The Japanese directly intervened in their manufacturing companies, and shaped their economy via the Bank of Japan to "rebuild" and grow their economy. They also have a notoriously closed (to outsiders) economy.
Not to mention the crucial land reform project targeting landlords:
> The government forced absentee landlords to sell all their land to the government. Farmers were allowed to own a small amount of farm land that they could rent out to others ( 2.5 acres or one hectare in most parts of Japan, and 10 acres or 4 hectares in Hokkaido), and had to sell any excess to the government. The government then sold this land, usually to the tenant who had been farming it. The result greatly improved the living conditions of farmers.
Given the political climate in the US — with accusations of socialism flying left and right — it is fascinating that they were able to conceive and execute literal redistribution of farmland and that is has been held up as a exemplary example of successful reforms.
Perhaps there is more to the story, punishing the social class/monied interests that prosecuted the war?
There was considerable appetite for socialism immediately after the war, and the US officials of the early occupation were notably progressive (New Dealers, basically). As US-Soviet relations soured over the next 5 years, a lot of reforms were walked back or discarded, but some were obviously irreversible.
Japan doesn’t have a nearby superpower that makes sabotaging your entire economy a yearly campaign point in order to prove your country sucks. Cuba’s had that for well over half a century.
Cuba is in a unique position to be a ridiculously wealthy country. They can flaunt US long-arm jurisdiction (ie: FATCA) and act as a safe heaven for US/EU monies. The embargo on Cuba is pretty much self-imposed by the their current regime.
Yeah, being a criminal safe haven right next to a country that has no problem supporting terrorists and dropping bombs on civilian targets is a wonderful idea. Can’t imagine why they never tried it.
Probably because every powerful economy of the past 6 centuries got there due to strong trade, which the US has gone out of its way to prevent Cuba from doing.
No country with a strong economy got there by being forcibly isolated from the world.
But protectionism is often good and necessary for a country's economy. If country A cannot produce a good x, then another country B can stifle A's technology growth for producing x by selling x outright at a cost A can not produce the good at (yet). If you ban the import/restrict of x from country B, you will have to pay some fixed costs to get the production of x up to speed; but you will end up with cheaper unit costs in the end. The catch is, you can not ban all imports outright because importing the technology to produce x will probably save you years on R&D and related costs. Like everything in economics, doing things are good and bad at the same time.
Whilst your comparison is problematic on the grounds that Cuba suffered from decades of economic sanctions, it still manages to do better than similar nearby economies, Haiti, Jamaica, etc.
The point I was making was that the person I was replying to was claiming that Japan's economic prosperity was due to it have a "free market" which it does not (unless you count socialism for the companies as "freedom").
Protecting an economy is the same thing as economic sanctions. You can't claim that one results in prosperity while the other explains economic malaise.
> which it does not
It certainly does. It wasn't a perfect free market, though, as nothing human is perfect. But it was close enough to do the job.
>> suffered from decades of economic sanctions
> Protecting an economy is the same thing as economic sanctions. You can't claim that one results in prosperity while the other explains economic malaise.
Uh, no.
Hard no.
> BTW, I wrote that it was a free market.
Yes, I realised it after I posted, but did not care to update what other people can see for themselves.
One other thing that should be noted about the Japanese "miracle" is the fact that, at a crucial point in time, their manufacturing got a huge cash shot from the USA, due to a need for vehicles for the Korean War.
The USA has given huge cash shots to many countries, and no miracle resulted. Afghanistan, for a recent example. All that foreign aid money, which does not produce any visible results.
That kind of depends, the Asian countries that are communist seem to have struck a balance between capitalism and communism that suits them (China, Vietnam)
The DPRK seems to be a basket case, with regular crop failures (we are told), but its relationship with China ensures that it continues to survive.
Capitalism in countries like the USA seems to work for part of their population, but not all, there are large swathes of poverty and homelessness, and the disparity between the haves and have nots is enormous.
The whole point of an economic system, whether it be Capitalism, Socialism, or the more common middle ground (almost every country has struck a balance between the two, with Welfare states, public housing, public health, etc), is to ensure that resources are managed such that they provide for the population.
Capitalism is great at a micro level, people get to decide for themselves how to spend their time, what they want to eat/drink/wear/grow on their farms, and so forth.
But, it's absolutely horrendous at a state/macro level - can you imagine roading being multiple companies competing by putting half a dozen roads between yourself and your work? Emergency services have tried that model (Fire engines used to be owned by one insurance company, or another, and you would have a label on your home letting the crews know which insurance company you were insured by, so if the wrong fire crew showed up they would just watch as your home burnt down)
It's super easy to say "Capitalism has incentivised innovation" but the Soviets were ahead of the USA in several engineering fields, without capitalism (their incentive was competition with the USA)
Yeah. It's everything state owned that doesn't work very well eg. China in the 60s. But some stuff state owned, some free enterprise can work well eg. China in the 2000s. Or most of the west.
Curiously some of the problems that state ownership has also show up in capitalism - corporations that centralise decision making lose the ability to make fine grained, optimal local condition decisions.
And bureaucracy becomes a major headache.
A very common refrain at the moment is businesses wanting to be "nimble like start ups" but are unable to do so due to a myriad of reasons.
