trickle down economics", I feel like I am getting somebody else's trash. Then, they expect us to say thank you.
• 

  bluesapphire

  Yeah like here's your 10 hours worth of work that I expect you to do in 8 without a lunch break and pay you $10 bucks an hour for which was what I paid back in 1982 now say "Thank you, kiss my ass and get to work you sorry piece of shit!"
• 

  Farkel

  beks,

  You STILL do not understand the "false dilemma" variant of the "false cause" fallacy. How many times do you need to be reminded of that?

  :Oddly enough, real wages in America have either stagnated or declined since then as well even though productivity has increased. So that means we are working longer and harder, and the employers are making more pofits, but workers are making less.

  You have asserted that since wages have gone down it must necessarily follow that business profits have gone UP as if that correlation was direct and absolute. It isn't.

  If your correlation was absolute then it must also necessarily follow that as wages to up, corporate profits MUST also go down.

  Increasing government regulation and taxation on businesses cause their profits to go down, all else remaining the same.

  Lack of sales, lack of demand, lack of relevance in products cause business profits to go down, all else remaining the same.

  Am I wasting my time trying to get you to think critically, my dear? I'll stop if you think so.

  Farkel
• 

  bluesapphire

  Farkel, I don't really understand what the problem is. What I understand she is saying is that:

  Business profits have continued to sky rocket since the 80's but wages have stagnated. We believe this is in a major part due to Reagan's economic policies, continued by both Bushes.

  I don't think you are correct in asserting that if wages go up then business profits will go down and I have said the reason why. Because I believe in the "trickle up" effect. It's a win-win situation with good wages, everything else remaining the same.

  I have always admired your knowledge, Farkel. But one thing that has always been a put-off is your readiness to put people down. Can you try to converse without doing so in this thread?

  Thanks.
• 

  beksbks

  Farkel, I'm tempted to say some very pointed things that might appear rude. I won't. I will only say, that I am merely stating fact. Wages have decreased or stayed the same, even though productivity has gone up.
• 

  Farkel

  bluesapphire,

  :I don't think you are correct in asserting that if wages go up then business profits will go down and I have said the reason why.

  You didn't read what I wrote then. beks stated that since wages have gone down since the 1980's people are working harder and longer AND business profits have gone up. She was drawing a direct correlation between lower wages and higher profits as if the former is responsible for the latter. What is unclear about that?

  If that correlation is true, then the reverse would be true: corporate profits would go down if wages went up.

  I pointed that out and then pointed out other possibilities why corporate profits could go down, having nothing to do with wages. And the reverse is true there, also. Wages COULD go up AND corporate profits could also go up if say, other types of overhead went down, there was more efficiency in the business, less taxation, less government interference, big increases in demand, less competition, and so forth.

  :But one thing that has always been a put-off is your readiness to put people down.

  :Can you try to converse without doing so in this thread?

  What if I suffer a heart attack and die because of that restraint? That's highly likely, you know and my legitimate and illegitimate children (mostly illegitimate) would no longer have a deadbeat father to blame for stuff like not supporting them. Oh, the cruelty of it all!

  Farkel
• 

  bluesapphire

  No she wasn't drawing a direct correlation between lower wages and higher profits. Profits have gone up due to inflation and other things. But wages have not been affected by inflation. Had Reaganomics not been in place, wages would have continued to keep up with inflation and we would see a better economy because people would have continued to spend. You're a really smart guy, Farkel. But you are being obtuse here.

  Now, that's the smartass I have grown to love!
• 

  beksbks

  Hehehe, I see where you misread now Farkel. Poor baby.

  Blue, let him rant, if it keeps him around for a while. I try to give him something to rant about as often as I can.