Western Europe was wealthier and more industrialized even before the war, so there is no reason the gap shouldn't have remained after the war. Further, and after the war, protectionist barriers went up against Eastern Europe. This would seem to lend credence to the notion that bombing the hell out of your economic competitors and then raising tariffs against them as they try to rebuild is a solid policy.
"Red tape" is an expense, yes, but it is not a barrier. An example of a barrier would be that all the available wireless spectrum has been locked up by the oligipols who drove your predecessor out of business, leaving virtually no way for you to enter the business, even if the "red tape" completely disappeared overnight.
yes, and food supplies that's it, I'm finished here! no more questions to me please, because I'm done.
It depends on your definition of "capitalism". Adam Smith's definition, for example, argued strongly for meaningful government restraint of business - especially monopoly-forming business, which is the natural evolutionary path of "capitalism" - to prevent people from getting run over by what would now be called Corporate Fascism.
So take it one further. A country that doesn't want to take you on militarily, and instead decides to take advantage of its massive coal deposits, and take you on economically by wiping out your domestic steel business by dumping cheep steel on your market. Should you allow this kind of dislocation amongst your population?
well here in america the wealth is concentrating into fewer hands. (In socialism wealth is distributed relatively evenly). the money power is trying to destroy the union. (In socialism the unions would destroy the capitalist). if were going towards socialism were certainly done a shitty job of it. what standard are you using to measure socialism now if your're confusing socialism with fascism or a plutocracy which often political idealogs do then i agree with you. and yes the government is the only source of power non plutocrats have to defend themselves. Of course now the plutocrats have seized control of that as well. Do you recommend just giving up all power and decisions to a tiny group in a country were millions live
good " red tape" also keeps the monopolists, opportunists and oligarchs at bay. of course benwm would confuse this with my approval for all red tape. Always taken things to the extreme
right on RC, Adam smith is the most mis-represented economist. I believe if some of his fans actually read him they would dis-own him
it certainly is from where antitrust is coming from.. socialism...wealth distributed evenly...haha yes if you divide zero into most numbers it's pretty equal... If there is ANY wealth under a socialist system there is only one place it goes, at the heart of the government, or "the people" as you like to imagine. Just like in North Korea.
That is only one of many forms of socialism. Just as laissez-faire is only one of many forms of capitalism.