April 10, 2008 guest lecture for PE 101
Lecture Audio: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2008_mov/20080410_111402.mp3


« Some Background Notes for Susan Rasky's "Fiscal Choices" Project: | Main | links for 2008-04-11 »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551f08003883400e551dcbc268833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Did Post-WWII Western Europe Do So Well?:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
"I now know it is a rising, not a setting, sun" --Benjamin Franklin, 1787
J. Bradford DeLong, Professor of Economics at U.C Berkeley, a Research Associate of the NBER, a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and Chair of Berkeley's Political Economy major.
Among his best works are: "Is Increased Price Flexibility Stabilizing?" "Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare," "Noise Trader Risk in Financial Markets," "Equipment Investment and Economic Growth," "Princes and Merchants: European City Growth Before the Industrial Revolution," "Why Does the Stock Market Fluctuate?" "Keynesianism, Pennsylvania-Avenue Style," "America's Peacetime Inflation: The 1970s," "American Fiscal Policy in the Shadow of the Great Depression," "Review of Robert Skidelsky (2000), John Maynard Keynes, volume 3, Fighting for Britain," "Between Meltdown and Moral Hazard: Clinton Administration International Monetary and Financial Policy," "Productivity Growth in the 2000s," "Asset Returns and Economic Growth."
The Eighteen-Year-Old is going to college next year, which means that I need to think about making more money. (The idea that one might write checks to rather than receive checks from universities is now strange to me.) So I have signed up with the Leigh Speakers' Bureau which also handles, among many others: Chris Anderson; Suzanne Berger; Michael Boskin; Kenneth Courtis; Clive Crook; Bill Emmott; Robert H. Frank; William Goetzmann; Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin; Paul Krugman; Bill McKibben; Paul Romer; Jeffrey Sachs; Robert Shiller;James Surowiecki; Martin Wolf; Adrian Wooldridge.
Several possible reasons--shedding of colonies but keeping corporate structure--income with less expense.
And, sharply curtailing huge defense outlays by having the US shoulder the defensive and imperialist burden.
And, when all is destroyed, it is easier to begin new ways.
Those should be worth at least several development points every year.
Posted by: Neal | April 10, 2008 at 04:58 PM
Mmm, yes.
Quibble : imperfect democracies? Compared to what?
Posted by: Fifi | April 10, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Where was WWII fought? Despite the US history books that focus the US involvement in WWII in Western Europe, most of the war was fought in the countries to the east of Germany. France was overrun very quickly and at the beginning of the war. Toward the end there was less than 6 months of fighting in France and the rest of western Europe with the Germans retreating to defensive positions inside Germany. In Italy, there was fighting on the ground for a longer period and Italy did less well after the war. The air war by Germany against Britain created terror but not significant damage to infrastructure. Aerial bombardment at the beginning of the war was not capable of mass destruction. Toward the end, fire storms in Tokyo and Dresden did a lot of damage but those are the exceptions.
Of the 3 million Germans killed in WWI, most of them died on the eastern front. The Russians lost 20 million or so. From 1941 to 1945, an incredibly destructive ground war occurred in Eastern Europe. Many of the young men between the ages of 16 and 40 died in the conflict and many more died of diseases. At least 40 million people died in that theater of war alone. Two armies as large as the Russians and Germans will create massive destruction with WWII ground weaponry. Compared to Eastern Europe, Western Europe did not suffer the destruction from the war. The US suffered no destruction of its infrastructure at all.
One could also ask why the post Civil War Southern US states lagged behind the North in the post Civil War economy. Presumably, the south and north were operating under the same economic system, but with very different rates of growth.
Posted by: bakho | April 11, 2008 at 06:35 AM
"Hard to see how we could have won WW2 without the aid of the Red Army"
Ahem, wouldn't the a-bomb have made a difference, Prof?
Posted by: Nordic Mousse | April 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM
bakho, one should mention that much of western Germany was rubble by the end of WW2, as pictures attest. Not just the dramatic ones, the whole place was a mess. One could also ask the surviving people themselves, if one can get them to speak
Of course, if they did speak, none of them would neglect to mention the Hamburg bombing, which leaves Germans in horror to this day - it can't be that often in history that hundreds of thousands of people are left homeless after only a couple of nights, not to mention the tens of thousands of dead
Posted by: Nordic Mousse | April 12, 2008 at 12:52 PM
True, West Germany was a mess. But France, Britain and the US were not rubble to the same extent that the FSU was rubble from all the fighting and scorched earth. Additionally, a large swath of territory from Berlin to Moscow was rubble. On top of that, those areas were depopulated by genocide and mass murder conducted by both Hitler and Stalin. The FSU had much of their own rebuilding to do so far fewer resources were available for rebuilding the eastern block and the FSU had some issues with rebuilding potential competitors.
The economic project of rebuilding W Germany was far smaller than the economic project that was the Eastern Block (including E Germany). The US, Britain and France had far more economic resources to contribute than the FSU and far more incentive to rebuild W Germany as a buffer against the FSU than the FSU had to rebuild E Germany as a buffer against the West. Some of the difference in post-war development are products of the economic systems, but the starting points were not equal. The tendency in the west is to hype the virtues of western economics rather than make comparisons that are more studied and fair.
Posted by: bakho | April 16, 2008 at 06:02 AM