No they don't. You just need to produce as many goods and services as possible. And this obsession about competitiveness is the unfortunate result of extrapolating microeconomic principles to the macro level.Such as, what, the transistor? Adopting western tech is only part of the equation, they needed a competitive advantage beyond simply trying to copy foreign innovations.
They developed modern technology prior to WW2 and were innovating themselves, but were still not anywhere close to what they would become from the 1960s on.People will come up with complicated explanations for various social phenomena, because simple explanations don't sell books or speeches. Japan's economic growth was simply caused by the adoption of modern technology. It had nothing to do with work ethic, quality control, or anything else. If the Allied Occupation Government had given all of Toyoda's (that's what they were called at the time) factories to General Motors, Japan's economy would've grown just as fast, except this time, it wouldn't have been an obsession in the west.
Electricity, assembly lines, paved roads, telephones, fertilizer, and tractors. One thing that should always be remembered about technological innovation is that it is unexcludable, one person using it doesn't prevent another person from using it. That means it's not possible to stop it from spreading, at least in nations with half decent property rights.They developed modern technology prior to WW2 and were innovating themselves, but were still not anywhere close to what they would become from the 1960s on.
Can you provide examples of what technologies were adopted post-occupation that they were refusing to pre-war?
Are you seriously arguing that Japan had none of that pre-WW2?Electricity, assembly lines, paved roads, telephones, fertilizer, and tractors. One thing that should always be remembered about technological innovation is that it is unexcludable, one person using it doesn't prevent another person from using it. That means it's not possible to stop it from spreading, at least in nations with half decent property rights.
I'm saying they didn't use it at the level the British and Americans did.Are you seriously arguing that Japan had none of that pre-WW2?
Because they were too poor to afford completely modernizing their economy. Germany had the same issue with the automobile and tractor access for farmers.I'm saying they didn't use it at the level the British and Americans did.
The British were very poor when the Industrial revolution started.Because they were too poor to afford completely modernizing their economy. Germany had the same issue with the automobile and tractor access for farmers.
Occupation came with a ton of investment by the US into the Japanese economy (which also benefited from providing the US military with all sorts of goods during the Korean and Vietnam wars, not to mention US military personal spending their money in Japan when visiting or stationed there, while not having to spend on a military post-war), which helped, but was hardly the only reason for the Japanese economic development; reforming the Zaibatsu system was hugely important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaibatsu#Postwar_dissolution
That coupled with modern American management and quality control practices revolutionized the economy.
No actually, Britain was very wealthy due to her empire:The British were very poor when the Industrial revolution started.
Plus they had virtually no competition when they industrialized, with other major countries only catching up in the 1870s.After becoming one of the most prosperous economic regions in Europe between 1600 and 1700,[2] Britain led the industrial revolution and dominated the European and world economy during the 19th century. It was the major innovator in machinery such as steam engines (for pumps, factories, railway locomotives and steamships), textile equipment, and tool-making. It invented the railway system and built much of the equipment used by other nations. As well it was a leader in international and domestic banking, entrepreneurship, and trade. It built a global British Empire. After 1840 it abandoned mercantilism and practised "free trade," with no tariffs or quotas or restrictions. The powerful Royal Navy protected its global holdings, while its legal system provided a system for resolving disputes inexpensively.
Their GDP per capita was $2000 in 18th Century. Most people lived in abject poverty. Countries don't need to compete with each other, just the businesses within them. The economy is not a zero sum game. This marxian economic history has been widely debunked.No actually, Britain was very wealthy due to her empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom
Plus they had virtually no competition when they industrialized, with other major countries only catching up in the 1870s.
Meanwhile Japan only started to modernized after ending the enforced Medeivalism of the Shogunate in 1868 and had to compete against the most modern and established economies in the world, already dominated by the US economically.
What was PPP? By the standards of the day they were a rich country compared to anyone else in the world. Then helped enable the drive to industrialization that no other nation could pull off until much later.Their GDP per capita was $2000 in 18th Century. Most people lived in abject poverty. Countries don't need to compete with each other, just the businesses within them. The economy is not a zero sum game. This marxian economic history has been widely debunked.
The number I quoted was in PPP. And relative terms shouldn't matter. It's absolute terms that do.What was PPP? By the standards of the day they were a rich country compared to anyone else in the world. Then helped enable the drive to industrialization that no other nation could pull off until much later.
Governments have been trying and failing for 40 years to get their citizens to have more kids.Japan is an economic powerhouse; but that doesn’t mean they cannot do better which should perhaps be the focus of this thread. A GDP per capita slightly above the US of $60,000, rather than Japan’s level of $42,000, is doable. A population of 175 million rather than 125 million might also be doable with non pathetic TFR and more immigration.
I’m going to say, way late in the game.Ford hired him [W. Edwards Deming] in 1980.
Part of the reason for their efforts at imperialism. They might have gotten away with it if the Army hadn't forced and invasion of China.They can't really be much more powerful than they were at max wealth.
Way too reliant on imports for raw material, and sustaining a number of people they can't naturally. Everyone know what happens when you outgrow natural limitations - if you screw up, you screw up bad. They're lucky to have gotten out of it good