• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Baha! How is subsidues not protectionist measurments? What do tarriffs do? Oh they make it difficult for foreign goods to enter the market because of the higer prices, it is in effect subsiding the domestic market (however starving most of it). What is subsidues doing? Oh they are giving the tax supported industries a step ahead. That means that it will not only make it more difficult for foreign goods to compete with them, but also domestic. It will do the exact same effects as the tarrifs; they will starve off the economy and depress it.

Also the big banks and industries can do whatever they want to do, they can drive up the prices, not meet the supply demand and go in deficits as they know the state will support them with money. They don't have to care about resource usage nor the consumer. This will lead to a net loss for the society as the exploitation of resources and the needs of the society os not met.

You're arguing against tarrifs, but what you fail to see is that subsidues and bailouts do exactly the same as the tarrifs, in disrupting the disrupbution of resources, favoring some bussiness and secotrs over others, repressing the economy and create an artificial market which is bound to burst. Your policies are protectionist, it can only be free trade if both the domestic and foreign market are decentralized and free.

And you say you will only implement tarrifs when the economy fail. How illogical is that? "We will only implement policies we mean destroy the economy when the economy is going down". Haha! Would you shoot a man because he have a fever, just to put down the fever? Ludocrisy! This only show us the zero knowledge of economics that the FVP have. Socialism is on our doorsteps my fellow Germans, but unfortunately you can't see it. When the market is oppressed and gagged, the people are ultimately gagged. For the market is ultimately just the sum of all individuals in a society. First they will control the market, then they will use that power to control the people.
 
Bah, you liberals took away the Kaisers godgiven rights to lead the German people through the centuries, this was the beginning of our moral and political downfall. You are nothing but a bunch of posers and populists.

*ahem* Monarchist here. :)
 

It is written that those who are in power ought to support the needy. The strong must guard the weak.

Were the market controlled by moral forces, I would be inclined to support your argument, but that is not the case as it is. Indeed, you plead for a free market, whilst warning us for the dangers of immoral managers! No, your "free" market is a tyrrany of the few, whose only aim is to increase their own profits - whatever the cost.

Some intervention is required to bring stability and justice to the economy, ensuring that the masses remain employed.

Bah, you liberals took away the Kaisers godgiven rights to lead the German people through the centuries, this was the beginning of our moral and political downfall. You are nothing but a bunch of posers and populists ((which, of course I am not)).
God has long turned His back to all of you.

Now, having said that, I would still welcome DZP to join our glorious DNVP/DAP coalition, which will lead our great people back to glory after the next election.

Your words wound me, good Sir.. Yet, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Lord would support your intolerant ways above the best efforts of his moderate servants.
 
*ahem* Monarchist here. :)
((Did not see your "I'm rolling with the Hohenzollerns" T-shirt.))

Also, to the most pious Khalep, I seem to remember quite a lot of intolerance in the past coming right from inside the Holy Catholic Church, do I have to remind You of the Inquisition, the witchhunts, all the other jolly good fun you guys used to have?
And, not like the liberals, I am not condemning this, I mean, none of us is perfect. Join us. Join us.

JOIN US.
 
((Did not see your "I'm rolling with the Hohenzollerns" T-shirt.))

Didn't see yours either, must be covered by that ugly brown shirt of yours. :p
 
It is written that those who are in power ought to support the needy. The strong must guard the weak.

Were the market controlled by moral forces, I would be inclined to support your argument, but that is not the case as it is. Indeed, you plead for a free market, whilst warning us for the dangers of immoral managers! No, your "free" market is a tyrrany of the few, whose only aim is to increase their own profits - whatever the cost.

Some intervention is required to bring stability and justice to the economy, ensuring that the masses remain employed.
.

((You do know that interventionism is still market economics and where profit maximizing is the main drive force behind the economy))

Hm, interesting. You say that we can't have a free market because of greedy capitalists who only care about themselves and are amoral? Let us see, what are they? They are humans. They are rich and privelgied. And what do we find in the parliament? The excaxt same things. Heck, most of the old aristoricrats and big capitalists are in the parliament, this will only lead to crony capitalism! They will make economical reforms that benefit them. And if we can't trust the free-market because lf human errors, how can we trust politicians? Can't they err? The Zentrum is a living proof of this.

And who support mixed economics? Oh the big capitalists and corporation. They benefit from intervention as they can make monopolies and cartels [during this time the mixed economics and state capitalists in germany supported cartels) which will ruin the market and benefit none others than the big corporation. The people, the working class, will suffer.

We need a free-market for a fair market, for better oppurtinities for small and medium bussinesses, for better conditions for consumers and to prevent corruption in the government.
 
It is written that those who are in power ought to support the needy. The strong must guard the weak.

Were the market controlled by moral forces, I would be inclined to support your argument, but that is not the case as it is. Indeed, you plead for a free market, whilst warning us for the dangers of immoral managers! No, your "free" market is a tyrrany of the few, whose only aim is to increase their own profits - whatever the cost.

Some intervention is required to bring stability and justice to the economy, ensuring that the masses remain employed.



Your words wound me, good Sir.. Yet, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Lord would support your intolerant ways above the best efforts of his moderate servants.

What is written and where? :p
In your head?

No one controls the markets! Even the state can only attempt to control them, and fail trying!

Free markets have no 'managers' running them.
If the markets were truly free, how could anyone become a tyrant?

State intervening in economy never results in anything good, only some temporary ailments for some special few can be created at the cost of something else that is given up, in your case freedoms of individuals.

'Stability' and justice only happen in truly free markets. Anything else is an arbitrary attempt of perverted justice and oppression.

Open your eyes you silly socialists!
 
We need a free-market for a fair market, for better oppurtinities for small and medium bussinesses, for better conditions for consumers and to prevent corruption in the government.

And that's why the FVP supports free trade. We just actually care about the whole "fair market" concept, unlike certain other parties one could name. ;)

And no, that isn't an endorsement of protection.
 
What is written and where? :p
In your head?

No one controls the markets! Even the state can only attempt to control them, and fail trying!

Free markets have no 'managers' running them.
If the markets were truly free, how could anyone become a tyrant?

State intervening in economy never results in anything good, only some temporary ailments for some special few can be created at the cost of something else that is given up, in your case freedoms of individuals.

'Stability' and justice only happen in truly free markets. Anything else is an arbitrary attempt of perverted justice and oppression.

Open your eyes you silly socialists!

Oh they don't want to. They don't want to acknowledge the truth, and sell lies to the voters to please them. Picture them as a doctor, the doctor finds out that the patient is sick with cancer. The doctor tell the patient that he is good only to please him. But is this right? No, it is amoral and killing the patient. Just like the mixed economy is killing the economy.

And as I have told you, the socialists and fascists want total control over the people. Oh, by making a big government, making the population delendent on the state and controlling the market they have in fact centralized all the power in the state and are free to enslave the people and implement their utopia - which is a dystopia.

The socialists (FVP, SPD, KPD) and fascists (DAP, DZP, DVNP) know that if they control the market, they will have little difficulities controlling the people.
 
Baha! How is subsidues not protectionist measurments? What do tarriffs do? Oh they make it difficult for foreign goods to enter the market because of the higer prices, it is in effect subsiding the domestic market (however starving most of it). What is subsidues doing? Oh they are giving the tax supported industries a step ahead. That means that it will not only make it more difficult for foreign goods to compete with them, but also domestic. It will do the exact same effects as the tarrifs; they will starve off the economy and depress it.

Do explain this. If the government is prepared to subsidise worker wages - and that is what the Alliance is doing - then factory owners will have to pay less of their own money towards wages and thus have more money available to spend on materials needed to produce more products or expanding their workforce, thereby increasing production. Increased production means increased supply, and therefore by extension, less demand. Low demand equals low prices, in other words, the opposite of protection.

Also the big banks and industries can do whatever they want to do, they can drive up the prices, not meet the supply demand and go in deficits as they know the state will support them with money. They don't have to care about resource usage nor the consumer. This will lead to a net loss for the society as the exploitation of resources and the needs of the society os not met.

The government can withdraw subsidies to any business which doesn't play by the rules any time it so chooses.

You're arguing against tarrifs, but what you fail to see is that subsidues and bailouts do exactly the same as the tarrifs, in disrupting the disrupbution of resources, favoring some bussiness and secotrs over others, repressing the economy and create an artificial market which is bound to burst. Your policies are protectionist, it can only be free trade if both the domestic and foreign market are decentralized and free.

Subsidising workers disrupts nothing. Both workers and industrialists are free to purchase from whoever they choose. The only difference is that under the FVP, both workers and industrialists will benefit from cheaper prices due to increased production and will have more money in their pockets with which to purchase those products due to subsidies. That is in no way protectionist.

And you say you will only implement tarrifs when the economy fail.

No, we will only implement tariffs if there is literally no other option to stop the economy from failing. Big difference.
 
The economy is like unto a great and powerful locomotive engine that pulls forward the people of our great nation into a future of ever widening prosperity, however the rails of progress do not always run flat and straight. Without the driver, without the State to apply the breaks and stoke the boiler when it becomes nessecary, the great locomotive will cease to be people's engine and instead be a run-away force that may fail or crash and dash the people to pieces in the rush of it's unbridled power.

And if you don't like my metaphors, I shall just have to re-don the brown shirt, or perhaps a red one. .... wait not a red one. There's something about red shirts that makes me nervous...
 

All mortals err. We are fallible, politicians are fallible. Yet this does not in any way argue against putting faith - if anywhere - in an administration that bases its policy in Holy Scripture.
As to your economic arguments, I refer you to the statements made by good Herr Tanzhang, for I find myself in full agreement with them.

[*snip*]!

You joke, Herr Enewald. I refer to the good Book. We must always draw inspiration from the works of the Saints and the Lord. There is no more potent source.

The market is ruled by the rich investors, who are themselves both servant and master.
The government can impose restrictions upon them and therefore upon the market, ordering stability by investing the common wealth to support the vibrant German economy whenever it faces a rough patch. We shall weather whatever storm arises by such means.

The socialists (FVP, SPD, KPD) and fascists (DAP, DZP, DVNP) know that if they control the market, they will have little difficulities controlling the people.

Frau Howard, how can one possibly be as deluded to proclaim the Centre "fascist"? This is a ridiculous notion, even more so than to deem the Freie Volkspartei socialist. Both parties form the moderate heart and centre of this nation.
If your party were truly the saviour and shield of freedom and democracy, then why do you engage in this fearmongering? Even the fascists refuse to play into the fears of the masses, instead offering the people an apparently quite appealing paper-hat-vision of the future.
 
Last edited:
The economy is like unto a great and powerful locomotive engine that pulls forward the people of our great nation into a future of ever widening prosperity, however the rails of progress do not always run flat and straight. Without the driver, without the State to apply the breaks and stoke the boiler when it becomes nessecary, the great locomotive will cease to be people's engine and instead be a run-away force that may fail or crash and dash the people to pieces in the rush of it's unbridled power.

I like your metaphor, for what its worth. :)
 
The German Century?
1909-1914

Following the years of prosperity in the latter 1900s, Germany was greeted by a far less stable era following the re-election of the Stegerwald led government in 1909. As the German Republic reached out to reclaim its position as Europe’s dominant power – and a nation of worldwide significance it contributed to a series of violent conflagrations across Central and South-East Europe as well as the Middle East whilst at the same time suffering through economic troubles at home.


The troubles afflicting the lands to the South-East of Germany would begin in August 1909 in Constantinople. There the Young Turk Revolution, in truth a military coup, would bring the balance of power in South-East Europe and the Middle East into question. The Turkish Revolutionaries were a group of military men who opposed the stridently pro-Italian conservative elites, supporting secularism, Westernisation and democratic constitutional reform – believing only deep changes could save the Ottoman Empire from collapse. The Young Turks had been associated with Germany prior to the Revolution, and these ties only grew greater and the new government in Constantinople and the German Republic grew swiftly with the Germans establishing an alliance and investing in Turkish industrial projects in exchange for the opening of the Ottoman market to German exports.

As the vast Ottoman Empire appeared to fall under German influence, Germany’s regional rivals – the Russians and Italians – moved to oppose German hegemony and the new Turkish regime. However, the conflict between Russian hopes of striking against the Ottomans in order to splinter the Empire and secure its own dominion in the Balkans and Eastern Anatolia, and Italian hopes of retaining the territorial integrity of the Empire, but restoring its supporters to power, made cooperation between Rome and Moscow impossible. This lack of cooperation allowed for both parties to be humiliated separately over the course of 1910.


First came the Russians who unleashed the familiar battle cry of the liberation of the Christian peoples of the Empire – especially the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans. However, unlike in the past, Russia sabre rattling was not supported by widespread rebellion in any part of the Empire as little international sympathy supported the Russian call to war. Instead, the Young Turk government, which had established close relations with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, supported the stoking of revolt in Russian ruled Armenia and throughout the Caucuses. As Russian forces attempted to forcefully put down the revolt potential Russian allies, notably Italy, remained aloof whilst a united front of the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Great Britain demanded that Russia grant independence to Armenia and withdraw its calls for war with the Ottomans. Faced with insurmountable odds the Russians backed down – their bid to undermine the Young Turks’ regime ending in embarrassing failure.


In August war broke out between Romania and the Ottoman Empire as the Young Turk government looked to take advantage of the humiliation of Russia – Romania’s traditional ally – and press their claims over the Lower Danube. Sensing their best opportunity to overturn Germany’s newfound dominance in the region Italy declared war on the Ottoman, Germany following suite by declaring war on Italy whilst the British opted for maintaining neutrality on the condition that no other powers intervene in the conflict. The German army was still relatively small in comparison to its pre-Great War levels, even with limited expansion in 1909; indeed the Italians could field slightly more troops prior to the mobilisation of reservists and bring them to the front rapidly. This early advantage allowed the Italians to invade the Tyrol, Steirmark and Slovenia and even contemplate an advance towards Vienna at the height of their penetration into German territory in late September.

However, the conflict rapidly turned against the Italians as soon as the two opposing armies entered large scale engagements. German forces were quite simply vastly superior, more technologically advanced, better organised, commanded by superior leaders and including a many more Great War veterans than the more youthful Italian military. Within a short few months the Italian invasion was crushed as German troops began to occupy parts of Alpine Italy. At the same time, the Turks had been triumphant in the Balkans – capturing Bucharest. On January 18th 1911 peace was signed with Romania and Italy – the South Tyrol was annexed by Germany (much to the pleasure of nationalists) whilst the Ottomans gained control of the Romanian coastline. Germany stood exultant, for the first time since 1896 she could proudly claim to be the dominant power on the European continent, perhaps the world.


During this same period the government was able to pass through a number of reforms. In 1909 the coalition’s pledges to improve healthcare provision – in cooperation with religious institutions, especially in the Catholic South – and shorten the maximum working day passed through with relative ease. The question of Women’s Suffrage, on the other hand, was more controversial. Women’s Suffrage had been an issue prominent amongst the left wing milieu for many years; however it had never featured prominently in party manifestos. However successful publicity campaigns by ‘Suffragettes’ through 1909-1911 brought the issue into the public eye with the SPD putting the full weight of its influence behind the mainstream campaign whilst the Communists attempted to organise more radical actions. Within a relatively short period of time and overwhelming majority of the Reichstag had lined up behind the idea of Women’s Suffrage – women being granted equal voting rights to men in November 1911 with Socialist, Communist, Liberal, Populist and Centrist members all voting in favour.

With its reform agenda progressing and international triumphs (none more crucial than the restoration of South Tyrol) the government enjoyed a level of prestige few German governments had approached for decades. Its security was helped by the instability of its political opponents and their failure to coalesce into a viable, unified opposition. Between the legislative election in 1909 and the Presidential election in 1912 only the DAP’s Dietrich Eckert maintained his position as party leader amongst the opposition parties – and this despite heavy pressure from young rising stars with the DAP like Anton Drexler and after 1911 Adolf Hitler (who had been called up as a reservist during the war with Italy) for a change in leadership. Indeed, barring the DAP; all the oppositional parties had taken steps towards greater radicalism since 1909.

The KPD had ejected Clara Zetkin and promoted the son of the co-founder of the SPD – Karl Liebknecht – into the position of party leader as they shifted back towards a more radical course, refusing any cooperation with Social Democrats and Populists and once again speaking about revolution. The DNVP rid itself of Bülow in 1911, as the long term party leader called for a readjustment in DNVP policy following the defeat of Italy – claiming that the DNVP must now come to terms with the existence of the Republic and abandon its implacable monarchism. With Bülow bringing the party’s identity into question he was ejected from the leadership and replaced with a staunch traditionalist and military man in the form of Alfred von Tirpitz. Finally, the growing strength of the free-marketeers within the DDP made the left leaning leadership of Friedrich Naumann untenable – the anointed successor of Eugen Richter resigning as leader in 1910 in favour of the industrial magnate Walther Rathenau who was more acceptable to all sections of the party.


With the opposition divided and the coalition going from strength to strength, Adam Stegerwald was easily re-elected for a second seven year term as President in 1912 – becoming the first President to win election in the first round having been backed by all three coalition parties.


The feel good factor permeating through German society reached its height over the spring and summer of 1912 as first German explorers became the first to reach the South Pole, leading to endless praise of the glory of German science and exploration, and then Berlin played host to the Fifth Olympic Games with Germany topping the medals table to boot. The feeling of satisfaction was not to last, within months of the Olympics Germany was being faced with a new swathe of crises both internal and international that would threaten her restored dominance.


Economically Germany’s growth rate remained strong and steady after 1909, although slightly lower than during its mid-Noughties height. However, the country would face far more serious economic problems during this period. It was widely believed that by the end of the 1900s there was little room for expansion in the supply of traditional industrial goods upon which German industry had been built. Yet with urban populations still growing new industries were needed in order to avoid a new unemployment crisis that the coalition parties had taken such pride in avoiding. This led to a huge programme of state investment in modern industries with a heavy emphasis on electronics.

Disturbingly, although profits were initially impressive the rapid expansion of the modern industrial sector of the German economy saw supply outstrip demand – leading to very heavy losses, especially in the large telecommunications industry. On top of the struggles of the modern industries, many traditional industries were struggling to maintain profitability – requiring the assistance of state subsidies to avoid liquidations that would leave hundreds of thousands unemployed. From late 1910 until 1912 spending on industrial subsidies quadruples, causing a budgetary crisis and the government began to accumulate debts. It was not until after the summer of 1912 that the government unleashed its programme for tackling the industrial crisis.


The response to the crisis came directly from circles of economists associated with the Free People’s Party, the policy of ‘economic cooling’ would see the party, and especially its leader Adam Stegerwald, risk a great deal as they angered both industrial and labour interests, not to mention their long term allies the Social Democrats. Economic cooling involved an immediate rise in the level of taxation – with those lower and middling incomes experiencing a more than proportional rise in taxation (having enjoyed remarkably low levels of taxation since 1905), a cutting off of industrial subsidies to the least profitable industries with exceptions only made in areas in which such policies would lead to endemic unemployment, an immediate pay freeze for all government employed workers with employers encouraged to follow suite, the refocussing of state economic investments so that funds were to be supplied only to the most profitable industries (notably electronic and machine parts industries). The policy hit working class communities hard leading to a wave of widespread industrial action from the autumn of 1912 through 1913, on the ground Communist and Social Democrat leaders played a prominent role in the actions with the SPD wavering in its support of the Populist led government throughout the period. However, the policy did appear to be successful in its immediate goals as industrial subsidies plummeted to only a little above their 1910 levels by mid-1913, with the policies of economic cooling being gradually eased off from thereafter.


Just as the government faced problems on the economic front, a new realignment amongst the oppositional parties threatened to create a viable alternative to an FVP led governing regime. The re-alignment began in an unexpected manner with the murder of DDP leader Walther Rathenau in what was believed to be an anti-Semitic attack against the Jewish industrialist. Whilst the assailant was never caught the paper hat he adorned marked him out as a DAP sympathiser. In the aftermath of the incident the DDP and DNVP were to take unexpected steps towards one another. The anti-Semitic response of Tirpitz to the incident caused many within the party to question his ability to lead the party back to power – leading to his eventual removal from the position in late 1913 and replacement with Gustav Stresemann. The new leader came not from the Conservative tradition of German politics but the National Liberal – supporting liberal economic ideas, a downplaying of the DNVP’s anti-Semitism and retention of the party’s commitment to monarchical restoration he represented a particularly radical turn for the old party of reaction and a clear turn away from any potential alliance with the German Workers’ Party. As the DNVP became more open to moderation the DDP appoint co-founder and prominent banker and economist Hjalmar Schacht as its new leader, a man whose politics appeared far closer to Stresemann’s than Stegerwald’s.


Internationally it appeared to many that the Young Turk Revolution of 1909 marked the beginning of a new age of democratic change for Europe. Following on from the Ottoman example in 1911 the autocratic Spanish monarchy was brought down and replaced by a new Republican government, followed the same year by Portugal also adopting a Republican constitution. In 1912 a new constitution was issued in Bohemia and Moravia, a country previously under an authoritarian regime, which guaranteed the rights of Czechs and Germans equally and opened up the country’s political system. Then in early 1913 a revolution swept Hungary that forced radical democratic change. Seeing this as a positive change in its nearby ally, Hungary had been chronically afflicted by instability since the Great War, Germany supported the change. In was a decision many in Berlin were soon to regret deeply.


In November 1913 Hungary’s first democratic elections produced a stunning result as the Communist Party, aligned with a radical social democrats as well as peasant groups demanding the redistribution of aristocratic lands, secured victory and moved to form a new government. As well as nationalising foreign, mostly German, industrial interests the Hungarians sought to form diplomatic ties with Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia – threatening Germany’s geopolitical position. Worse yet, in the Ottoman Empire 1909’s hopes of reform had been crushed in many parts of the Empire as the Young Turks’ Turkish nationalist positions increasingly undermined any hopes for autonomy or reform in favour of the non-Turkish majority of the Empire. From the autumn of 1913 a large rebellion broke out in the Arab provinces of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia with a Kurdish revolt threatening Anatolia itself. As the Ottoman army in Syria was scattered in December revolts began to break out in the Balkans and the government in Constantinople sent an official request to Germany for military support. With an international crisis mounting the government opted to dissolve itself and call new elections, hoping to secure a new mandate.
 
That was the most awesome update ever. Good governance, German Glory... and above all a paper hat reference! :)