If we were fairly isolationist back then (unless WWI changed that?) how and why did the crash in the US affect Europe? And why did it take so long, a year I think, for it to affect them? I would think since most Europeans knew this was NOT the war to end all wars, that their economy would be fairly good with the military build up and all that.
Actually, Europe was in worse economic shape than America. Inflation, coupled with the costs of WWI pretty much ruined the European economy of the 20's. It is more a case of the bad economy in Europe catching America than the other way around. The US crashed because the rest of the world couldn't afford to buy our stuff, it was too expensive, and we could not create enough capital to keep the economy going.After WWI, the US was the world's biggest creditor nation, it was not England any longer. Military build-up's dont happen in a vacuum either. A nation still needs capital to buy military equipment and pay for troops. the Nazi's essentially bankrupted Germany remilitarizing, they were hoping that they could make war pay for itself but they were never successful.
I should add to this that the early part of the 20th century saw an increase in globalization which made interdependency among nations more prevalent. This changed with the isolationism of subsequent years when tariffs went up.What's interesting now is how things are playing out. The cash for clunkers program was designed to prop up the auto industry, but the effect seems to be helping out Japanese auto makers even more than U.S. automakers (although Honda and other foreign companies have plants in the U.S. so it still helps out U.S. workers). Congress could have included a provision that the cash for clunkers incentive only applied to the purchase of a car from a U.S. automaker, though this would have been isolationist in spirit. Would this have been better for the U.S. economy? Yes, in the short term. Better in the long run? Perhaps not, since foreign nations could have responded with their own isolationist tactics which would have cost America in the long run.
The German government has a program similar to cash for clunkers called the Abwrackpramie and they are seeing the same thing. Most of the cars bought under the German Abwrackpramie have been Fiats, Renaults, and Citroens because these companies specialize in making small cars. Although many Opels and Fords have been purchased too. Ford's European lineup is totally different than what they offer in the states.
I just heard the other day that Japan won't allow American cars to be sold in that country. Also, I think Buick is apparently the number one brand of car in India. The differing lineup of American cars in foreign countries can at least partly be attributed to taste; Europeans tend to like smaller cars, Americans like bigger ones.
I just heard the other day that Japan won't allow American cars to be sold in that country. Also, I think Buick is apparently the number one brand of car in India. The differing lineup of American cars in foreign countries can at least partly be attributed to taste; Europeans tend to like smaller cars, Americans like bigger ones.
I dont think it is that American cars cant be sold, I think it is that the Japanese place so many conditions on importing foriegn cars that their prices are artificially high when compared to Japanese cars. I read that somewhere during the mid-nineties. I think it was in relation to a debate about reciprocal tarriffs.
I think you are right – it had to do with high tariffs over there. Personally, I like Japanese cars and now that I think of it, I have only driven such cars in my life (I believe a Toyota and three Hondas).
I think you are right - it had to do with high tariffs over there. Personally, I like Japanese cars and now that I think of it, I have only driven such cars in my life (I believe a Toyota and three Hondas).
Me too, I have had four trucks all of them Nissans. The only American truck I would buy is a Ford F-150 and I dont have a farm so dont need a full-size pickup.