Worthwhile Sentences on Warfare

In honor of the end of American direct involvement in Iraq.

From NYT's Nicholas Kristof: "When the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discussed on television whether the 9/11 attacks were God’s punishment on feminists, gays and secularists, God should have sued them for defamation."

From a bounty hunter: "God made man but samuel colt made them equal."

From The Daily Beast's Jesse Ellison: "In fact, it is the high victimization rate of female soldiers—women in the armed forces are now more likely to be assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in combat—that has helped cast light on men assaulting other men."

From Ohio State political scientist John Mueller: "Your chance of dying in a bathtub is about one in a million, and from terrorism is about one in 3.5 million"

The Late Andy Rooney on Veterans

As a 60 Minutes fan, I didn't care much for Andy Rooney's everyday complaint journalism. But I did come across this Andy Rooney column from 2004, and I think there is some substance to it:

Most of the reporting from Iraq is about death and destruction. We don't learn much about what our soldiers in Iraq are thinking or doing. There's no Ernie Pyle to tell us, and, if there were, the military would make it difficult or impossible for him to let us know. It would be interesting to have a reporter ask a group of our soldiers in Iraq to answer five questions and see the results:  

1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?
2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?
3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?
4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?
5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you? 

Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home.  

Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people - sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them.  

We pin medals on their chests to keep them going. We speak of them as if they volunteered to risk their lives to save ours, but there isn't much voluntary about what most of them have done. A relatively small number are professional soldiers. During the last few years, when millions of jobs disappeared, many young people, desperate for some income, enlisted in the Army. About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home.  

One indication that not all soldiers in Iraq are happy warriors is the report recently released by the Army showing that 23 of them committed suicide there last year. This is a dismaying figure. If 22 young men and one woman killed themselves because they couldn't take it, think how many more are desperately unhappy but unwilling to die.  

We must support our soldiers in Iraq because it's our fault they're risking their lives there. However, we should not bestow the mantle of heroism on all of them for simply being where we sent them. Most are victims, not heroes.  

America's intentions are honorable. I believe that, and we must find a way of making the rest of the world believe it. We want to do the right thing. We care about the rest of the world. President Bush's intentions were honorable when he took us into Iraq. They were not well thought out but honorable.

Here's me on the topic last year.

Emptying the Bottle: Early-September '11 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile links I've Bookmarked recently:

• Cuter animals get better protection as endangered species.
• Debt and a job you hate is the modern indentured servitude [graphic].
• The future of typing on a touch screen [video].
• Stealing images online is like stealing music online.
• North Korea is a nationwide cult [video].
• Men's first physical impression of women is too optimistic.
• In photos it should be girls chin down and guys chin up.
• What if you couldn't get an organ unless you're on the donor list?
• War has always been worse than we expect [audio].
• An argument for sitting (like a test) and learning.
• Recent pattern of American political parties.

As always, feel free to email me anything interesting you come across.

Worthwhile Sentences on Interventionism

From Mark Zuckerberg: "A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa."

From Tate Watkins: "What if an international peacekeeping force had descended into Charleston after Confederate troops bombarded Fort Sumter?"

From Planet Money: "Has any single human being, either directly or indirectly, cost the United States more money than Osama bin Laden?"

From John Mueller and Mark Stewart: "The cumulative increase in expenditures on US domestic homeland security over the decade since 9/11 exceeds one trillion dollars."

From Paul Valery: “Two dangers constantly threaten the world: order and disorder.”

Osama bin Laden Never Scared Me

Last night I came across part of an episode of This American Life. It's a conversation with a college student, Lexi Belculfine, who was one of thousands of Penn State students who took to the streets in celebration after announcement of Osama bin Laden's death. This celebration is something the interviewer, and myself, have struggled to understand. The student explained that people currently under thirty experienced 9/11 in a very different way than people over thirty today. To them bin Laden was the boogeyman who convinced a generation that they weren't as safe as their parents said they were.

I'm under thirty and I didn't have that reaction. When my wife called me and told me they found Osama bin Laden, I couldn't wait to watch the trial. To see what I saw when they captured Saddam Hussein. A sad old man who lived in a hole with his tired eyes and shabby beard. But when my wife called me the second time to say they killed him I was a little disheartened. I didn't understand why until I listened to the Penn State student's story. Unlike Lexi, I was never scared of bin Laden. I think it's a combination of 1) being in a mid-sized southern town, far away from NYC, DC, and the eyes of terrorists and 2) my general lack of empathy. For me, 9/11 was sad, in the same way the earthquake in Haiti was sad and the tsunami in Japan was sad.

And I wanted that for everyone else. I wanted them to see just how sad, tired, and foolish bin Laden was. I wanted the world, east and west, to agree that he was a terrible man whose plan on 9/11 actually failed miserably at it's goal of getting America to stop meddling the affairs of the Middle East. He was not a shadowy figure, but a self-righteousness propagandist. I'm not convinced the vengeful feelings of satisfaction are helpful. I don't think we should celebrate the death of America's scariest enemy. I think we should recognize that he was never that scary to begin with.

War is Destruction Not Production

From Tyler Cowen:

Put aside Bob Higgs’s points about restricted consumption, Alexander Field has another angle:

Had trends persisted in the absence of war, employment, TFP, and labor productivity would all likely have been higher in 1942…housing construction was robust and growing in 1939, 1940, and 1941, and when the postwar housing boom emerged with full force in 1946, it took off from where it had been arrested in 1941. Since the failure of residential construction to revive fully was one of the major contributors to the persistence of low private investment spending during the Depression, its signs of revival in the years immediately preceding the war suggest that had peace continued, investment, output, and employment growth would have continued as the economy reapproached capacity.

…There continues to be a popular perception that war is beneficial to an economy, particularly if it does not lead to much physical damaged to the country prosecuting it. The U.S. experience during the Second World War is the typical poster child for this point of view. Detailed research into the effects of armed conflict, however, has usually produced more nuanced interpretations…In that spirit, the research reported in this chapter represents a revisionist approach to the analysis of the Second World War, although one that is not entirely unanticipated.

You can buy Field’s excellent book here and here is my previous post on the work. Here is Kling on Field, very useful.

You can't use scarce resources to blow things up and count that as wealth. Just another reason why GDP isn't the best measure of wealth.

The Dogs of War

U.S. soldier and his dog leap off the ramp of a helicopter

Who would have guessed one of the most interesting stories I came across after the death of Osama bin Laden (great summary) would be about the role of canines in the military:

Dogs have been fighting alongside U.S. soldiers for more than 100 years, seeing combat in the Civil War and World War I. But their service was informal; only in 1942 were canines officially inducted into the U.S. Army. Today, they're a central part of U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- as of early 2010 the U.S. Army had 2,800 active-duty dogs deployed (the largest canine contingent in the world). And these numbers will continue to grow as these dogs become an ever-more-vital military asset.

So it should come as no surprise that among the 79 commandos involved in Operation Neptune Spear that resulted in Osama bin Laden's killing, there was one dog -- the elite of the four-legged variety.

I recommended the who article quoted. It's short, full of great links and more wonderful photographs of humans and their animals.

Declaration of War, What is it Good For?

We're fighting another war. The United States Nations is paying for it. The Republicans are ironically weary. This is my favorite related statement:

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?) 

Answer: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. 

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

That's from now President Obama in 2007. I'm not surprised that Obama acted like every war president of the last 65 years, fighting without a formal declaration of war, but I do blame him for not being different.

Learning by Teaching: The 1918 Spanish Flu

In light of the events in Japan, this may be the most under-learned natural disaster in history:

The pandemic lasted from June 1917 to December 1920, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. Between 50 and 100 million died, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history. Even using the lower estimate of 50 million people, 3% of the world's population (1.8 billion at the time), died of the disease. Some 500 million, or 28% (≈1/4) were infected.

Compare that to the 9 million that died in WWI, the largest war in Western history at that time.

The Curveball That Led the US to Iraq

Marriage Advice on Conflict

Conflict is important for any relationship and like most things, it has a learning curve. Here's a good question from the Spousonomics blog:

Have you figured out a way to argue more efficiently? Like, to reach resolution and smiles more quickly?

and here's the fabulous answer:

Never ever call names. Never ever threaten to leave. Don’t apologize for things you aren’t sorry for, that’s just mean, and for the love of all things Holy don’t fight about things that don’t matter. If you sit down and look at your part in things it’s unlikely that what you’re angry about matters one bit.

China Becomes a Political Power

I've discussed before about how I don't fear China's growth, China's US investments, or China's domestic subsidies. However, China as a global political figure does give me pause for thought. Although I don't support most of the United States' foreign policy, I believe that or global intervention has mostly been attempts to do good. With a hand full of exceptions during the age of imperialism, our military has mostly been a force for more peace and more prosperity. America's unilateral global leadership began after World War II as Europe recovered. In fact, America's post-war aid to Europe, the Marshall Plan, was one of our first acts as the global leader. Now, China is doing something similar:

Citing government sources, the paper reported that Mr. Li said “China is willing to buy as much Spanish bonds as Greek and Portuguese combined, that is, around 6 billion euros.” The Chinese financial support is so welcome that El País referred to Mr. Li as a new "Mr. Marshall"

And here are the political string attached:

China’s goodwill also comes attached to European willingness to open up its markets to Chinese companies and to relaxing restrictions of technology transfers.

So far it seems China's goals are similar to the United States, more trade and interdependence. It's important to remember that these have not always been the goals of other global leaders. Rome, Great Britain, Japan, and Germany come to mind. China, who was a global power before the Industrial Revolution in the West, is now moving up the ranks and I'm optimistic, but unsure, what their political aspirations are.

The Only Way to Peace?

A while back I suggested that the most profitable way to peace was mutually beneficial trade. Nations that rely on each other don't fight each other. A newly created mathematical model predicts that it only takes small changes within small groups to get complete peace or complete war. From the Scientific American:

Consider a relationship triangle. Arthur and Carl don’t like each other. But Bill is friendly with them both. Bill will probably try to convince Arthur and Carl to get along. But Arthur and Carl are telling Bill that the other guy’s no good. You don’t need to be a math whiz to see that, as time goes on, either everyone will be friends or Bill is going to have to pick a side.

Now picture a big network made of these triangles. Which is what scientists did in their computer model. And they found that this theoretical social network produced either global harmony or all-out war, depending on the initial triangles. The model even predicted almost exactly the identities of all the Allied and Axis forces during World War 2. So one way to prevent global war may be to forge friendships between enough Arthurs and Carls.

Puts a new spin on "love your neighbor".

Afghans Should Peace Out

A while back I mentioned the unusual idea of letting Iraq decide on whether American soldiers stay in Iraq. If you thought that was out of the box, here's a more unusual idea about Afghanistan:

Should we leave Afghanistan? Absolutely not. The Afghans should leave Afghanistan! They have already shown that in other countries, they can assimilate and succeed. Do Afghans in America or Australia live in mudbrick hovels and prevent their daughters from going to school? Do they harbor terrorists, plant mines in the roads, and stone adulterous women to death? Of course not!

Take the Afghans out of Afghanistan and you help them out too. This would be a far more humane and beneficial version of an old counterinsurgency technique, moving the population to safe areas. The ultimate safe haven is a secure and prosperous country. In this way, we will fulfill our goal of protecting the Afghan population.

It wouldn’t be so difficult to resettle the Afghans — and it would be far cheaper than the $12 billion a year we are spending on training their Army and police alone.

The entire article is actually not worth reading and goes too an extreme. The idea however is solid. If coalition forces really support the Afghan people, they should welcome them into their backyard.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of WikiLeaks

In the last month Julian Assange, has gone from journalist to lightning rod. Recently his organization, WikiLeaks, released 250,000 US diplomatic cables (essentially emails from diplomats that are called cables because they were once sent via telegraph). Although most of the documents weren't classified, they were written with the understanding they would be private. They have given the world a never before seen look inside American diplomat discussions.  The impact of this can be seen in Assange's victory in the online poll for Time Magazine's Person of the Year (though Time actually gave Mark Zuckerburg the award).

That certainly doesn't mean he's well loved. After all, Hitler won person of the year in 1938. In fact, several groups have separated themselves from Wikileaks since the cable leaks. The site lost it's domain name just days after Amazon dropped the site from its web servers. PayPal froze the account of the foundation accepting donations or the site. Visa and MasterCard have reportedly stopped transactions for those trying to donate money to the organization. The Swiss bank PostFinance has put a hold on the legal defense funds of the founder who was recently arrested on separate, but very controversial, rape charges. He was released on bail yesterday thanks to support from none other than Michael Moore. Assange's home nation of Australia has even threatened to cancel his passport. In response, many of these organizations have themselves been attacked online by "hacktivists" from the pseudo-organization Anonymous.

Although I don't agree with the illegal hacks against these companies, I don't feel much sympathy for them. World governments are understandably upset about their secrets being exposed, but for these companies to jump the gun before any rulings have been made is, in my opinion, cowardice. To understand the strong reactions to these cables it's important to understand what exactly is in them. Clarifying the information is difficult, because it's history's largest classified information release. One of the main things revealed is how American diplomats see and describe foreign leaders. One of the five newspapers given the documents, Der Spiegel, even put summaries of each on the cover. Let me warn you, they're not flattering.

here are the translations

Another uncomfortable revelation was that American diplomats have been asked to spy on other members of the United Nations. Also, it was revealed that the Chinese government hacked into Google, the computers of US officials, and the Dalai Lama. China is also apparently more ready to abandon their ally, and all around troublemaker, North Korea than previously thought. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt have all asked the US to attack Iran. It revealed that American officials do not have much respect for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's new kind of authoritarianism. Even going as far as to say the current president “plays Robin to Putin’s Batman”. There was even evidence of Afghanistan's top down corruption, a secret military action in Pakistan, and missile strikes in Yemen.

As shocking as these cables are, they aren't the first controversial releases from WikiLeaks. Earlier this year they released a video of an event in Baghdad nicknamed Collateral Murder. Later this year, but before the most recent release, Afghan War documents and Iraq War documents were both leaked. Assange has also hinted at his next target to expose, the banking industry. These major releases have made this organization globally infamous. There have been calls for Julian Assange's arrest and assassination from several world leaders. That's why I'd like to take a chance on this tiny part of the internet to discuss this overwhelming issue. So here are what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly of WikiLeaks:

The Good: Exposing truth, like sunlight, is often the best disinfectant. Most of what I have learned from the leaks have been information that either should not have happened or when it happened the world should have been informed about it. I don't want my government doing things they don't want me to know. It's also important to know that WikiLeaks is just a conduit for the released information. They were not the ones who actually removed it and have a journalistic obligation to publish what is brought to them. Best of all, even the existence of this organization and the threat it brings improves transparency and diplomatic professionalism. Currently there is too much secrecy, so any movement away is positive. These complex relationships show just our complicated our interventionist foreign policy is. If our government could no longer keep such damaging secrets about what it’s doing abroad, then it would have to change what it's doing abroad.

The Bad: These releases have the potential to create great instability in the world. It's been been a political and diplomatic disaster for the United States. It's made at least a dozen world leaders look deceitful, inept, or worse. It will make it that much more difficult to deal with controversial nations like Russia, China, Yemen, etc. There has also been fake documents released. The Pakistani media published fabricated cables claiming the Indian generals are genocidal. For two nations with so much tension, and nuclear weapons, these could have been disastrous. The recent controversy has put a damper on the general support for government openness. For example, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2010, which is ten years in the making, was expected to pass through Congress this month. Instead it has been halted by politicians worried by the new WikiLeaks controversy.

The Ugly: The released documents will probably result in more information being labeled classified. One of the least mentioned things about the cable leaks is that the information was already available to millions of military and government employees. It's alleged that a simple army private gave the information to WikiLeaks. That's actually pretty open. The recent controversy will only make that less so. It might also decrease the connectivity between the offices of government made ten years ago in response to 9/11. Perhaps the biggest impact these leaks will have is that honest international discussion will be harder. When you observe anything, it changes, simply because of your presence. Like CSPAN did for the American Congress, these leaks may hinder conversation because no one wants to talk directly anymore. If every conversation becomes public, then every conservation becomes political. Less diplomatic and more pandering. Professionalism has a cost, real valuable conversation. These complicated negotiations can't work if there is no privacy at the negotiation table.

WikiLeaks' actual negotiation table in Stockholm, Sweden

It's certainly embarrassing. There are clear short term problems created. But that doesn't tell us if it's good in the long run. The most important thing to remember is that what is being exposed to the American people is what is being done in the name of the American people. We have a right to know what is being done in our name. I can understand privacy at the negotiation table, but we should know they are at the table. Many claim that this information puts lives at risk, yet I haven't heard any concrete examples. A better question is whether more Americans are at risk if these types of secrets are never revealed? Perhaps our foreign policy would be less complicated and less intrusive. There will certainly be a backlash of privacy, but Julian Assange predicts American secret expansion will only be temporary.

The conversation isn't about Julian Assange or even WikiLeaks. It's about the entire idea of releasing this kind of information to the public. With or without WikiLeaks, the technology now exists to allow copycats to leak documents while maintaining anonymity. Like the Xerox for the Pentagon Papers, the hero or villain isn't a person, but a thumb drive and the internet. I would certainly like to see more information revealed about truly dangerous and corrupt governments. But even when the focus is on the US I think on net it is good (and so does the original whistleblower from the Pentagon Papers). It's possible that WikiLeak-type organizations should be restrained. There are certain things that deserve at least temporary secrecy. That's what American court cases about media leaks are for, deciding on the details. Though according to polls, it doesn't look good for Julian Assange from the perspective of the average American opinion. But I'm often more comfortable not agreeing with average Americans.

If you'd like to read more here is the WikiLeaks' new url. Here's their Wikipedia page. Here's how they've mostly been making public comments, their Twitter page.

I Fixed the Deficit!

Even though it seems most Americans don't care about the deficit, I've talked plenty about it. How our government's debt is the fault of every president of the last 80 years and how it  may be a small problem now, but could turn into a big problem if nothing is done. I mostly proposed more immigration and economic growth as the main ways to ensure fiscal stability. However, the New York Times recently created a Budget Puzzle interactive graphic that lets you cut or tax (you have to do both) what you'd like in order to balance the budget in 2015 and 2030. I tried it out and was surprised how easy it was.

The federal budget was balanced by only increasing the Social Security retirement and Medicare eligibility age to 68, reducing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, capping Medicare growth starting in 2013, enact medical malpractice reform, cut troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in half by 2013, reduce the size of the other  military to pre-Iraq level, eliminating loopholes in the income tax, ending farm subsidies, measuring inflation more accurately, and returning the estate tax to Clinton-era levels (although I also cut foreign aid and eliminated earmarks just for the fun of it). I didn't even have to change the Bush tax-cuts or payroll tax. I even refrained from the personally preferred carbon tax. Here's a link to exactly what I did. Now go and try it yourself, especially if you're a member of Congress.

Problem with Veteran's Day, Another Controversial Belief

Two years ago I posted my most controversial belief: "that I don't support many seemingly innocent charitable causes". After a good (and long) conversation with my readers, I was convinced that private donations can be an important way the market accounts for passionate consumers. In light of Veteran's Day, and Penelope Trunk's own controversial post, I'd like to share another controversial belief of mine in the hopes that it will be refined again. I believe that the wrong kind of appreciation is paid to American soldiers.

Today the airwaves were full of patriotic stories praising our soldiers with hyperbolic statements that overshadowed the real commitment our soldiers have made. The reality is that the United States has not fought a defensive war since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941 (which happened because of U.S. exports to Allied forces). That means every military conflict since World War II have not been about for "protecting our freedom". Whether it's the Korean War, Vietnam War, our numerous conflict with South American nations or the intervention in the Middle East of the last two decades; almost every living U.S. Veteran is not responsible for the freedom I personally experience.

That doesn't mean they're not worthy of recognition. I've posted before on how supporting our troops doesn't imply believing "in the nobility of the mission". I've also posted about the importance of social rewards to most the valued members of our society. I'm not suggesting we ignore the brave soldiers of the U.S. military. What I do suggest is praising them for the important things they have accomplished. Like Great Britain before us and Rome before them, the United States military has increased global connectivity to the betterment of its people and the world. Not only have we been more successful at this important goal, we've done it with less coercion than our predecessors.

I'm the last person to suggest that all, or even most, American military action is acceptable. However, today I'd like our soldiers for the role they've played in American and global prosperity. Today I'd like to specifically thank my grandfather, my father, and my uncle for their past and present contribution.

Economics of Afghani Votes

No this isn't one of my usual tirades against voting. Though I guess this isn't a celebration of democracy either. Last month Afghanistan their parliamentary elections. Unsurprisingly there was rampant fraud. One example, was vote buying:

In northern Kunduz Province, Afghan votes cost $15 each; in eastern Ghazni Province, a vote can be bought for $18. In Kandahar, they sell their rights for as little as $1 a ballot. More commonly, the price seems to hover in the $5 to $6 range, as quoted to New York Times reporters in places like Helmand and Khost Provinces.

And the exchange process was surprisingly formal:

In many places, so-called vote maleks organize the trade. These are brokers who collect all the voter registration cards in a community, and then peddle them to the highest bidder. Typically, the vote malek keeps half of the money and the voters get half.

Though the votes may seem cheap, you must consider Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita GDP of less than $1000 (compared to the US at $46,000). So, accounting for relative wealth (and ignoring the international importance of US elections), it's like an American vote going for around $250. Here's the silver lining of the fraud. It's less fraudulent than it could have been:

Vote buying is much more common in this election than the last national balloting here last year. The feeling, experts say, was that last year’s election was stolen wholesale by supporters of President Hamid Karzai, so there was little need for vote buying.

And it's also good news that fake voter cards, which apparently aren't as effective, went for about 23 cents each. But don't let the price of a vote imply anything about the patriotic value of the vote. If anything, illegal vote getting implies there are other illegal gains to be had once elected.

Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.

Emptying the Bottle: Mid-September '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• Business is more about being organized and managing than it is about ideas.
• To pay for a WWII today, it would cost the government $20 trillion.
• How an economist gets his kids to sleep in the car.
• There may be different kinds of smart, but learning style assessments are useless.
• Desire for exercise may be genetic (earlier).
• Alcohol is good for your health because of the relaxation and relationships.
• The oddity that is government owned liquor monopolies.
• The best anti-penny rant ever [video].
• Crazy campaign speech or pro wrestler [video].
• Reserve your name at About.Me.
• Europe and the United States described as a third world country.
• Students who drank at home reported more heavy drinking early in college.

To follow live and to see comments, subscribe via Google Reader.

Lessons from the German Economic Miracle

In a recent comment a reader proposed that the post-WWII Marshall Plan was a great example of government stimulus leading to national prosperity. Based on my previous posts on foreign aid, you might guess I don't agree with the common assumption. Economist David Henderson also disagrees and claims economic growth was mostly due to three other factors:

The two main factors were currency reform and the elimination of price controls, both of which happened over a period of weeks in 1948. A further factor was the reduction of marginal tax rates later in 1948 and in 1949.

The article goes into a lot more detail, but here's his specific response to the Marshall Plan story:

Marshall Plan aid to West Germany was not that large. Cumulative aid from the Marshall Plan and other aid programs totaled only $2 billion through October 1954. Even in 1948 and 1949, when aid was at its peak, Marshall Plan aid was less than 5 percent of German national income. Other countries that received substantial Marshall Plan aid exhibited lower growth than Germany.