Economic dicussion from Nazi.Org

I like a lot of Hitler's views and his critique of democracy as well as his reluctance to ruin German industry by interfering with market forces. On the other hand I also have sympathy with a lot of non-Hitlerian Nazis such as Otto Strasser. I also have sympathies with fascism and bourgeousie or liberal nationalism.
Strasser was a mixture of Proudhonian federalism and syndicalism. His views on Jews were that the issue was not racial but cultural and legal; and that anyone who behaved as a German could be a German whatever his ethnic background.
Hitler was Keyensian, although at first his restriction of inflation really helped Germany's economy.
My views are very laissez-faire (my favorite politician of all time is probably Turgot, who coined 'laissez-faire'). So I depart from most Nazis and fascist groups on economics.

do you mean laissez-faire with a strong government to take care of monopoly and malpratice?

I think governments that are strong (in the economic realms) are what CAUSE monopoly, regulation and legislation reduce competition. Gabriel Kolko and many others have written on how it was government intervention, and not market processes, that caused the cartelization of industry.

I think malpractice would be best dealt with by private review agencies and commercial arbitration agencies. The State exists for Volkisch and security reasons, not to make impossible attempts to change the laws of economics or try to magically do better than prices do at allocating resources. I am firmly with the classical liberals and even modern libertarians in this respect; an economically interventionist State is a state which will make its citizens poorer and create artificial divisions in the nation over the power of the State and the effects of its meddling.

I am in favor of a strong central government with limited powers over a federal system (NOT in the American model, but on a Proudhon + Hobbes model). But in the realm of economic life it simply can do no good, except to ensure the security of people and to unify them into making sound choices on the market.

wouldn't successful companies use money to subvert other companies or buy off their competitor and rise prices?

If a company wants to buy competitors off it is going to have to pay a price that equals the discounted rate of profit and capital value of their investments, and it must continue to do so to prevent new competition from emerging. This will drive its costs up exactly in proportion to any possible gain by such a 'buy-out' attempt at cartelization. Furthermore, there is no reason they ought to make more money anyways: the ultimate point of profitability is not highest prices but lowest costs relative to prices, so that the maximum number of articles can be sold with the highest marginal return. This is exactly why all attempts at private non-productive cartelization has failed, and industries again and again lobby to prevent 'destructive competition' and protection. This is exactly what happened in the 19th century and the Progressive era and gave us 'corporatist' state monopoly capitalism: through extensive regulation and requirements on entry into lines of businesses.

i guess that the state is a not a good mediator for malpratice. but how could private review agencies be held accountable for their decision or enforce them?

First of all, in the market place there are many, many excellent methods to deal with non-compliance, as exemplified in actually existing private arbitration and rating agencies, and many other examples such as the Law Merchant. Finally, if a person is literally breaking a contract then enforcement can (if necessary) be put through the state-courts, though I think these should generally be restricted to enforcing minimal guarantees of security and redress for violent acts.

what about corruption of these same agencies?

As their value depends precisely upon the tendency for informed professionals to take them seriously, and the liabilities they must put forth in order to be taken seriously, normal competition and reputation will do an excellent job; there is no way to make government regulatory bureaucracies under this kind of pressure.

though there is widespread corruption in the state how would they be immune to this?

Well, obviously you need to have a state that is designed and informed in a way so as not to be vastly corrupt, there is no magical way to prevent the interference of unjust force. In this case I would say that people need to get rid of the State they have.