Message Board Archives

The fact that the man brought original thought to the subject, the fact that it isn't a rapacious capitalistic theory it is so named to give a negative image. The fact that it explores deeper regarding the relationship of output to wage than other economists did prior it is called post-whoever and linked to European thought. All Don Harris' theory (proven by mathematical equations mind you) does is prove that 'mainstream' economic ideas will always lead to uneven development. Why not name his concept 'The Harrisonan Theory' hmmm.
By the way just imagine if he was out there with Kamala how much more she'd be labeled communist! Dem smart to avoid too much public contact right now.

There is nothing Keynesian about Kamala Harris, but she's undoubtedly Marxist. Both theories emphasize government involvement but in vastly different ways with hugely different outcomes.

Kamala has no clue of economic theory hence her outrageous policy direction.

In reply to InHindsight

keynes argued for state involvement at some level homes. At the Breton Woods conference in the summer of 1944, when the world powers were planning for the end of WW2, keynes argued that the IMF should be used as the global central bank with its own currency, and that had the power to step in when imbalances occurred. It goes back to his philosophy that the state should intervene in times of crisis.

In reply to Jumpstart

Jumpy

Which ideology or system is most effective in reducing poverty?
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, as different ideologies have shown varying degrees of success in different contexts.

I must clarify that the effectiveness of an ideology in lifting people out of poverty can vary depending on various factors such as implementation, economic policies, and social programs.
However, historically, ideologies that promote a mix of market-based economies with social welfare programs tend to have a better track record in reducing poverty levels.
For example, social democratic ideologies often prioritize reducing income inequality and providing social safety nets, which can help lift people out of poverty.
It is essential to consider the specific context and policies when evaluating the impact of different ideologies on poverty alleviation.

The success of any ideology in reducing poverty depends heavily on how it is implemented, the local context, and other factors like political stability and international relationships.
While capitalism has been effective in generating wealth and reducing poverty in many countries, it has also led to significant inequality.
Socialism and mixed economies have been more successful in addressing inequality and providing social safety nets, but they can face challenges related to economic efficiency and sustainability.

Ultimately, there may not be a single ideology that is universally the "best" at reducing poverty.
Instead, many economists and policymakers argue that a combination of strategies, drawing from both capitalism’s wealth generation and socialism’s focus on redistribution, may offer the most effective approach

Sarge

In reply to InHindsight

In reply to Brerzerk
Don is brilliant but he’s also a genuine ahole

In reply to InHindsight

As Sarge alludes to.we all know mixed ecoare better options. The extent of govt intervention should be "cut to fit". Blindsight's response is a perfect example of why I refuse to treat with him. A grave pity the guy cannot read and 'annastan' Guy doan even know what the prefix post means.
He who knows not. he knows not he's "naught" shun him!

In reply to Jumpstart and Brerzerk

You devious bastarrrrdy. It is fact that Maynard Keynes did not support Marxist thought. The former, was a capitalist. I see your surreptitious attempts to marry the two in order to dazzle the unsuspecting.

America, throughout its existence has followed mainly good old Classical Economic thought, which has made it the richest and most powerful country in the world.


Kamala - She is what she is. A far left Marxist and polls show that Americans are uncomfortable with it.

In reply to sgtdjones

No economic system or combination thereof has ever proven successful in eradicating poverty nor addressing inequality. Or ever will

In reply to InHindsight

what is the poverty level in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland especially not counting newly arrived refugees?
NB Notice I said poverty, not risk of poverty. Also notice you are the only person on this post discussing Kamal.
Please learn how to read and don't just read.

In reply to sgtdjones

“Socialism and mixed economies have been more successful in addressing inequality and providing social safety nets”
No, that’s too funny

In reply to InHindsight

“but she's undoubtedly Marxist”

You give her too much credit. I don’t even think she knows what that word means.

In reply to Brerzerk

In reply to CricSham

She and her VP.

In her only interview with Dana Bash she said her values have not changed. Her reluctance to articulate her actual policies is her strategy to hoodwink Americans. So either way she 'barre' (Lucian lingo)

In 2020 she made many far left assertions which she shifted more to centre left this year. But note and I repeat, her values have not changed.

Conclusion:

She's saying what she needs to in order to get votes. But her values have not changed from far left

Answer this last question and then begone 'Where'd you learn to read? A whole paragraph on a subject then a sentence starts 'By the way?'
Doesn't the fact that only you of all the contributors find the discussion to be about Kamala or are you too vacuous to understand that?

In reply to Brerzerk

In reply to sgtdjones

In reply to Jumpstart

Jumpy

Japan stands as a fascinating example of a mixed economy, where the intricate blend of capitalist and socialist principles has paved the way for a dynamic market-driven system.
This unique approach allows for significant government intervention in specific sectors to promote social welfare and address income inequality.
By exploring Japan's economic framework, one can gain insights into the advantages and challenges of such a system, and how it compares to other countries with similar economic structures.

The Essence of a Mixed Economy
A mixed economy is characterized by the coexistence of private enterprise and government involvement in economic activities.
This hybrid system seeks to harness the benefits of both capitalism and socialism while minimizing their drawbacks.
In a mixed economy, the government plays a crucial role in providing public goods and services, ensuring a basic safety net for citizens, and regulating markets to prevent monopolies and protect consumers.
Japan's unique blend of capitalist and socialist principles exemplifies the potential of a mixed economy to achieve balanced economic growth, social welfare, and innovation.
While challenges exist, the benefits of this system are evident in the quality of life and economic prosperity enjoyed by its citizens.
By examining Japan's approach and comparing it to other mixed economy countries, we gain valuable insights into the complexities and opportunities of this economic model.

Japan is not alone in adopting a mixed economy model.
Several Western European nations, the United States, Canada, Australia, and others have embraced similar economic frameworks.
While each country has its unique approach, they share common goals of promoting economic growth, social welfare, and equitable distribution of resources.

The United States operates a mixed economy with a strong emphasis on free-market principles.
While the government plays a role in regulating industries and providing social services, the private sector drives economic growth and innovation.
Billions were paid to Farmers under the Trump administration.

Canada's mixed economy is known for its universal healthcare system and social safety nets.
The government actively participates in sectors like healthcare and education, while the private sector contributes to economic development.

Countries like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have well-established mixed economies, characterized by strong social welfare systems and government involvement in key sectors.
These nations prioritize healthcare, education, and social security, ensuring a high standard of living for their citizens.

In reply to Jumpstart

Marshall Plan was created (printed) free money, some will claim it was money raised from mutual funds.
However, just like capitalism which could not have succeeded without the foundation of centuries of peonage,
slavery and indentureship; The Marshall plan succeeded because of freebies. The great American WWII and post
WWII economy had a foundation of a social contract where unions gave up a lot to make the war effort and Marshall
plan successful.

In reply to Brerzerk

[i]just like capitalism which could not have succeeded without the foundation of centuries of peonage,
slavery and indentureship;[/i]

They also existed prior to capitalism. Why didn’t those systems last?

In reply to InHindsight

Oh, there is no question. She is as leftist as they come. But is there anything that’s happening upstairs? I’m not sure.
Don’t blame her for lying. She’s just being a politician, and as you know, they all took Lies and Deception 101.

In reply to Chrissy

I am sure he's brilliant. Unlike Kamala with her campaign of joy and no policy

Deep sigh.

In reply to Brerzerk

How about Dubai UAE? What's the poverty like?

Two others:

Singapore, Hong Kong

From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Undoubtedly ...

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.

The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.

Undoubtedly ...

In reply to sgtdjones

In reply to Brerzerk

In reply to Jumpstart

Bro lef' dem yuh hear. I find it fascinating that a man who doesn't even understand the conversation he is participating in can without evidence label a woman a communist. But what is more astounding is that Cricsham knows better but because of one or two narrow disagreements on policy and his interpretation of DEI (which has been aired on this forum) not only agrees but also questions Ms. Harris' brain capabilities! It is the same old nasty playbook.

In Biden's 1st interview as Obama's VP in '08 a lady on a Florida Fox affiliate asked him 'isn't Obama a socialist...a communist?' Biden's response- 'IS THIS A JOKE?'

Harris is not the greatest of candidates but to quote B-Biden, don't compare her to the almighty, compare her to the alternative.'

Questioning why Capitalism survived while other systems haven't is a question based on sophistry. People rose up against many previous systems that exploited them.
On the other hand, systems and societies that worked were destroyed by the military might of Capitalist Systems. Moreover, even though the societies that call themselves 'Democratic Socialists' have been with us just since the modern era and capital is central to the success of a mixed economy, they aren't capitalist and we do not know if they too will last as long or even longer than capitalism. NB There is not a single purely capitalist economy on this earth right now.

In reply to Jumpstart

Jumpy

Japan was not a participant in the Marshall Plan, it received significant assistance during the post-World War II occupation.
The Allied occupation forces, particularly under General Douglas MacArthur, invited American economic and business experts to help rebuild Japan's economy.
This collaboration aimed to address various economic issues, including inflation, industrial production, and labor relations.

Experts helped implement land reforms, which redistributed land from large landowners to tenant farmers, boosting agricultural productivity.
Assistance in restructuring industries helped Japan transition from wartime production to a peacetime economy.
This included support for key sectors like textiles and manufacturing.

The Dodge Plan was a key economic stabilization program implemented in Japan after World War II, named after American economist Joseph Dodge, who was appointed as a financial advisor by General Douglas MacArthur.
The plan aimed to curb hyperinflation by implementing strict monetary policies.
It included measures to reduce the money supply and stabilize the currency.
The Japanese government was required to balance its budget, reducing deficits and controlling public spending.
This helped restore confidence in the economy and the currency.
It encouraged a shift from wartime production to a focus on peacetime industries, emphasizing the need for efficiency and modernization.

For the United States, the Marshall Plan provided markets for American goods, created reliable trading partners, and supported the development of stable democratic governments in Western Europe.

For Japan to achieve what it did one must give praise to it educated citizens...

...The Marshall Plan, officially known as the European Recovery Program, was a significant U.S. initiative aimed at revitalizing European economies after the devastation of World War II.

In 1948, hoping to promote European recovery and further democracy, the United States, led by President Truman, enacted the Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan, named after Secretary of State, George Marshall, was a $15 billion-dollar economic plan to help with the reconstruction of Germany and Europe after WWII.

Purpose: The primary goal was to foster economic recovery, prevent the spread of communism, and promote political stability and democracy in Europe.
Implementation: Launched in 1948, the program offered aid to various European countries, including Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom, among others.
Impact: The Marshall Plan significantly contributed to the rapid recovery of European economies, leading to increased industrial production and improved living standards. It is often credited with laying the groundwork for European integration.
Legacy: The plan established a precedent for U.S. foreign aid and is viewed as a crucial element in the formation of the modern European Union.
Overall, the Marshall Plan not only aimed to rebuild Europe economically but also sought to create a more stable and prosperous political landscape in the post-war era.


Ten years after the war people already were talking about the German economic miracle.
What caused the so-called miracle?
The two main factors were currency reform and the elimination of price controls, both of which happened over a period of weeks in 1948.
Plus educated Citizens

....America was the biggest beneficiary of the Marshal plan...
Countries that participated were destroyed after the war ...they had to start all over.
America had everything they wanted. America's Marshal plan 15 billion and you purchase our products...
Remember America was an industrial power house , not affected by the war in Europe...

The Marshall Plan did encourage countries to purchase American products. Here are some key ways it facilitated this:

Financial Aid for Imports:
The aid provided under the Marshall Plan was often used to purchase goods and services from the United States, which helped stimulate American industries.

Economic Ties: By fostering economic recovery in Europe, the plan created stronger trade relationships between the U.S. and European countries, leading to increased demand for American products.

Market Access: The plan aimed to integrate European economies into a capitalist framework, which included promoting free trade and reducing barriers to American exports.

Reconstruction Needs: As European countries rebuilt their infrastructure and industries, they relied heavily on American machinery, equipment, and technology, further driving purchases from the U.S.

Promotion of American Standards: The Marshall Plan also promoted American business practices and standards, making U.S. products more appealing and accessible to European markets.

Overall, the Marshall Plan not only aided European recovery but also significantly benefited the U.S. economy by increasing exports and establishing long-term trade relationships.

In reply to CricSham

The statement that "socialism and mixed economies have been more successful in addressing inequality and providing social safety nets" can be analyzed from several perspectives:
Reduction of Inequality
Social Safety Nets
Nordic Model: Countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway exemplify mixed economies where high levels of taxation fund extensive social welfare programs while still supporting a vibrant market economy.

While socialism and mixed economies have shown success in addressing inequality and providing social safety nets, the effectiveness of these systems can depend on various factors, including political context, cultural attitudes, and economic conditions.
Each model has its strengths and weaknesses, and the debate continues on the best approaches to achieve equitable and sustainable growth.

Maintaining social programs during economic downturns in mixed economies requires careful balancing of fiscal responsibility, public needs, and political viability.
Effective management and innovative policy solutions are crucial to navigate these challenges and sustain social safety nets.

In reply to sgtdjones

“America was the biggest beneficiary of the Marshal plan...”

There were mutual benefits… as to who benefited more, that’s debatable given the state of the European economies after the war.

In reply to CricSham

If You give 15 billion in Grants to rebuild countries after a war...
America was unscathed and was at maximum production of its economy, in 1948...$274,500M

Did America's Marshal plan: 15 billion and encouraged Countries that received grants purchase American products?

Yes, the Marshall Plan included provisions that encouraged European countries to purchase American products.
The U.S. government provided financial aid in the form of grants and loans, which were often used to buy American goods, machinery, and technology necessary for rebuilding their economies.

This approach not only helped stimulate European recovery but also benefited American businesses by creating a market for U.S. exports.
The plan aimed to foster economic stability in Europe, which was seen as essential for preventing the spread of communism during the Cold War...

What economies did war torn countries have after the war? Europe, Japan

...

In reply to sgtdjones

“What economies did war torn countries have after the war?”

My brother, when you pose a question like that either you’re belittling this discussion or perhaps you or I need to read a little more. I done

By the way, I am in JAPAN as we speak for three weeks. Perhaps the most significant reason, albeit not the only one, for their success is the Japanese culture. But that’s for another discussion another time.
When we visit a country like Japan we come to realize just how uncivil the west is. Talk later my friend.

In reply to CricSham

I don't care where you are what does this have to do with prewar Japan and Europe...

These countries did not have much of an economy...thus they needed help....
The Marshal plan for Europe and Dodge Plan for Japan.

I have been to Japan on business numerous times...with their large Nationals Conglomorates.

You are above your head .... bye.

In reply to sgtdjones
i didn't say Japan was a participant in the Marshall plan. which is why i wrote about the japanese PM who ruled from 57-60 and who received over a billion US dollars in foreign investment from the US in 1958 and was designated as a war criminal prior to that. There's actually a very good Cambridge paper explaining the American finance of the japanese economic miracle

The security treaty negotiations in 1958 were accompanied by various economic initiatives designed to facilitate Japan's economic growth. American leaders were driven by “the conviction that economic growth by strategic allies would defuse the potential appeal of anticapitalist ideologies” (Pempel Reference Pempel and Woo-Cumings1999, 174) and decided to “promote Japan as a bulwark, if not a base camp, against communist encroachments” in Asia (Encarnation and Mason Reference Encarnation and Mason1990, 37; also see Miller Reference Miller2012, 204). Importantly, these major economic initiatives, which we describe below in detail, to strengthen Japanese economy took place within a short period of time, mostly in 1958.

First, the United States orchestrated a series of low-interest loans to Japan (Calder Reference Calder1988, 89; Welfield Reference Welfield1988, 90). By the mid-1950s, Japan had faced a scarcity of capital necessary for active domestic investments. As a result of US efforts, however, foreign loans to Japan doubled in 1958, most of which came from the World Bank, “which the United States dominated,” as well as the US Export-Import bank and American banks, which started “to play a major role as capital supplier[s] in the development of Japanese utilities and heavy industry” (Calder Reference Calder1988, 89–90). Such capital injections spurred a dramatic increase in Japanese investment, one of the key variables in a standard economic growth model (e.g., Solow Reference Solow1956, Reference Solow1957).

Second, the Eisenhower administration approved a reduction in Japanese defense spending, specifically Japan's financial support of US forces (US Department of State 1958–1960, 1–3). More broadly, American policymakers refrained from pressuring Japan to further develop its military, a major shift from the first half of the 1950s. As a result, Japanese defense spending as a share of GDP declined by 20 percent between 1958 and 1960, the sharpest shift of the entire post-war era, and continued to decline thereafter, falling below 1 percent of GDP by 1970 (Calder Reference Calder1988, 415, 431–432). In essence, the United States allowed Japan to “tur[n] inward and ma[k]e economic growth and the pursuit of affluence its highest priorities” (Sasaki Reference Sasaki1991, 2). This US policy shift allowed Japan to “minimize expenditures for its own defense and … allocate its scarce resources mostly to expand its private sector …. Consequently, Japan's economic growth was considerably accelerated” (Shibuya, Maruyama, and Ito Reference Shibuya, Maruyama, Ito, Shibuya, Maruyama and Yasaka2002, 4). Indeed, Patrick and Rosovsky (Reference Patrick, Rosovsky, Patrick and Rosovksy1976) estimate that Japan's economy would have been 30 percent smaller by 1976 if it had shouldered its own defense burden.

Third, the United States helped promote Japanese exports. Japan had become a member of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in September 1955, but 14 of the 32 members refused to grant most-favored-nation status to Japan, and the remaining 18 members “established stand-by measures … to protect their industries in the event Japanese imports [threatened] their domestic industry” (Shimizu Reference Shimizu2001, 156). As a result, the GATT agreement was “slight in substance,” and Japan's balance-of-payment deficit spiraled to dangerous levels in the mid-1950s (Forsberg Reference Forsberg2000, 5, 150–16. US leaders like Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II worried that Japan would be “forced into some form of economic accommodation with [the] Communist Bloc” if the United States did not provide an outlet for Japanese exports (US Department of State 1958–1960, 4). To prevent this outcome, the Eisenhower administration (and subsequently the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) resisted protectionist demands from US interest groups and worked to open the US market to Japanese goods.

Specifically, in 1958, US and Japanese business leaders established the Joint Committee on US–Japan Trade, and Japan sent its first government-funded trade mission to the United States. Eisenhower also used the flexibility given by the US Trade Act of 1958, which authorized the president to lower tariffs by 20 percent and gave him four years of enhanced authority to negotiate trade deals, to expand US–Japanese trade (Forsberg Reference Forsberg2000, 218–219). Many US industries called for protection from Japanese goods, but “the Eisenhower administration successfully deflected most of the pressure for restrictions on Japanese imports” (Forsberg Reference Forsberg2000, 225). For example, during a closely watched discussion over imports of Japanese-made stainless-steel flatware in 1958, the Eisenhower administration resisted business pressure for increased tariffs by instead proposing that Japan accept a slightly lower Voluntary Export Restraint (VER) (Forsberg Reference Forsberg2000, 218–225; Shimizu Reference Shimizu2001, 167–170).

As a result of these deliberate US policies to boost Japan's exports, American purchases from Japan increased by more than 150 percent from 1958 to 1960, giving Japan its first-ever trade surplus (Forsberg Reference Forsberg2000, 218; Shimizu Reference Shimizu2001, 3). Over the subsequent decade, the United States absorbed more than 30 percent of Japan's exports, a situation comparable to Bulgaria's export dependence on the Soviet Union (Hunsberger Reference Hunsberger and Cohen1972, 134; Pempel Reference Pempel and Woo-Cumings1999, 177). Such aggressive exports from Japan to the US increased profits and thus mitigated Japan's balance-of-payment constraint for further investment and productivity growth (McCombie and Thirlwall Reference McCombie and Thirlwall1994)

A great collaboration of ideas ,opinions and facts....

Nice thread guys