>Charles Edwards wrote:
>> Did the Marshall Plan inflict commercial defeat on the British auto
>industry?
No WAY! The British had one hell of a head start over the rest of
Europe after the war. The benefits of the Marshall Plan did not kick in
until the mid to late 50's, by which time Britain was already the second
largest automobile manufacturer in the world (behind only the U.S.). It
was their game to lose, which, unfortunately, they did.
The Marshall Plan helped Europe rebuild what Britain hadn't lost in the
war to begin with. At the end of the war, Britain began switching over
its munitions plants to build the cars that a war ravaged world was
starved for. Let us not forget that much of that industrial might was
aided by generous wartime contributions by the U.S., lest someone think
that the Marshall Plan unfairly rewarded the vanquished at the expense of
the victors. The decline in the auto industry was due largely to the
trade unions control of the government (through their control of the
Labour Party) which resulted in confiscatory taxes and nationalization of
industry, brought about by their socialist policies.
Reinvestment in new products and innovation didn't happen because the
British government was taking the profits (or reducing them through
support of bloody-minded trade unions) and using them to promote the
socialist agenda.
I can't say how much of the decline of the auto industry was due to
hide-bound management, but I often wonder how the industry managed to
produce anything of value under those conditions.
That's the Catch-22 of socialism. It sounds like a good idea and it
seems to be kind to everyone, but it is like a parasite that eventually
kills the host. Let's hope that Tony Blair and his buddies really are
"new" Labour (or Conservative Lite) and don't turn back the clock!
Lecture mode <off>
David "Anglophile and a B.A. in English History" Littlefield
Houston, TX
|