Um, they didn’t have to invent a new Technology. Everybody who looked at the Facts of New Deal (Zompist's Rant Page or Liberalism works) without the filter of a specific ideology, could see which measures helped against the Depression and improved the economy.
All European countries had an economic boom right after the war. Obviously the Continental countries had more to rebuilt, but still: there was a lot of consumer demand, and no more loss through war (Building a bomb which then explodes is waste; Building a railway improves economy).
The German (and Austrian and Netherlands) Wirtschaftswunder was not a complete miracle because the rest was booming; it was partly remarkable for how quickly and well it did despite the obstacles (e.g. US and UK taking property instead of reparations, including big amounts of intellectual property, from the German industrial companies and giving it to their own companies).
So in a half-way well-managed Country, that boom would have been used not only for fulfilling consumer demand, but also for re-building/ modernizing infrastructure, improving education etc. to lay a solid foundation of slow growth in the next decades, instead of crashing.
I just gathered anecdotal Impression from a Person who read newspapers 1955 onwards, and one tentative factor I found was that both France and UK were not only loosing their colonies (raw materials), they got themselves dragged into fights to Keep them, which was a new waste of Money (and People). And the French were also not doing so well - but in the EWG, they could Export better?
What we would now would be a graph of GDP of the Major countries after the war, and maybe a graph of how much % of the GDP is due to Exports. Because if GB before the war relied heavily on the colonies not only for raw materials (and Food Imports) but also as a consumer market (Buy British was mentioned) - but France had a large internal market without the colonies - then the sudden loss would hit GB economy harder. (And joining the EWG/EG sooner to Profit from the custom Union and replace some of that market would have made more sense, but if the faith was in the Commonwealth, and mistrust of the continent, than that hindered that step).
Um what has parliamentary System got to do with it? How hard or easy it is to dissolve the government/ parliament and call for new elections depends on how the laws are written. I would characterize most modern Democracies as “parliamentary” because they have some type of parliament, but how often they Call Special elections varies wildly. (Part of that is not only the laws, but the Meta-System Problem: if the Population is angry enough at the government, or the politicans too egoistic, the Laws get interpreted to make a new election).
I didn’t assume that. But I have pointed out that calling UK post-war government “socialist” in itself is meaningless. What policies did they enact that hindered the growth of UK economy? Which measures were different compared to other european countries?
Because all european countries had poor, deprived Population, they all were stronger “socialist” than 20 or 30 years later: they all had to run on and implement methods to alleviate the poverty, and to satisfy consumer demand. Giving People Jobs with decent wages by producing consumer goods which People could buy with those wages is the obvious answer (plus govt. measures like infrastructure, easing regulations from wartime etc.)
That’s a too broad question. 1. At what Level do the high tax rates apply? If the middle class has enough Money to buy consumer goods, taxing the rich is not harmful. Again, even the US had a Maximum rate of 70% during the 50s, yet it boomed: the Middle class grew, and spent Money.
Low tax rates on the rich do not lead to “entrepeneurs” We just Need to look at the numbers in the US from Reagan onwards. Low tax rates for the rich means Money disappears in Shares and Fonds: capital gain grows, but not normal economy.
2. How is the tax applied? A high tax on capital gains, but low on real Business Investments (that is, buying a more efficent machine for your factory, or paying your workers more) does encourage Business.
3. What other hurdles or easements are there to open/ expand a Business? If one sector is monopolized, the tax rate doesn’t matter. If it takes months of red tape to open a Business, that hinders more than one week of red tape. If there is high consumer demand, but production of consumer goods is limited, then the economy is hindered regardless of the tax rate.
It’s not “tight” Regulation, it’s “smart” Regulation. Requiring a Limit on how much energy is used, or how much waste is produced from a machine Forces a factory to upgrade. Building trade Schools to get skilled craftsmen means that Quality production is possible. And a dozen other measures.
I don’t know why you fixate on “entrepneurship” - it’s often used by ideologues with a certain Special meaning in AE.
If there is a demand by consumers to be able to buy products, you don’t have to “encourage” industry to produce. You just have to not hinder them. That however includes the workers - if you don’t make sure they get a decent wage, then they aren’t able to buy the products (As Henry Ford realized, but few American entrepeneurs after him did). If you don’t have enough workers, or enough skilled workers, or enough modern machines, then you can’t produce Quality products, and your consumers might prefer Exports (as happened in the 19th century with the “Made in Germany” Label: originally, German products were inferior, because they were starting out and learning (similar to Japan in the 1950s). But then they improved, and British customers realized that the knives from Solingen were at least as good, if not better, than the knives from Sheffield, but cheaper.)