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

[Valmy]

Damn Minsky is schooling us Gentiles on our own scriptures.

[garbon]

There is no account in the Bible that says Jesus was born in a stable.

Where does one usually find a manger?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/Luke#2:1

6 And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Brain's house.

[Malthus]

There is no account in the Bible that says Jesus was born in a stable.

Where does one usually find a manger?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/Luke#2:1

6 And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Brain's house.

Only in the more obscure gnostic texts. 

[Sheilbh]

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.

Although this does largely apply to Britain rather than the Empire. It's a peculiar version of free trade that has the government encouraging specific economic activities and establishing state monopolies as was the case in India. But I think this was part of the debate at the time - free traders tended to be a bit more dubious about imperialism. Gladstone was ambivalent at best, Cobden was mostly opposed.

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.

I agree.

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.

Well, the past's a different country, they do things differently there.

My view is that the key difference was that the Irish weren't viewed as the same as the English. They were a subject people who just happened to be intimately governed by the metropole. So the famine when it hit wasn't generally seen as a human tragedy in the way it would have been had it affected, say, Rutland. Because of that they were far more precious about their ideological beliefs. And it was something that was perhaps awful but a divine, providential natural disaster that gave them the opportunity to fix what they believed were the problems with Ireland.

The consequence was a famine that killed or drove away a quarter of the population. The population of the island of Ireland is still smaller than it was in 1841.

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 

Although Ireland also had about 40% of the population (though not electorate) of the United Kingdom, but 100 of 650 MPs. Also the political reforms were important but nothing was done on land until the 1880s. The lesson of the 19th century was that Parliament will do nothing for Ireland unless there's a united and organised political party and agitation at home - that was the key to both O'Connell and Parnell's success.

And after the famine I think any kind of settlement is a dream.

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

There were problems with absentee landlords but I think they're overstated both in scale and type. Also they were one of the things that the British government thought was wrong with Ireland and their policies in response exacerbated the famine.

I also sort of quibble with the idea given that most of the UK was owned by absentee landlords at that time. Great English landowners often spent 9 months of the year in London, a chunk on the continent and time visiting other great houses and their own. Was it really a significant difference that they stayed in the country?

[Razgovory]

I think the absentee landlords thing is more about how the landlords viewed the land and Irish tenants then anything else.  The great magnates not only didn't care what happened to their Irish tenants, but were glad to see them gone.  They honestly didn't care what happened to them, so long as they were gone.  Dead or driven off to America, were both good options.  I would say they were viewed similarly to the way 19th century Americans viewed Indians.

[Admiral Yi]

What prevented the absentee landlords from evicting their tenants earlier?

[Razgovory]

What prevented the absentee landlords from evicting their tenants earlier?

Their labor was still required.

[grumbler]

What prevented the absentee landlords from evicting their tenants earlier?

I believe they were still under the inheritable feudal leasehold, and couldn't evict.  I'm not sure about that, though.

[Valmy]

What prevented the absentee landlords from evicting their tenants earlier?

Their labor was still required.

I am pretty sure you don't require one tenant for every 20 acres.

[Valmy]

And after the famine I think any kind of settlement is a dream.

Even without the famine you would still have the Protestants making incredibly difficult.  By the 19th century itself things were pretty far gone...however as I said earlier I kind of wonder if the things might not have gone differently if WWI had not messed up the Home Rule business.

[Valmy]

I would say they were viewed similarly to the way 19th century Americans viewed Indians.

I think it was more similar to how 19th century Scots viewed other poorer Scots during the Highland Clearances.

[Razgovory]

I would say they were viewed similarly to the way 19th century Americans viewed Indians.

I think it was more similar to how 19th century Scots viewed other poorer Scots during the Highland Clearances.

There was a strong religious element, and to a lesser degree an ethnic element.  Malthusian ideas about population were also pretty popular, so it was felt there was to many Irish and really, that was their own fault.   The great Earl of Lucan (of the light Brigade fame) said "he would not breed paupers to pay priests".  He evicted quite a few of his tenants (which meant burning down their homes), and devoted to the land to much more pliable live stock in the form of sheep and cattle.

[Valmy]

There was a strong religious element, and to a lesser degree an ethnic element.  Malthusian ideas about population were also pretty popular, so it was felt there was to many Irish and really, that was their own fault.   The great Earl of Lucan (of the light Brigade fame) said "he would not breed paupers to pay priests".  He evicted quite a few of his tenants (which meant burning down their homes), and devoted to the land to much more pliable live stock in the form of sheep and cattle.

Well there was a religious element and even a bit of an ethnic element to the clearances as well.  There was no famine but everything else was pretty much the same.  The other difference was that Scottish law made evicting tenants very straightforward compared to the other kingdoms.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is no account in the Bible that says Jesus was born in a stable.

Where does one usually find a manger?

In ancient times, not typically in an a separate structure, unless the owner was fairly well off.
In fact that was still common quite up into the 19th century in many parts of rural Europe as well.

Plus the whole Bethlehem story is concocted, but that is a separate issue.

[Valmy]

Plus the whole Bethlehem story is concocted, but that is a separate issue.

It is symbolic.