Post-war Japan

Was the Japanese post-war economic miracle a bad thing, or am I justifiably confused when an article rhetorically suggests that it would be bad to follow that model of recovery?


360 Trooper said...

I'm not sure what the post-war reconstruction model is. I know that back in the 90's they tried to fix their banks and failed. So is it possible that the article was talking about the 90's economic collapse in Japan or the post-war reconstruction. Also, the post-war economic boom of the reconstruction also involved a lot of construction as Japan's industrial infrastructure had to be rebuilt. So I can only see that particular plan being relevant to us if we decided to burn down Detroit (literally) and build it from scratch.

Could you link to the article?

Matoushin said...

Here's the article and the particular quote:


"This calls to mind the way Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry guided that economy from 1949 to 2001. The Obama-Rattner strategy for GM and Chrysler -- a rescue if the companies agree to the government's desire to build more small "green" cars, presumably sold with a large tax credit -- is industrial policy. Why be postwar Japan?"

So the time period he's citing includes the miraculous recovery, the bubble, and the bust. That and the notably different circumstances made his point very muddy.

Is he objecting to the bubble? Is he insinuating that even if we miraculously recover we'll encounter such a bubble? Does he simply hate Japan? I don't know.

360 Trooper said...

Yeah, generally the term "postwar Japan" stops around the 60's, maybe the early 70's.

From what I can tell, he's objecting to the bubble, but if I'm following his logic correctly, we can blame the current economic downturn on Eisenhower. He referencing policies put in place decades ago as if they were the cause of Japan's mid-90's bust. From what I understand, what happened a decade ago was a bubble that burst particularly hard and was not handled properly, and like all bubbles it was something particular to the few years in which it happened rather than something long brewing.

Of course, I'm as suspicious of anything coming out of The Wall Street Journal as conservatives are suspicious of The New York Times. And the guy invokes the ghost of Jack Kemp as if the man had any real relevance to the Republican party prior to his death, when he was duly canonized and we will regale our children with tales of how he used to kill lions with his bare hands.