Since 1989 it worked quite well as it prevented Indonesia or Weimar republic style collapse. BEFORE 1989 it worked EXTREMELY well as it made Japan a prosperous industrialised country.
But you would like to see Japan to be like Indonesia without the natural resources. It must be because you are not Japanese.
Or would that ruin your point that government intervention usually works?
Compare Indonesia with Malaysia at the time of Asian crisis - the first followed the free market Western advice the second decided to use state intervention. Compare Russia of 1990's which following the advice of Chicago/Harvard boys transfered the national wealth into hands of mafia with China which used state planning in national interest.
Wow, not collapsing is a reason for government central planning? Setting a low bar. We didn't collapse either, what do you credit that to?
Compare Russia of 1990's which following the advice of Chicago/Harvard boys transfered the national wealth into hands of mafia with China which used state planning in national interest.
The Chicago/Harvard boys advised Russia to transfer the national wealth into the hands of the mafia? I must have missed that white paper. You wouldn't have a link to it, would you?
You said that planning worked well. So, how much has the Japanese economy grown annually since 1989? They've been planning their economy since at least the end of WWII. They must be getting better at it, right? Practice makes perfect?
Compare Indonesia with Malaysia at the time of Asian crisis
Why not compare the US and Japan? Our growth since 1989 vs their growth. How about since 2000? Why not 1980? You seem to want more planning for the US, show me that planning worked better than not planning.