As you say, now that China is producing compelling products the US is flexing a bit more because it sees a serious non ally threat to US interests. The biggest shame of it is that it is so unfortunate that China isn't more politically and legally upstanding and morally respectable like Europe is.
The Marshall Plan certainly exposed Europeans to more American products, especially Hollywood and pop culture. However, the majority of Marshall Plan funds were given as grants, not loans - ultimately, even to Germany. American capital did not come to own and exploit Western Europe. On the contrary, one of the Marshall Plan’s main effects was to reduce intra-Europe trade barriers, setting the stage for the E.E.C. and later, the European Union.
How much do you think the Marshall plan accelerated the repair and growth of Europe?
I’m not sure what you expect me to say. I think the academic consensus is, “by a lot.” I think the immediate European reaction was also, “it’s great that we’ve rebuilt our own means of production with generous outside assistance, while retaining ownership and without accruing huge debts.”
I’m a little confused. What was the nefarious aspect of the Marshall Plan? Why was it bad to help Germans rebuild Volkswagen factories, in order that they might trade things Americans want for things that Germans want?
But had Europe not been an opportunity market for US industry then I suspect the Marshall Plan would have never happened or maybe I'm just cynical.
Excuse me for my ignorance, but what makes US' economy a free market capitalism?
Definition of free market: "in economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities."
Correct me if I am wrong, but this most definitely does not seem to be the case. There are regulations, price controls, subsidies, tariffs and other government interferences with freedom of exchange that distort the market.
Things like protectionism, how a country may choose to do trade (e.g the currency they trade in E.g petrodollar), the rights to a countries natural resources (E.g nationalisation). These tools are effective for underdeveloped countries that don't have the market and production efficiencies to compete on a global stage or the money to subsidise nationally important yet expensive businesses like farming.
Adam Smith effectively said that trade is good because it frees up the utility of your worker to do work of a greater economic benefit and that it made greater sense to buy from a supplier nation that can produce the same product more efficiently.
Those countries with inefficient and unproductive economies don't have the high skill economically more valuable jobs so for them trade isn't an opportunity for growth because it just undermines their local economy by taking away local jobs.