Replies

Your economic ignorance of Bananna Republics, or England's free trade historical experience, as prehistory and example shows that you have never been a serious student.

Pretty sad what passes for being a serious student these days.

From: The Truth about History and Trade - Bruce Bartlett.

"The reversal of Great Britain’s free-trade policy began as a reaction to Germany, which imposed a protectionist tariff in 1879 under pressure from its big businesses. The situation soon led to adoption of protectionist measures throughout Europe. Although Great Britain initially resisted the protectionist trend, by the turn of the century it, too, began to adopt such measures. Joseph Chamberlain was the leading advocate of the policy of limiting free trade to the nations within the British Empire, while imposing protection against those out side. Lillian Knowles described the change in policy:"

"The period from 1886 to 1914 witnessed a great change in English policy. It is the period of abandonment of laissez-faire in colonization, commerce, industry and agriculture. Great Britain began to modify her cosmopolitan ideas of free trade and laissez-faire, and to concentrate on developing trade within the British Empire."

the major break with free trade came in 1915 when the government imposed tariffs of 33 1/3 percent on motor cars and parts, musical instruments, clocks, wristwatches, and movie film. subsequent legislation broadened the list of items subject to protectionist tariffs."

"The abandonment of free trade during World War I coincided with the beginning of Great Britain’s economic decline. Freedom to trade had been the strongest pillar of Britain’s general free-market policy. When that pillar fell, the doorway opened to socialist measures of all kinds. British history in the 20th century is essentially one of almost continually expanding government control of the economy, and an equal decline in Great Britain’s power and influence in world affairs."

This all sounds eerily similar to the policy you're suggesting the US needs to adopt. No doubt this would lead to the same result. I'm certain your reply will include the protectionist revision of history by William Hawkins.

Chicken or egg is confused by your author. It's a good thing you posted this revisionist history...by Bruce Bartlett, who not quite as serious as you seem to think:

"The abandonment of free trade during World War I coincided with the beginning of Great Britain’s economic decline. Freedom to trade had been the strongest pillar of Britain’s general free-market policy. When that pillar fell, the doorway opened to socialist measures of all kinds. British history in the 20th century is essentially one of almost continually expanding government control of the economy, and an equal decline in Great Britain’s power and influence in world affairs."

The evidence is definitive that the decline wasn't caused by abandonment of free trade policies...but had already happened while the British were fully under the sway of free trade zealots who infested the bureaucracy...and when the evidence came that the UK's industrial infrastructure was being seriously wounded by predator nations, they did start shifting gears at the turn of the century...but they didn't fully implement an industrial restoration policy until they were already in the midst of WW-I. And it was seriously compromised by the dependancies that the zealots had blithely promoted as "strengths." The decline was caused by predators isolating industries as targets of opportunity, and then denying Great Britain its broad mass markets. Great Britain lost its economies of scale previously enjoyed. At this point, they were already a "Dead Industrial Empire Walking." The belated, and fitful modest implementations of protections were "too little, too late."