I've been reading Civilization by Roger Osborne. In it he argue that in Britain the reason why people moved from rural to urban areas in the 19th century was not because they saw greater opportunties in the cities and their lives were very poor in the countryside, rather it was because of the Enclosure Acts between 1750 to 1830 permitted landlowers to enclose common land. They enforced their legal ownership of the lands and so the poor were forced to move to the cities. What do you think of this argument?
Also another argument he puts forward is that in the 1890s both the USA and Germany put up tarrifs and flourished as a result. Free trade only benefited Britain so long as other countries were not industrailised. What do you think of this argument?
Can this Roger Osborne explain away the tremendous rise in living standards that occurred in Britain from 1800 onward and the tremendous economic growth in the USA and Germany before prohibitive tariffs were installed?
Political Atheists Blog
His argument is this: 'The British economy ws growing in the mid century because it was the first to industrialize, had held on to its early lead by protecting its markets, and at the same time, had control, through its navy, of a worldwide trading network'.
Do you know what happened to Germany and the USA after their tarrifs were put in place? Did they continue to grow economically? Was the rate slower or faster if they did contrinue to rise?
AuberonHerbert: Free trade only benefited Britain so long as other countries were not industrailised. What do you think of this argument?
I fail to see his logic here. Britain's output increased astronomically due to it's industrialization meaning that there were more things to distribute among it's people therefor the standard of living in Britain increased. The industrialization of other counties only added to this pool of consumer goods meaning the ratio of goods to people in the world also increases. The more a county produces the more things there are for everyone to consume. So how could the under utilization of resources in other counties possibly benefit Britain? The less other counties produce the less Britain has to consume.
First is probably true, second is a-contextual, post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and doesn't give any reason why this should happen in the first place, nor does it show what opportunity costs were incurred (i.e. the "unseen".)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I think what he is getting at is the idea that if Britain was the only state which could produce so many goods on such a large scale due to her industrailised economy she was able to flood the markets of other countries with her goods. As soon as other states started producing their own goods, this no longer occured. Thus free trade ceased to benefit Britian or at least did not benefit Britian to the same extent as before.
What about the American Colonies? If the law forced people into cities then I would expect a whole lot more English to have headed to the colonies even as indentured servants.
Moreover, the author is purposely ignoring the same facts that Karl Marx and his pals ignored. That is in England at the beginning, during and after the Industrial Revolution, that the poorest and richest, and all people between were better off as a result of industrialization. Products were becoming progressively cheaper as technology made incomes higher and higher.
As for restricting trade, the British did not have much competition until well into the 19th century as the American Colonies consumed a lot of the manufactured output of England. In fact it was the Colonies imposing tariffs and the like on British imports that really strained the relationship between the countries. The US War for Southern Independence (Incorrectly called the Civil War) was certainly kicked off and probably fought over American Tariffs on British and French imports instead of slavery.
And the ultimate argument against tariffs helping grow an economy: The Great Depression really got great after the Smoot Hawley Tariff passed despite the objection of 300 prominent economists and business people.
American Joe Public believes two economic fallacies due to the history profession: (1) international trade is zero sum, (2) the industrial revolution was 3v1l. Historians are Joe Public on economics. It looks like a normal case of interpreting the data to suit the pre-conceived conclusion. It's sort of a circular educational phenomenon.
AuberonHerbert: I think what he is getting at is the idea that if Britain was the only state which could produce so many goods on such a large scale due to her industrailised economy she was able to flood the markets of other countries with her goods. As soon as other states started producing their own goods, this no longer occured.
I think what he is getting at is the idea that if Britain was the only state which could produce so many goods on such a large scale due to her industrailised economy she was able to flood the markets of other countries with her goods. As soon as other states started producing their own goods, this no longer occured.
Britain couldn't have been exporting without importing, unless the other countries were growing gold on trees.
All the talk about the so-called unspeakable horror of early capitalism can be refuted by a single statistic: precisely in these years in which British capitalism developed, precisely in the age called the Industrial Revolution in England, in the years from 1760 to 1830, precisely in those years the population of England doubled.
Ludwig von Mises - Economic Policy
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
AuberonHerbert:I think what he is getting at is the idea that if Britain was the only state which could produce so many goods on such a large scale due to her industrailised economy she was able to flood the markets of other countries with her goods. As soon as other states started producing their own goods, this no longer occured. Thus free trade ceased to benefit Britian or at least did not benefit Britian to the same extent as before.
Flooding undeveloped markets with goods and services couldn't possibly be of mutual benefit unless the counties receiving the goods and services have a way to repay their debt. Otherwise what would be the point of trading with another country? Why not keep everything that you produce?