The Glass Famine: How Tax Policy Cost Britain Its Optical Dominance
I explore how Britain's 18th-century window tax and subsequent duties crushed its once-leading optical industry, allowing Germany's Zeiss and Schott to dominate. By 1914, this laissez-faire approach left the UK facing a 'glass famine' during WWI, forcing a desperate, secret deal to buy German binoculars in exchange for rubber. The story highlights the critical role of industrial strategy in maintaining technological sovereignty.
The only thing crazier than this proposal… was that the Germans actually said yes.
- cjs_ac
> The picture above is a clue. In the 18th and then 19th century there was a sequence of taxes on glass. Most famous of all is the window tax of the 18th century which, in fairness, wasn’t primarily a tax on glass. It was mostly a tax on housing (the more windows, the more you paid - hence why people bricked in windows).
Eighteenth century Britain levied a great many consumption taxes on things that were disproportionately bought by the wealthy. These were the taxes that the Boston Tea Party rebelled against.
> Here’s a chart I dug out of the UK National Archives while researching Material World. It shows you optical glass supplies to the UK. And look: the standout thing is how quickly UK domestic production rose.
> The UK didn’t need German glass by the time that deal was done because it was producing plenty by then, and output was rising fast. UK factories had swung into action. They turned around the deficit so quickly that by the end of the war they were producing more than they needed - enough to supply their allies.
> The glass famine, in other words, was followed by the glass feast.
> (the other thing to note is what happened AFTER this chart: having rebuilt its glass industry, the UK allowed it to waste away again. By the post-WWII period it was back in the doldrums. Most of the optical producers shut down. It was a short-lived feast).
There's a strange pattern of Britain performing best when it's least prepared. I think this ties in well with the observation that the […]
- polotics
This gives me sickening vibes of the "War is a racket" take.
Both side's agreeing to enable each other's massacre of their own country's downtrodden young masses, while all sorts of profiteering going on at the back no doubt.
- raphinou
I find it interesting that the book is available about everywhere save for North America according to the author, but the first distances in the text are given in yards, mainly used only in North America. Ok, this is not the exact book text, but still, it looks as a misfit to the audience of the book.
- SideburnsOfDoom
A while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36739279
- roenxi
> It's that it is possible to resuscitate dormant or shrinking sectors. It is
possible to re-industrialise quickly.
China managed to go from peasantry in the grip of communism to arguably the biggest economy in history over a remarkably short period. And it is hard to get a read on exactly what is going on in that country but that seems to be despite heavy state intervention in the economy and without the benefits of political free speech. I'd also rate their rule of law as a bit rubbery. It is clear that industrialisation can happen like lightening if best-of-breed policies are adopted.
Which is to say, policies in the West since the end of the cold war have been an absolute disaster and we are well due some political remove-the-spec-from-your-own-eye reflection on our industrial strategy. And, frankly, the endless reign of military terror that the middle east is subjected to doesn't seem to help. Keeping the military at home has been a massive win for China, all of that money went into investments instead of pointless murder.
It is enough to make you wonder if it is the politicians or the voters who are more evil and incompetent.