Look at the Corn Laws to see how an interest group can promote themselves at the expense of other groups through restraint of international trade.
- 6
- 1
Can we protect our own economy through tariffs ?
- Thread starter Ruck
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Are we getting to the point of asking for a feature beyond the capacity of the AI?
Tariffs not only played a large role in the economic policy of industrializing european countries (aside from Britain itself), but for many nations, especially export-oriented latin american nations, tariffs were often the single most important source of government revenue. I hope they get implemented smartly.
- 6
- 3
Being able to impose tarrrifs by good and country is one of the most critical elements
super important for the period and a must have feature
what fun is cornering the market on a scarce commodity if any sob can buy it
super important for the period and a must have feature
what fun is cornering the market on a scarce commodity if any sob can buy it
- 2
- 2
That’s always the risk, granted I’m okay with a feature that is mostly geared towards the player, as long as it doesn’t completely bone the AI. So maybe the AI wouldn’t be able to fine tune them the way we would, but that probably wouldn’t be crippling to them if they just left it alone vs doing all kinds of wonky crap.
Frankly I wouldn’t be upset if tariffs didn’t make it into the game since as a player, you can generally accomplish the same sorts of outcomes via manual tools in the game without having to try and accomplish it all organically.
Absolutely general and specific import/export tariffs as well as full import export bans, embargoes, blockades, stockpiling these must be one of the fundamentals of CK3.
- 1
Tariffs were vital to the US economic expansion after the Civil War, without them the US would have been flooded with cheaper British goods during the second half of the 19th Century and American factories would not have survived. From 1865 to 1914 the average tariff rate was over 40%. As much as the USA champions free trade, that only started after WWI when the USA had become the world's biggest economy.
en.wikipedia.org
Tariff in United States history - Wikipedia
- 5
- 1
- 1
If the Vickyeconomy works as the real world economy works (and it should be) , tariffs may "protect" your economy if and only if you have
Does it works?
Well, it works exactly under those two assumption: my internal market is growing (for whatever reason, demographical expansion, or I'm building ifrastructure, or I'm improving the live standards... ) or I am "acquiring" new captive market.
How can be easily noted , that "acquiring" pairs with "imperialism" , which was exactly what happened , up to the WW1, in the world.
- an internal market which can support your production
- and/or a similarly "captive" market that can accomplish the same task.
Does it works?
Well, it works exactly under those two assumption: my internal market is growing (for whatever reason, demographical expansion, or I'm building ifrastructure, or I'm improving the live standards... ) or I am "acquiring" new captive market.
How can be easily noted , that "acquiring" pairs with "imperialism" , which was exactly what happened , up to the WW1, in the world.
- 1
Reviving this thread with a question: do we have a sense of how national policies (like the isolationism, free trade, agrarianism, etc.) will interact with the wider, multi-nation markets features? Since the markets are essentially free-trade regions (like the Zollverein, Commonwealth, etc.), does the national policy of the leading nation determine the trade policies of all the nations? Or can a nation within a market apply their own national policy? And how would that interact with the market to which they belong?
I'm thinking if you're a small-medium power like Bavaria, you're probably benefiting from trade within Germany, but can you use tariffs (or any of the mechanics we've already seen) to put up barriers within that trade bloc that would benefit you even more? If not, do those countries even have trade policies of their own? It might get awfully hard to manage angry POPs if you literally can't do anything trade-wise to influence their economic grievances. If so, doesn't that degrade the purpose and use of the market mechanic?
I'm thinking if you're a small-medium power like Bavaria, you're probably benefiting from trade within Germany, but can you use tariffs (or any of the mechanics we've already seen) to put up barriers within that trade bloc that would benefit you even more? If not, do those countries even have trade policies of their own? It might get awfully hard to manage angry POPs if you literally can't do anything trade-wise to influence their economic grievances. If so, doesn't that degrade the purpose and use of the market mechanic?
I don't know if being in an economical sphere ( Zollverein in your example) put a limit to the tariff you may set on the trade flowing from the other shered-country (probably yes) but allows you to put high tariff from the same goods when flowing from the outside.
Anyway all the tariff question has a lot of other "interesting" effects (where "interesting" is the same of the phrase "may you live in interesting times"! )
You produce grain. But not so much and not efficiently , so the prices are high.
Anyway a large part of you POPs are in the agricultural sector
You may buy grain from outside at lower price. (e.g. from USA)
What you have to do?
Raise tariffs , so the US grain has an higher price , similar to the other , and your mostly of POPs cannot afford it ( => low live standard, starvation, revolts.. )
Keep tariffs low, so in general your POP can buy US grains , but all your farmers goes to bankruptcy because nobody buys what they produce ? ( => low live standard, starvation, revolts.. )
(see "agrarian crisis of 1873" for details )
Anyway all the tariff question has a lot of other "interesting" effects (where "interesting" is the same of the phrase "may you live in interesting times"! )
You produce grain. But not so much and not efficiently , so the prices are high.
Anyway a large part of you POPs are in the agricultural sector
You may buy grain from outside at lower price. (e.g. from USA)
What you have to do?
Raise tariffs , so the US grain has an higher price , similar to the other , and your mostly of POPs cannot afford it ( => low live standard, starvation, revolts.. )
Keep tariffs low, so in general your POP can buy US grains , but all your farmers goes to bankruptcy because nobody buys what they produce ? ( => low live standard, starvation, revolts.. )
(see "agrarian crisis of 1873" for details
)- 2
In vicky 2 with laissez faire (when the capitalist were and were actually capitalist), tariffs could actually made you more competitive, its a form of subsidizing. Try it in a game, with laissez faire, to put 100% tariffs vs -100%, if you can early on. I don't know by heart a country to do that, but i think some of the germans.
100% tariffs decrease new investments, but also protect your economy, in laissez faire.
100% tariffs decrease new investments, but also protect your economy, in laissez faire.
In Vic.2 Tariffs are essentially free money
About Tariff: this two VIcky-esque images are very explanatory
About Tariff: this two VIcky-esque images are very explanatory
- 1
I would be disappointed if this wasn't possible. We should even be able to have country-specific tariffs if we so wish, and an overlord's tariffs should count in all its subjects.
- 3
Also called propaganda. The point is that there are interests behind both free trade and tariffs. An example: Russia had to join the blockade against England under Napoleon. The "industry" thought it was good because it no longer had to compete with English products. The nobility were less enthusiastic because they exported grain and other raw materials to England and wanted finished products as cheaply as possible.In Vic.2 Tariffs are essentially free money
About Tariff: this two VIcky-esque images are very explanatory
Historically there are examples in one direction or the other. The infamous US case was not based on strategic planning. They only received "donations" from certain branches of industry that simply wanted to sell more expensively, regardless of the overall development.
There are other examples as well. Countries like South Korea have specifically promoted certain branches and also protected them against external competition.
It is the same today. There are countries in Africa that consume packaged tomatoes from Italy. Why are they doing this? The tomatoes on site are not competitive because the EU subsidizes Italian farmers and they also have better machines. African governments on the ground cannot afford subsidies. There is also a lack of capital to buy machines or better training.
Free trade is also such a thing elsewhere. The exchange takes place between states. States have different internal conditions. The export of tsarist grain and the import of English goods did not mean that these goods were distributed equally. The nice money from exports did not necessarily reach the farmers, but rather in the pockets of the nobles. These then imported luxury items.
Free trade is not the same as a common market. And the effects of the common market are more or less the same if similar rules and social standards apply everywhere. The day laborer benefited only to a very limited extent from the common market if he lived in a country where trade unions were banned.
Protectionism is always linked to the question of who should benefit from it and whether there are long-term plans that are reasonably consistent. If I pay hard duty on certain goods, but I lack capital and skilled workers, nothing will happen except price increases.
- 3
Other contraddiction may arise.
If I've a factory that produces canned meal , I don't want tariffs for the raw material if I can buy it for less from another country.
If I have a farm, well I do want tariff for grain/meat etc...
Many economist says that a certain number of "protection", statal support, subsidies (whatever you may call them) is essential for a country that want to develop his own industries, because whitout them the early industries would be too weak to compete.
The question is debated, anyway.
Also "free trade" toward a colony just means : "I can have your raw goods for almost nothing and you will buy my products".
After all the British Empire was built on Cotton, Opium and Railroads.
- 2
- 1
In contrast to reality, the number of products is limited and I can see exactly which products are needed for what. In addition, the player decides alone, with a long-term plan.
The negative examples of protectionism were mostly based on a mixture of ignorance and conflicting short-term goals. Even if I assume that foreign countries will not take revenge, it will be very difficult to say what effect an increase in the price of fifty different goods will do. In the US it wasn't like they sat down and worked with statistics. The statistics were not there in the form and the selected products were not necessarily in a well thought-out relationship to one another. For example, if I want to build furniture, maybe I shouldn't declare the import of wood at the same time, just because the lumber industry presented me with a nice campaign donation.
In the long term, I can only benefit from free trade if I somehow get capital. But what does long-term mean? The relationship can stay that way. The Russian nobility also benefited in the long term from trade with England. The Indian bourgeoisie also benefited for a very long time from their own position within economic relations.
Short-term measures focus on achieving long-term success that would otherwise not come. An attempt is being made to create an internal market that not only exports raw materials to the outside world, but also widespread demand for consumer goods.
The conflict that led to World War I was precisely because the mechanics were not designed for a win-win situation, but instead meant hierarchy and repression.
- 2
Pretty sure you could protect for example your rum economy as cuba against cheap british rum through tariffs, but maybe the british can get a mechanic like ultimatum through which they can force you to get rid of all tariffs
- 1
Indeed tariffs helped to fund internal improvements and pay off the US war debt, and protected then-young US manufacturing from outside competition, but the issue became very different later.Tariffs were vital to the US economic expansion after the Civil War, without them the US would have been flooded with cheaper British goods during the second half of the 19th Century and American factories would not have survived. From 1865 to 1914 the average tariff rate was over 40%. As much as the USA champions free trade, that only started after WWI when the USA had become the world's biggest economy.
Tariff in United States history - Wikipedia
The most important reason behind late 19th century American protectionism was likely not so much the protection of infant industries, since the 1880s the gradually became a net exporter of industrial goods. There had consistently been significant pressures to lower the tariffs, but the more hardcore classical republicans resisted it on ideological grounds, even though it ran against their economic interests at times. Even within the then-protectionist GOP many sections realized the counterproductiveness of tariffs. (William Taft, for example)
Tariffs were important to the US because it was one of the only sources of government revenue back then, as the US constitution initially did not provide the federal government a viable way for the federal government to collect income taxes. Sixteenth Amendment became a heated debate even before Wilson, with republican progressives and democratic populists wishing to replace tariffs with income taxes, which are a more stable and equitable source of revenue. Rich people opposed free trade not because they really needed any protection from outside competition, they mostly created excuses so they don’t have to take over the tax burden.
With the eventual adoption of an income tax, of course the importance of tariffs decreased, that doesn’t mean the US has become a champion of free trade, in contrast to what the media tells people, the US still launches WTO complaints and antidumping investigations far more frequently than everyone else, the US runs a trade deficit now simply because its biggest export is the greenback.
It’s a very interesting story overall, and I can’t wait to see if/how Victoria 3 will represent this in game.
- 3
- 1