Anti-Americanism on this board

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The simplified truth is that Deadoman is right - people are poor because of bad institutions. Whether good institutions can be brought about through foreign intervention is a matter of debate though. It seems to have worked decently in Japan but less well in many other places.

I'm not so sure I would call the war with Japan "intervention" more so as "self defense", considering they attacked us.

That's not really my point though - it's just an example of successfully building institutions in a country through intervening.

No it isn't because most of those institutions had already been built (How else had Japan become a significant regional power before WWII?) - the Americans simply helped reconstruct them (to put it as simply as possible).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The simplified truth is that Deadoman is right - people are poor because of bad institutions. Whether good institutions can be brought about through foreign intervention is a matter of debate though. It seems to have worked decently in Japan but less well in many other places.

I'm not so sure I would call the war with Japan "intervention" more so as "self defense", considering they attacked us.

That's not really my point though - it's just an example of successfully building institutions in a country through intervening.

No it isn't because most of those institutions had already been built (How else had Japan become a significant regional power before WWII?) - the Americans simply helped reconstruct them (to put it as simply as possible).

I'm not sure what "those institutions" refer to here. Obviously they had a lot of working institutions before WWII as well.

Yes, which weren't created by the Americans... which sort of disproves the idea that Japan's economic power is/was due to American intervention.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The simplified truth is that Deadoman is right - people are poor because of bad institutions. Whether good institutions can be brought about through foreign intervention is a matter of debate though. It seems to have worked decently in Japan but less well in many other places.

I'm not so sure I would call the war with Japan "intervention" more so as "self defense", considering they attacked us.

That's not really my point though - it's just an example of successfully building institutions in a country through intervening.

No it isn't because most of those institutions had already been built (How else had Japan become a significant regional power before WWII?) - the Americans simply helped reconstruct them (to put it as simply as possible).

I'm not sure what "those institutions" refer to here. Obviously they had a lot of working institutions before WWII as well.

Yes, which weren't created by the Americans... which sort of disproves the idea that Japan's economic power is/was due to American intervention.

I never really claimed that. The Japanese institutions before WWII led to...WWII. So they were far from perfect, even if they were certainly superior to most others in the Third World.

None of that was my point though. It was merely that the post-WWII institutions in Japan were a) largely put there via foreign intervention and b) largely successful.

That might then be an example of how foreign interventions can bring good institutions with them.

Japan was most certainly not part of the "third world" in 1937 (a term that doesn't really have meaning until the post-colonial period) - it was a significant though not giant colonial power. Would you suggest that Germany and Italy were "third world" in the same time period, even though Germany may well have been the world's second largest economy by the start of WWII (Okay, Third, if you count the British Empire as a whole but it increasingly wasn't...) and that Japan was much more of a power than Italy was (and NOBODY would claim that Italy's post-WWII success is due American-created institutions....)?

So, it is hardly an example of how intervention can create good institutions, most of the institutions were already there...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Abolishing planned economy in favour of freer markets has done a lot to reduce the problem of world hunger.

Funny. I always thought that It was the 70's agricultural technology revolution conjoined with the opening of new agricultural frontiers (both heavily government sponsored) and the blessed oblivion, by great powers, of Africa and Latin America, after the end of the Cold War, which stopped the endless conflicts sponsored by the north.
Old non-sequitur is old.

Alas, is easy to blame others incompetence when you work hard to maintain the incompetents and to avoid any kind of effective government to take power.

Where did this revolution come from? The Soviet Union? China?

If you're blind to the correlation between abolishing planned economies and general welfare I'm sorry for you. It's pretty well documented.

He's talking about "The Green Revolution" I assume. Which was government supported (at least it was in India).

This issue depends on how one defines "Planned economies". Practically all economies are planned nowadays, though some are more planned than others.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The simplified truth is that Deadoman is right - people are poor because of bad institutions. Whether good institutions can be brought about through foreign intervention is a matter of debate though. It seems to have worked decently in Japan but less well in many other places.

I'm not so sure I would call the war with Japan "intervention" more so as "self defense", considering they attacked us.

That's not really my point though - it's just an example of successfully building institutions in a country through intervening.

No it isn't because most of those institutions had already been built (How else had Japan become a significant regional power before WWII?) - the Americans simply helped reconstruct them (to put it as simply as possible).

I'm not sure what "those institutions" refer to here. Obviously they had a lot of working institutions before WWII as well.

Yes, which weren't created by the Americans... which sort of disproves the idea that Japan's economic power is/was due to American intervention.

I never really claimed that. The Japanese institutions before WWII led to...WWII. So they were far from perfect, even if they were certainly superior to most others in the Third World.

None of that was my point though. It was merely that the post-WWII institutions in Japan were a) largely put there via foreign intervention and b) largely successful.

That might then be an example of how foreign interventions can bring good institutions with them.

Japan was most certainly not part of the "third world" in 1937 (a term that doesn't really have meaning until the post-colonial period) - it was a significant though not giant colonial power. Would you suggest that Germany and Italy were "third world" in the same time period, even though Germany may well have been the world's second largest economy by the start of WWII (Okay, Third, if you count the British Empire as a whole but it increasingly wasn't...) and that Japan was much more of a power than Italy was (and NOBODY would claim that Italy's post-WWII success is due American-created institutions....)?

So, it is hardly an example of how intervention can create good institutions, most of the institutions were already there...

Third world is something I used a shorthand here. I think you know what I meant. I also wasn't referring to 1937 but rather the period of time during which they built their institutions.

Then I'm not entirely following your argument. I realize that I might want to scratch the above comment, since we seem to use Third World differently. For you it seems to mean "small economy." To me it rather means non-Western - as I recall that was how the term was launched originally.

Now, Italy, as far as I know, wrote their own constitution after the war (more or less). Going to the all-mighty wikipedia, as concerns Japan, it says:

 The Allies sought not merely punishment or reparations from a militaristic foe, but fundamental changes in the nature of its political system. In the words of political scientist Robert E. Ward: "The occupation was perhaps the single most exhaustively planned operation of massive and externally directed political change in world history."

"Much of it was drafted by two senior army officers with law degrees: Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney, though others chosen by MacArthur also had a large say in the document."

"The new constitution would not have been written the way it was had MacArthur and his staff allowed Japanese politicians and constitutional experts to resolve the issue as they wished. The document's foreign origins have, understandably, been a focus of controversy since Japan recovered its sovereignty in 1952."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Constitution

Thus, the institutional setup of Japan post-WWII was largely imposed from abroad. And it seems to have worked reasonably.

No, I use "third world" in the original sense of the non-communist "developing world". Japan, while not western, has always been part of the "First world" since the term has been in use.

Indeed, the existence of Japan was why - until the 1980s - the terms "the west" and "First world" were never interchangeable. Japan was simply too advanced - which was due to processes which already been long in process before WWII...

Regardless of the role of America in developing Japan's constitution (which isn't really the best example of an institution), the point stands that Japan's development can't be seen as a good example - and certainly not a typical example, not in any way - of how foreign intervention can alter a country's economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay fine, keep your defintions. But the "Green revolution" was in execution closer to 1 than to 2. (Though I will note that 2 is still a form of planning when done consciously).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You shouldn't confuse collectivization with "planning" as a general concept.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I am well aware of how the Third World came into existence - I was using the West as a political concept (which to my mind would include Japan today). It seems to me to be a minor point either way.

Wait... wait... what? If Japan is the "west", then the concept of the west has no meaning whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is an insitution, just a bad example of one in the context in which we were speaking, especially if it is frequently ignored in practice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not doubting that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...All of which put far ahead of its neighbours and made it a significant power in its own right - unlike any other non-european country which suffered intervention (this is part of the point, the "intervention" in Japan was not in any way typical, as I keep saying.. the circumstances were very unusual and in reality, unrepeatable to any other country).

As for the GDP figures, yes, that is conceivably true but that would still have made it richer per capita than most European countries including large parts of Italy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Institutions. Is a constitution not a plan? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dragged collectivization into it because I wanted to distinguish between a "planned" economy in general and the "collectivization" of agriculture that was practiced in Marxist-Leninist countries, which without doubt a collosal failure (perhaps the worst failure of the 20th Century, to be speak of it lightly). Agriculture in almost any country is planned to the teeth (it would hardly survive in the developed world without it) - but isn't collectivized. What is the CAP but a form of planning?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Uhm, Gustaf, the West is perhaps more of a cultural concept, no? Surely you see what sets Australia and New Zealand apart from Japan.

Yes, yes I know that is a way of using it. It's not really how I use it. It still does not really matter much for what we're discussing here though.

No, it does. Because Japan had very much its own history and culture which was separate from that of Europe. Before 1853, for over 200 years contact between "the west" and Japan was near effectively zero. It also existed as a political unity long before western contact, something which can't be said for most intervened places. After 1868 after a long lag it began slowly to industralize while maintaining its sovreignity as a modern state. Japan's pre-1940 development was unique in every way* - during the last years of isolation there was a significant prospect that the country would be carved up by the Euro-American Powers and that that didn't happen and that by the time of WW2 Japan was a major regional power seems to show that many of the foundation of Japan's growth well pre-dated the period of the occupation.

* (I remember once reading in a book about development that a common joke in development studies, which I think proves my point, was that there were four types of countries in regarding to development: Developed, Developing, Japan and Argentina)

Japan can't be at all compared to Australia or New Zealand in this sense, those are settler colonies which were at this time appendages of the British Empire. Japan is very different.

Constitutions can be ignored, that's true. Is this the case with the one in Japan? Has it had no influence on Japanese society? As you seem to agree, laws do in general have quite a strong effect on societies even though that is not a necessity.

My point was that consitutions by themselves are not great examples of institutions unless you can show how they work in practice.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said it was rich (but I did say "certain regions of Italy" not country itself, for pretty obvious reasons) but what I have tried to point out what was that it was not in any way a typical "third-world" country and a typical colonial appendage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course there is. But they are in the private sector (in a pure market system, that is, which never has existed). As the beginning of that paragraph, I'm tempted to point out that neither did the Soviet consitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was giving the CAP as an example of planning in agriculture - use of production quotas with an aim to set prices is planning, no? You seem to be referring to words like "regulation" and "planning" without realizing that in many cases they mean the same thing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Eh, thanks for the lecture on Japanese history. I do know all these things, you know.

Well, you did seem to show astonishing ignorance of it. The same thing you accuse me of having in economics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it is not a good example of an intervention and can not be held to be paradigmatic in any way. Japan was already a developed country, as well as Italy, by contemporary world standards in 1933 - No-one in their right mind would claim that Italy's post-war development was mainly due to American institutions set-up in the immediate aftermath of the war, so why are saying this for Japan?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A constitution is not a good example of an institution unless you show how it is implemented in reality. To take an extreme and obvious example the fact that "all men are created equal" was in the preamble of the United States declaration of Independence did not prevent slavery for almost 90 years after it was written.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Bangs head against wall*. But it is still planning; but not the same as in the Soviet system, granted. But I never said it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I claim such a thing? Quote me at length.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a masterpiece of evading my point. Yes, there is a difference between regulation and planning but doesn't seem to be what you are talking about. Do you consider the role of the Indian government in supporting the Green Revolution in India an example of planning or not?

Yeah, that's essentially all that I know about Argentina's development. How did it happen?

The Pre-WWI Argentine economy was extremely dependant on the export of agricultural products to Western markets - especially to those of the British Empire through which the Argentine political and economic elite had very strong connections, through this it became one of the most prosperous countries in the world but maintained a one-track economy - it did not develop a significant level of industry and so like the rest of Latin America, the country was at the mercy of the market price of its beef, soya, wheat, etc. Simulatenously, as political circles were dominated by those connected to the Anglophile landowning oligarchy, it meant that there was a little difference between the major political factions while the cities - especially Buenos Aires - was largely disenfranchised. However even moderate reforms - moderate liberal/Social democratic reforms which had been widely accepted in Europe - were fanatically opposed not just by the oligarchy but by their allies - the Argentine military, who from the 1920s got a taste for "intervention" when they did not like the way things were going.

Then came the great depression which decapitated the export-driven economy which then a led to a series of Military coups and counter-coups. In the army at this time, a group of Junior officers led by Peron took power and became influenced by a particularly Argentine form of nationalism and tried to set up a fascist-type corporatist economy with import-subsititution industralism and high protectionist walls. The industries set up weren't efficient, agriculture declined. At the same point, the old military aristocracy hated the junior upstart. And so began a pattern which lasted until 1982 where the country would fluctuate between Reactionary military governments, Peronism often supported by junior officers and the working class of Buenos Aires and a something that resembled liberal democracy in between. Of course during this period, it was hard to note a coherent economic policy; but like the rest of Latin America ISI was popular (and strongly Funded by American adminstrations started by Kennedy iirc) which meant by the 1980s - like the rest of Latin America - had a lot of inefficient industries and astronomical debt.

The Menem adminstration in the early 90s introduced radical neo-liberal measures (and Menem was a peronist!) to end the debt crisis, which failed eventually leading to the bankruptcy of 2001. By which Argentina was at best a middle income country. That is at least how I understand it (Edu can probably correct some of the details)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's more like I'm retaliating your unwarranted condescension towards me on Japanese history by giving you the same on economics.

You seem to think that statements like "Japan had growth before WWII" contradicts anything I said. That is not true.

This is my argument:

1. Japan's post-war institutions were to a large extent the product of intervention
2. Japan was successful post-WWII

Ok, fair enough, but my argument has been:

1. Japan's pre-ww2 success shows the continuity between Japan after and before the war (as Japan could not be a typical example of intervention). Most of Japan's institutions - its universities, its government set-up - did not actually change all that much. Neither did the personnel.
2. Therefore it is absurd to claim that Japan's post-war success was due to the American intervention.
3. It is very strange example to use anyway, and its use to my mind nullifies the argument. Looking for a successful european/euro-American intervention and then finding it in a remarkably atypical example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is it irrelevant? If Japan was successful before the war, then surely that was due to its own institutions (which were based on European ones, granted, but they were their own)? And if I kept on mentioning the institutional continuity...*

* (Of course given what Japan's 'success' meant during the war, it might not have been such a good thing).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, don't be silly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Only that that doesn't explain how it operates in practice by itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because language is misleading... Yes, I understood that a system like America is different to that of the Soviet Union. What is the point of all this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Institutions. Is a constitution not a plan? You seem to be contradicting yourself.[/Quote]

You seem to be arguing that a constitution somehow plans the economy in a way similar to that of the Soviet Union. Now you apparently find that ludicrous. *shrug*[/Quote]

It is a plan of sorts, if you consider the formation of institutions as fundamental to economic development. Obviously not a plan in the Soviet sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The example I gave was due to the fact that the Indian government played a proactive role in its inception. My point is that if you can admit that a government planning its economy is form of planning but not necessarily a soviet type of plan (which is why I mentioned collectivization) then here there would be no arguments. The terminology often used here is a form of politico-ideological abuse, on the same intellectual level as enemies of "Big government" cheerleading for wars.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Well, I think you've completely misinterpreted my point. The question I was trying to answer was whether introducing institutions from the outside can work at all. My point was never that all of Japan's post-WWII growth came from American institutions, but merely that their success was compatible with having a major aspect of their institutional framework imposed from the outside.

That is why I find a lot of the things you said here to be beside my point.

And I tried to show that that isn't necessarily the case and that Japan example was too complex to put down to the role of the United States. Or in other words, try and give me another example, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which shows the problem of terminology...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily that I want show that "planning" can be a good thing. I only rectify the terminological problem - which tends to obscure things - that I tried to show that "planning" can have benefits some times was only a byproduct of that process - not the aim of it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Well, I think you've completely misinterpreted my point. The question I was trying to answer was whether introducing institutions from the outside can work at all. My point was never that all of Japan's post-WWII growth came from American institutions, but merely that their success was compatible with having a major aspect of their institutional framework imposed from the outside.

That is why I find a lot of the things you said here to be beside my point.

And I tried to show that that isn't necessarily the case and that Japan example was too complex to put down to the role of the United States. Or in other words, try and give me another example, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which shows the problem of terminology...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily that I want show that "planning" can be a good thing. I only rectify the terminological problem - which tends to obscure things - that I tried to show that "planning" can have benefits some times was only a byproduct of that process - not the aim of it.

What is not the case? Do you disagree that Japan's post-war institutions are to a large extent affected by the US? I'm not convinced you understand what my argument is here.

And I don't think it's a general problem of terminology - you just wanted to have a semantic argument for some reason. I've never met anyone before who wasn't aware of what a planned economy means.

*rolls eyes*. Of course I know what is meant by a "planned economy" but it is concept that doesn't refer to itself. Like I say, the common use of the term "planned economy" is economics equivalent of all those "anti-government" people who cheer strongly in favour of war.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Because words tended to get rhetoric meanings - thus my example of champions of "small government" shouting for war. You need to look at this forum for examples. People argue for things they are rhetorically against all the time.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Because words tended to get rhetoric meanings - thus my example of champions of "small government" shouting for war. You need to look at this forum for examples. People argue for things they are rhetorically against all the time.

Sure, but did you have any indication that I was doing that? Or that anyone, for that matter, is doing so in this case? I can understand that anti-government implies being opposed to wars (sort of, at least) but being against planned economy does not mean being against planning. I don't think anyone thinks so.

Just like being opposed to a planned economy does not make one opposed to having an economy...

If you have an alternate term for planned economy that you prefer I guess you can propose it, but personally I don't think the need is that pressing.

How about "Soviet-type economy" given that it is used all the time.

And yes, I knew what you were doing. I was being a pedant. But I think, a useful one. viz. Debates about healthcare or any other "economic" issue bring up the USSR as an example about the evils of "planning". And if you can't see how terms like "Planned economy" can obscure issues, then well.... I don't know what to say really.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Because words tended to get rhetoric meanings - thus my example of champions of "small government" shouting for war. You need to look at this forum for examples. People argue for things they are rhetorically against all the time.

Sure, but did you have any indication that I was doing that? Or that anyone, for that matter, is doing so in this case? I can understand that anti-government implies being opposed to wars (sort of, at least) but being against planned economy does not mean being against planning. I don't think anyone thinks so.

Just like being opposed to a planned economy does not make one opposed to having an economy...

If you have an alternate term for planned economy that you prefer I guess you can propose it, but personally I don't think the need is that pressing.

How about "Soviet-type economy" given that it is used all the time.

And yes, I knew what you were doing. I was being a pedant. But I think, a useful one. viz. Debates about healthcare or any other "economic" issue bring up the USSR as an example about the evils of "planning". And if you can't see how terms like "Planned economy" can obscure issues, then well.... I don't know what to say really.

But neither me nor anyone else in this thread was doing that! If anything obscured the issue at hand here it was you bringing in an unrelated tangent.

And your point is a bit weak, since, again no one ever says "you shouldn't plan your vacation, look at the USSR!"

I mean, if that was a common rhetoric I agree it would be a problemtic usage of terms, but it isn't. Charges about planned economy usually do refer to central government direction of production.

Of course they canbe hyperbolic or whatever, but that's true of all terms. Can you name a politically relevant term that is never used to obscure issues or is simply used in the wrong way?

I don't see how that makes my point less relevant.

The comment on planning holidays in the USSR is too ridiculous to respond to - we were talking about economies, not planning in itself.