Chapter 53 Chapter 9 The Golden Age 3

3 In the face of this extraordinary prosperity, which can be described as unexpected economic growth, how on earth can we explain why it happened?What's more, in the first half of its life, this thriving economic system seemed to have been dying on the verge of near destruction.This long period of economic expansion and prosperity followed the same long period of economic collapse and infinite troubles and disasters.There is no need for us to explain the cycle here.Because since the end of the 18th century, this kind of ups and downs, a long-term phenomenon of up to 50 years, has become the keynote of capitalist economic history.As we discussed in Chapter 2, people began to notice circular economic phenomena during the "catastrophe period," but the reasons for this have remained elusive.The long-cycle theory is generally handed down in the name of the Russian economist Kondratiev.From a long-term perspective, the Golden Age is another example of Kang's long-term upward cycle, just like the great Victorian boom from 1850 to 1873-it is strange to say that the boom years a hundred years ago are almost as good as the boom a hundred years later. A perfect match - and another boom in the late Victorian-Edwardian period.There have been long-term sinking phases before and after several rising periods.Therefore, there is no need to explain this aspect of the golden age of this century. What we need to discuss is the magnitude and depth of this rise.Because the degree of expression in it is exactly in contrast to the crisis and depression that appeared before it.

The great leap forward shown by the capitalist economy this time, and the unprecedented social impact it caused, are so wide that it is really difficult to find a satisfactory explanation.Of course, on the surface, some countries other than the United States have a lot of room for development, in order to catch up with the United States, which can be called the model of industrial economy in the 20th century.The United States as a country was neither damaged by war nor affected by defeat or victory in the slightest, except for the short scar of the Great Panic of the Depression.In fact, other countries, indeed, have gone all out and systematically attempted to emulate the United States.This process of trying to imitate beauty has accelerated the pace of economic development.It is easier to imitate and innovate than to innovate. It is obviously much easier to adapt and modify an existing technology than to start from scratch. With the foundation of imitation, the ability to invent and innovate will naturally follow in the future - this point, Japan is the best example.However, the impetus provided by the mentality of rushing to catch up cannot fully explain the phenomenon of the Great Leap Forward, because deep in the core of capitalism, there has been a major reform and restructuring, and in the globalization of economic activities. Extremely powerful and advanced development.

The changes in capitalism itself have contributed to the emergence of a "mixed economic system", which makes it easier for the country to plan and manage modern economic affairs, and at the same time relatively greatly promotes the increase in demand.The successful examples of economic development in capitalist countries after the war are often a series of stories of industrialization supported, supervised, guided, and sometimes even actively planned and managed by the government.This type of government-led success story spans the globe, from France and Spain in Europe to Japan, Singapore, and South Korea in the Far East—with very few exceptions (such as Hong Kong).At the same time, the governments of various countries have also vowed to be committed to the formation of full employment; and try to minimize the inequality of social life, that is, to fully guarantee the social welfare and social security system.Through the above two political commitments, luxury products have opened up the market for mass consumption and become the necessities of people's daily life.Generally, the poorer the class, the higher the proportion of expenditure on basic needs such as food - this very reasonable observation is known as "Engel's Law".Back in the 1930s, even in the United States, which was the world's richest, one-third of the family budget was still spent on food.However, in the early 1980s, food expenditure dropped to 13%, and the remaining percentage was spent on other expenses.The golden age came, and the "market" became democratized.

The progress of internationalization activities has greatly improved the production capacity of the world economy, because the international division of labor is becoming more sophisticated and sophisticated.In the beginning, this fine division of labor was confined to the domain of the so-called "developed countries", that is, the individual capitalist countries belonging to the US camp.At that time, most of the socialist countries were still in a state of self-government (see Chapter 13), while some of the most active developing countries in the third world in the 1950s chose an isolated industrialization path of the planned economy and devoted themselves to the development of their own industries. Production to replace industrial products imported by foreign manufacturers.The core countries of Western capitalism trade with the rest of the overseas world, and often have the upper hand, because of course the terms of the transaction are extremely favorable to them-that is, they can obtain the raw materials and food they need at extremely cheap prices- However, the trade items that have really exploded are industrial products, mainly traded between core countries of industrialization. In the 20 years after 1953, the total world trade in manufactured goods jumped by more than 10 times. Since the 19th century, the manufacturing industry has always occupied a very stable proportion of slightly less than half of global trade, but now it has risen sharply, jumping to more than 60% (W.A Lewis, 1981).In addition, even in terms of Nazi figures, the Golden Age reflects the frequent and vigorous economic activities of the core capitalist countries. In 1975, just taking the seven major countries of the capitalist camp as an example (the seven countries are Canada, the United States, Japan, France, West Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom), that is to say, they accounted for three quarters of the total number of cars in the world, almost no less than the other The proportion of telephones (UN Statistical Yearbook, 1982, pp.95ff, 1018ff).However, despite this, the wave of the new industrial revolution is no longer limited to a specific region of the earth.

Restructuring within capitalism, combined with the internationalization of economic affairs, formed the core of the Golden Age.As for the impact of the technological revolution, although there are many examples, whether it can explain the cause of the golden age is not as significant as the previous two.We have already discussed that much of the new industrialization that has flourished in these decades is the result of the continuous outward diffusion of old industrial economies built on old technologies into emerging countries.For example, the socialist countries have picked up the wisdom of Western European countries in the 19th century, that is, the coal and steel industries that the latter relied on to start; while European countries have followed the example of the United States in the 20th century, imitating its emerging industries of oil and internal combustion engines.The scientific and technological production encouraged by advanced research may not have a large-scale impact on private industry until the beginning of the crisis years after 1973. After 1973, several breakthrough developments in information technology and genetic engineering began to appear, and at the same time, technology also made major advances in other unknown fields.Among the major new inventions, chemical medicine was the first to exert its power to change the world immediately after the war.Its impact on Third World populations was, so to speak, immediate (see Chapter 12); its impact on human culture, though not as immediate, was also visible at the time—in the West in the 1960s and 1970s The wave of sexual revolution in the world is only possible because of the emergence of antibiotics.The invention of antibiotics has greatly reduced the risk of promiscuity and promiscuity for two reasons: first, venereal diseases can be easily cured now; second, since the 1960s, contraceptives have been available everywhere (but the danger of intercourse In the 1980s, it returned to the world with AIDS).

In short, innovative high-tech inventions quickly became part of a large-scale economic boom.Individually, though not a decisive factor, we cannot exclude it from the explanations for the cause of the Golden Age as a whole. Post-war capitalism, as Crosland (Crosland) quoted earlier: "It has been completely changed, and its original appearance can no longer be recognized." In other words, a "new" version of an old system.The various aspects of the golden age are not just a reversal from the mistakes of the two wars, a return to the "normal" old world of the old world, maintaining a "high employment rate, ... and enjoying a high level of economic growth "That's all" (HG. Johnson, 1972, p. 6).At its core, this return to prosperity is a marriage of economic liberalism and social democracy (Roosevelt's New Deal, to borrow American terminology), with much to learn from the Soviet Union, which It was the first of its kind in the world's planned economy.This is why, in the 1970s and 1980s, when the policies built on this marriage system were no longer protected by economic success, a group of economists who believed in free market theory as gods began to criticize the word planning and hate it. It's like seeing snakes and scorpions.Therefore, the Austrian economist Hayek and others have never belonged to the practical group. Although we can barely persuade him in words that some economic means that are contrary to the principles of liberalism are also effective, but this group of people Mentalists will, with their sublime arguments, assert with all their might that in fact this effect is nonexistent.They were believers in the idea that the free market equals individual liberty, so it was only natural that, as the title of Hayek's 1944 book, The Rood to Serfdom (The Rood to Serfdom) suggest, any violation of this The means of the law are greatly condemned.Even in the depths of the Great Depression, they stuck to the purest principles of market theory.The world grew richer and capitalism (along with political liberalism) flourished again as different market systems and regimes mixed together around the globe.These people, however, continue to stick to their scholarly views, attacking all kinds of reasons that make the golden age shine.So between the 1940s and the 1970s, no one listened to the mutterings of these old believers anymore.

In addition, the transformation of capitalism was actually achieved through the deliberation of a group of people, especially those Anglo-American people who were in key positions in the last few years of the war; this is an indisputable fact.The experience of the interwar years, especially the horrific memories of the Great Depression, was so traumatic that no one dreamed of immediately returning to the pre-war days before the air-raid sirens sounded.This mentality is exactly the opposite of the psychology of politicians eager to restore the previous situation after the last World War.The "lords" in the political and academic circles who took the blueprint of the post-war world economic order and planned large sums (women were not allowed to enter the threshold of public service at that time), all experienced the trough of the Great Depression, such as Keynes.They have performed on the public stage since before 1914.If the painful memory of the economic downturn in the 1930s alone was not enough to sharpen their desire to reform capitalism urgently; then a political life and death struggle that just ended-this desperate battle with Nazi Germany, the son of the Great Depression-was not enough to sharpen their desire to reform capitalism urgently; The deadly point, however, couldn't be more obvious.What's more, we are facing the westward wave of communism and the Soviet Union. The tall wave is rolling towards the capitalism that has lost its function, intending to swallow the wreckage all over the place.

To this group of policymakers, four things were obvious at the time.First, the catastrophe and turmoil between the two wars must not be allowed to return to the world.The catastrophe of turmoil occurred mainly because of the collapse of the global trade and financial system, which caused the world to fall apart and fall into the hands of dictatorial national economies or empires.Second, the global economic system has indeed been stable in the past, and its dominant force was the hegemony of the British economy - or at least its economic centrality - and its monetary system (ie the pound sterling) .But in the years between the two wars, Britain and the British pound were no longer strong enough to take on the burden of stabilizing the world economy; now only the United States and the dollar can carry this burden (this conclusion naturally makes the United States People in other countries are not so excited).Third, the Great Depression arose because of the unfettered free market.Therefore, the current strategy must be through the help of public planning and economic management, or by starting from the internal structure of the market, in order to strengthen the vigor and vitality of the market economy.Fourth, from a social and political point of view, mass unemployment must not be allowed to arise.

As for policymakers in other regions outside the Anglo-Saxon system, they naturally have nothing to say about the reconstruction of the global trade and financial system; however, they are deeply sympathetic to the liberal sublation of the old market system.The economic policy originally planned by the state, from France to Japan, is nothing new in many countries—some industries are even completely state-owned or state-run, which is an arrangement that everyone is quite familiar with. universal.The trend of state-run has nothing to do with the controversy between socialism and anti-socialism, but various underground political activities against the enemy during the war naturally contributed to the momentum of this trend, making it very popular after the war——1946 - The new constitutions adopted by France and Italy in 1947, for example.On the other hand, in Norway after 15 years of socialist government, both in absolute numbers and in proportion, the scale of state-owned enterprises is smaller than that of West Germany, which is certainly no longer a country that yearns for absolutism.

As for the socialist parties and various trade union forces that were rampant in Europe after the war, they are even more comfortable in this emerging trend of reformed capitalism-because in a real sense, they do not have their own economic propositions.The only exception is the Communists, and their policy is nothing more than to seize power and come to power, and then follow in the footsteps of the big brother of the Soviet Union.The leftists in Scandinavia are quite pragmatic and have kept the private sector of the country intact since they came to power. The British Labor Party government in 1945 was not the case. However, it held a passive attitude towards reform plans, and its degree of indifference to economic planning was even more surprising.In contrast, the non-socialist French government at the time was very active in the program of planned modernization, in contrast to the British government.In fact, the main energy of the leftist government is spent on improving the living conditions of working-class voters and related social reforms.But when it comes to economic reform, the leftist government has no solution other than blindly advocating the complete eradication of capitalism. Even the Social Democratic government doesn’t know where to start, and no one has attempted to eradicate capitalism.Therefore, only by relying on a strong capital economy and creating wealth through the former, can the Social Democratic Party further help it achieve its social goals.In fact, only a reformed capitalism that recognizes the importance of labor and social democracy can meet the central goals of this school of government.

To put it simply, although everyone has different goals, in the minds of post-war politicians, officials, and even many entrepreneurs, it is absolutely unfeasible to return to the old tune of a completely laissez-faire free market economy.As for the basic policies that are the primary goals in the eyes of everyone—such as full employment, containment of the Communist bloc, rapid modernization of a backward or even destroyed economy, etc. A strong government presence is required.Under this prerequisite, even countries that have always been committed to economic and political liberalism have begun to use various means of governing the country—if these methods were used in the past, they would definitely be labeled as "socialism."Speaking of which, this country-led economic policy is actually the policy implemented by Britain and even the United States in the wartime economy, so the future of mankind depends on this "mixed economic system".Although the claims of the old orthodoxy, such as the balance of the treasury, the stability of money, and prices, are still considered from time to time, these arguments have much less force than they once did. Since 1933, the scarecrows that have been used in economic fields to deter inflation and deficit finance can no longer drive away birds, but the crops in the fields seem to be undisturbed and continue to grow vigorously. These changes are really not trivial; they even caused Averll Harriman, a die-hard member of the American capitalist politician camp, to make the following statement to the people of the country in 1946: "(We) the people of this country, today No longer intimidated by words like 'plan'...the people have accepted the fact that the policies of the country, like individuals, must be planned." (Maier, 1987, p. 129) French political economist Jean Monnet (Jean Monnet, 1888-1979), who was originally the biggest supporter of economic liberalism and admired the American economic system, became an enthusiastic supporter of the French economic plan at this time.As far as the atmosphere is concerned, the economist Loinel Robbins (Loinel Robbins), who originally advocated the free market, once tried his best to maintain the orthodox economic theory and the Keynesian war, and hosted a lecture with Hayek at the London School of Economics (London School of Economics) — but transformed himself into the leader of Britain's wartime semi-socialist economic system. In the past 30 years, there has been a consensus among "Western" thought circles and decision makers, especially in the United States; this consensus not only determines the course of action that capitalist countries should have, but also manipulates the absolute taboos that they should not engage in.Their common goal is to create a world of increasing production, a world of increasing international trade, a world of full employment, industrialization, and modernization.They are going all out to achieve this world of economic unity.If necessary, they are even willing to resort to a mixed economy to achieve this goal systematically by means of government control.They are also willing to cooperate with the organized trade union movement, as long as the latter do not go along with the Communist Party.The golden age of capitalism would not have been possible without this consensus.And this consensus is that everyone realizes that the economic system of "private enterprise" ("private enterprise" has another popular term, that is, "free enterprise"), must be pulled out of the predicament it has created in order to survive. On the other hand, although capitalism has reformed itself, while reviewing the positive will of this previously unimaginable big change, how effective is the new menu created by the chefs of this new economic restaurant? But it is worth our careful consideration.The separation distance among them is really difficult to judge.Because economists, like politicians, are often good at attributing successful cases to the ingenuity of their own policies; and during the golden age, even the weakest economy of the time, such as Britain, was thriving.In this way, everyone is more complacent and celebrates the success of their ingenious plan.However, although there may be a bit of ambiguity in it, we should not ignore the careful design of its policies because of this, and it has its own successful plans that we can be proud of.Taking France from 1945 to 1946 as an example, it began to promote a series of intentionally designed plans to bring the French industrial economy on the road to modernization. This idea of ​​​​combining Soviet-style economic ideals into a capitalist mixed economic system must have Its remarkable place.Because in the more than 20 years from 1950 to 1979, France changed from an image that originally represented sluggish economic development and was ridiculed by everyone. In the economic competition to catch up with the productivity of the United States, France performed far better than any other major economic country. Excellent performance, even better than Germany (Maddison, 1982, p. 46).But in the final analysis, the advantages and disadvantages of different policies of various governments (these policies are often indissoluble with the name of Keynes, but Keynes himself died in 1946), we leave this topic to the debate of economists. .We must know that economists have always been known for their fierce debates and arguments.