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

[CountDeMoney]

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.

The Irish had access to the free market to purchase imported food.  It's their fault they couldn't afford it.

[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.

The Irish had access to the free market to purchase imported food.  It's their fault they couldn't afford it.

You do know market forces can Actually save people from starvation; those guys weren't praying enough at the high altar to it.

[Admiral Yi]

You two dolts don't seem to realize I'm saying the exact opposite of that.  Market forces could *not* have saved the Irish.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, not with making exorbitant demands and all.

[grumbler]

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.

Ireland was a net exporter of food during the famine because there were British buyers who could afford the grain that Ireland had raised, while the Irish themselves could not.  My understanding is that these grains (primarily oats) were used to feed British cattle, Scotsmen, and other domestic animals.  This had nothing whatever to do with protectionism per se; it had to do with selling to the highest bidder.

Now, the Irish couldn't import enough other non-livestock-feed grains to replace what was being sold from Ireland, or to replace lost potato production, because the Corn Laws made those imported grains too expensive.  But that was true throughout the UK.  The real problem was that the Irish peasantry didn't have the income to compete with British cattle for food, and the government didn't care.  As you note, the government's economic policies (for that matter, those of pretty much every British government in the period) was a mashup of contradictory philosophies.

[Josquius]

The Ireland as a net exporter of food was mainly Irish beef, the beef industry being unaffected by the famine.
It was just common sense to allow the beef to be sold to whoever wanted to buy it and to spend the limited aid resources on cheaper food. In those days most transport was done by ship even around Ireland so it was no big deal that food was being shipped in from England whilst other food was being shipped out.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

The British owning class was not the monolithic group that you imply in this post. The Corn Laws were supported mainly by English landowners, they were hated by most other groups and (crucially) were opposed by British industrialists. The industrialists got the upper hand round about the mid-century, free trade replaced former mercantilist practices and British agriculture entered a prolonged depression. This provided more workers for industry and the manufacturers could pay them less as they subsisted on cheap imported food.

[Jacob]

Alright alright... I cede the field on the subject of the corn laws.

I remain convinced that the Irish Famine was a result of British policy and a prime example of the harm and economic exploitation the Empire inflicted on subject nations.

[Razgovory]

How free trade was Britain in the 19th century?  India was still pretty much a captive market wasn't it?  My impression that Britain (or at least the non-Irish parts of it), shifted to free trade in the mid century, but the empire not so much.

This sounds just a little bit too much mustache twirling to me.  I mean the UK had special trade restrictions that only applied to its Irish part?  I am not sure the UK worked like that.

It sounds like mercantilism to me, which was sorta of the economic justification for big empires.  I'd say the Irish were treated differently then the rest of the UK, I don't think that's in question.  The potato blight was by no means restricted to Ireland, yet it fell extremely hard there.  I don't think it's a coincidence that it fell on the people that had legal disabilities on them for so long.  Most of those legal disabilities had been removed fairly recently, but it's not surprising that people who had been prohibited from owning land or settling in many towns were reduced to living as tenant farmers.  Tenant farmers that could be evicted at the whim of a capricious landlord.

[Razgovory]

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?

I don't think I mentioned Tariffs, I was thinking or much cruder methods.  Laws that prohibited the manufacturer of finished goods were in force in British America, such as the Iron act.

[Admiral Yi]

Alright alright... I cede the field on the subject of the corn laws.

I remain convinced that the Irish Famine was a result of British policy and a prime example of the harm and economic exploitation the Empire inflicted on subject nations.

The only British policy I can think of that played a part was the policy of not handing out free food.

Which begs the question of would an independent Ireland done any better.  I doubt they would have had the means.

[Valmy]

The only British policy I can think of that played a part was the policy of not handing out free food.

I was under the impression they tried to do that and somehow the food never got to the starving Irishmen.

The main problem I have with all narratives of the famine is that all of them require the landlords of Ireland to act in such a way that seems unbelievable to me.  I could see exporting all my products during maybe the first year of the famine sure, you think well they can get by until the next harvest and I am probably deep in debt being a farmer type person and cannot afford to skip a harvest.  Once people really start dying one would feel some sort of obligation to your tenants, if for no other reason you have to live by these people.  I mean sure some of the landlords were absentee and out of touch but far from all of them.

[Valmy]

I remain convinced that the Irish Famine was a result of British policy and a prime example of the harm and economic exploitation the Empire inflicted on subject nations.

Well it certainly reflect really bad social structures that were the result of the long and tortured history of Ireland in the wake of the Reformation, which did not have much to do with the Empire.  It is pretty weak just to demand I accept it is a result of British policy and somehow typical (which is sort of bizarre, Ireland was in no way typical) of economic exploitation when you cannot even state what policy it was a result of.  Ireland was not part of the UK for economic purposes, it was part of the UK for security purposes as far as the government in London was concerned.  The Battle of the Boyne was not fought to control Ireland's riches.

[Valmy]

I don't think I mentioned Tariffs, I was thinking or much cruder methods.  Laws that prohibited the manufacturer of finished goods were in force in British America, such as the Iron act.

We are not talking about the 18th century though.  Those laws were pretty much ignored and were inneffective anyway.

[Valmy]

It sounds like mercantilism to me, which was sorta of the economic justification for big empires.  I'd say the Irish were treated differently then the rest of the UK, I don't think that's in question.

Empires had plenty of economic justification before and after Mercantilism.  Actually it is in question, not that Ireland was different from the rest of the UK (though not that different, this was a tough time for small farmers) but the ways in which it was treated differently.

The potato blight was by no means restricted to Ireland, yet it fell extremely hard there.  I don't think it's a coincidence that it fell on the people that had legal disabilities on them for so long.  Most of those legal disabilities had been removed fairly recently, but it's not surprising that people who had been prohibited from owning land or settling in many towns were reduced to living as tenant farmers.  Tenant farmers that could be evicted at the whim of a capricious landlord.

Of course it is not a coincidence.  But now you are just saying things I agree with.  Always being on the losing side for centuries and the constant fuel of anti-Catholic paranoia had created a dangerous situation.  But in my mind this is just good old European ethnic and religious conflict shenanigans.