Thomas1195
Banned
As previously explained to you (repeatedly), American machine tools were cheap and specialized, ideally suited to the production of munitions, but were generally not used for more complex jobs by the British. Can you please define "automatic" and "semi automatic" and provide a reference for when those were introduced by the American or German industries? Automatic American machine tools would have been truly amazing in 1914, since it appears they only started to be introduced in the 1950s!http://blog.modernmechanix.com/an-automatic-machine-tool/
You are continuing to embarrass yourself. It is clear you do not understand the fundamental principles of either economics or trade. Britain had control of the oceans and therefore unfettered access to global markets. As a proponent of free trade, Britain generally sourced its products from those producers best equipped to supply the required products (i.e. with a competitive advantage). For example, lamb from NZ, wool from Australia, nitrates from Chile or monocles from Germany. The advantage of this approach is the products are cheaper because they produced by suppliers with a competitive advantage. It also means that Britain can focus its resources on production that can maximize its returns.
An obvious contrast is the British and German approach to food supply. The British food production was clearly more efficient than the Germans, but Britain chose to import approximately half its food supply instead of increasing or maintaining domestic food production. Because the colonies can produce food far cheaper than domestic production, price of food is cheaper and the standard of living for the British is higher. Instead of marginal food production (beit more efficient than Germany), the British population can be employed in more productive sectors. In contrast, due to the pressure from the Junkers, German agriculture was heavily protected by tariffs and food exports (specifically sugar) supported by subsidies. This increased the cost of food to Germans and distorted the allocation of resources, which could have been better used in sectors other than German agriculture. Or alternatively, German agriculture could have been forced to be more competitive.
I think you may have confused/conflated threads with the [redundant] Britain not going bankrupt thread...
Well, the economic principle of free trade had strangled British electrical equipment in particular and most new industries in its infancy, and thus it could not grow to a competitive scale. Worse, all of them turned out to be strategic industries in both world wars, such as optical industry providing binoculars, range-finders or scopes to the military; or electrical and electronic industry providing communication equipment like radio, telephone...; or electric motors used to generate electricity, which in turn is used for running munition factories.
This theory do not apply to infant industries (of course the barrier should be lifted when the industries grew to an adequate scale), as well as developing countries (of course the latter case does not apply to Britain). Britain would have established a dominance in synthetic dye without much difficulty if it was protected. For new industries, competitive advantage comes from learning and developing. Next, it is never desirable to specialize in low tech, low value industries and let your competitors produce new, high tech, high value products. Your overall term of trade and competitiveness would eventually deteriorate, leading to large trade deficit. For example, an electric powered machine would generate more revenue than a steam powered one, and worse, technological changes means that steam powered machinery would be phased out. Besides, your specialized industries (for example textile) would also be eventually outcompeted if your competitors begin to use the technology provided by the new industries (like using Northrop looms).
For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale (wiki, criticism of ricardian theory). None of the major industrial nations developed their economy using free trade policy.
Finally, specialization could face risk when wars break out. Like IOTL, supply of many crucial products from Germany to UK was cut off, and vice versa. Germany was not in a position to outsource its food sector. If they did like the UK, they could never hold on to 1918.
The American and German industries only caught up to Britain in value terms around 1900. It would seem wasteful for the British to by shiny new machinery, if the existing kit is doing the job. An engineering colleague refers to this as 'sweating the assets' - extracting the maximum possible use out of an asset before replacing it. It obviously becomes a balancing act, as newer tech becomes more efficient and older kit breaks down more.
It is a testament to the resilience of the British industry that it continued to compete effectively for so long using old kit and without resorting to trade barriers.
Finally you basically say it is good for a country to not modernize its factories and industrial base to improve productivity and competitiveness until it's too late. Imagine that Britain could fight WW2 without lend-lease.
American firms were willing to scrap old machines even before their useful life ends and retool with better ones.
Last edited: