Keith Hudson wrote:
>
> And again, monopolies always fail. The more successful ones are those that
> persuade governments to enact protective legislation. But protectionism
> only works for a while, weakens their main purpose and causes them to lose
> touch with reality and new needs.
Can this statement be called an exaggeration?
England was built upon monopolies.
In 1614 did England forbid export of wool. Wool was the rawmaterial for
the most important industry at that time. And at the same time began
England to turn Ireland into a producer of wool for the English textile
industry. English textile industry did not have to compete with foreign
textile industries about rawmaterials.
In 1650-51 came the English Navigation Act, which eliminated foreign
competition on freights to England.
Foreign trade was driven by monopolies that were protected and enforced
by the navy.
England became the leading trade and industrial nation until it began to
remove the monopolies and protection of its commerce and industries.
In 1849 the Navigation Act was removed, and countries that were
protecting its industries with tax barriers and subsidies, Germany and
U.S.A, took over as leading industrial nations.
F.ex. custums taxes on imports to U.S.A. was in 1897 on average 57%, and
that is very much!
And it was a success in many ways!
American industries could develop without any foreign competiton. And it
did develop without any foreign competition!
--
All the best
Tor Førde
visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/
email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
