AHC/WI: Delay/ slow down British economic decline post 1870

[Thomas1195]

What should have been done to prevent or at least, slow down British relative economic decline after 1870?

We know that IOTL British industry began to lag behind its competitors since 1880s and by 1913 it was seriously backward compared to Germany and the US. Its electrical, chemical and machinery industries were completely outclassed by American and German firms.

Well, I am thinking of several solutions:
- First, IOTL, following the Long Depression in late 19th century, every country other than Britain imposed tariff and subsidized their domestic industries. Britain must do the same, but only with industrial goods. Protectionism would encourage new, infant industries to grow.

- Next, following the development of electricity, British government must intervene to develop its own electricity supply industry by subsidizing it so that it could survive against the gas industry. The government must also intervene so that large scale centralized power stations, not small ones, are built. They can also help develop widespread urban electric street lighting to boost the domestic industry. The development of electric lighting and electricity supply would create demand for electrical equipment firms like Crompton or Mather and Platt (IOTL, these firms could not grow because they were outcompeted by Siemans and GE, and domestic market was insufficient for them, especially in 1890s). Supporting these electrical firms to make it larger, and even use export subsidies to attack US and COntinental market.

- Subsidizing and protecting domestic synthetic dye firms from the 1870s to create global monopoly in this sector.

- Improve technical education. IOTL, British education sucked compared with Germany and the US.

- No Red Flag Act, or abolish it as soon as possible following the invention ofinternal combustion engine. IOTL this deleyed the development of British car industry for at least a decade.

- Subsidizing/ encouraging the retooling and factory electrification of manufacturers, especially the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries. The Royal Naval Dockyards must be reequipped with newest tech like pneumatic tooling and electrical machinery. The Enfield Armoury must be fully mechanized. These things would help create demand for machinery industry, help them develop.

- Have a patent system that require foreigners to exercise their patents in Britain if they apply there.

- Finally, this is a key to make all the above solutions available: somehow get rid of the fanatical laissez faire ideology of Gladstone and Co, it was no longer suitable post 1870.

A question now is that how would this impact the 20th century, especially the First World War? Maybe a stronger Britain could deter Germany. Or maybe a world war with lower costs and greater success for Britain.

 

[Moglwi]

perhaps make the public schools like eton provide an education for the mangmant of big business also the Universitys offer that sort of education

 

[Saphroneth]

This seems like you're once again creating a thread specifically to bash the British.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The simplest solution in my mind is to bring the idea of Imperial Preference forward to the 1870s (based on your assertions).

I'd also pair it with never repealing income tax after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. If that tax revenue can then be put to use on modernising the economy (for example, updating the rail lines) then great.

After that, you really need someone to work on reforming the Empire from inside out. Make it so that developing a vigorous economy throughout the Empire is the goal - rather than treating colonies as resource extractors. After all, the UK is already on the Gold Standard at this point - notes and tracking of them is as good a form of taxation as anything else the UK could hope for.

Create vibrant colonial economies that are paying taxes to the central coffers can help the UK keep itself modern and re-engineer itself to be more than the Workshop of Europe. Subsidising technology and expansive (for the time) scholarship programs would be the order of the day - making Britain the intellectual heart of a economically robust Empire.

My last concern is monetary policy. I say this now, and I'll say it again, an Empire the size of Britains that wants to be economically robust rather than spin around Britain needs to create regional currencies that are backed against the Pound. The Indian Pound at one point could be 3 to the Pound, the South African Pound can be 4 to the Pound. With Gold backing the Pound Sterling, and the Sterling forming a "Sterling Standard" in the Empire, there is a level of flexibility there.

But then again, this needs someone who is a massive economic reformer to take charge. One who is willing to grant economic liberties to regional governance.

 

[Thomas1195]

This seems like you're once again creating a thread specifically to bash the British.

I am just telling the facts, sorry you. The solutions above were the ones that UK should have done

 

[Thomas1195]

The simplest solution in my mind is to bring the idea of Imperial Preference forward to the 1870s (based on your assertions).

I'd also pair it with never repealing income tax after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. If that tax revenue can then be put to use on modernising the economy (for example, updating the rail lines) then great.

After that, you really need someone to work on reforming the Empire from inside out. Make it so that developing a vigorous economy throughout the Empire is the goal - rather than treating colonies as resource extractors. After all, the UK is already on the Gold Standard at this point - notes and tracking of them is as good a form of taxation as anything else the UK could hope for.

Create vibrant colonial economies that are paying taxes to the central coffers can help the UK keep itself modern and re-engineer itself to be more than the Workshop of Europe. Subsidising technology and expansive (for the time) scholarship programs would be the order of the day - making Britain the intellectual heart of a economically robust Empire.

My last concern is monetary policy. I say this now, and I'll say it again, an Empire the size of Britains that wants to be economically robust rather than spin around Britain needs to create regional currencies that are backed against the Pound. The Indian Pound at one point could be 3 to the Pound, the South African Pound can be 4 to the Pound. With Gold backing the Pound Sterling, and the Sterling forming a "Sterling Standard" in the Empire, there is a level of flexibility there.

But then again, this needs someone who is a massive economic reformer to take charge. One who is willing to grant economic liberties to regional governance.

We should begin with white dominions first, regarding the monetary policy.

Yeah, reintroduce income tax, as well as imposing land tax and tariffs (which would be specifically higher for American and German goods) would generate lots of revenues.

 

[Faeelin]

Revenues leads to development how?

 

[Thomas1195]

Revenues leads to development how?

Developing large scale centralized electricity supply stations. No way private investors in UK can fund this. They were no JP Morgan.

Funding widespread electric street lighting

Subsidize new industries. Maybe developing their synthetic dye industry into a global one. Even funding export subsidies to kill German export industries.

Funding technical education.

 

[Saphroneth]

I am just telling the facts, sorry you.

Then you should probably provide some pretty impressive citations for these:

We know that IOTL British industry began to lag behind its competitors since 1880s and by 1913 it was seriously backward compared to Germany and the US. Its electrical, chemical and machinery industries were completely outclassed by American and German firms.

IOTL, British education sucked compared with Germany and the US.

IOTL this deleyed the development of British car industry for at least a decade.

 

[Thomas1195]

Then you should probably provide some pretty impressive citations for these:

Red Flag Act:
https://books.google.com.vn/books?i... red flag act on british car industry&f=false

For education, you could find the quote of Arthur Balfour relating to the 1902 Education Act

There are dozens of studies on the decline of British industry, you could Google.

 

[Saphroneth]

Red Flag Act:
https://books.google.com.vn/books?i... red flag act on british car industry&f=false

That doesn't seem to say that there was at least a decade lost - your words, after all.

There are dozens of studies on the decline of British industry, you could Google.

I'm sure there are, but I'm asking why you describe it as seriously backward and completely outclassed when it turned out to be able to outmatch the countries you cite as having outclassed it. (For example, the German chemical industry was slower at coming up with poison gases than the British one - by the end of WW1 the British were manufacturing each new gas, waiting for the Germans to use it, protesting about this barbarism and then promptly using it themselves.)

 

[Thomas1195]

That doesn't seem to say that there was at least a decade lost

Sorry, the first car in the world was produced in 1886.

 

[Saphroneth]

Sorry, the first car in the world was produced in 1886.

And?
That the British had a car production plant first set up a decade after the world's first car does not mean that they had to start from square one - they could use much of the technical innovation that had taken place (indeed your source notes that the British engineers who started in the 1890s were some of the first to design cars as cars rather than as carriages with engines).

It's like how the first Japanese-built steam warship was the Chiyodagata built in 1861-3 - they got started over three decades later than the first steam warship to fight a military action in our world (the Greek paddle steamer the Karteria of the 1820s) but that doesn't mean that they took until 1880 to build their own screw ships or that they couldn't build pre-dreadnoughts until 1915. Catching up is always easier than being first - indeed British Admiralty policy was for a long time to let other people introduce inventions, then copy them. (that way they delayed the time they had to build new ships, without any major military repercussions.)

 

[Thomas1195]

I'm sure there are, but I'm asking why you describe it as seriously backward and completely outclassed when it turned out to be able to outmatch the countries you cite as having outclassed it. (For example, the German chemical industry was slower at coming up with poison gases than the British one - by the end of WW1 the British were manufacturing each new gas, waiting for the Germans to use it, protesting about this barbarism and then promptly using it themselves.)

There is a source mention the pharmaceutical industry, where Britain had to import more advanced drugs from Germany.

For electrical industry, Siemens and GE, not some British firms dominated the global market and became household names.

Regarding the machinery industry, the US achieved complete technological leadership, they pioneered semi automatic (and eventually automatic) machine tool, as well as some other types of machine like McCormick reaper, typewriter, or cash register. You could do some research about the American flooding of machinery in British market in late 1890s.

 

[Thomas1195]

And?
That the British had a car production plant first set up a decade after the world's first car does not mean that they had to start from square one - they could use much of the technical innovation that had taken place (indeed your source notes that the British engineers who started in the 1890s were some of the first to design cars as cars rather than as carriages with engines).

It's like how the first Japanese-built steam warship was the Chiyodagata built in 1861-3 - they got started over three decades later than the first steam warship to fight a military action in our world (the Greek paddle steamer the Karteria of the 1820s) but that doesn't mean that they took until 1880 to build their own screw ships or that they couldn't build pre-dreadnoughts until 1915. Catching up is always easier than being first - indeed British Admiralty policy was for a long time to let other people introduce inventions, then copy them. (that way they delayed the time they had to build new ships, without any major military repercussions.)

Well, in motor car, it was too late for Britaim as US and France had built a too estabished position in global market. In commercial aspect, you would not want to waste 10 years.

 

[Saphroneth]

There is a source mention the pharmaceutical industry, where Britain had to import more advanced drugs from Germany.

Again, so? Autarky sounds nice but is inefficient - your view is somewhat mercantilist.

For electrical industry, Siemens and GE, not some British firms dominated the global market and became household names.

The General Electric Company suggests that it wasn't exclusively non-British firms that did well.

Regarding the machinery industry, the US achieved complete technological leadership, they pioneered semi automatic (and eventually automatic) machine tool, as well as some other types of machine like McCormick reaper, typewriter, or cash register. You could do some research about the American flooding of machinery in British market in late 1890s.

Again - if everyone needed to produce everything to be considered a credible country then the world would be a far less productive place.

Well, in motor car, it was too late for Britaim as US and France had built a too estabished position in global market. In commercial aspect, you would not want to waste 10 years.

Daimler, Leyland, Vauxhall, Rolls-Royce, Armstrong-Whitworth, Austin, Singer and Rover had all gotten started by 1910. They seem to have done well for themselves.
Some of them also made very significant innovations - Daimler developed the Knight Engine into a commercial success, the Vauxhall cars in 1908 were hilariously better at trials than anyone else, the Silver Ghost from Rolls was considered to be the best car in the world and Singer invented the economy car.

 

[Thomas1195]

Again, so? Autarky sounds nice but is inefficient - your view is somewhat mercantilist.

Well, in the case I mentioned, it is quite similar to exporting crude oil and importing refined fuel.

 

[Saphroneth]

Well, in the case I mentioned, it is quite similar to exporting crude oil and importing refined fuel.

If it's cheaper to do that, then why not?

 

[Thomas1195]

The General Electric Company suggests that it wasn't exclusively non-British firms that did well.
.

the subsidiaries of GE, Westinghouse and Siemens held two third of British market by 1913. So General Electric Company who???

Besides, what did the British GEC invent? The big three I mentioned and their related individuals invented most of the fundamental inventions in this field.

 

[Saphroneth]

Besides, what did the British GEC invent?

In 1889, the business was incorporated as a private company known as General Electric Company Ltd.[4] The company was expanding rapidly, opening new branches and factories and trading in 'everything electrical', a phrase that was to become synonymous with GEC.

In 1893, it decided to invest in the manufacture of lamps. The resulting company, (to become Osram in 1909), was to lead the way in lamp design, and the burgeoning demand for electric lighting was to make GEC's fortune.