You're aware that there was no actual "miracle", right? It's just a name given to an economic boom, which France and Britain also experienced, under different names (golden age for the UK, trente glorieuses for France).
The miracle in France is called the Trente Glorieuses, "a thirty-year period of economic growth in France between 1945 and 1975, following the end of the Second World War":
Germany and Japan both benefitted by the fact that their extant infrastructure and owners were demolished, removed, and/or financially wiped out by the war and/or the ensuing occupation and denazification / deimperilisation (in Germany and Japan respectively), which removed ownership-based objections to new development and investment --- think NIMBYism, but on steroids.
There's an article I've mentioned and submitted to HN numerous times, Bernhard J. Stern's "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations" (1937). I'd first heard of it through Isaac Asimov who was a research assistant for Stern whilst a student at Columbia.
The piece looks at the innate opposition to technological (and economic) innovations and advance largely from extant established interests, in the areas of transportation, communication, power, metals, textiles, agriculture, and construction.
Something I've noticed in looking at development is that greenfield projects* in which there is no extant political, social, and economic power structure to present an opposition move far faster than those with a well-developed set of independent agents. This is highly pronounced in transportation, where initial route deployment occurs through undeveloped lands. As the transportation itself induces further development, commerce, residences, industry, etc., those interests themselves impose high frictions and costs on further development.
To put it another way, simply following financial amounts hugely distorts understanding of the impact of assistance. Money spent in Germany and Japan (both physically, politically, and financially devastated by World War II) went far further than equivalent sums in either occupied but victorious regions (e.g., France) or unoccupied victors (e.g., UK).
It's interesting to note that high-speed rail (HSR) development has proceeded most rapidly in regions either strongly disrupted by WWII, or in which industrialisation is now occurring for the first time to any significant degree: Japan, France, Germany, and China most notably. HSR's failure-to-launch in the US is attributable in large part to resistance from regional airlines (SouthWest most notably for the proposed "Texas Triangle" routes), and high land costs and dense extant development (both East and West coast projects).
Single-factor explanations are of course limited. Italy (defeated and occupied) did not see the same post-war rebound as its Axis allies Germany and Japan did, though it did of course grow. The Eastern Bloc similarly lagged, likely for other reasons (though it also often saw a far more rapid initial response, see notably North and South Korea's respective development following the 1953 armistice, with the North greatly outpacing the South).
The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive.
Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn.
The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful.
(Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining.
Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact.
The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered.
Are you sure about that? Everything was destroyed, because the RAF and the USAAF bombed everything day and night for years. They quite literally tried to bomb Germany and Japan back into the stone age. About every city in Japan was firebombed to ashes.
And the German men were killed. Millions died of starvation after the war ended.
What was different with Germany (and Japan) was - free markets. You can see this starkly in the different fortunes of East and West Germany. The first was under communism, the second under free markets.
Free markets pretty much don't exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Laos. Adding money to unfree markets just disappears.
History shows us in country after country after country, free markets leads to prosperity, leftism leads to poverty.
Yes, I'm sure about that. Let's take a famous example, Dresden[1]: after the bombings, most industry was still standing (though not operating), 50+% of living quarters were left, 70% of retail was still operating; rudimentary civilian rail operations were resumed after two weeks, military rail operation resumed within days.
And while some areas were partially destroyed, once you move into the suburbs not to mention the rural areas, everything was left standing. And even where there was rubble, under the rubble were roads and within the rubble were bricks.
They may have tried to bomb Germany back to the stone age, but they couldn't; from what was recently posted here, they probably realized this, but they did try to bomb the population into submission[2], which also didn't work, it's just a war crime.
Millions of Germans did not die of starvation after the war, though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47, which was the harshest winter of the 20th century. I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing; but like I said, Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died.
Edit: Let me hasten to add that I don't want to minimize the impact bombing campaigns have on cities and countries. Tens of thousands of people died in Dresden. We still dig out unexploded ordnance where I live, 80 years after the fact. I'm just saying that a lot of infrastructure remained. Germany after the war probably had more infrastructure left standing than Laos did before the war.
> though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47
"More than nine million Germans died as a result of Allied
starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after
the Second World War-a total far in excess of the figures
actually reported."
-- "Crimes & Mercies" by James Bacque
The book is controversial, but you should be aware of it.
> I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing
The free market thing started around 1950.
> Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died
The deaths were before 1950. As for libertarian utopia, I never said that. I said it was the free market that enabled Germany to rise from utter devastation to be the dominant economic power in Europe in just 20 years.
As for Dresden, it was a civilian target, not an industrial one. The US usually targeted industry. It also did not participate in the German Miracle, because it was in the Soviet sector.
Lastly, the German bombing of England was concentrated on London civilian targets, not industrial targets, and it didn't impact infrastructure and industry much. The Luftwaffe also could only reach a small fraction of England, most of the industry was safely out of range. The British went hungry during the war, but they didn't starve.
For reference, the series of Impact books gives a good overview of the effect of the bombing campaigns on Germany and Japan.
"Leftism" is a really dumb term with no precise meaning. The "free market" has never existed and never will because capitalist inherently push for protectionist regulation.
Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide.
Left-wing movements brought universal health care, lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety, and improved working conditions for billions throughout the world with regulations.
"righests" like the monarchists caused the famine in India that killed 30 million people. Fascists in Europe caused a war that killed 60 million people.
Authoritarian populist are always bad, regardless of their stripes. I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving, but right-wing populist are just as bad, and frequently worse than their left-wing populist counterparts.
>>Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide.
Do you really think children in feudalistic, communistic and pre-industrial societies didn't work.
Children only stopped working when we as a society became rich enough they didn't have to anymore not because it was outlawed.
Only because we could afford it and not because people suddenly became enlightened regarding child work. If we were to loose access to electricity and oil, how long do you think it would take for children being forced to work again?
When Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed it was estimated "only" 10% of children were working. That means 90% of them by that time already didn't have to.
What are you talking about? You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of this subject. You were fundamentally wrong about needing to outlaw child labor. You didn't seem to know what the Fair Labor Standards Act was until I introduced it to you.
Capitalist are currently working to reintroduce child labor to the US to undercut wages. It's embarrassing for you to respond when you've displayed such a lack of understanding on the topic.
"Every decade following 1870, the number of children in the workforce increased, with the percentage not dropping until the 1920s.[6] Especially in textile mills, children were often hired together with both parents and could be hired for only $2 a week.[7] Their parents could both work in the mill and watch their children at the same time"
Please stay civil. You are talking past me. Think for a moment what are you claiming. It's obvious people loved their kids through out the history and not only started doing that in the 20th century. Why would they force them to work? Hint: kids from rich people never had to work even when there was no law about child labor.
Did you read the comment chain before jumping in? My point is that capitalism didn't improve conditions for children, it made them in many ways worse by forcing both adults and children to work harder, and in worse conditions.
Your contention that we simply got rich enough that child labor went away is not based in any reality. "Lefitist" had to pass laws to stop capitalist from using child labor. Its a fight we are still fighting today. Child labor is so hot with capitalist right now.
>>Did you read the comment chain before jumping in?
You have not responded to a single question I made. I only assume because you have no arguments and are only interested in repeating ideological tropes.
>> My point is that capitalism didn't improve conditions for children, it made them in many ways worse by forcing both adults and children to work harder, and in worse conditions.
I don't think either us can imagine how hard life was before industrialization, but millions of people leaving the country side to work in the factories should give you some information what people prefer.
>>Your contention that we simply got rich enough that child labor went away is not based in any reality. "Lefitist" had to pass laws to stop capitalist from using child labor.
This is really devoid of historical reality. Did you know some communist countries had forced child labor?
>>Its a fight we are still fighting today. Child labor is so hot with capitalist right now.
> The "free market" has never existed and never will
The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south.
> Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide
Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work?
> lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety
In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then.
> I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving
Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself.
>The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south.
Not true in the slightest. The US Customs Service was created four months after the constitution was ratified, therefore regulating what goods can be imported and making imported goods more expensive than domestic goods. The US has had a highly regulated economy since inception.
>Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work?
You just stated your opinion again? The free market doesn't actually exist and governmental organizations brought people out of poverty.
>In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then
Oh lordy, there is so much that you don't understand. Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year.
>Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself.
I understand WHY the number was made up. I'm asking for a citation for that number because it sounds like nonsense.
Nobody said it was a "perfect" free market. Nothing human is perfect. It was a decent approximation to one, thought.
Check out "The Black Book of Communism".
> Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year
Somehow that didn't seem to have any effect on life expectancy or poverty statistics.
> governmental organizations brought people out of poverty
Do you really think that the enormous movement in the 19th century US of people out of poverty into the middle class came from government wealth transfer programs? Or do you think that the US population consisted of wealthy people who immigrated from Europe?
>Nobody said it was a "perfect" free market. Nothing human is perfect. It was a decent approximation to one, thought.
What are you talking about. Do you know the definition of 'free market'?
"an economic system in which prices are determined by *unrestricted* competition between privately owned businesses."
The United States is not, and never has been, a free market economy. Using 'perfect' and 'imperfect' is you simply trying to bend a definition to support an argument you want to make. The US market has always been highly regulated.
>Somehow that didn't seem to have any effect on life expectancy or poverty statistics.
Ah, so you're just throwing reality all the way out the window then?
>Do you really think that the enormous movement in the 19th century US of people out of poverty into the middle class came from government wealth transfer programs?
Why are you talking about wealth transfer programs? What are you talking about?
Your knowledge on this subject seems to be realllly skewed towards what someone who consumes a lot of right-wing media content would think. I encourage you to do some actual reading on the subject.
>Describe what you consider as "highly regulated".
The United States economy. We have trade regulations, license regulations,import and export regulations, we have standards regulations. You know, lots of restrictions on trade.
>You brought up Medicare and Social Security.
Neither of those programs are 'wealth transfer' programs.
> We have trade regulations, license regulations,import and export regulations, we have standards regulations. You know, lots of restrictions on trade.
That isn't what "highly" regulated is. Things start getting highly regulated when the government sets what prices you can charge, who you are allowed to do business with, etc.
For example, I'm in the software business. There aren't any regulations on it.
> Neither of those programs are 'wealth transfer' programs.
That's exactly what they are. SS tax receipts, for example, go directly to recipients.
> Oh really
Shocked, are you? I wouldn't want to burst your illusions. Imagine what you want.
>Things start getting highly regulated when the government sets what prices you can charge, who you are allowed to do business with, etc.
Oh! It's so convenient that the definition of 'highly regulated' for you fits perfectly into your world view. Those hundreds of thousands of pages of laws that govern trade and the tens of thousands of enforcement officials must just be my imaginiation
>For example, I'm in the software business. There aren't any regulations on it.
Your definition of regulation is different than the actual definition of regulation.
You already got your understanding of the German economy corrected by others. I think you almost certainly are a great example of someone who is a SME in one area which makes you think you are a SME in other areas, when you actually aren't.
Social Security and Medicare aren't wealth transfer programs. The United States has tons of regulations and central economic planning. Your ignorance of those facts is a deficit on your part that you can easily rectify.
Oh what the heck. I have a book for you, "Titan" by Chernow. You'll like it because Chernow tries to paint all the left wing tropes on Rockefeller. Unfortunately, his narrative facts contradict his conclusions.
After you've read it, come back and enlighten me on how "highly regulated" the oil business was in Rockefeller's days.
Another gem is "Nothing Like It In The World" by Ambrose. Ambrose also approached the topic with the usual left-wing bias, but his research completely upended his narrative. Unlike Chernow, he wrote a nice mea culpa about his transformation engendered by the facts.
"Empire of the Summer Moon" is another one that will challenge your point of view.
> The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive.
Do you have any evidence of this stuff? Maybe it was flat because they were bombed to hell, untold number of dead (especially productive age males), etc etc. Who could possibly expect lots of economic activity in Japan immediately after the war?
>I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn.
You are getting your history exactly backwards. Post war Germany was ordoliberal aka "sharp left" until the 70s and neoliberal aka "sharp right" after that.
I'm not going to count Japan and Germany since there is that little "Marshall Plan" detail that, at least as I understand it, may have had some small influence on their development. [end sarcasm]
No seriously, how can you make that statement and not mention the billions on billions of dollars they were given in aid? That's the height of intellectual dishonesty bro.
Billions of dollars have been given in aid to Vietnam and similar as well. The Marshall plan isn't an outlier in size, most poor countries have been given more, the only special thing about the Marshall plan is that it was successful not that it was a large amount.
Fun fact: the Marshall Plan was about $150 billion in today's money, for all of Europe. It was nice, but let's not overstate the significance. The U.S. spent $145 billion on nation building (that doesn't count the war effort) in Afghanistan and accomplished fuck-all.
Because far more billions in MP were given to Britain and France, who did not have an economic miracle. Britain was also far far less devastated than Germany was.
You might also consider the hundreds of billions spent trying to develop Iraq and Afghanistan, to little visible effect.
"billions on billions of dollars" can be squandered in their totality by corrupt elites and not be of any use to the nation at all. Just look at all the superwealthy authoritarians in Africa.
And you do not even have to look at Africa and squandered aid. Russia has enormous revenues from its natural resources, but the money ends up in yet more oligarch yachts and gigantic Putinopolises on the Black Sea coast, while random Russian soldiers loot toilet bowls and the Russian army is so decrepit that it cannot capture a city somewhat larger than Bangor, Maine after several months of battle.
I mean, the last effect is actually beneficial to us, but still, it nicely illustrates the point about billions being to no use if they are stolen.
Is there any basis for pointing to free markets as opposed to every other factor? Other than free market fantasy?
We occupied and ran the countries for a decade, and funded, rebuilt, and defended them. Most of all, they were first-world economies before the war; Germany was probably the world center of intellect and culture. And they retained all those skills (though many leading pre-war intellects moved to the US), just not the infrastructure.
