The kind of aid we're looking at is effectively economic investments, meaning that Japanese corporations benefit from any funds given by the Japanese government AND by any aid from the US (and others?).
It's like claiming to be taller because you're walking on stilts.
Then all the Asian Tigers built much more from their own resources than foreign countries, showing the success of their economics.
I don't know enough on the Asian Tigers to say very much, but if you do, I'd appreciate something more informative.
Umm, that matters a lot. If a product from, for the sake of argument, Portugal costs twice as much as a domestic, one will choose the latter, shaping the economy. Hence, the state is guiding the economy.
And yet it took until - for instance - US steam engines were worth buying for US railroads to stop buying from Britain.
Despite tariffs and despite other reasons for British locomotives being more costly that are irrelevant to this discussion.
So? That army couldn't have pacified India, and additionally, couldn't have intervened in the American colonies, the latter of which matters because of that whole Tea incident.
It couldn't have pacified India according to who now?
And the Tea incident is relevant because what now?
Not really, because many societies didn't develop the necessary legal structure to do develop Capitalism, something many forget about the development of the economic system.
Yes really. Many societies didn't have the necessary legal structure not because the state was not involved enough but because the state was involved too much.
Hold on, these are multiple countries, correct? Because I realize we're now talking about different things.
Right. Multiple countries trading back forth and sideways, which played far more a role in Europe's economic growth than attempts at limiting that by tariffs could influence.
Which goes back to my point. The state has to enforce the value of a currency, and yes, this isn't a given.
It's pretty reliable in the day and age in which gold and silver coins are as valuable as the gold and silver in them, as opposed to with money that is worth (say) $5 because we trust that it can buy approximately $5 worth of goods - trust being the key word.
A pound of gold is a pound of gold whether it comes in Spanish currency or Dutch.
And my point is, frequently these things either,
A. Aren't a given as they appear or,
B. Are things like tariffs which can immensely shape the economy, and in many ways, guide its development.
A: Which you have to resort to examples in situations so unlike anything in eight hundred years ago as to make me wonder whether you're even trying to compare like to like.
B: See my comment on European trade.
I'm not arguing against government intervention at all (not in the least) , but if the - for instance - iron industry
depends on the state for its survival, you have problems that an iron industry that is profitable by its own success (rather than just having the state carry the bill) and its own pursuit of markets won't have.
Thus Europe surging forward and China being in relative decline in the early modern period (relative being an important word here).
History shows that attempting overly tight control or overly limited independence of the economic forces in society is unhealthy. We can argue all day on state intervention's role in a healthy economy, but the economy being dependent on or limited by state policy is a blow against having something like the OTL "European miracle".