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

[The Brain]

The Normans were invited to Ireland. So there.

[Valmy]

The Normans were invited to Ireland. So there.

They were indeed.  But those Normans had already gone native by this point.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

I would blame the period of the protestant Ascendancy, c.1650 - 1800. Ireland was run as a subject nation for the benefit of a protestant ruling class, the catholic Irish laboured under crippling legal disabilities. There was no free trade between Ireland and Britain and trade was arranged mainly to benefit Britain's mercantile interests. Meanwhile the incredible productivity of potatoes farmed on subsistence smallholdings allowed the Irish population to expand rapidly, as they did the smallholdings got smaller and smaller.

Paradoxically the decades leading up to the great famine were ones of improvement in Ireland's status. Free trade between Britain and Ireland was granted in 1782. The 1801 act of Union gave Ireland 100 MPs at the Westminster parliament. The vast majority of the anti-catholic legislation was repealed in 1829. but all of this seems to have been too late 

[Valmy]

I would blame the period of the protestant Ascendancy, c.1650 - 1800. Ireland was run as a subject nation for the benefit of a protestant ruling class, the catholic Irish laboured under crippling legal disabilities. There was no free trade between Ireland and Britain and trade was arranged mainly to benefit Britain's mercantile interests. Meanwhile the incredible productivity of potatoes farmed on subsistence smallholdings allowed the Irish population to expand rapidly, as they did the smallholdings got smaller and smaller.

Paradoxically the decades leading up to the great famine were ones of improvement in Ireland's status. Free trade between Britain and Ireland was granted in 1782. The 1801 act of Union gave Ireland 100 MPs at the Westminster parliament. The vast majority of the anti-catholic legislation was repealed in 1829. but all of this seems to have been too late 

Too little too late is basically the story at attempts at Irish reform in the period between 1800 and 1920.  One wonders if things might have gone if WWI had not arrived and buggered up the last efforts at home rule.  But maybe it is ultimately better this way.

The Griffith valuations right after the famine are truly amazing.  You will see a farm of 800 acres and think 'damn that is a nice sized farm' and then notice 12 tenant families are living on it.  Then it will list the values of the total estate and a tenants home will be listed at 10 shillings.  Now I am not some big expert on 1850s British currency but a 10 shilling house has got to be a piece of crap.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Another way to put it is that manufacturers could pay a lower nominal wage while still maintaining real wages because of the decline in food prices.  This improved the competitiveness of the British industrial sector while still allowing real wages to rise (which they did > 1860 albeit slowly and from a very low base).

[Razgovory]

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.

We aren't?  I was under the impression that India was conquered in the 18th century.  I was also under the impression that it was not removed until the mid 19th century, like the wool act.

[Razgovory]

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.

Presumably in an independent Ireland nearly all the the land wouldn't be controlled by the absentee landlords based in England and more land could be devoted to subsistence crops.  Much of Ireland was under cultivation of things other then potatoes, but those were sold for money.  Potatoes were grown for the local populace because they were the only crop that could possibly feed the farmers with the little bit of land the could use for themselves.

[Valmy]

Presumably in an independent Ireland nearly all the the land wouldn't be controlled by the absentee landlords based in England and more land could be devoted to subsistence crops.

That's true.  Of course nearly all the land was not controlled by absentee landlords based in England in actuality either.

[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.

We aren't?  I was under the impression that India was conquered in the 18th century.  I was also under the impression that it was not removed until the mid 19th century, like the wool act.

No, you were asking how free trade really was in India once free trade was established in the UK.  Besides that I am not particularly interested in your impressions.  I was specifically saying I had gotten lots of impressions from what I had read that now I am starting to doubt and want to get some nuts and bolts on them. 

[Razgovory]

Presumably in an independent Ireland nearly all the the land wouldn't be controlled by the absentee landlords based in England and more land could be devoted to subsistence crops.

That's true.  Of course nearly all the land was not controlled by absentee landlords based in England in actuality either.

It wasn't?

[Razgovory]

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.

We aren't?  I was under the impression that India was conquered in the 18th century.  I was also under the impression that it was not removed until the mid 19th century, like the wool act.

No, you were asking how free trade really was in India once free trade was established in the UK.  Besides that I am not particularly interested in your impressions.  I was specifically saying I had gotten lots of impressions from what I had read that now I am starting to doubt and want to get some nuts and bolts on them.

Okay, my impression was based on the fact the Iron Act was not repealed until 1867.  Is that nutty and bolty enough?

[Valmy]

Okay, my impression was based on the fact the Iron Act was not repealed until 1867.  Is that nutty and bolty enough?

No because, as far as I know, the act was never able to be applied in the American colonies, had restrictions primarily meant for the American colonies and had been obsolete for years by the time it was repealed.

[Queequeg]

[Valmy]

It wasn't?

There were plenty of Irish landlords as well. 

[Razgovory]

It wasn't?

There were plenty of Irish landlords as well.

Yes, they were called Anglo-Irish landlords.  Okay, let me pare it down a bit, how much land was owned by Catholic Irish (who made up the majority of the population and who famine fell on?