HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich.

But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything.

Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.



> long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash.

Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe.

But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?


> Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually.

I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle).

Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki.

Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.


Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: