• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
I have followed Henry C. K. Liu's writings on money, banking and international trade for over ten years, thanksto Peter Meyers. An opponent of globalization, Liu may or may not be the greatest living economist, but I knowhe is one of only a handful -- Herman Daly and Michael Chussodovsky, for example -- that I would choose to re-regulate international trade in the best interests of the human race on this planet. This article is about Germany,and unfortunately since this article was written Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in Germany has been replaced by Angela Merkel, yet one more subservient minion like Nicolas Sarkozy, Barrak Obama and Gordon Brown.
 
If Liu's article proves to be too much reading, scroll down to the shorter related articles that follow below it.Dick Eastman
 
Yakima, Washington
 
"Nazi economic experts understood that sovereign credit creation for purposes of job creation posed noinflationary threat and that it would be a far more responsible policy than the conservative approach of taxincreases and welfare cuts to balance government budgets." 
 
Nobody
 
out 
-
shoots
 
Hank 
 
Liu
 
Nazism
 
and
 
the
 
German
 
economic
 
miracle
 
By Henry C K LiuThe term "social market economy" was coined by one of German chancellor Ludwig Erhard's close associates,economist Alfred Mueller-Armack, who served as secretary of state at the Economics Ministry in Bonn from1958-63. Mueller-Armack defined social market economy as combining market freedom with social equity,with a vigilant regulatory regime to create an equitable framework for free market processes. The success of thesocial market economy made the Federal Republic of Germany the dominant component in the EuropeanUnion. Focusing on the social aspect, Erhard himself shied away from praising free markets. He felt that socialrules of the market-economy game must be adhered to as a precondition in order to prevent unbridled pursuitof profit from gaining the upper hand.Erhard's concept of a socially responsive regulated market economy was based on a fusion of the Bismarck legacy of social welfare and US New Deal ideology of demand management through full employment, pricecontrol, state subsidies, anti-trust regulations, state control of monetary stability, etc. It was aided by the
 
infusion of foreign capital through the Marshall Plan. It proved to be effective for rapid and strong recovery of the West German economy via guaranteed access to the huge US market during the Cold War, culminating inthe postwar economic miracle (Wirtschaftswunder).
Ludwig
 
Erhard 
 
Yet Erhard's program bore a close resemblance to the early economic strategy of the Third Reich. The maindifference was that while the Third Reich's program was one of economic nationalism, the Erhard program wassubservient to US geopolitical interests in the context of the Cold War. By relying on US capital and USmarkets, chancellors Konrad Adenauer and Erhard accepted the delay of German independence from USdomination for more than half a century. In contrast, Nazi economic policy aimed at the reconstruction of theGerman economy without the need for foreign capital, as a program for total and immediate nationalindependence.
Hitler's
 
economic
 
miracle
 
The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinouswar-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independentmonetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able toturn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europewithin four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded andlater enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US entry to World War II put the USmarket economy on a war footing. While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy, theeffectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is undeniable.There were major differences between the German situation in 1933 and that in 1945. Not having been abattlefield in World War I, Germany in 1933 was not physically in ruins, as it was in 1945. What lay in ruinswas its political and economic institutions. But in 1933, Germany not only did not have the benefit of theMarshall Plan, it was saddled with ruinous war reparations and an inoperative credit rating. What Germany had in 1933 was full sovereignty through which the Third Reich was able to adopt policies of economicnationalism to full effectiveness. In 1945, Germany was deprived of sovereign power and national policies had
 
to be adjusted to comply with US and Soviet geopolitical intentions. Economically, the dependence on foreigninvestments and credit forced West Germany into an export economy at the mercy of its main market: theUnited States.After two and a half decades of economic reform toward neo-liberal market economy, China is still unable toaccomplish in economic reconstruction what Nazi Germany managed in four years after coming to power, ie,full employment with a vibrant economy financed with sovereign credit without the need to export, whichwould challenge that of Britain, the then superpower. This is because China made the mistake of relying onforeign investment instead of using its own sovereign credit. The penalty for China is that it has to export theresultant wealth to pay for the foreign capital it did not need in the first place. The result after more than twodecades is that while China has become a creditor to the US to the tune of nearing China’s own gross domesticproduct (GDP), it continues to have to beg the US for investment capital.The period between World Wars I and II, like no other period in modern European economic history, saw thesuccess of centrally planned economies in Germany and the Soviet Union, two major states. The United Statesas the dominant victor of World War II was determined to perpetuate its hegemony by suppressing nationalplanning everywhere to prevent the emergence of economic nationalism and socialism. It promoted globalmarket capitalism and neo-liberal free trade to keep all other economies subservient to the US economy. It isthe economic basis of the Pax Americana.
Stalin's
 
New
 
Economic
 
Policy
 
In the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin's planned economy had followed the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921-28.NEP was in essence a mixed market economy; the main part of the market was in state possession (banks,industries, foreign trade, etc), while the peripheral part was owned by collective or private entrepreneurs. NEP,while successful, did not give the Soviet economy sufficient growth in the capital-goods sectors (ie coal, steeland electricity, transportation, heavy industry, etc), nor did it provide adequate food for the urban populationeven as the middle peasantry managed to feed itself. To overcome such structural obstacles and to combatgeneral economic backwardness inherited from centuries of Czarist rule, Stalin introduced central planning asa strategy of national survival.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...