Donald Trump cancels Chicago campaign rally over security concerns.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Sableye;49928345]His wallstreet tax is so low that you pay 100x more in brokerage fees. It only starts making money when you get into tens of millions or more in a transaction. Normal people will never feel it, high volume and ultra high volume funds that exist to trade and nothing else will feel it though but these institutions destabilize markets anyways and should be curbed[/QUOTE]

It still shows the demagogic nature of the term "wall street." He does not mean it to refer to specific organizations. Also, there's tons of money from regular people in the form of mutual funds or 401ks that rely on stock trading. It may not affect the individual much, but it does effect the aggregate money being moved by people other than the extremely rich.

[tempcon]

[QUOTE=sgman91;49927899]It was in the sense of modern day "socialism". He nationalized key industries, put tariffs on imports, etc. The same sort of things modern day 'democratic socialists' want to do.[/QUOTE]

That would make someone like Bismarck or Metternich a socialist. This is the first NYT article on Hitler ever, in 1922, and it pretty explicitly says he is a reactionary and there is nothing socialistic about national socialism: [url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0CE0D91E3EEE3ABC4951DFB7678389639EDE[/url]

This is from an interview in 1923:
[Quote]"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."[/quote]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1[/url]

Hitler really made up his own meanings, but most notably his socialism would feature private property, classes, a race-based state, and would be idealist and romantic rather than materialistic. He came to power on the corpse of the any socialist elements of the party and with the blessing of the German army, industrialists, and conservatives. Mises even praised the guy for having saved europe. He was no socialist, he was a man of order and the nation, and belongs on the far right.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Conscript;49928488]That would make someone like Bismarck or Metternich a socialist. This is the first NYT article on Hitler ever, in 1922, and it pretty explicitly says he is a reactionary and there is nothing socialistic about national socialism: [url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0CE0D91E3EEE3ABC4951DFB7678389639EDE[/url]

This is from an interview in 1923:

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1[/url]

Hitler really made up his own meanings, but most notably his socialism would feature private property, classes, a race-based state, and would be idealist and romantic rather than materialistic. He came to power on the corpse of the any socialist elements of the party and with the blessing of the German army, industrialists, and conservatives. Mises even praised the guy for having saved europe. He was no socialist, he was a man of order and the nation, and belongs on the far right.[/QUOTE]

The meaning of socialism has changed. I've specifically said "modern day socialism" on purpose.

[tempcon]

That meaning hasn't changed for over 100 years. Have you not heard of the socialist party of the USA? Or of social democracy?

Defining socialism as basically gubmint as you do is nothing new, but even back in this those days they knew Hitler wasn't a socialist.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=Conscript;49928523]That meaning hasn't changed for over 100 years. Have you not heard of the socialist party of the USA? Or of social democracy?

Defining socialism as basically gubmint as you do is nothing new, but even back in this those days they knew Hitler wasn't a socialist.[/QUOTE]

I've listed and specified why their economics line up with much of modern day socialist rhetoric.

You've responded with the opinion of a dude from the 1920s. I would rather not do the quote war because there are plenty of people who think they were socialist. It's hilarious that you bring up Mises when Mises specifically argued that they were socialistic. You're totally taking his comment out of context. He said that it saved them temporarily, but would ultimately lead to their destruction, calling it a "fatal error" in the exact same quote that you're referencing.