Crowning the dragon: Chinese GDP PPP will exceed America's by year's end.

[Valmy]

Are you purely concerned about tariffs, or would you accept the actual negative outcomes of the the economic system as it existed as evidence of Ireland suffering from an England-centric set-up?

Because events in 1857 certainly caused some serious harm in Ireland in combination with how trade was conducted.

I have no idea what special happened in 1857.  If you talking about the famine that already happened and was prior to the repeal of the protectionist corn laws (though considering how Ireland was run cheap food may not have helped much).

Anyway Raz was specifically talking about captive markets and tariffs so that was what I was talking about, I am not specifically concerned with tariffs nor do I necessarily have to see outcomes that are negative or positive.  I am saying I am interested in evidence which immediately leads you to presume I only accept certain kinds?

[alfred russel]

Valmy, I'm struggling to figure this out...

I would say a rebust system expanding at a massive rate and providing energy to hundreds of millions of people is far from deplorable.  I would also challenge the notion that since it has grown so dramatically in size that its key elements are actually left over from colonialism.  But it is India so both of these things can be absolutlely true while also being inadequate.

When I say key elements are left over from colonialism, I think that is true--I'm referencing their rail system in particular.

I wasn't referencing rate of change, I was referencing current state. I would say "deplorable" is a synonym for "woefully inadequate". It is great that they are able to provide sufficient energy to meet the needs of hundreds of millions, but they have a billion plus (also the huge human capital pool they can marshall to build infrastructure). In its current state, the infrastructure of India doesn't provide basics like clean water, reliable energy supplies, decent roads and transportation, sanitation, etc. The life expectancy in the country is a good bit less than in developed countries, and the premature deaths are usually tied in some ways to these problems.

[Sheilbh]

I have no idea what special happened in 1857.  If you talking about the famine that already happened and was prior to the repeal of the protectionist corn laws (though considering how Ireland was run cheap food may not have helped much).

They were more or less simultaneous. Robert Peel was pretty impressive in his response to the famine and the repeal of the Corn Laws was a response a year in. Unfortunately Peel was out of office very shortly afterwards and Lord Russell's government was catastrophically bad, opportunistic and blinkered.

It was a famine for liberal ideology.

[Valmy]

They were more or less simultaneous. Robert Peel was pretty impressive in his response to the famine and the repeal of the Corn Laws was a response a year in. Unfortunately Peel was out of office very shortly afterwards and Lord Russell's government was catastrophically bad, opportunistic and blinkered.

The famine was pretty far along by the time the corn laws were repealed but yeah sure.

It was a famine for liberal ideology.

Damn the Liberal Party was still years away from even being formed and it already caused a famine

In my mind the proper response to the famine was pretty drastic action, like seizing the estates and food supplies for the duration of the crisis.  Something no 19th century government with a laissez faire ideology could do and even those that didn't have such an ideology probably lacked the means.  Is this basically what you mean?

[Sheilbh]

The famine was pretty far along by the time the corn laws were repealed but yeah sure.

It was just getting started. The famine was 1845-52, the repeal of the Corn Laws was 1846.

Damn the Liberal Party was still years away from even being formed and it already caused a famine

A party and an ideology are different things and I didn't say they caused it. But it was avoidable. Once it had begun many steps could've been taken (Peel had started well) that would've at least hugely mitigated it. But that would have meant acting against what they perceived to be the correct policy for Ireland economically and their economic doctrine.

[Jacob]

I have no idea what special happened in 1857.  If you talking about the famine that already happened and was prior to the repeal of the protectionist corn laws (though considering how Ireland was run cheap food may not have helped much).

Yes I was... friggin' typos   

You were doubting that the UK had special laws just for the Irish as that would "border on the moustache twirling". I'd say the corn laws and the Irish famine should dispel that doubt.

Anyway Raz was specifically talking about captive markets and tariffs so that was what I was talking about, I am not specifically concerned with tariffs nor do I necessarily have to see outcomes that are negative or positive.  I am saying I am interested in evidence which immediately leads you to presume I only accept certain kinds?

I was not presuming. I was asking, wondering whether you'd consider the famine and the corn laws a rebuttal to your doubt.

[grumbler]

You were doubting that the UK had special laws just for the Irish as that would "border on the moustache twirling". I'd say the corn laws and the Irish famine should dispel that doubt.

Are you arguing that the Corn Laws applied only to Ireland?

[Agelastus]

I have no idea what special happened in 1857.  If you talking about the famine that already happened and was prior to the repeal of the protectionist corn laws (though considering how Ireland was run cheap food may not have helped much).

Yes I was... friggin' typos   

You were doubting that the UK had special laws just for the Irish as that would "border on the moustache twirling". I'd say the corn laws and the Irish famine should dispel that doubt.

In what way were the Corn Laws a "special law for the Irish"? They applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. Likewise repeal applied to the whole country as well.

[Josquius]

One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

They did.
They were pretty big participants in the second industrial revolution.

I'd say countries that were colonies in the 19th century tend to do poorer then places that weren't.

Technically true, but the reasoning is backwards. The west remains richer today as it was then, this is what led to the west making overseas empires

[CountDeMoney]

Many of Ghandi's initial demands concerned the forced cloth trade with Britain. Him spinning cloth to make his own clothing was a revindicative gesture. The spinning wheel is not in India's flag because it's a nice symbol.

Except it's not a spinning wheel, it's the Ashoka Chakra, a buddhist/hindu symbol.

You're all wrong;  it's an 80-spoke Classic rim for 22" low profiles.  Duh.

[grumbler]

One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

They did.
They were pretty big participants in the second industrial revolution.

Wait... What?

I'd say countries that were colonies in the 19th century tend to do poorer then places that weren't.

Technically true, but the reasoning is backwards. The west remains richer today as it was then, this is what led to the west making overseas empires

Wait... What?

If you are trying to argue that the places that were not colonies are better off today because they were well-enough-off back then to resist being colonies, I agree.  Bulgaria was better off than Nigeria in 1870, and is still better-off today.  I don't know what "this is what led to the West making overseas empires" means in this context.

[Jacob]

You were doubting that the UK had special laws just for the Irish as that would "border on the moustache twirling". I'd say the corn laws and the Irish famine should dispel that doubt.

Are you arguing that the Corn Laws applied only to Ireland?

No, I am not

What I meant to say is that British trade policy - an amalgamation of laissez-faire philosophy and protectionism in whatever ways benefitted the English owning class best, and of which the Corn Laws are a pretty good exemplar - resulted in Ireland being a net exporter of food during the great famine. Protectionism created a market for the various grains and drove conversion of fields to growing them as it benefitted the land owning class, while laissez-faire arguments were used to reason that selling them abroad while the Irish starved was the reasonable thing to do.

But yeah, you (and Agelastus) are right, the Corn Laws were not specifically Irish laws.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't really see the connection between the Potato Famine and the Corn Laws.  The Irish died because they were poor and their subsidence crop failed, not because they were prevented from purchasing imported food.

[mongers]

I don't really see the connection between the Potato Famine and the Corn Laws.  The Irish died because they were poor and their subsidence crop failed, not because they were prevented from purchasing imported food.

Make sure you have this 'saved' for copying and pasting, I'll save you a lot of typing in the future. 

[Admiral Yi]

:scratches head: