Saphroneth
Banned
The British were unquestionably in relative decline - this is of course inevitable because other countries were also industrializing. Britain went first so got a very dominant position, but other countries followed suit.
The British were unquestionably in relative decline - this is of course inevitable because other countries were also industrializing. Britain went first so got a very dominant position, but other countries followed suit.
That would probably be the most obvious change, yes - India, say, could definitely have been handled better. Even if independence happens, a better relation would help a lot - and if the accepted "British practice" is basically that segments of Empire are developed and then let go once nation-building is finished, then I could see some countries being more willing to "wait their turn".Then maybe it's a question of scale. As opposed to how to make Britain richer per capita it should be how to keep and develop the empire for the purposes of market share and dick waving.
@Thomas1195 - you are making it seem like he is right. I even contributed in good faith to this, but you could have the discussion without appearing to deride. If your concern was that Britain was producing low-technology goods and that this was a reason you said it declined, or it failed to move towards high-tech goods manufacturing, rather than "it declined and was bad" I'd say you had a leg to stand on.
An economy does not have to be producing self-sealing stem-bolts to be considered a developed economy. What it makes is only a factor. Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary Industries are just part of the equation. Other aspects are economic institutions (i.e. Fiat Currency, Fractional-Reserve Banking, Central Banks, Paper Money).
A fair analysis of the UK at that time is that it was firmly focused around Secondary Industries (by definition it was the first country to do so in a serious way), the bulk of which produced Low-to-Middle technology goods. Excluding some of its biggest productions like ... Ships. Others have demonstrated that the British Economy WAS producing higher-end goods, but it wasn't the focus of their economy, as they were already dominating the other aspects of the market. That doesn't make them an undeveloped economy, it makes them a market leader. If my town makes nothing but silk cloth, and makes all the silk cloth in the world but still takes advantages of mortgages and payment plans, paper money etc, that isn't an undeveloped economy by any fair measure.
You may as well say that mid-western USA isn't a developed economy as they are very well known for producing crops, or Texas isn't because it is built around oil production and refinement (Primary and Secondary Industries). In contrast, the Modern UK (regardless of current politics) is the world leader in Banking (Tertiary), and is certainly more sophisticated economically than it was in the 1870s. Is it more sophisticated than China? Hard to say, but from what I've read of your position, the answer would be yes, quite a bit.
That ignores the fact that you asserted that it was declining - looking through I'm not sure I agree with your assertions now. Was their economy LESS sophisticated? No. Was it smaller? No. Not in absolute terms. Was it maintaining its dominance (i.e. its position relative to other nations), No. That however does not mean that it is declining, it means it is no longer dominant.
It is at this point that I fear inaccuracy on your part leads towards appearing derogatory. I'd recommend clarifying your position.
@Thomas1195 - you are making it seem like he is right. I even contributed in good faith to this, but you could have the discussion without appearing to deride. If your concern was that Britain was producing low-technology goods and that this was a reason you said it declined, or it failed to move towards high-tech goods manufacturing, rather than "it declined and was bad" I'd say you had a leg to stand on.
I completely agree with @RogueTraderEnthusiast here. You might have a point in talking about specifics, but statements like 'low tech craps' don't help the debate.
There are elements of your premise, though, that I don't agree with from a historical perspective.
Britain was quite a heavy investor in electrification in some areas, particularly in street lighting (I'm not sure what point you are making about the link between industrial capacity and street lighting).
British technical education was actually very good, again in some areas. If you are looking the the secondary school system, or places like Eton, for technical education then you are fundamentally misunderstanding how education, industry, and society worked in the period. The majority of engineers, technicians, and other "industrially educated" men in the period were trained at University or in the workplace. Industries like the railways, for example, were world leaders in some aspects of chemical and metalurgical research in Britain between the 1870s and 1940s - taking men trained in sciences at University and drawing them into laboratory culture. Lower level engineers and technicians, everything from locomotive drivers to civil engineers, were trained on the job, to some extent. Secondary education was seen as a place where one learned the theoretical basis (Mathematics, geography, geology etc) but industry itself was where one honed the skills. It was this model that continued to produce highly capable trained populations in the period.
Also, Britain was a country continually exporting high-tech cutting edge material in this period. North British Company, for instance, continued to be world leaders in locomotive export around the world.
As others have pointed out, whilst there is some degree of stagnation in some industries, the relative decline of British industrial power is much more to do with the rise of Germany and USA catching up with the British head-start as the earliest industrial power.
More generally, though, whilst this thread is interesting from a theoretical point of view, I can't see anything here about how these changes might actually be achieved. The political will for reform was there but capitalising on it is a very different thing.
Key example is Protectionist Tariffs and the endless obsession this forum has with an Imperial trade zone.
Free Trade was not just seen, by the 1870s, as fundamental to British economic success but also to British identity. Free Trade was associated, as Frank Trentmann has shown in his recent book https://global.oup.com/academic/product/free-trade-nation-9780199567324?cc=gb&lang=en& as fundamentally allied with Democracy, the Rule of Law, and social freedom. The one time the British were offered an electoral choice regarding Free Trade vs Protectionism, in 1906, Free Trade won in a landslide. Voters were simply not convinced of the merits of protectionism. Neither, really, did the colonies, but that's another story...
Finally, fundamentally, I must disagree with your points about protectionism. What evidence do you have that protectionism would have helped Britain? Senior politicians at the time were worried that the UK instituting an Imperial Trade Zone with tariffs would lead to an arms race of protectionism further harming British trade globally.
Yes!For North British Company, are you saying that steam locomotives are high-tech?
Yes!
You're judging so much from the modern perspective, where steam trains are old fashioned, but electrification of the railways didn't take place anywhere until the late 1930s - it's steam or nothing, and that means that modern steam engines are high tech.
Pretty much this ^. Steam trains were high tech in the period, and didn't drop out of the bounds of high-tech until the 1940s and 1950s. Remember some of the record breaking steam engines are built in the 1920s.
Furthermore, Britain is a world leader in electrification, electrifying South African and Indian railways in the 1920s.
The problem is you're approaching this from a present-day, entirely technical, perspective. The decision to invest, or not, in electric street lighting wasn't simply an unwillingness to embrace modernity or technical change. It was often to do with what civic authorities thought "appropriate" for different spaces - side alleys and narrow passages were thought to be better illuminated by gas. Besides, Britain does develop a domestic electricity industry. Newcastle is the first city in the world to be fully lit by electric lights to be fair!
I don't accept your arguments about tariffs and revenue. That's the ideal not necessarily the reality. Leading economists at the time argued that tariffs would strangle British trade. It wasn't really needed for much of the Empire, Britain already dominated that market as a home exporter, and tariffs arguably would have hurt mature industries already exporting. Also, why would revenue necessarily be spent on technical development? It wasn't in the US or Germany.
Whilst you may argue that "mere" politicians and voters didn't care for tariff reform, I'd argue that that disregard is misplaced. Who do you imagine would push this change? It has to come from voters and MPs, otherwise this entire conversation is just an academic exercise. Also, I'm not sure I see Bonar Law, Balfour, or Chamberlain as "technocrats". Chamberlain was from an industrial background, true, but was a machine politician through and through. He was a moderniser, politically, but that's not the same as a technocrat. As for Balfour and Bonar Law, I see little in their histories to suggest that they were particularly technocrats.
Newcastle first in the world???? Electric lighting was well-established in US cities from the 1890s.
The first street to be lit by an incandescent lightbulb was Mosley Street, in Newcastle upon Tyne. The street was lit by Joseph Swan's incandescent lamp on 3 February 1879.[9] Consequently, Newcastle was the first city in the world to be fully lit up by lighting.[10] The first street to be lit with modern electricity as we know it was Electric Avenue in London's Brixton in 1880. The first city in the United States, and second overall after Newcastle (England), was the Public Square road system in Cleveland, Ohio, on April 29, 1879. Wabash, Indiana holds the title of being the third electrically lit city in the world, which took place on February 2, 1880.
Swan truly made a name for himself with electric lighting and, in doing so, achieved a number of 'firsts' for the North East: his house in Low Fell was the first private residence to have electric light when he installed incandescent lamps in his drawing room; Mosley Street in Newcastle was the first public road in the world to be electrically lit (1880); Newcastle became one of the first towns to be so lit; and Benwell was home to the first light bulb factory in the world. Lord Armstrong's Cragside mansion was the first house in the world to be lit by hydroelectricity; in 1880 he installed Swan's light bulbs in what was then the largest and most complete application of Swan's method of lighting.
Well, there was a boom in electric lighting in 1880s but the boom soon collapsed because of lack of organization and protection.Yes. Specifically, in the 1880s. Newcastle was where the incandescent lightbulb was invented.
Since you have been proven wrong, one assumes you will admit this.
Apparently not then.Well, there was a boom in electric lighting in 1880s but the boom soon collapsed because of lack of organization and protection.
http://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwisy7fyqeXQAhXHGJQKHYrPD1AQFggeMAM&url=http://wvvw.thebhc.org/sites/default/files/beh/BEHprint/v022n1/p0318-p0327.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGa_LBrdCqR7GgmrXtvkr73Fw4xaQ&sig2=4f5ZXy3sNqRggttT5lplOQ
The source also said that. Wiki said "fully lit", and the source linked from it specified that Newcastle was the first town to be so lit after mentioning the street separately.Please read the paper
The problem is that he said newcastle was the first to be FULLY lit (not just some parts), which is questionable.
The source also said that. Wiki said "fully lit", and the source linked from it specified that Newcastle was the first town to be so lit after mentioning the street separately.
In any case, the very fact that you were until this point completely unaware that the British were erecting electric lighting in the 1880s shows that your sure assurances of lack of skill or quality are backed not by a full understanding of the sources but an ignorance coupled with a lack of desire to learn. A proper student of history admits fault.
In 1913 Britain had a GDP per capita of 4900 dollars to Germany's 3600, in 1990 USD. Germany only had 70% of the GDP per capita Britain had. I can hardly see that as a decline. Given that only America surpassed Britain in terms of income levels, I don't think that the data supports your thesis that Britain needs to abandon Laissez Faire when by far the two most Laissez Faire countries ended up becoming the wealthiest.
The emergence of electric power and internal combustion engine had relegated the steam powered machinery and vehicles to the low to medium tech productsI completely agree with @RogueTraderEnthusiast here. You might have a point in talking about specifics, but statements like 'low tech craps' don't help the debate.
There are elements of your premise, though, that I don't agree with from a historical perspective.
Britain was quite a heavy investor in electrification in some areas, particularly in street lighting (I'm not sure what point you are making about the link between industrial capacity and street lighting).
British technical education was actually very good, again in some areas. If you are looking the the secondary school system, or places like Eton, for technical education then you are fundamentally misunderstanding how education, industry, and society worked in the period. The majority of engineers, technicians, and other "industrially educated" men in the period were trained at University or in the workplace. Industries like the railways, for example, were world leaders in some aspects of chemical and metalurgical research in Britain between the 1870s and 1940s - taking men trained in sciences at University and drawing them into laboratory culture. Lower level engineers and technicians, everything from locomotive drivers to civil engineers, were trained on the job, to some extent. Secondary education was seen as a place where one learned the theoretical basis (Mathematics, geography, geology etc) but industry itself was where one honed the skills. It was this model that continued to produce highly capable trained populations in the period.
Also, Britain was a country continually exporting high-tech cutting edge material in this period. North British Company, for instance, continued to be world leaders in locomotive export around the world.
As others have pointed out, whilst there is some degree of stagnation in some industries, the relative decline of British industrial power is much more to do with the rise of Germany and USA catching up with the British head-start as the earliest industrial power.
More generally, though, whilst this thread is interesting from a theoretical point of view, I can't see anything here about how these changes might actually be achieved. The political will for reform was there but capitalising on it is a very different thing.
Key example is Protectionist Tariffs and the endless obsession this forum has with an Imperial trade zone.
Free Trade was not just seen, by the 1870s, as fundamental to British economic success but also to British identity. Free Trade was associated, as Frank Trentmann has shown in his recent book https://global.oup.com/academic/product/free-trade-nation-9780199567324?cc=gb&lang=en& as fundamentally allied with Democracy, the Rule of Law, and social freedom. The one time the British were offered an electoral choice regarding Free Trade vs Protectionism, in 1906, Free Trade won in a landslide. Voters were simply not convinced of the merits of protectionism. Neither, really, did the colonies, but that's another story...
Finally, fundamentally, I must disagree with your points about protectionism. What evidence do you have that protectionism would have helped Britain? Senior politicians at the time were worried that the UK instituting an Imperial Trade Zone with tariffs would lead to an arms race of protectionism further harming British trade globally.
LolHow does something like this pass the bar as being even serious?
Its akin to somebody, today, saying that the USA is larger in terms of GDP per capita then China, therefore there has been no decline in US industry relative to the Peoples Republic .
The OP is talking about industry, not a figure which didn't even exist as a concept in the year 1913. Nevermind the fact that you used the year 1990.
He mean that at that time they had no concept about GDP. Actually, they cared more about things like steel output.Lol
If the OP had started a thread asking "how can America avoid its decline relative to China from 95-2015" nobody would suggest that America can somehow increase its GDP 7 times over in 20 years, given that it is already at the top. That wouldn't be remotely feasible. This thread is asking how Britain, at the top, can avoid a relative decline, without screwing up other countries and just focusing on Britain. They can't. They already outperformed their primary competitors in Europe to maintain most of the gap. Germany was not even able to bridge half the gap in in a half a century.
Posting that Britain is behind other Great Powers in some industries, while living in a substantially more complex and diversified global economy, is rather redundant. There is no scenario where Britain, with its 40 million man population, can lead in new manufacturing, old manufacturing, finance, agriculture, science, resource extraction, and so on. A handful of countries are going to surpass Britain in a few of these no matter what. The sheer number of new industries make this inevitable. Britain doesn't have enough labor to avoid this, and if they try to specialize in everything they will just end up poorer on net.
But when we look at this on aggregate, Britain still came out on top in 1914 Europe in per capita income, with Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and Russia not even that close. The average person in Britain had a higher marginal productivity than anywhere else in Europe. They had financial resources that made Argentina and even Japan dependent on them, that made the US favor them, that helped fuel Russia's prewar industrial boom, and had the Ottoman's seek Britain out as an ally before Germany. Finance is ultimately the most important industry for a Super Power.
Those are 1913 figures denominated in 1990 USD.
Lol
If the OP had started a thread asking "how can America avoid its decline relative to China from 95-2015" nobody would suggest that America can somehow increase its GDP 7 times over in 20 years, given that it is already at the top. That wouldn't be remotely feasible. This thread is asking how Britain, at the top, can avoid a relative decline, without screwing up other countries and just focusing on Britain. They can't. They already outperformed their primary competitors in Europe to maintain most of the gap. Germany was not even able to bridge half the gap in in a half a century.
Posting that Britain is behind other Great Powers in some industries, while living in a substantially more complex and diversified global economy, is rather redundant. There is no scenario where Britain, with its 40 million man population, can lead in new manufacturing, old manufacturing, finance, agriculture, science, resource extraction, and so on. A handful of countries are going to surpass Britain in a few of these no matter what. The sheer number of new industries make this inevitable. Britain doesn't have enough labor to avoid this, and if they try to specialize in everything they will just end up poorer on net.
But when we look at this on aggregate, Britain still came out on top in 1914 Europe in per capita income, with Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and Russia not even that close. The average person in Britain had a higher marginal productivity than anywhere else in Europe. They had financial resources that made Argentina and even Japan dependent on them, that made the US favor them, that helped fuel Russia's prewar industrial boom, and had the Ottoman's seek Britain out as an ally before Germany. Finance is ultimately the most important industry for a Super Power.
It doesn't have to increase its GDP 7 times over, but avoid deindustrialization. We are discussing industry, not GDP.
Finance isn't an industry.
Science isn't an industry.
and so on...