I don't think the media has ever really used the socialist angle on Nazi Germany, at least not as an explanation for its evils. To do so would be to invite confusion into the media's narrative of Nazism as right wing authoritariansm and the political spectrum -- the NSDAP labeled itself as socialist and implemented policies that looked socialist, so how could they be socalist and right-wing at the same time?
Before you know it people would start calling it the common sense party -- get rid of the unproductive, national pride, a strong military, reign in the rich, support the family man who is the backbone of our country...
That's what's so interesting about fascism, as an ideology it doesn't follow the economically driven left-right political definitions clearly.
The wartime nature of Nazi Germany's economy I think confuses the seperation of business and state in fascism. I also think the power of German industrialists relative to the Nazis is understated. Krupp, Thyssen, etc were extremely rich and influential and the Nazis needed their money and backing and their industries working.
I think that WAS their exit strategy -- just be incompetent enough that they'd look elsewhere for talent.
If you're a consultant/entrepreneur, you can't always know what your clients are ultimately up to so you're often into it before it's too late to just up and quit.
I think fascism as an ideology usually has a predominant nationalistic and ethnic component to it. I think business interests intermeshed with the government is largely a byproduct of a totalitarian political system.
Fascism can be tricky to extrapolate to a specific economic policy because we don't have many functioning examples of governments run by ideological fascists and the ones we do have were short lived and marked by extremes of policy and historical notoriety that make coherent analysis tricky.
The Nazi party (National Socialist German Worker's Party) parlayed its romanticism of the German Volk into some socialist policies while at the same time it coaxed and coerced skeptical German capitalists with big wartime spending.
Somebody once tried to explain fascism as the weird marriage of progressivism and racism into one ideology. I think it's a strangely apt definition that encompasses some of the strange outcomes.
I've worked as an SMB consultant and almost every SMB owner I've run into is some kind creepy, shifty guy who is coming as close as he can to "the line" and often crossing it. At a minimum it's every conceivable tax dodge imaginable -- luxury company car as a daily commuter, no-show family members on the payroll, tons of business-paid home technology for personal use, and so on. Who knows what it is at maximum. Probably outright tax fraud, siphoning cash, cheating employees, whatever.
You could make a believable narrative that has two small-time entrepreneurs looking for investors and/or work are just *used* to the kind of slimeballs that are out there and don't really ask too many questions. Call it conditioned ignorance.
I don't know how cost of living translates, but I do think their incomes, especially the guy with a regular job (IIRC) would make them be a little more selective. That part I find kind of fishy.
But it's also not hard to see once they saw they were dealing with guys with guns that going along with it but with willful incompetence wouldn't have seemed like a totally unreasonable strategy. What are your choices? Run away and look over your shoulder for years?
And I'm betting it's a *wealthy* commuter town.
Stop looking for a "job" and start looking for contracts.
And in 15-20 years time, many of the old tesla will have batteries that are at 75-150 MPC. That becomes doable for some relative that you sell to for a 1000, or even give. Simple as that.
I don't know what you can and can't grow with this technique (grains, corn, soybeans may be an issue), but doesn't the lack of shipping (ie, using what you grow within a 10 mile radius) factor into the larger aspect of energy efficiency?
It would seem that shipping produce thousands of miles, often in refrigerated shipping systems, would use more energy than LED lighting.
The problem of course is competing against the ship there-eat--elsewhere economic model now.
I thought "Basil" was the dealer's name...
they aren't in any way evenly distributed along the political spectrum - the vast majority are some flavor liberal/left. Conservative viewpoints are dramatically underrepresented in general and more likely to be downmodded or not upmodded even without being in the batshit crazy demographic.
Anyway, you do have some point, but the reasons for these are objective. Simply put, conservative viewpoints tend to be more batshit crazy in general, and even if they're not, they're still wrong more often ("reality has a well-known liberal bias" and all that). Nevertheless, if you have a valid point, and if you can coherently articulate it, you will usually get upmodded even if it goes counter to the groupthink. It's just that some points are much harder to intelligently argue in favor of than the others.
There is a certain degree of inequality when it comes to the bar for getting upmodded. If you run with the groupthink, you can get easy upmods with just a single emotional statement with some invectives thrown in. If you're arguing against it, you have to be really persuasive. So if you look at all posts, there is a clear slant. But if you look at posts that actually contribute to the discussion, it's much more balanced.
Have a look at this old post of mine. It's about as anti-groupthink on Slashdot as you can get (note that this is back in 2009). And yet it doesn't have a single downmod, and one informative upmod. Why? Because I cited my sources and refrained from unsubstantiated attacks.
Ah. You mean like regulations have eliminated torrents and drugs, right?