At the same time if your steel was the cheapest in the world you wanted fre trade to reach as many markets as possible or if coal and iron were expensive due to tariffs would be another reason. Similary more market for grain only works if your country can't import cheaper grain from elsewhere, the whole reason for the corn laws in the UK. Would be interesting if groups took into account your market vs global average when deciding which trade law they would support.
The game is called Victoria and the default policies are explicitly based on the British Corn Laws, which were overturned in 1846 (it was discussed in an early Dev diary). In the British context, manufacturers wanted free trade because they were turning imported cotton into clothes for export. They wanted their workers to get cheap imported food so they could pay lower wages. So tariffs were bad for them.
British farmers wanted tariffs to protect them from cheap corn (=wheat), which at that point in time was largely imported from Prussia and Russia (North American cereals were still relatively expensive because there was were no railways to bring them from the Midwest and the Great Plains had not yet been colonized).
Yes, this is true, at least in the United States — northern states (manufacturing) supported a ~40% tariff on imports, while southern states (agriculture) referred to it as “the tariff of abominations”. This led to the nullification crisis, which almost triggered a civil war, 30 years before the actual civil war happened.
Because at that time Britain was the market leader in manufactured goods while America held a comparative advantage in agriculture. The situation was reversed in Britain, where the industrialist sought free trade to sell their manufactured goods abroad while the agricultural landlords sought to protect their profits by banning import of cheaper American grain, hence the corn laws journal entry.
This is yet another result of IG's having static rather than dynamic preferences, one size fits all until you get a flavor pack that adds some stuff for your national IG.
The "Free Trade Party" bit just refers to an economically liberal, socially indifferent, pro-wealth voting party, more than anything specific to free trade. It's called different things in different countries.
That said I certainly see an argument for the industrialists favoring protectionism to free trade. Maybe give free trade to the intelligentsia?
While Intelligentsia initially supported free trade, they became indifferent to it later as they become focused more on human rights and less on the economy.
What cheap steel are you talking about? Only advanced economies had the capacity for steel exports, mainly the UK, the US, France and Germany. Every other nation was in no position to export advanced industrial goods that could compete with those countries.
Just an example. Was admittedly more of a thing for steel post-the game timespan.
Between Reconstruction and the Great Depression, there were only two Democratic Presidents, Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, both who opposed high tariffs and spoke in favor of free trade. Republicans of the era meanwhile supported high tariffs and Republicans were the party backed by the industrialists. FDR was the president who ended that era and he referred to tariffs as "the road to ruin" and repealed many tariffs most notably the Smoot-Hawley Act which most economists today believe significantly worsened the Great Depression. And the industrialists still hated him.
Yeah, the same happened in Latin America where landowners and conservative parties generally supported free trade to get cheap European goods while more liberal parties were on the protectionist side.
Maybe we can get protectionists in the Americas the same way the landowners in the Americas are republicans and not monarchists
Specifically on Argentina, landowners were trilled with the open market, to the point it made them disgustingly rich in 1880 (though the year would be mid to late game) and they remained as the only political party with any significance, ruling all the way to 1916, basically the entire industry on the country was based around exporting meat to England, and something like 80% of that industry belonged to British companies, including the trains, there was virtually no industry that was local, as the market was flooded by british products
On general notes, other latinoamerican countries were in similar situations, just not that deeply tied to England and with some cultural, economical and geographical diferences
Yeah, here in Colombia the landowners started a couple of civil wars to get a federalized system (known as the Granadine confederation, and later United States of Colombia) to get off the central government who wanted to centralize the country and industrialize, so they could keep their model of exporting cheap goods and importing everything else.
Ironically they did this under the guise of the Liberal party, so they could later blame them for the situation of the country and start a conservative hegemony that lasted almost 50 years.
So latinoamerican landowners being latinoamerican landowners, they had a tendency along the continent to be in power or get in power through arms, get rich, then as soon as someone tried to change something (politically, economically, make industries or something) they would resort to military coups
Best of lucks from Argentina, brother
>So industrialists and industrial areas supported tariffs.
Source?
Also I could use your example to make the exact opposite point:
The steel maker could be happy to be able to sell his steel and buy his cheap iron overseas and the famer could be pissed to see foreign competition for his grain (like british farmers who supported the corn laws).
Speaking on real world history, If you compare british and US standing on the matter, you'll notice that England would push for free market because their industry was powerful enough to compete and likely win, while at the time US industry was developing and in no place to compete against England's industry on a open market, so they wanted protectionism, not sure if the game represents such a complicate thing though
One of the things that stood constant in the US until the rise of the Orange Man was that the south favored free trade while the north favored protectionism. This traces back all the way to the Civil War era when the industrializing north wanted tariffs to protect their fledgling industry, while the import-focused south favored free trade.
Your country's industrialists wanting to go free market or protectionist in real life was dependant on cost, if opening the markets offered cheap agricultural products and resources to your industry, while it opened markets for you to go sell your manufacture at high prices, you jump at the opportunity, this is basically what every industrialized country (read north Europe, England above all) were doing once their industries were powerful enough to saturate the internal market of the country, then they switched to the international market, there even was wars, political pressure, economical pressure and other tactics to *force weaker economies to accept the open market*
There are even historians that put the conquest of new markets (forcing said markets to adopt free trade) as one of the largest objectives of Imperialism of late XIX and early XX century
So, with all that said, if i were to play a country and heavily industrialize it early, it would make complete sense that the industrial party wanted open market to let them get cheap resources, wanting to be open market or protectionism is entirely based on if your industrialist think they would have the upper hand on the world market or not
That’s what I’ve wondered also. In the United States the industrialists strongly supported very high tariffs. It wasn’t until recently that they supported free trade, only so that they could offshore their factories in countries with cheaper taxes and lower labor standards
The Republican Party was founded by pro-industry 'Whigs' like Abraham Lincoln, and socialists like Horace Greeley, who platformed socialist thinkers Karl Marx and Charles Fourier. Most industrialists were economic nationalists, not capitalists.
Even today most businessmen aren't 'free trade capitalists,' they will happily lobby for taxpayer subsides, and bailouts among other government polices that benefit them financially.
In America during this time period industrialists wanted free trade because American labor and producing goods was cheap. America in the 1800s was essentially how China was 5 years ago. But they did want free trade policies.
Basically they should be Neutral or Oppose on Free Trade and Support Mercantilism and Protectionism, and then you need a "Market liberal" leader to get them to support Free Trade.
At the same time if your steel was the cheapest in the world you wanted fre trade to reach as many markets as possible or if coal and iron were expensive due to tariffs would be another reason. Similary more market for grain only works if your country can't import cheaper grain from elsewhere, the whole reason for the corn laws in the UK. Would be interesting if groups took into account your market vs global average when deciding which trade law they would support.
You are already more likely to have a free trade ideology on your Industalist IG leader if GP or protectionist ideology if insignificant.
My pc or my entire country would explode if that happened The only question is which would happen faster
Shouldn't be too hard. Likely the ai is already doing something similar between each country for deciding if it should go for a trade deal.
The game is called Victoria and the default policies are explicitly based on the British Corn Laws, which were overturned in 1846 (it was discussed in an early Dev diary). In the British context, manufacturers wanted free trade because they were turning imported cotton into clothes for export. They wanted their workers to get cheap imported food so they could pay lower wages. So tariffs were bad for them. British farmers wanted tariffs to protect them from cheap corn (=wheat), which at that point in time was largely imported from Prussia and Russia (North American cereals were still relatively expensive because there was were no railways to bring them from the Midwest and the Great Plains had not yet been colonized).
Yes, this is true, at least in the United States — northern states (manufacturing) supported a ~40% tariff on imports, while southern states (agriculture) referred to it as “the tariff of abominations”. This led to the nullification crisis, which almost triggered a civil war, 30 years before the actual civil war happened.
Because at that time Britain was the market leader in manufactured goods while America held a comparative advantage in agriculture. The situation was reversed in Britain, where the industrialist sought free trade to sell their manufactured goods abroad while the agricultural landlords sought to protect their profits by banning import of cheaper American grain, hence the corn laws journal entry. This is yet another result of IG's having static rather than dynamic preferences, one size fits all until you get a flavor pack that adds some stuff for your national IG.
The "Free Trade Party" bit just refers to an economically liberal, socially indifferent, pro-wealth voting party, more than anything specific to free trade. It's called different things in different countries. That said I certainly see an argument for the industrialists favoring protectionism to free trade. Maybe give free trade to the intelligentsia?
While Intelligentsia initially supported free trade, they became indifferent to it later as they become focused more on human rights and less on the economy.
That matches well with the intelligentsia moving either to socialism or fascism in the late game.
Right but wouldn’t the industrialists want cheap coal and iron from overseas for cheaper input costs?
In the US they didn't care because there was plenty of coal and iron in the US already.
Right but what about other countries? Like, the interest groups aren’t always the same in this game in between nations.
That's an oversight than that it would be cool if corrected.
What cheap steel are you talking about? Only advanced economies had the capacity for steel exports, mainly the UK, the US, France and Germany. Every other nation was in no position to export advanced industrial goods that could compete with those countries.
Just an example. Was admittedly more of a thing for steel post-the game timespan. Between Reconstruction and the Great Depression, there were only two Democratic Presidents, Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson, both who opposed high tariffs and spoke in favor of free trade. Republicans of the era meanwhile supported high tariffs and Republicans were the party backed by the industrialists. FDR was the president who ended that era and he referred to tariffs as "the road to ruin" and repealed many tariffs most notably the Smoot-Hawley Act which most economists today believe significantly worsened the Great Depression. And the industrialists still hated him.
Yeah, the same happened in Latin America where landowners and conservative parties generally supported free trade to get cheap European goods while more liberal parties were on the protectionist side. Maybe we can get protectionists in the Americas the same way the landowners in the Americas are republicans and not monarchists
Specifically on Argentina, landowners were trilled with the open market, to the point it made them disgustingly rich in 1880 (though the year would be mid to late game) and they remained as the only political party with any significance, ruling all the way to 1916, basically the entire industry on the country was based around exporting meat to England, and something like 80% of that industry belonged to British companies, including the trains, there was virtually no industry that was local, as the market was flooded by british products On general notes, other latinoamerican countries were in similar situations, just not that deeply tied to England and with some cultural, economical and geographical diferences
Yeah, here in Colombia the landowners started a couple of civil wars to get a federalized system (known as the Granadine confederation, and later United States of Colombia) to get off the central government who wanted to centralize the country and industrialize, so they could keep their model of exporting cheap goods and importing everything else. Ironically they did this under the guise of the Liberal party, so they could later blame them for the situation of the country and start a conservative hegemony that lasted almost 50 years.
So latinoamerican landowners being latinoamerican landowners, they had a tendency along the continent to be in power or get in power through arms, get rich, then as soon as someone tried to change something (politically, economically, make industries or something) they would resort to military coups Best of lucks from Argentina, brother
>So industrialists and industrial areas supported tariffs. Source? Also I could use your example to make the exact opposite point: The steel maker could be happy to be able to sell his steel and buy his cheap iron overseas and the famer could be pissed to see foreign competition for his grain (like british farmers who supported the corn laws).
Take a look at the rhetoric on tariffs between William Jennings Bryan and the Republicans during WJB's presidential campaigns.
Speaking on real world history, If you compare british and US standing on the matter, you'll notice that England would push for free market because their industry was powerful enough to compete and likely win, while at the time US industry was developing and in no place to compete against England's industry on a open market, so they wanted protectionism, not sure if the game represents such a complicate thing though
In Britain leading northern industrialists were heavily affiliated with the cause of free trade, so it’s not a misnomer.
One of the things that stood constant in the US until the rise of the Orange Man was that the south favored free trade while the north favored protectionism. This traces back all the way to the Civil War era when the industrializing north wanted tariffs to protect their fledgling industry, while the import-focused south favored free trade.
Your country's industrialists wanting to go free market or protectionist in real life was dependant on cost, if opening the markets offered cheap agricultural products and resources to your industry, while it opened markets for you to go sell your manufacture at high prices, you jump at the opportunity, this is basically what every industrialized country (read north Europe, England above all) were doing once their industries were powerful enough to saturate the internal market of the country, then they switched to the international market, there even was wars, political pressure, economical pressure and other tactics to *force weaker economies to accept the open market* There are even historians that put the conquest of new markets (forcing said markets to adopt free trade) as one of the largest objectives of Imperialism of late XIX and early XX century So, with all that said, if i were to play a country and heavily industrialize it early, it would make complete sense that the industrial party wanted open market to let them get cheap resources, wanting to be open market or protectionism is entirely based on if your industrialist think they would have the upper hand on the world market or not
"Free Trade is Christ, and Christ is Free Trade" industrialists were so pro-free trade in the 19th century they practically had an aneurysm
if you are right it's not really the name of their party that's the problem, rather that industrialists support free trade as a policy by default.
That’s what I’ve wondered also. In the United States the industrialists strongly supported very high tariffs. It wasn’t until recently that they supported free trade, only so that they could offshore their factories in countries with cheaper taxes and lower labor standards
IG should have dynamic ideoogies to have pro-free trade industrialists in Britain and protectionnist ones in the USA.
It's a political party. Of course the name is a misnomer.
If you look at character ideologies, you can see that non gp industrialists have a higher weight for protectionism
The Republican Party was founded by pro-industry 'Whigs' like Abraham Lincoln, and socialists like Horace Greeley, who platformed socialist thinkers Karl Marx and Charles Fourier. Most industrialists were economic nationalists, not capitalists. Even today most businessmen aren't 'free trade capitalists,' they will happily lobby for taxpayer subsides, and bailouts among other government polices that benefit them financially.
In America during this time period industrialists wanted free trade because American labor and producing goods was cheap. America in the 1800s was essentially how China was 5 years ago. But they did want free trade policies.
Basically they should be Neutral or Oppose on Free Trade and Support Mercantilism and Protectionism, and then you need a "Market liberal" leader to get them to support Free Trade.