5 ms·

Wasn't the US's situation post-ww2 sort of unique? This sort of sounds like "just win the lottery again" type advice.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Amezarak 11y ago
> Wasn't the US's situation post-ww2 sort of unique? No, not really. The US was not blown to bits, requiring a massive rebuild, nor did it particularly benefit from the blown-to-bits status of Europe; exports and imports were a small part of the economy.
- Retric 11y ago
  Post WWII US was ~50% of world manufacturing. That's a rather strong starting position.
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    Calling it "world manufacturing" is misleading when you look at exports and imports as a share of GDP. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/19/opinion/111912krugman3/111912krugman3-blog480.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/19/opinion/11191... As you can see, other than a brief Marshall-plan spike in the 40s, exports and imports as a share of the US economy didn't return to pre-Depression levels until 1974. And right now, the US does a whole lot more trade than it did after World War II. It makes intuitive sense our "starting position" wasn't that great, because poor, blown-up countries don't make great customers. The US economic success after World War II was domestic, not trade-based.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Looking at the total quantity of trade misses how profitable that trade is. Saudi Arabia gained wealth by selling oil at massive margins not just massive amounts of oil.
      - Amezarak 11y ago
        Those percentages aren't volumes, they're dollars. The profitability is built in to the numbers.
        Retric 11y ago
        First, there is a giant spike of exports from ~1944 to 1952 where exports hit ~5% GDP over imports. This brought a lot of money not just to businesses, but also individual households. Imports only really grow past exports in ~1975. Second, %GDP just says how much money exchanged hands. The important number for wealth accumulation is value capture. Aka Profit not Revenue. China has a huge chunk of worldwide manufacturing, but its mostly low margin sales slowing their wealth accumulation. PS: Foxconn employs 1.3 million people and has 4.106 billion in profit. Apple has more than 10x the profit with less than 1/10th the number of workers.
        jordanb 11y ago
        Those exports were lend/lease and the Marshall plan. They were funded with US Govt. debt. Which is to say, they were funded with domestic stimulus spending.
        Retric 11y ago
        Total government debt was dropping over that time period.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        jordanb 11y ago
        It absolutely was not in dollar terms. As a % of GDP perhaps, simply because the economy was growing so fast. The government ran an aggregate of $120 billion in deficits over those years and only $22.5 billion in surpluses. The Marshal plan was 1948-1953 and the Korean War was 1949-1953.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

> Wasn't the US's situation post-ww2 sort of unique? No, not really. The US was not blown to bits, requiring a massive rebuild, nor did it particularly benefit from the blown-to-bits status of Europe; exports and imports were a small part of the economy.

Retric 11y ago
Post WWII US was ~50% of world manufacturing. That's a rather strong starting position.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  Calling it "world manufacturing" is misleading when you look at exports and imports as a share of GDP. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/19/opinion/111912krugman3/111912krugman3-blog480.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/19/opinion/11191... As you can see, other than a brief Marshall-plan spike in the 40s, exports and imports as a share of the US economy didn't return to pre-Depression levels until 1974. And right now, the US does a whole lot more trade than it did after World War II. It makes intuitive sense our "starting position" wasn't that great, because poor, blown-up countries don't make great customers. The US economic success after World War II was domestic, not trade-based.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Looking at the total quantity of trade misses how profitable that trade is. Saudi Arabia gained wealth by selling oil at massive margins not just massive amounts of oil.
    - Amezarak 11y ago
      Those percentages aren't volumes, they're dollars. The profitability is built in to the numbers.
      - Retric 11y ago
        First, there is a giant spike of exports from ~1944 to 1952 where exports hit ~5% GDP over imports. This brought a lot of money not just to businesses, but also individual households. Imports only really grow past exports in ~1975. Second, %GDP just says how much money exchanged hands. The important number for wealth accumulation is value capture. Aka Profit not Revenue. China has a huge chunk of worldwide manufacturing, but its mostly low margin sales slowing their wealth accumulation. PS: Foxconn employs 1.3 million people and has 4.106 billion in profit. Apple has more than 10x the profit with less than 1/10th the number of workers.
        jordanb 11y ago
        Those exports were lend/lease and the Marshall plan. They were funded with US Govt. debt. Which is to say, they were funded with domestic stimulus spending.
        Retric 11y ago
        Total government debt was dropping over that time period.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        jordanb 11y ago
        It absolutely was not in dollar terms. As a % of GDP perhaps, simply because the economy was growing so fast. The government ran an aggregate of $120 billion in deficits over those years and only $22.5 billion in surpluses. The Marshal plan was 1948-1953 and the Korean War was 1949-1953.