While I am supportive of this argument I find the argument implausible that Ford had high wages so his workers could buy his cars. Surely the number of his employees is insignificant relative to the number cars sold.
Seems more plausible that he offered high wages to attract high quality workers and thus reap productivity gains.
Ford had his issues but was something of a different type when it came to business and wages. If you check the footnoted page, there was a program set up at Ford for the workers to be able to buy his cars, which he wanted them to be able to do.
Yes, he wanted good workers and paid a premium for it. But he also did seem to care about them and want them to succeed, so long as they followed his morality rules
Thanks great analysis. I studied international political economy at LSE which was as you’d expect very pro free trade. Also came of age as Australia liberalised its economy in the 80s, including abolishing high tariffs, which made it a lot richer. But what we are seeing now is a huge gulf between asset owning aussies and just wage earners, which is causing lot of tension just as in McKinley’s America. Same in U.K. So i’m weighing all this up in my mind now. Bigger question maybe you can write about: was Ricardo wrong?
Well part of the problem for, say, Australia is that it's not really an autarkic nation. Unlike America, which (from my understanding, I could of course be wrong) has much more industry and produces nearly all of what it needs and wants, or at least did so in McKinley's day, Australia is largely a mineral extractor with a successful agricultural sector. In such a case it makes sense to try to stimulate more trade, because exports are your lifeblood.
No you're right Aust is long way from self-sufficient and doesn't have massive population like US to reduce costs of goods. So trade is crucial, particularly these days with China. Doubt there will be big Trump tariffs on it as the US has a trade surplus with Australia.
Great thread on Britain and free trade, I didn't realize that it had the effects you talk about
No it didn't. The McKinley tariffs were extremely unpopular, cost the Republicans control of congress and then the presidency, at which point they were repealed.
This is incorrect. They were not repealed, they were slightly adjusted and generally remained in effect, and then were re-raised within five months of McKinley's Inauguration
While I am supportive of this argument I find the argument implausible that Ford had high wages so his workers could buy his cars. Surely the number of his employees is insignificant relative to the number cars sold.
Seems more plausible that he offered high wages to attract high quality workers and thus reap productivity gains.
I look forward to the rest of the series.
Ford had his issues but was something of a different type when it came to business and wages. If you check the footnoted page, there was a program set up at Ford for the workers to be able to buy his cars, which he wanted them to be able to do.
Yes, he wanted good workers and paid a premium for it. But he also did seem to care about them and want them to succeed, so long as they followed his morality rules
No doubt he wanted his workers to buy the cars. I just don’t think it was the primary reason for high wages. But a small point overall.
Ah, understood.
Thanks for delving into this topic. Excited to read the series. Historical fact to refute midwits
Indeed. They love chanting their pro-free trade slogans despite having no understanding of history. Hope you end up liking the series
Thank you for the generous shout out!
This post is a wonderful reservoir of information on all things McKinley as well as helpfully connecting his situation to ours.
We are going to do another McKinley conversation soon with an additional guest; I'll happily put a link to this post when we do.
Wonderful, looking forward to it!
Thanks great analysis. I studied international political economy at LSE which was as you’d expect very pro free trade. Also came of age as Australia liberalised its economy in the 80s, including abolishing high tariffs, which made it a lot richer. But what we are seeing now is a huge gulf between asset owning aussies and just wage earners, which is causing lot of tension just as in McKinley’s America. Same in U.K. So i’m weighing all this up in my mind now. Bigger question maybe you can write about: was Ricardo wrong?
Well part of the problem for, say, Australia is that it's not really an autarkic nation. Unlike America, which (from my understanding, I could of course be wrong) has much more industry and produces nearly all of what it needs and wants, or at least did so in McKinley's day, Australia is largely a mineral extractor with a successful agricultural sector. In such a case it makes sense to try to stimulate more trade, because exports are your lifeblood.
England is more like America; free trade very much harmed it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I wrote my thoughts on that here, if you're interested: https://x.com/Will_Tanner_1/status/1886500060583628910
No you're right Aust is long way from self-sufficient and doesn't have massive population like US to reduce costs of goods. So trade is crucial, particularly these days with China. Doubt there will be big Trump tariffs on it as the US has a trade surplus with Australia.
Great thread on Britain and free trade, I didn't realize that it had the effects you talk about
Thank you! Glad you found it interesting and helpful
No it didn't. The McKinley tariffs were extremely unpopular, cost the Republicans control of congress and then the presidency, at which point they were repealed.
This is incorrect. They were not repealed, they were slightly adjusted and generally remained in effect, and then were re-raised within five months of McKinley's Inauguration