Thomas1195
Banned
I mean the German essentially followed Friedrich List's view.And it needs to be pointed out that Germany, regardless of what 'school' of economics was supposedly adopted, represented a replacement of a number of smaller, protected markets with a single, gigantic market when the German Empire replaced the Confederation (and, prior, with the customs unions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List#Stages_of_economic_development
After all, both the Zolverin and later the German Empire were protected from outside by tariffs.
"Had the English left everything to itself—'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends—the [German] merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist. Indeed, it is more than probable that without her [highly protectionist] commercial policy England would never have attained to such a large measure of municipal and individual freedom as she now possesses, for such freedom is the daughter of industry and wealth".
He also made the prime example of England itself, which rose to prominent thanks to protectionist measures. Also, Britain became a leader in cloth industry thanks to protectionism, which allowed them to out-compete Flander and then India. For example, King Edward III restricted cloth import and even banned the export of raw wool to support English cloth makers, and eventually enabled England to move from just a raw wool exporter to become a cloth exporter. Regarding protection against India, the British government introduced Calico Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Acts
Not just high tariffs but also internal improvements (e.g. First Transcontinental Railroad, which was supported by Lincoln government via Pacific Railway Acts), as well as support for expansion of public education.For example, the US did not 'adopt' Hamiltonian economics (quick quiz: Can you describe what Hamiltonian economics actually consisted of? Bet you can't), it had a varying tariff level over the course of the 19th century that doesn't have a clear relationship with growth (read: The US grew blazing fast regardless of where the level of the tariff was).
Oh, and I mean high tariff but not banning trade like the OTL Continental System.
Last edited: