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

[garbon]

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.

Independence movement used the spinning wheel.

[Jacob]

The objection that GDP (PPP adjusted) has some deficiency in measuring "state power" is kind of a non sequitur, because that isn't what it is measuring.  Domestic production of final goods and services may have ramifications for "state power" - whatever the hell is meant by that - but so do lots of other things.

It's because we're a board ultimately derived from a strategy game message board, so the place is full of the kind of nerds who want to translate economic data points into who has (or can produce) the most and best war game counters on a grand strategy board.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is it really that established?  There were hundreds of millions of Indians over a vast territory, and somehow the decentralized and chaotic British colonial administration was systematically able to impose a uniform policy that forced everybody to comply?  The Indian government has a hell of a time doing that today.  So I am just sort of curious how accurate these grand sweeping statements are.  Could I really walk into some village in the middle of nowhere in 1910 and nobody would be engaged in cloth spinning or anything?  That seems crazy.  But, as I said, Nehru certainly thought this was the case and maybe he is right.

It is like I get two different versions of the British Empire presented to me.  One that divides and rules and mostly goes through haphazard systems involving layers of local rulers and just sort of muddles along...and one that imposes draconian policies with ruthless efficiency that would amaze a modern government.  Maybe it depends on whether trade is involved.  These weird conflicting images make me...skeptical about my assumptions.  Once I am done with this degree I look forward to learning more about it.

Read this:  http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Periphery-before-Ohlin-Lectures/dp/0262513501/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1399311865&sr=8-10
A bit dense, but short.  Among many othe things, it helps explain how vast swathes of Indian industy got wiped out without the need for any centralized administrative intiatives from london. 

[garbon]

The objection that GDP (PPP adjusted) has some deficiency in measuring "state power" is kind of a non sequitur, because that isn't what it is measuring.  Domestic production of final goods and services may have ramifications for "state power" - whatever the hell is meant by that - but so do lots of other things.

It's because we're a board ultimately derived from a strategy game message board, so the place is full of the kind of nerds who want to translate economic data points into who has (or can produce) the most and best war game counters on a grand strategy board.

Or of course it isn't that at all.

[Valmy]

Read this:  http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Periphery-before-Ohlin-Lectures/dp/0262513501/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1399311865&sr=8-10
A bit dense, but short.  Among many othe things, it helps explain how vast swathes of Indian industy got wiped out without the need for any centralized administrative intiatives from london. 

Excellent thanks.  2009 as well, good I want some recent things.  I look forward to 2015 sometime when I can read it 

[Jacob]

Independence movement used the spinning wheel.

As seen here (Swaraj Flag, adopted by the Congress in 1931):


Here's the flag Ghandi introduced to the Congress meeting in 1921:

[Valmy]

Glad they did not adopt that flag, we would forever the confusing them and Bulgaria.

[Jacob]

The objection that GDP (PPP adjusted) has some deficiency in measuring "state power" is kind of a non sequitur, because that isn't what it is measuring.  Domestic production of final goods and services may have ramifications for "state power" - whatever the hell is meant by that - but so do lots of other things.

It's because we're a board ultimately derived from a strategy game message board, so the place is full of the kind of nerds who want to translate economic data points into who has (or can produce) the most and best war game counters on a grand strategy board.

Or of course it isn't that at all.

No? What is your objection to PPP GDP being deficient in measuring "state power" then? And what is your definition of "state power"?

[Sheilbh]

It is like I get two different versions of the British Empire presented to me.  One that divides and rules and mostly goes through haphazard systems involving layers of local rulers and just sort of muddles along...and one that imposes draconian policies with ruthless efficiency that would amaze a modern government.  Maybe it depends on whether trade is involved.  These weird conflicting images make me...skeptical about my assumptions.  Once I am done with this degree I look forward to learning more about it.

I don't think they're necessarily conflicting. Both were true of the British Empire in general. One may be more important than the other in some specific places at specific times but I think there's elements to both.

For example yes the British used layers of local rulers, but the history of Empire is littered with rulers deposed by the British or their own palace for insufficiently advancing British interests. Similarly decentralisation can increase effectiveness - the British state in the 18th century was far less centralised than most absolutist regimes in Europe, that helped its effectiveness. We know now almost intuitively that it's more effective in a military if it empowers officers far lower down the command chain rather than centralising control.

Oh for Godsake.  I am well aware of this of course.  But attempting to refuse to buy British goods, a good way to hit them if you are looking for independence I hear, does not necessarily mean the complete destruction of Indian manufacturing to the level I had assumed.

There was a lot more symbolism to it than a simple boycott though: why cloth?

I'd add there's an ambiguity there too. Gandhi's vision of India is village based and about cottage industry. Nehru and modern India want to industrialise.

But it was devastated. Indian industrial production as a percent of the global total went from 25% in 1750 to under 2% in 1900.

[garbon]

The objection that GDP (PPP adjusted) has some deficiency in measuring "state power" is kind of a non sequitur, because that isn't what it is measuring.  Domestic production of final goods and services may have ramifications for "state power" - whatever the hell is meant by that - but so do lots of other things.

It's because we're a board ultimately derived from a strategy game message board, so the place is full of the kind of nerds who want to translate economic data points into who has (or can produce) the most and best war game counters on a grand strategy board.

Or of course it isn't that at all.

No? What is your objection to PPP GDP being deficient in measuring "state power" then? And what is your definition of "state power"?

I didn't raise any of those issues. I was just looking at your "commentary" as to why someone here might do so.

[Jacob]

No? What is your objection to PPP GDP being deficient in measuring "state power" then? And what is your definition of "state power"?

I didn't raise any of those issues. I was just looking at your "commentary" as to why someone here might do so.

Do you have an alternate explanation, or are you merely indulging in pointless bitching?

[garbon]

No? What is your objection to PPP GDP being deficient in measuring "state power" then? And what is your definition of "state power"?

I didn't raise any of those issues. I was just looking at your "commentary" as to why someone here might do so.

Do you have an alternate explanation, or are you merely indulging in pointless bitching?

Given in kind like your ham-fisted explanation.

[grumbler]

http://www.ied.info/books/economic-democracy/british

I'd be careful about using a source like this - it is clearly a source with a political agenda, citing a book that also has an agenda.  Not that they are necessarily wrong, but they should be used only as necessary.

What is your skepticism based on?

That's the question.  I don't know of a historian that doubts the general outline above.

[Valmy]

But it was devastated. Indian industrial production as a percent of the global total went from 25% in 1750 to under 2% in 1900.

I am not sure conditions in 1750 are really comparable to those in 1900.  2% in 1900 may actually be higher in absolute terms than 25% in 1750.  But anyway I am not disputing at all that Indian industry declined as their hand crafts were unable to compete with factory goods (and influenced by an administration that was essentially acting in their competition's interests) But the details and extent of the damage is just something I want to know more about.  I have just taken what I was told for granted, and I just recently read a bit on the Kingdom of Mysore and it seems like their cloth industry was damaged but was still functional throughout.  Things might be different in a princely state, but things were different all over the place as India was a pretty complicated place back then.

There was a lot more symbolism to it than a simple boycott though: why cloth?

Because weaving of cloth was so basic to the British industrial revolution, it was widely sold in India, and one of the few industrial goods even the poorest Indians might actually own.  More could participate than if they boycotted British machine tools or something.

[Jacob]

I'd be careful about using a source like this - it is clearly a source with a political agenda, citing a book that also has an agenda.  Not that they are necessarily wrong, but they should be used only as necessary.

Fair enough; it was a quick google search.

What is your skepticism based on?

That's the question.  I don't know of a historian that doubts the general outline above.

Indeed, I'm still wondering about that.