Great Corn Laws Debate
The Great Corn-Laws Debate Analysis The Great Corn-Laws Debate presented interesting view points between the protectionists and proponents of free-trade. The protectionists argued that Corn Laws would help stabilize commodity prices which in turn would help Great Britain continue to prosper and provide security to their citizens. By protecting the agriculture industry through protected prices the thriving manufacturing sector would have customers to buy their output. Given their numerous wars with France, Protectionists also argued that Great Britain had some public debt that would need to be repaid and this would be done primarily through taxing the farm land. Since the landowners taxes would be going up the stabilized commodity prices
…show more content…
Represented mainly by the manufacturing owners and eventually the laborers, they argued that artificial corn prices drove up prices everywhere else in the economy. Bread cost more to buy and food was the main expense of the labor class. Along with food rising so did the labor costs across various sectors such as manufacturing which in turn made them more expensive compared to their competition in other countries. The free-trade crowd also noted that protected agricultural price laws were driving up demand for the land which normally wouldn’t be used in agricultural production. This is seen as a competitive disadvantage because it would take away manufacturing opportunities which may help Great Britain globally. Great Britain lawmakers concede there will be dependence on foreign countries for a food supply and the free-trade crowd points out the fact Great Britain is wasting resources on developing commercial land for farming. The free-trade crowd also makes the argument that national security would not be in jeopardy because trade partners would be dependent on the manufactured goods Great Britain supplies and that would give them leverage to remain viable trading …show more content…
Short term implications for Peel’s decisions could leave the agricultural industry itself in shock initially given they are now competing globally and there won’t be a fixed price for commodities. This would bring down food costs for the citizens but may also cause some of the farms to cut jobs because of protected crop prices that are significantly higher than the US prices in the appendices. The farming industry in this time period more than likely looked like the 2008 financial crisis in the housing market in the short term. Rent for farmland couldn’t be paid because of crop supply and demand being out of control due to Mother Nature yet the pricing structures for rent and crop pricing didn’t really account for this. This short-term farming depression might have spread into the other sectors initially but over time I see the markets coming in to balance things out. Once the government is out of the way in terms of regulating the market, the invisible hand is able to work. Long term, land that is not suitable for farming is now used for manufacturing in Britain which in turn leads to more jobs being created. Competition for agricultural commodities brings down food prices for the labor crowd which then puts money back into the economy. Long term trends would also show trading partnerships develop across allied countries provided they work out appropriate trade arrangements
Represented mainly by the manufacturing owners and eventually the laborers, they argued that artificial corn prices drove up prices everywhere else in the economy. Bread cost more to buy and food was the main expense of the labor class. Along with food rising so did the labor costs across various sectors such as manufacturing which in turn made them more expensive compared to their competition in other countries. The free-trade crowd also noted that protected agricultural price laws were driving up demand for the land which normally wouldn’t be used in agricultural production. This is seen as a competitive disadvantage because it would take away manufacturing opportunities which may help Great Britain globally. Great Britain lawmakers concede there will be dependence on foreign countries for a food supply and the free-trade crowd points out the fact Great Britain is wasting resources on developing commercial land for farming. The free-trade crowd also makes the argument that national security would not be in jeopardy because trade partners would be dependent on the manufactured goods Great Britain supplies and that would give them leverage to remain viable trading …show more content…
Short term implications for Peel’s decisions could leave the agricultural industry itself in shock initially given they are now competing globally and there won’t be a fixed price for commodities. This would bring down food costs for the citizens but may also cause some of the farms to cut jobs because of protected crop prices that are significantly higher than the US prices in the appendices. The farming industry in this time period more than likely looked like the 2008 financial crisis in the housing market in the short term. Rent for farmland couldn’t be paid because of crop supply and demand being out of control due to Mother Nature yet the pricing structures for rent and crop pricing didn’t really account for this. This short-term farming depression might have spread into the other sectors initially but over time I see the markets coming in to balance things out. Once the government is out of the way in terms of regulating the market, the invisible hand is able to work. Long term, land that is not suitable for farming is now used for manufacturing in Britain which in turn leads to more jobs being created. Competition for agricultural commodities brings down food prices for the labor crowd which then puts money back into the economy. Long term trends would also show trading partnerships develop across allied countries provided they work out appropriate trade arrangements