Anti-Americanism on this board

[Gustaf]

Care to elaborate about Argentina? I know a little bit about what happened there, but not too much.

Argentina displayed a lack of understanding of economics similar to Gully's and thus managed to anti-develop - going from one of the world's richest countries a century ago to, well, what they are today.

[Хahar 🤔]

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

[Gustaf]

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

They pursued a lot of silly economic policies. I believe they were highly protectionist for example. It's often named as an example of how institutions are important to get economic growth (more important than accumulated capital, as people used to think).

[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)

[Gustaf]

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

As you can see this argument bears no relation at all to what happened before the war. Whether Japan had good or bad institutions before the war is not really relevant. Which is why I didn't mention much about Japanese history. You seem to be claiming that Japan could have been successful without intervention. That may well be true, but is also not relevant to my argument.

I also never claimed that this was paradigmatic. I pointed out at the very beginning that intervention has not worked in most other places. You have argued that Japan is different from  Congo/whatever which, again, is not something I've ever contradicted. Of course, you have yet to make any step towards proving why that is a relevant point. Is it harder to introduce institutions in a country that already has them? Again, most institutitional research actually suggests the opposite.

So, again, are you claiming that Japan's institution is one of those fake constitutions (like the Soviet one)? Or are you now claiming that the US constitution has not been important for US development?

You seem to try to be scoring points by using the fact that planning is a common verb in English. I'm not sure why you want to do this. It strikes me as a bit childish, to be honest. Either that or you have no idea what a planned economy is. You still seem to fail to grasp that the economy as a whole is not planned in a free market system. Individual actions may be planned, but that is different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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*

I'm honestly not too familiar with the Indian government's role in the Green revolution. I'm also not sure how that even became part of the discussion. I do know that India's economy was stagnant for many decades due to rigid regulations. As I pointed out, India did not change from a free market to a planned economy which makes it an irrelevant example. Obviously, some planned systems may be better than others. I'm not trying to evade your point but I'll admit that I'm not sure what it is. If it is that all forms of planning, such as government regulation, does not always destroy everything, then, yeah. I'm not a libertarian.

The description of Argentina I have no qualms with.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

As for the sideshow of planned economy. Of course, there is no economy completely devoid of government intervention. But the term planned economy does not, as far as I know, refer to that. It refers to an economy where markets are essentially abolished and replaced by government directed production. Such as existed in the Soviet Union. That system is essentially a failed system.

That's all I said. You seem to want to rectify the word planning, so as to argue that plans can be a good thing. I'm not sure why you felt that I was attacking plans though.

[k-onmmunist]

if I went on a board to discuss UK politics (just an example- I would not do this) and bashed hte UK and wished Argentina would take over the Falklands that would be impolite and offensive to those members...so please don't come on here and talk about how you would root against my country- root for the efforts of our military to fail which would obviously mean our troops end up dead.

Wow. And I mean that.

Argentina would be attacking the UK directly and infringing on the wishes of the Falklanders who wish to remain British.

If the US attacks Iran, they're the aggressor and thus they deserve to be defeated. At this point, America and Britain are no better than fascist nations in the way they conduct themselves in foreign policy.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

Yes, so then you were waging some kind of crusade for the term "planned" Which I find a bit silly. It's not as if someone opposed to a planned economy opposes planning, claims to or is usually understood to. Which, as you admit, you already know. So what was the point?

Lots of words take on specific meanings in certain contexts. That's hardly something to be upset about. In Swedish, as is usually done here, it's one word: planekonomi ("planeconomy").  It seems linguistically a bit naive to demand that all words never change meaning regardless of context.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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?

[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.