Languish.org

Terrible article. First of all there is no way in hell that the Chinese economy was larger than Britain's in 1890. Secondly, GDP PPP is very overrated as a means of evaluating an economy. You can't buy goods on the world market with PPP dollars. Third, last I checked the US was on the Pacific.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/04/daily-chart-19?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/dailychartppp

QuoteCrowning the dragon
Apr 30th 2014, 0:02 by J.M.F. and L.P.

    Timekeeper

China will become the world's largest economy by the end of the year

UNTIL 1890 China was the world's largest economy, before America surpassed it. By the end of 2014 China is on track to reclaim its crown. Comparing economic output is tricky: exchange rates get in the way. Simply converting GDP from renminbi to dollars at market rates may not reflect the true cost of living. Bread and beer may be cheaper in one country than another, for example. To account for these differences, economists make adjustments based on a comparable basket of goods and services across the globe, so-called purchasing-power parity (PPP). New data released on April 30th from the International Comparison Programme, a part of the UN, calculated the cost of living in 199 countries in 2011. On this basis, China's PPP exchange rate is now higher than economists had previously estimated using data from the previous survey in 2005: a whopping 20% higher. So China, which had been forecast to overtake America in 2019 by the IMF, will be crowned the world's pre-eminent country by the end of this year according to The Economist's calculations. The American Century ends, and the Pacific Century begins.

Why?  The UK had less then 40 million people in 1890.  There was 10 times as many Chinese.

Well by that same token, they have five times as many Chinese than Americans.  If a peasant economy could be larger than a global trade and industrial empire in 1890 just on population than this is hardly a big deal today when China actually has a modern economy.

Meh, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.  And when it crashes, it's going to crash hard.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Meh, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.  And when it crashes, it's going to crash hard.

All I know is Japan already relegated the US to the scrap heap of history sometime around 1989.

Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 10:33:39 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Meh, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.  And when it crashes, it's going to crash hard.

All I know is Japan already relegated the US to the scrap heap of history sometime around 1989.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ffd69ad482233326de424be4f26a9c672%2Ftumblr_n4ad0xXcdD1sdkeh4o1_500.jpg&hash=c72941b910011cfdec974eaaa2f2ac0072573ee2)

:(

QuoteUNTIL 1890 China was the world's largest economy

And in the first sentence the article invalidates itself.

Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2014, 10:41:01 PM


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ffd69ad482233326de424be4f26a9c672%2Ftumblr_n4ad0xXcdD1sdkeh4o1_500.jpg&hash=c72941b910011cfdec974eaaa2f2ac0072573ee2)

:(

Man, I'm just going to be blunt.  You Aunt is ugly.  Really ugly.

Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2014, 10:41:01 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 10:33:39 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Meh, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.  And when it crashes, it's going to crash hard.

All I know is Japan already relegated the US to the scrap heap of history sometime around 1989.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ffd69ad482233326de424be4f26a9c672%2Ftumblr_n4ad0xXcdD1sdkeh4o1_500.jpg&hash=c72941b910011cfdec974eaaa2f2ac0072573ee2)

:(

Damn, that's a deep cut. :hug:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Meh, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.  And when it crashes, it's going to crash hard.

I think all Chinese investors just collectively breathed a sigh of relief.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 04, 2014, 10:32:57 PM
Meh, it's all smoke and mirrors anyway.  And when it crashes, it's going to crash hard.

Man, do you ever tire of slating the US economy.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2014, 11:25:58 PM

QuoteUNTIL 1890 China was the world's largest economy

And in the first sentence the article invalidates itself.

Don't see how it's that mad. Wasn't China's economy between 30-40% of the global economy at the start of the 19th century? I'd be amazed if Britain was able to overtake her even as China was declining (again my understanding is only precipitously in the latter half of the 19th century) before the US had already taken over.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2014, 09:36:14 PM
Secondly, GDP PPP is very overrated as a means of evaluating an economy. You can't buy goods on the world market with PPP dollars.

Only a minority of goods and services consumed are internationally traded.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 07:10:32 AM
Don't see how it's that mad. Wasn't China's economy between 30-40% of the global economy at the start of the 19th century? I'd be amazed if Britain was able to overtake her even as China was declining (again my understanding is only precipitously in the latter half of the 19th century) before the US had already taken over.

I find that surprising given the disastrous Manchu policies of the 18th century.  And yes I would imagine the Taiping rebellion would cause some precipitous decline.  I just find it hard to believe that a de-industrialized peasant economy hammered by civil strife and war would be larger than India+Britain+everything which were industrializing and thriving.  I mean damn.

Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

Checking up...I see I was wrong. China is indeed number one until round about 1890.
1890 numbers (millions)-
China: 205,379
USA: 214,713
UK: 150,269
Germany: 115,580
India: 163,341
France: 95,073

I think it was per capita figures and India overtaking China there that I had stuck in my head.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 08:09:48 AM
I find that surprising given the disastrous Manchu policies of the 18th century.  And yes I would imagine the Taiping rebellion would cause some precipitous decline.  I just find it hard to believe that a de-industrialized peasant economy hammered by civil strife and war would be larger than India+Britain+everything which were industrializing and thriving.  I mean damn.

The 18th century may have been bad, but Britain's wasn't actually that amazing. It set the scene for 19th century industrialisation - establishing Britain as the only global commercial power, devastation of Europe (especially France) and the beginnings of industry - but really there was more similarity between Britain in 1800 and 1700 than, say the 1850s.

Also India was being deindustrialised as well. India was one of the largest manufacturers of cloth in the 18th century, those cottage industries were destroyed so India would be more purely agricultural to supply British industry and to provide a market for British-made cloth. The early phase of imperial expansion was often about finished products after all, by the 19th century it was as much about raw materials.

Edit: Incidentally this seems to be the source:
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/4198131E.PDF

Quote from: Tyr on May 05, 2014, 08:15:17 AM
Checking up...I see I was wrong. China is indeed number one until round about 1890.
1890 numbers (millions)-
China: 205,379
USA: 214,713
UK: 150,269
Germany: 115,580
India: 163,341
France: 95,073

I think it was per capita figures and India overtaking China there that I had stuck in my head.

Ok maybe I do not understand how nations work but why is India listed separately from the UK?  It seems like this claim only holds up if you take the British Empire, split it up and THEN compare it to China.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 08:20:06 AM
Ok maybe I do not understand how nations work but why is India listed separately from the UK?  It seems like this claim only holds up if you take the British Empire, split it up and THEN compare it to China.

Empires were always distinct from nations. That was one of the odd features of Algeria that it wasn't just part of the French Empire but part of France.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 08:20:06 AM

Quote from: Tyr on May 05, 2014, 08:15:17 AM
Checking up...I see I was wrong. China is indeed number one until round about 1890.
1890 numbers (millions)-
China: 205,379
USA: 214,713
UK: 150,269
Germany: 115,580
India: 163,341
France: 95,073

I think it was per capita figures and India overtaking China there that I had stuck in my head.

Ok maybe I do not understand how nations work but why is India listed separately from the UK?  It seems like this claim only holds up if you take the British Empire, split it up and THEN compare it to China.

Because it's wasn't part of the UK?

Tim mentioned Britain in the OP, others talked about the UK with regard to population, you're the first person to talk about the British Empire.

Even when HK was a British colony, our numbers were always listed separately from the UK ones.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 08:15:27 AM
Also India was being deindustrialised as well. India was one of the largest manufacturers of cloth in the 18th century, those cottage industries were destroyed so India would be more purely agricultural to supply British industry and to provide a market for British-made cloth. The early phase of imperial expansion was often about finished products after all, by the 19th century it was as much about raw materials.

Color me skeptical.  This is the Eric Hobsbawm Marxist interpretation and it is not that they are necessarily incorrect, but in the past whenever I just go along with whatever they say I tend to find out later they were just making shit up.  Like 'how can we make this complicated and long process very simple and all about economics?'  So yeah perhaps the British Empire was this organized and systematic and focused that they were destroying massive industries.  Nehru certainly thought this was the case.  But I would be interested in a more modern approach to confirm this story, or at least give a more detailed account of how it came about.

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2014, 08:27:40 AM
Because it's wasn't part of the UK?

Tim mentioned Britain in the OP, others talked about the UK with regard to population, you're the first person to talk about the British Empire.

Because when I think of a country I think of all the territory it controls and the population within.

Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

It is not preposterous so much as telling.  China had been devastated by mismanagement and a massive and devastating Taiping rebellion and it was STILL larger than...at least the UK part of the British Empire (which is not quite as impressive).  That being the case it is not a big deal at all they are passing us, probably more of a surprise it took them that long.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 08:38:17 AM

Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

It is not preposterous so much as telling.  China had been devastated by mismanagement and a massive and devastating Taiping rebellion and it was STILL larger than...at least the UK part of the British Empire (which is not quite as impressive).  That being the case it is not a big deal at all they are passing us, probably more of a surprise it took them that long.

It also shows how meaningless that number is since Britain could have destroyed the Chinese state in 1890 with ease.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 05, 2014, 10:10:38 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 08:38:17 AM

Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2014, 08:11:48 AM
Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

It is not preposterous so much as telling.  China had been devastated by mismanagement and a massive and devastating Taiping rebellion and it was STILL larger than...at least the UK part of the British Empire (which is not quite as impressive).  That being the case it is not a big deal at all they are passing us, probably more of a surprise it took them that long.

It also shows how meaningless that number is since Britain could have destroyed the Chinese state in 1890 with ease.

How so?

Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2014, 10:22:09 AM
How so?

I guess he figures since they won the Opium Wars so easily they could have...but I don't know that seems like a big manpower commitment for the British, even with the Indian Army.  Unless of course they would win solely with their fleet and seize the coastal cities.

Britain could have conquered about as much of China as was within reach of their ship's cannons.

I'd believe it, given a few years later China failed so miserably to even beat the Japanese.
If Britain had decided to be a bit evil, and the international community decided to be unrealistically uninterested, it wouldn't take too much to wipe out the Chinese government and encourage a civil war or two.

Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2014, 10:22:09 AM
How so?

And does it matter? Do people look at GDP PPP figures for military top trumps? :mellow:

Destroying the Chinese state seems plausible. Hit the center hard enough to make the rest descend into warlordism.

I have come around to Timmy's POV.

GDP is most useful as a proxy for state power, so plain vanilla GDP is better.

Per capita GPD is  more  about quality of life, so here PPP would make sense.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 10:27:49 AM

Quote from: Warspite on May 05, 2014, 10:22:09 AM
How so?

And does it matter? Do people look at GDP PPP figures for military top trumps? :mellow:

Shouldn't they?  I mean unless they plan on purchasing their military gear and personnel from abroad.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2014, 10:34:40 AM
GDP is most useful as a proxy for state power, so plain vanilla GDP is better.

Per capita GPD is  more  about quality of life, so here PPP would make sense.

Agreed.  PPP is oriented towards basic consumer goods (like food and shelter), not capital goods.  Since there is a basic level of PPP per-capita GDP below which a country or group cannot since and still remain alive, PPP GDP doesn't capture surplus very effectively.  Surplus, though, is what a nation can employ as "state power."

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 05, 2014, 10:25:03 AM
Britain could have conquered about as much of China as was within reach of their ship's cannons.

In short, the important parts.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 08:33:56 AM
Color me skeptical.  This is the Eric Hobsbawm Marxist interpretation and it is not that they are necessarily incorrect, but in the past whenever I just go along with whatever they say I tend to find out later they were just making shit up.  Like 'how can we make this complicated and long process very simple and all about economics?'  So yeah perhaps the British Empire was this organized and systematic and focused that they were destroying massive industries.  Nehru certainly thought this was the case.  But I would be interested in a more modern approach to confirm this story, or at least give a more detailed account of how it came about.

Really?

Next you're going to suggest that the Brits didn't create famines in India by converting vast amounts of agricultural land to growing opium poppies?

The destruction of the Indian cloth manufacturing industry is, as far as I know, well established historical fact. I mean, do you expect that the hundreds of millions of Indians didn't wear much clothes until they started importing from the UK mills?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2014, 10:34:40 AM
I have come around to Timmy's POV.

GDP is most useful as a proxy for state power, so plain vanilla GDP is better.

Per capita GPD is  more  about quality of life, so here PPP would make sense.

This has major ramifications for who should be nuked by whom. :(

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 12:01:49 PM
Really?

Next you're going to suggest that the Brits didn't create famines in India by converting vast amounts of agricultural land to growing opium poppies?

The destruction of the Indian cloth manufacturing industry is, as far as I know, well established historical fact. I mean, do you expect that the hundreds of millions of Indians didn't wear much clothes until they started importing from the UK mills?

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.

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.

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2014, 12:25:15 PM
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.

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2014, 12:25:15 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2014, 12:37:13 PM
Except it's not a spinning wheel, it's the Ashoka Chakra, a buddhist/hindu symbol.

It is both of those things I think.  Ghandi liked his religious symbolism which, IIRC, Jinnah and the Muslims were not particularly happy about.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 12:42:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2014, 12:37:13 PM
Except it's not a spinning wheel, it's the Ashoka Chakra, a buddhist/hindu symbol.

It is both of those things I think.  Ghandi liked his religious symbolism which, IIRC, Jinnah and the Muslims were not particularly happy about.

India: love it, or leave it.

Oh right. -_-

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 12:20:40 PM
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.

I think it's pretty well established, yes.

QuoteIn 1897, British statesman Neville Chamberlain wrote a Colonial Office report: "During the present century ... you will find that every war, great or small, in which we have engaged, has had at bottom a colonial interest, that is to say, either of a colony or else of a great dependency like India." The impoverishment of India is a classic example of plunder-by-trade backed by military might. Before being subdued, colonized, and enforced to become dependent upon British industry:

India was relatively advanced economically. Its methods of production and its industrial and commercial organization could definitely be compared with those prevailing in Western Europe. In fact, India had been manufacturing and exporting the finest muslins and luxurious fabrics since the time when most western Europeans were backward primitive peoples.

Hand weaving was tedious and paid little, so at first the British purchased much of their cloth from India. India had no need or desire for British products, so imports had to be paid for with gold. However, Britain did not make the same mistake as Spain; Indian textiles were embargoed and British cloth was produced with the evolving technology of weaving machinery. After India was conquered, its import and export policies were controlled by Britain, which not only banned Indian textiles from British markets but also taxed them to a disadvantage within India so that British cloth dominated the Indian market. India's internal production of cloth was not only excluded from their own internal market so as to be undersold by Britain's inferior cloth, Britain excluded those beautiful and much higher quality fabrics from England while marketing them all over Europe. Controlling India and the seas "entitled" British merchants to buy for a pittance and sell at a high price. Friedrich List points out that the purpose of this control of trade was building Britain's "productive power":

...

Through the forced sales of British products and the simultaneous embargoing of, or high tariffs on, the cheaper yet higher quality Indian cloths, India's wealth started flowing toward Britain. "It was [only] by destroying [the] Indian textile industry that [the British textile industry of] Lancaster ever came up at all." Other Indian industries were similarly devastated. In the words of historian Lewis Mumford:

In the name of progress, the limited but balanced economy of the Hindu village, with its local potter, its local spinners and weavers, its local smith, was overthrown for the sake of providing a market for the potteries of the Five Towns and the textiles of Manchester and the superfluous hardware of Birmingham. The result was impoverished villages in India, hideous and destitute towns in England, and a great wastage in tonnage and man-power in plying the oceans between.

One exceptionally rich sector of India was East Bengal (Bangladesh). When the British first arrived,

[they] found a thriving industry and a prosperous agriculture. It was, in the optimistic words of one Englishman, 'a wonderful land, whose richness and abundance neither war, pestilence, nor oppression could destroy.' But by 1947, when the sun finally set on the British Empire in India, Eastern Bengal had been reduced to an agricultural hinterland. In the words of an English merchant, 'Various and innumerable are the methods of oppressing the poor weavers ... such as by fines, imprisonment, floggings, forcing bonds from them, etc.' By means of every conceivable form of roguery, the company's merchants acquired the weaver's cloth for a fraction of its value.

Later, still under British control and ignoring the fact that the East Bengalis were being impoverished through dispossession of the land which produced their food and cotton, Bengal produced raw materials (indigo and jute) for world commerce, and poppies for the large, externally-imposed, Chinese opium market. As Adam Smith commented, money was lent to farmers "at forty, fifty, and sixty percent" and this, and other profits of trade, would confiscate all wealth except that paid in wages. Of course, Bengali labor was paid almost nothing so Bengal's wealth was rapidly transferred to Britain. Foreign control enforcing dependency upon British industry and siphoning wealth away through unequal trades in everyday commerce devastated the balanced and prosperous Bengali economy and created the extreme poverty of Bangladesh today. "Once it was the center of the finest textile manufactures in the world ... [with] a third of its people ... employed in non-agricultural occupations.... Today 90 percent of its workers are in agriculture or unemployed." The destruction of the once thriving economy of East Bengal (Bangladesh) was so thorough that even the long-staple, finely textured local cotton became extinct.

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

Or if you prefer a more concise wikipedia summary:

QuoteHigh tariffs against Indian textile workshops, British power in India through the East India Company, and British restrictions on Indian cotton imports transformed India from the source of textiles to a source of raw cotton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cotton
Both sources have footnotes in the original if you care to pursue them further.

What is your skepticism based on?

GDP is a measure of final goods and services produced.  Nothing less, nothing more.
PPPs are just a logical adjustment in order to make rational like-to-like comparisons between non-tradable services.
I.e imagine two countries that just produce grain, steel, and manicures.  Grain and steel are globally traded so the quantitities produced and values as measured in dollars are going to be very close.  The same isn't true for manicures - Country A and Country B may both have "produced" 1000 manicures, but if Country A manicures cost $1 and Country B manicures cost $10, the services component of Country B will be 10 times larger even though production is the same.  It doesn't make sense to assign a much higher GDP to country B because its residents have to pay higher prices to get their nails done.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2014, 12:37:13 PM

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2014, 12:25:15 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2014, 12:47:08 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 12:20:40 PM
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. 

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 12:51:08 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2014, 12:47:08 PM
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. :mellow:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2014, 12:51:12 PM
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  :P

Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 12:50:14 PM
Independence movement used the spinning wheel.

As seen here (Swaraj Flag, adopted by the Congress in 1931):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F5a%2F1931_Flag_of_India.svg%2F220px-1931_Flag_of_India.svg.png&hash=fa355ac25afb4da8ad4febea5980b48a6be4606f)

Here's the flag Ghandi introduced to the Congress meeting in 1921:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7f%2F1921_India_flag.svg%2F220px-1921_India_flag.svg.png&hash=56d225ef134e0ca51f9a5354a6118b4af3a09e34)

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

Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 12:57:01 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 12:51:08 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2014, 12:47:08 PM
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. :mellow:

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

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 12:20:40 PMIt 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.

QuoteOh 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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 01:02:04 PM

Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 12:57:01 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 12:51:08 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2014, 12:47:08 PM
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. :mellow:

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. <_<

Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 01:04:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 01:02:04 PM
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?

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 01:06:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on May 05, 2014, 01:04:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 01:02:04 PM
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. -_-

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 12:43:53 PM

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.

QuoteWhat is your skepticism based on?

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 01:02:54 PM
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.

QuoteThere 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.

Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2014, 01:11:57 PM
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.

Quote

QuoteWhat 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.

Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2014, 01:11:57 PM
That's the question.  I don't know of a historian that doubts the general outline above.

Well here is an example forever I just took it on faith that a major driving force in the Crusades was seeking land for second sons.  Recent studies pretty much destroy this claim, but man that one had some legs.  So these things I see mainly introduced by Left wing sources I am becoming a bit more skeptical on.  Not that I think they are entirely wrong, unlike the Crusades bit, but it makes me interested to learn how nuanced things are. 

The de-industrialization of India, in particular, has caught my attention largely because of a bit of a kick I went on recently about the Princely states.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 01:12:09 PM

QuoteThere 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.

Yeah, it was widely sold in India when previously India had been an exporter of cloth until British tariffs and economically destructive policies had destroyed the Indian cloth manufacturing industry.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 01:15:05 PM
Well here is an example forever I just took it on faith that a major driving force in the Crusades was seeking land for second sons.  Recent studies pretty much destroy this claim, but man that one had some legs.  So these things I see mainly introduced by Left wing sources I am becoming a bit more skeptical on.  Not that I think they are entirely wrong, unlike the Crusades bit, but it makes me interested to learn how nuanced things are. 

The de-industrialization of India, in particular, has caught my attention largely because of a bit of a kick I went on recently about the Princely states.

Look, I'm definitely no expert on the subject so I'd be very happy to hear about any sources you've come across that contradicts the prevailing view. And yeah, there's probably all kinds of nuance there once you dig into it; but right now it does seem like you're saying "I don't really want to believe that, not because I've seen contrary evidence, but simply because I chose not to."

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 01:15:05 PMWell here is an example forever I just took it on faith that a major driving force in the Crusades was seeking land for second sons.  Recent studies pretty much destroy this claim, but man that one had some legs.  So these things I see mainly introduced by Left wing sources I am becoming a bit more skeptical on.  Not that I think they are entirely wrong, unlike the Crusades bit, but it makes me interested to learn how nuanced things are. 

It seems like you're objecting to the way history works as a discipline :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 01:20:35 PM
It seems like you're objecting to the way history works as a discipline :mellow:

Am I?  Explain.  I am interested in reading more of it not crusading against it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 01:20:35 PM
It seems like you're objecting to the way history works as a discipline :mellow:

Seems  he objects to the way repeated falsehood becomes accepted as truth.

Can someone explain to me how Britain destroyed India's weaving industry?  Import tariffs would have prevented Indian exports to the  Metropole, but not how British cloth drove out domestically produced cloth  in the Indian market.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 01:23:43 PM
Am I?  Explain.  I am interested in reading more of it not crusading against it.

Basically thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Well you start with one narrative/explanation for a historical event. Later historians look at it or research other data and suggest a new theory/explanation/narrative. Often there's an element of over-reaching in correcting the previous version's faults. Then later research and interepretations supplant that - again often with an element of over-reaching.

I'll take your word for it that the landless son aspect has been destroyed, but I doubt anyone, even critics, would say it wasn't worthwhile because it will have advanced research and knowledge in this aspect of the Crusades even if only to allow us to say it was a minimal factor.

And it's not a left-right thing, though there's bound to be different theoretical schools. I'm no expert but from what I understand the current trend in history of British India is to emphasise the continuities between the Mughal and the British Empires. That's arguable right-wing, but more importantly probably created in reaction to the previous dominant school which thought that the British Empire largely represented a clean break.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2014, 01:25:20 PM
Can someone explain to me how Britain destroyed India's weaving industry?  Import tariffs would have prevented Indian exports to the  Metropole, but not how British cloth drove out domestically produced cloth  in the Indian market.

The British were producing cloth via machinery. Even low-wage Indian weavers couldn't compete with machines.  The lower classes in India were perfectly willing to buy two sets of less-well-made British textiles rather than one set of domestic clothes.

British policies certainly favored their own products rather than Indian ones (especially when it came to getting the raw cotton and indigo), but I think the efficiency of the Industrial Revolution was the more significant factor.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 01:02:54 PM
But it was devastated. Indian industrial production as a percent of the global total went from 25% in 1750 to under 2% in 1900.

That kind of statistic can be incredibly misleading when the base is not stable (and global industrial production has not exactly been stable between 1750 and 1900).

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 01:29:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 01:23:43 PM
Am I?  Explain.  I am interested in reading more of it not crusading against it.

Basically thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Well you start with one narrative/explanation for a historical event. Later historians look at it or research other data and suggest a new theory/explanation/narrative. Often there's an element of over-reaching in correcting the previous version's faults. Then later research and interepretations supplant that - again often with an element of over-reaching.

I'll take your word for it that the landless son aspect has been destroyed, but I doubt anyone, even critics, would say it wasn't worthwhile because it will have advanced research and knowledge in this aspect of the Crusades even if only to allow us to say it was a minimal factor.

And it's not a left-right thing, though there's bound to be different theoretical schools. I'm no expert but from what I understand the current trend in history of British India is to emphasise the continuities between the Mughal and the British Empires. That's arguable right-wing, but more importantly probably created in reaction to the previous dominant school which thought that the British Empire largely represented a clean break.

I am not necessarily anti the left wing guys.  Just that I read their stuff, made assumptions what they said was accurate, and moved on.  I mean geez when Nehru claims things how could he be wrong?  He was there for Godsake.  Now I am questioning my own assumptions.

One of the big holes in the second son thing was that landless nobles were not even particularly well represented in the Crusade itself.  Which, when I thought about it, was obvious and I felt sort of silly.  But the main thing was the economic forces pushing for the Crusades were just not there.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 01:13:37 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2014, 01:11:57 PM
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.

Quote

QuoteWhat 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.

There is no doubt that Indian cloth-making drastically declined, relative to the world output.

What is in doubt, is which factors were more significant for causing this relative decline: (1) Deliberate British policies of discriminatory tariffs and taxes, and other such imperial manipulations, designed to keep India poor? or (2) The fact that Britian was going through an industrial revolution centered on machine textile-weaving and transportation the likes of which the world had never seen, and so it was actually a lot cheaper to ship cotton all the way to Britian, weave it by machine, and ship the cloth all the way back again, than have people weave their own as they had from time immemorial - even though the results were less pretty than the genuine hand-made stuff?

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

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the policies of the colonial administration?

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 01:12:09 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 01:02:54 PM
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.

here is a shorter paper From Williamson focusing just on India:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10586.pdf?new_window=1

His basic argument is
1) Coincident with the collapse of the Moghul Empire, agricultural productivity in India stagnated in the late 18th century, pushing up prices and nominal wages and thus harming competitiveness of domestic manufactures.
2) The industrial revolution in the UK and the West along with the global transport revolution drove down textile prices and made Indian manufacture even less competitive. [the traditional story]
3) Just as significantly, the two hig revolutions drove up grain and raw material prices and thus caused Indian land and business owners to shift production to more lucrative primary products.

the result was that India once the world's biggest textile exporter became a big importer.
One doesn't have to assume a complete eradication of all production.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

Lots of countries did not industrialize successfully during the 19th century, even though they could see the Brits doing it. There were lots of reasons for that. Certainly British policies played a part, but that only goes so far - consider that places like China and Thailand also did not successfully industrialize, even though they were not part of the British Empire (while Japan did successfully industrialize, likewise while not being a European colony).

I suspect that the problem was that to industrialize wasn't simply a question of building a couple of factories, but of creating - in effect, changing - traditional society more or less completely, which most societies were very reluctant to do (Japan being a notable exception).

Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2014, 02:17:11 PM
Lots of countries did not industrialize successfully during the 19th century, even though they could see the Brits doing it. There were lots of reasons for that. Certainly British policies played a part, but that only goes so far - consider that places like China and Thailand also did not successfully industrialize, even though they were not part of the British Empire (while Japan did successfully industrialize, likewise while not being a European colony).

I suspect that the problem was that to industrialize wasn't simply a question of building a couple of factories, but of creating - in effect, changing - traditional society more or less completely, which most societies were very reluctant to do (Japan being a notable exception).

On top of that, trying to industrialize was a pretty dangerous game. The Egyptian leadership borrowed heavily in an attempt to do so and were driven into bankruptcy.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 02:09:42 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the policies of the colonial administration?

Nah.  It's not like it was captive market or anything.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

I just presumed the British did not allow it, or otherwise surely it could have been a good idea for the British companies to open factories right by the cotton fields and slash their costs.  But I could be wrong about that.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 02:09:42 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the policies of the colonial administration?

One could also wonder why ~65 years on from colonialism their infrastructure is still in a deplorable state and some of the key elements of what they do have are left over from British times.

Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2014, 02:17:11 PM
I suspect that the problem was that to industrialize wasn't simply a question of building a couple of factories, but of creating - in effect, changing - traditional society more or less completely, which most societies were very reluctant to do (Japan being a notable exception).

Not only that, but a society's elites had to be willing to give up a big share of their power to the nouveau riche arising from the industrialization process.  Russia resisted industrialization and the American South fought a war to ward of industrialization because the elites didn't want to share power.

Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2014, 02:17:11 PM


Lots of countries did not industrialize successfully during the 19th century, even though they could see the Brits doing it. There were lots of reasons for that. Certainly British policies played a part, but that only goes so far - consider that places like China and Thailand also did not successfully industrialize, even though they were not part of the British Empire (while Japan did successfully industrialize, likewise while not being a European colony).

I suspect that the problem was that to industrialize wasn't simply a question of building a couple of factories, but of creating - in effect, changing - traditional society more or less completely, which most societies were very reluctant to do (Japan being a notable exception).

How many non-white British colonial holdings industrialized in the 19th century?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:30:32 PM
How many non-white British colonial holdings industrialized in the 19th century?

Who would have been a good prospect for that?  19th century is a little early for most African colonies.  The Caribbean maybe?  Maybe Malaysia or Hong Kong?  I guess one would have to decide what it would have meant for them to industrialize.  I mean obviously just being coaling stations they had something going on in a lot of those places.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2014, 02:17:11 PM


Lots of countries did not industrialize successfully during the 19th century, even though they could see the Brits doing it. There were lots of reasons for that. Certainly British policies played a part, but that only goes so far - consider that places like China and Thailand also did not successfully industrialize, even though they were not part of the British Empire (while Japan did successfully industrialize, likewise while not being a European colony).

I suspect that the problem was that to industrialize wasn't simply a question of building a couple of factories, but of creating - in effect, changing - traditional society more or less completely, which most societies were very reluctant to do (Japan being a notable exception).

How many non-white British colonial holdings industrialized in the 19th century?

Why restrict it to non-White? Industialization rates in the so-called "White Dominions" of Canada, Australia and New Zealand were also low in the 19th century. They acted mostly as producers of raw materials (and to an extent, still do). 

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 02:33:14 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:30:32 PM
How many non-white British colonial holdings industrialized in the 19th century?

Who would have been a good prospect for that?  19th century is a little early for most African colonies.  The Caribbean maybe?  Maybe Malaysia or Hong Kong?  I guess one would have to decide what it would have meant for them to industrialize.  I mean obviously just being coaling stations they had something going on in a lot of those places.

India?

Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2014, 02:25:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 02:09:42 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the policies of the colonial administration?

One could also wonder why ~65 years on from colonialism their infrastructure is still in a deplorable state and some of the key elements of what they do have are left over from British times.

That seems to be common amongst former colonies.  It's almost like there is some sort of connection...

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:41:13 PM

That seems to be common amongst former colonies.  It's almost like there is some sort of connection...

India had dramatically more territory and population than merry old England, but somehow managed to be conquered by people that had to take a boat trip half way around the world to get there. Who would guess that a country that dysfunctional going into colonialism would be messed up on the other end, and the mess wouldn't be resolved to this day?

Parts of Africa were either not colonized, or only lightly colonized for a short time. The evidence doesn't seem to show that colonialism is what caused the harm.

Eg: going north to south, we have Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. Among the three, Kenya was the most intensely colonized, and is the best off. Ethiopia was hardly colonized, and is the worst off. Tanzania is in the middle.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:41:13 PM
That seems to be common amongst former colonies.  It's almost like there is some sort of connection...

Is it?  Many former colonies are doing very well.  I mean it has been 50+ years for most of them, there are fewer and fewer commonalities by this point.  Or is there something about roads and power plants and the like specifically you are talking about here.

I don't think AF is right here anyway, but I am no Indian infrastructure expert.

Just a quick Wiki it appears there has been quite a bit of installation of power infrastructure...still woefully inadequate for the population of course but you cannot have India without stuff like that.

India has nukes and nukes is enough.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2014, 02:56:48 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:41:13 PM

That seems to be common amongst former colonies.  It's almost like there is some sort of connection...

India had dramatically more territory and population than merry old England, but somehow managed to be conquered by people that had to take a boat trip half way around the world to get there. Who would guess that a country that dysfunctional going into colonialism would be messed up on the other end, and the mess wouldn't be resolved to this day?

Parts of Africa were either not colonized, or only lightly colonized for a short time. The evidence doesn't seem to show that colonialism is what caused the harm.

Eg: going north to south, we have Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania. Among the three, Kenya was the most intensely colonized, and is the best off. Ethiopia was hardly colonized, and is the worst off. Tanzania is in the middle.

India wasn't actually a country when the British showed up it was a collection of states.

The India.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
India?

What about it?  You are not the first person to bring them up in this thread.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:23:05 PM
India wasn't actually a country when the British showed up it was a collection of states.

Well one gigantic state and a few tiny ones.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 03:15:44 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:41:13 PM
That seems to be common amongst former colonies.  It's almost like there is some sort of connection...

Is it?  Many former colonies are doing very well.  I mean it has been 50+ years for most of them, there are fewer and fewer commonalities by this point.  Or is there something about roads and power plants and the like specifically you are talking about here.

I don't think AF is right here anyway, but I am no Indian infrastructure expert.

Just a quick Wiki it appears there has been quite a bit of installation of power infrastructure...still woefully inadequate for the population of course but you cannot have India without stuff like that.

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

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 03:15:44 PM
I don't think AF is right here anyway, but I am no Indian infrastructure expert.

Just a quick Wiki it appears there has been quite a bit of installation of power infrastructure...still woefully inadequate for the population of course but you cannot have India without stuff like that.

You are going to say that I'm not right, because I used the word "deplorable" to describe what you said was "woefully inadequate."  :cry:

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 03:27:47 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
India?

What about it?  You are not the first person to bring them up in this thread.

It was answer to question.  Who would be a good canidate for industrialization, I suggested India.  If I recall many of the reasons America rebelled against Britain were because of British mercantile practices that were designed to strengthen British industry and keep the American colonies as a captive market producing raw materials and dependent on British finished goods.  I'm suggesting that such practices were also used on India and that retarded Indian economic growth.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:33:36 PM
I'd say countries that were colonies in the 19th century tend to do poorer then places that weren't.

I'd say that strikes me as not a very meaningful metric.  I mean one would have to have apples to compare to apples in that case, and in the relevant neighborhoods there are not very many apples of both varieties.  But I do not see that say...Ethiopia is not doing much better than overall than it's colonized neighbors (and that is one bad bad neighborhood).  Thailand is not doing much better than its neighborhood.  Belize is not doing much worse than its neighborhood.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
It was answer to question.  Who would be a good canidate for industrialization, I suggested India.  If I recall many of the reasons America rebelled against Britain were because of British mercantile practices that were designed to strengthen British industry and keep the American colonies as a captive market producing raw materials and dependent on British finished goods.  I'm suggesting that such practices were also used on India and that retarded Indian economic growth.

Yes I already brought up this question as something I was going to look into.  I am not sure I buy the thesis that Free Trade 19th century Britain was using identical practices as Mercantilist Britain.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 03:47:07 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
It was answer to question.  Who would be a good canidate for industrialization, I suggested India.  If I recall many of the reasons America rebelled against Britain were because of British mercantile practices that were designed to strengthen British industry and keep the American colonies as a captive market producing raw materials and dependent on British finished goods.  I'm suggesting that such practices were also used on India and that retarded Indian economic growth.

Yes I already brought up this question as something I was going to look into.  I am not sure I buy the thesis that Free Trade 19th century Britain was using identical practices as Mercantilist Britain.

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:33:36 PM
I'd say countries that were colonies in the 19th century tend to do poorer then places that weren't.

The child is the father of the man.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 05, 2014, 03:58:04 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:33:36 PM
I'd say countries that were colonies in the 19th century tend to do poorer then places that weren't.

The child is the father of the man.

Some of these places that were colonized had cities and metal working when Britain was still in the stone age.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
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.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2014, 03:35:18 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 03:15:44 PM
I don't think AF is right here anyway, but I am no Indian infrastructure expert.

Just a quick Wiki it appears there has been quite a bit of installation of power infrastructure...still woefully inadequate for the population of course but you cannot have India without stuff like that.

You are going to say that I'm not right, because I used the word "deplorable" to describe what you said was "woefully inadequate."  :cry:

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

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 04:03:33 PM
Some of these places that were colonized had cities and metal working when Britain was still in the stone age.

I don't see how that is relevant.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2014, 04:07:58 PM
Valmy, I'm struggling to figure this out... :P

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.   You made it sound like they had not done any substantial work on infrastructure.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:04:35 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
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?

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:13:01 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on May 05, 2014, 04:07:58 PM
Valmy, I'm struggling to figure this out... :P

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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:23:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2014, 04:45:05 PM
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.

QuoteIt was a famine for liberal ideology.

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

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?

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:53:22 PMThe 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.

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

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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:23:59 PM
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  :lol:  :blush:

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.

QuoteAnyway 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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
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?

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 05:37:06 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:23:59 PM
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  :lol:  :blush:

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.

:huh:

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
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.

QuoteI'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

Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2014, 12:37:13 PM

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2014, 12:25:15 PM
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.

Quote from: Tyr on May 05, 2014, 06:08:42 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 02:05:36 PM
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?

Quote

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2014, 05:58:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2014, 07:27:19 PM
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. 

:scratches head:

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2014, 07:32:04 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2014, 07:27:19 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2014, 07:40:19 PM

Quote from: mongers on May 05, 2014, 07:32:04 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2014, 07:27:19 PM
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.

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

Well, not with making exorbitant demands and all.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 07:14:19 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 07:14:19 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 05, 2014, 05:58:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:04:35 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 04:23:59 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2014, 04:16:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:40:16 AM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2014, 08:01:21 AM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:40:16 AMI 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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:19:33 AM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:04:21 AM
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.

QuoteThe 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.

The Normans were invited to Ireland. So there.

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2014, 10:07:21 AM
The Normans were invited to Ireland. So there.

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

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 09:04:41 AM

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:40:16 AMI 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  :(

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 06, 2014, 10:42:16 AM
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.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 06, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
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).

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 09:07:35 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:19:33 AM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2014, 08:01:21 AM

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:40:16 AM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:45:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:37:18 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 09:07:35 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:19:33 AM
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. 

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:45:24 PM
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?

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:07:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:37:18 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 09:07:35 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 01:19:33 AM
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?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:11:39 PM
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.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum-s3.pinside.com%2F201206%2F289342%2F31686.jpg&hash=e45e5820c2e11bdc97e5d107811114a2da0dfd58)

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
It wasn't?

There were plenty of Irish landlords as well. 

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
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?

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
It wasn't?

There were plenty of Irish landlords as well.

Basically the whole thing was unfortunate but unavoidable, and as such it does not in any way imply that being part of the British Empire had negative consequences for the subject nations?

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:48:27 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
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?

If you're Protestant you aren't really Irish, in some mystical sense? :unsure:

Raz, can you just say what you fucking mean, without rhetorical questions or "I was under impression"?

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2014, 03:06:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:48:27 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
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?

If you're Protestant you aren't really Irish, in some mystical sense? :unsure:

"Just because one is born in a stable does not make one a horse!" - (misattributed to) the Duke of Wellington, on being called "Irish".

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 03:23:07 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2014, 03:06:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:48:27 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
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?

If you're Protestant you aren't really Irish, in some mystical sense? :unsure:

"Just because one is born in a stable does not make one a horse!" - (misattributed to) the Duke of Wellington, on being called "Irish".

Statistics indicate otherwise.

Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
Basically the whole thing was unfortunate but unavoidable, and as such it does not in any way imply that being part of the British Empire had negative consequences for the subject nations?

I have already stated what I believe were the ultimate causes of the famine (besides the obvious one of a potato blight).  The second part is a ridiculously broad question.  I honestly have no idea if the British Empire had negative or positive consequences for each of the subject nations, I do not have an alternate reality machine to see if things would have gone better or worse.  The British Empire was a fundamentally immoral structure and how much positivity it may or may not have had for its subject people is immaterial to that reality.  If I do not condemn the British Empire sufficiently I hope you do not take that to mean I support it any way.

On the other hand Ireland is a strange and unique example of it.  The problems Ireland had were the result of centuries of sectarian conflict.  The Irish had voting rights and representation in Parliament and were considered British citizens.  If every part of the Empire had that going for it I would feel a lot differently about the British Empire, believe me.  Of course it would no longer be a British Empire at that point but some sort of amazingly diverse super state.

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2014, 03:33:59 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 03:23:07 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2014, 03:06:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:48:27 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
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?

If you're Protestant you aren't really Irish, in some mystical sense? :unsure:

"Just because one is born in a stable does not make one a horse!" - (misattributed to) the Duke of Wellington, on being called "Irish".

Statistics indicate otherwise.

That's bad news for Christians.  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 03:39:36 PM
That's bad news for Christians.  ;)

At least he was a Jewish horse.

The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. The stable is allegorical.

Quote from: The Brain on May 06, 2014, 03:44:14 PM
The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. The stable is allegorical.

It is symbolic of all farm related buildings, showing the spiritual need for farm subsidies.

I would defer to The Brain on all farm matters.

Quote from: DGuller on May 06, 2014, 03:18:38 PM
Raz, can you just say what you fucking mean, without rhetorical questions or "I was under impression"?

It is difficult to for me to speak in absolutes because I'm insane.  My impressions, understandings, and beliefs may be derived from delusions.

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

The walls would have been a luxury.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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

Quote6 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.

Damn Minsky is schooling us Gentiles on our own scriptures.

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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

Quote6 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.

Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2014, 04:22:17 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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

Quote6 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.  ;)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 06, 2014, 12:34:06 AMThe 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteParadoxically 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.

QuoteThat'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?

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.

What prevented the absentee landlords from evicting their tenants earlier?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2014, 06:19:13 PM
What prevented the absentee landlords from evicting their tenants earlier?

Their labor was still required.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2014, 06:19:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 06:28:50 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 06, 2014, 06:19:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 06, 2014, 05:23:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 06:17:09 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2014, 08:20:16 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 06:17:09 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 06, 2014, 08:46:54 PM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 10:13:41 PM
Plus the whole Bethlehem story is concocted, but that is a separate issue.

It is symbolic.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 10:13:41 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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.

It's some kind of requirement of the Messiah, right?  Being born in one of the old cities of the Kings? 

Quote from: Queequeg on May 07, 2014, 12:10:54 AM
It's some kind of requirement of the Messiah, right?  Being born in one of the old cities of the Kings? 

Not that I am aware of.

I'm pretty confident that if Ireland wasn't part of Britain the potatoe famine would have been much much worse.
Yep, the government were a bunch of ideologically focused numpties, but most of the aid that did come to Ireland was from the UK; this wouldn't be totally removed with an I deodorant Ireland but I would imagine it would be sharply lessened.
The uk also offered a convenient place to move to, again not impossible with the two being separate countries but more difficult.
And though the Uk government did a crap job of helping in Ireland at least they saw that as a desirable thing to do. Would the ascendancy have been so concerned about a bunch of freeloading Catholics dying?  they could even see it as a positive step, nature/god doing clearances for them.

Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2014, 02:10:05 AM

Yep, the government were a bunch of ideologically focused numpties, but most of the aid that did come to Ireland was from the UK; this wouldn't be totally removed with an I deodorant Ireland but I would imagine it would be sharply lessened.

Is this supposed to be independent? Talk about a Freudian slip.

Also, numpties? Really?

Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2014, 07:42:50 PM
I believe they were still under the inheritable feudal leasehold, and couldn't evict.  I'm not sure about that, though.

It was the opposite. They could evict for any reason, at any time. Fixity of tenure was one of the three fs of the Irish Land League (with fair rent and free sale).

The problem was that the British basically thought the same as Raz. Ireland needed less neglectful absentee landlords. Landlords needed to work to improve their estate and take an interest in their tenants as (they believed) they did in England and Scotland.

So in 1838 they passed an Irish poor law based on the English poor law. That got rid of any outdoor relief and established the workhouses. They were locally funded and, to encourage landlords to develop their estates, the tax to fund them was levied on land valued at less than £4 per annum. This meant the tax fell most heavily on landlords in the West where subdivision was common.

When the famine hit the rates were increased to cover the cost of more and more destitute. The most potato-dependant areas of Ireland were also the ones that had subdivided the land the most. Though, unlike in England, there was no right to poor relief. If the workhouse was full, or had run out of money they could refuse you, or if they didn't think you were poor enough - it was entirely discretionary. So the landlords started evicting people to knit bits of land back together so they weren't assessed for the rates.

But a source of that policy was the view that absentee landlords were a serious problem. British opinion basically thought Ireland had three major problems: overpopulation, absentee landlords and inefficient division of land. The famine offered them an opportunity to reorder them and to fix those problems.

QuoteI'm pretty confident that if Ireland wasn't part of Britain the potatoe famine would have been much much worse.
Yep, the government were a bunch of ideologically focused numpties, but most of the aid that did come to Ireland was from the UK; this wouldn't be totally removed with an I deodorant Ireland but I would imagine it would be sharply lessened.
The uk also offered a convenient place to move to, again not impossible with the two being separate countries but more difficult.

Lots of other parts of Europe experience problems at this point - Belgium, Holland, Sweden and Russia - none have a famine like this. One of the first steps taken by each of those governments was to ban the export of grains. During the famine Ireland exported a huge amount of food, mostly corn, to England - estimated to be enough to feed 2 million each year. That was never taken by British governments because it would affect Britain and it was an unconscionable meddle in the market.

It was, incidentally, what Grattan's Parliament - which was an ascendancy Parliament with limited powers prior to union - did in response to a minor famine in the 1780s.

Given the pace of emigration to the US, Canada, Australia and, yes, Glasgow and Liverpool, I don't think the Irish were overly worried if they could move to somewhere convenient.

QuoteAnd though the Uk government did a crap job of helping in Ireland at least they saw that as a desirable thing to do. Would the ascendancy have been so concerned about a bunch of freeloading Catholics dying?  they could even see it as a positive step, nature/god doing clearances for them.

That is how many British saw it. Charles Trevelyan (who has been the subject of revisionist biographies) was the Treasury official in charge of relief efforts, who saw the famine as a 'mechanism for reducing surplus population' and added 'The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. ...The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.'

A lot of that moral failing incidentally he blamed on the potato itself - it was too easy to farm, it made people lazy and prone to breed.

Also this is based on a perception that the potato famine only really affected the Catholic areas and mainly the South and West. It was encouraged by Protestants at the time but it's not true. The mortality rate in the province of Ulster was higher than it was in Leinster. There's parts of Eastern Ulster which were not badly affected because they had significant oats as part of their diet and they were mainly Protestant, but that exception aside the famine hit Protestant and Catholic communities alike in Ulster.

Quotehowever 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.

I very much doubt it. I think Isaac Butt is probably the last believer in home rule and his federal solution. There's no doubt Parnell's goal was independence and I think that's true of all subsequent home rulers.

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
There is no account in the Bible that says Jesus was born in a stable.

Where does one usually find a manger?

A $2,000 manger?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 10:13:41 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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.

The Bible does speak of an inn though. An inn owning a stable seems logical to me.

Luke says that Mary and Joseph were *turned away* from a kataluma [Greek].  Also that is often translated as "inn" but in fact is a broader term referring to "lodging" generally.  It could equally refer to a guest room in a private house, which arguably makes more sense in context.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 10:13:41 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 06, 2014, 04:14:58 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2014, 04:07:52 PM
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.

Seems logical that it would be associated with a stable, whether or not actually inside it.

The traditional story is that, being unable to stay in an inn, they bedded down in the inn's stable, presumably on a pile of hay for a bed, and when Mary gave birth, they put the baby in a manger in lieu of a bassinet.

Only the first and last parts actually made it into Luke, but the middle part seems a very reasonable extrapolation. The alternative is that they bedded down outside on the ground for the birth, which strikes me as less likely.

Of course the whole story is mythology, but this part isn't in any way improbable.   

Re Bethlehem it is associated with the Davidic kingship as the place David was annointed.  There is a prophecy in Micah about a messiah being born in Bethlehem.  Which is inconvenient if the messiah-to-be is from a hamlet in the Galillee.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2014, 08:48:48 AM
Luke says that Mary and Joseph were *turned away* from a kataluma [Greek].  Also that is often translated as "inn" but in fact is a broader term referring to "lodging" generally.  It could equally refer to a guest room in a private house, which arguably makes more sense in context.

We know that there was a manger nearby. Whether an "inn" or "private lodging", makes little difference. Where there is a manger, there are animals that need feeding on a regular basis, making a stable also nearby seem more likely than not.

A common practice in the ancient world and well after was that animals would be left outside in the day and brought indoors at night inside the lodging. (this also served the purpose of providing heat). The feeding trough would be in the lodging.  The provision for an entirely separate structure just for housing animals would imply fairly high levels of wealth probably not typical for a small backwater settlement like Bethlehem.

While we are on the topic of pretending that stories are real and can be analyzed like real events, was the fact that Peter Pan never grew up due to genetic defects, or was he not, in fact, even human and was just bad at "aging" his human disguise?

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2014, 09:19:26 AM
While we are on the topic of pretending that stories are real and can be analyzed like real events, was the fact that Peter Pan never grew up due to genetic defects, or was he not, in fact, even human and was just bad at "aging" his human disguise?

Oh for Godsake grumbler.  Peter Pan was only symbolically ageless.

Peter Pan left Never-Neverland and founded a company that makes very greasy peanut butter.

How ironic that grumbler would tackle a story about aging.  :hmm:

Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
How ironic that grumbler would tackle a story about aging.  :hmm:

How ironic that DG discuss the irony contained in a post that he clearly didn't bother to read very carefully. :hmm:

Some real person or persons wrote Luke and they used real Greek words to do so.  Those real words have some real meaning.
IMO it is pretty clear that the Bethlehem story is fictitious but still one can talk meaningfully about the content of that story.  If one is going to recreate a scene from that story, then one must have some idea of what is being said.  Whether is based on real events or not is irrelevant.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2014, 09:11:24 AM
A common practice in the ancient world and well after was that animals would be left outside in the day and brought indoors at night inside the lodging. (this also served the purpose of providing heat). The feeding trough would be in the lodging.  The provision for an entirely separate structure just for housing animals would imply fairly high levels of wealth probably not typical for a small backwater settlement like Bethlehem.

Animals were typically stored in one of two ways - either in seperate outbuildings (if this was in fact an "inn") or on a lower floor of the same structure the people themselves lived in. Either could be logically described as a "stable", though admittedly, in the latter case it is simply the ground floor of the same building. The meaning does not change though - the family, having been unable to find available space in a place where people typically slept (either the upper floor, or in the case of an "inn", a seperate structure), had to bed down - and here that reasonable assumption comes into play - in a place where the animals are usually kept, whether that was a seperate structure or the ground floor of the same building.

The meaning isn't really any different - bedding down, never mind giving birth, in the place one generally uses to store animals is unfortunate and icky. Unless you are the Brain - in which case, giving birth isn't an issue.  ;)

This thread is supposed to be about the Potato Famine.  :mad:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2014, 10:17:49 AM
This thread is supposed to be about the Potato Famine.  :mad:

WTF?  I am pretty sure it is about the Indian cloth industry during the British Raj.

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2014, 09:45:51 AM

Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
How ironic that grumbler would tackle a story about aging.  :hmm:

How ironic that DG discuss the irony contained in a post that he clearly didn't bother to read very carefully. :hmm:

I'm a writer, not a reader.

Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
How ironic that grumbler would tackle a story about aging.  :hmm:

Really, we should be asking Grumbler about animal storage in 0 AD. After all, he probably witnessed it personally.  ;)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2014, 09:49:39 AM
If one is going to recreate a scene from that story, then one must have some idea of what is being said.  Whether is based on real events or not is irrelevant.

It's a little late to embrace the art of production design now.

Any of you read Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives on this?

Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2014, 02:10:05 AM
I'm pretty confident that if Ireland wasn't part of Britain the potatoe famine would have been much much worse.
Yep, the government were a bunch of ideologically focused numpties, but most of the aid that did come to Ireland was from the UK; this wouldn't be totally removed with an I deodorant Ireland but I would imagine it would be sharply lessened.
The uk also offered a convenient place to move to, again not impossible with the two being separate countries but more difficult.
And though the Uk government did a crap job of helping in Ireland at least they saw that as a desirable thing to do. Would the ascendancy have been so concerned about a bunch of freeloading Catholics dying?  they could even see it as a positive step, nature/god doing clearances for them.

:lol:

Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 10:55:39 AM

Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2014, 02:10:05 AM
I'm pretty confident that if Ireland wasn't part of Britain the potatoe famine would have been much much worse.
Yep, the government were a bunch of ideologically focused numpties, but most of the aid that did come to Ireland was from the UK; this wouldn't be totally removed with an I deodorant Ireland but I would imagine it would be sharply lessened.
The uk also offered a convenient place to move to, again not impossible with the two being separate countries but more difficult.
And though the Uk government did a crap job of helping in Ireland at least they saw that as a desirable thing to do. Would the ascendancy have been so concerned about a bunch of freeloading Catholics dying?  they could even see it as a positive step, nature/god doing clearances for them.

:lol:

Hey you'd say stupid shit too if you were channelling Dan Quale.

The man who inspired Tim to enter politics.

:lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 11:04:58 AM
The man who inspired Tim to enter politics.

^_^

Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2014, 10:35:35 AM

Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
How ironic that grumbler would tackle a story about aging.  :hmm:

Really, we should be asking Grumbler about animal storage in 0 AD. After all, he probably witnessed it personally.  ;)

I didn't hang around with Jews... especially jews who were so cheap they'd rather sleep in the barn than spend money on a room at the inn.  There were always vacancies at that place.

Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2014, 12:44:01 PM

Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2014, 10:35:35 AM

Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
How ironic that grumbler would tackle a story about aging.  :hmm:

Really, we should be asking Grumbler about animal storage in 0 AD. After all, he probably witnessed it personally.  ;)

I didn't hang around with Jews... especially jews who were so cheap they'd rather sleep in the barn than spend money on a room at the inn.  There were always vacancies at that place.

:lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 11:04:58 AM
The man who inspired Tim to enter poultices.

FYP

QuoteLots of other parts of Europe experience problems at this point - Belgium, Holland, Sweden and Russia - none have a famine like this. One of the first steps taken by each of those governments was to ban the export of grains. During the famine Ireland exported a huge amount of food, mostly corn, to England - estimated to be enough to feed 2 million each year. That was never taken by British governments because it would affect Britain and it was an unconscionable meddle in the market.

The famine didn't effect the whole island at once. Considering that everything was shipped over water anyway it really doesn't strike me as so huge a deal as some like to make out that exports continued, it wasn't as if Britain was actively stealing the Irish food afterall, I'm not familiar with 19th century commodity prices but I wouldn't assume the cheapest food would have to be the Irish exports; some of it may well be, but cheap food crops from elsewhere in the UK would have done just as well, or better. The not wanting to mess with the market stuff is however a huge mistake, thankfully this was recognised at the time and it was a big contributing factor to the collapse of the Whigs.

Quote
It was, incidentally, what Grattan's Parliament - which was an ascendancy Parliament with limited powers prior to union - did in response to a minor famine in the 1780s.

I'm not so sure that would be repeated in a post-Napoleonic, over-crowded mid-19th century, liberal Ireland with a considerably worse famine.
Not to mention that British charity efforts probably wouldn't bring so much if this was happening in a foreign land rather than in part of the UK.

Quote
Given the pace of emigration to the US, Canada, Australia and, yes, Glasgow and Liverpool, I don't think the Irish were overly worried if they could move to somewhere convenient.

Much of the movement to the new world went via Britain and British ships. It seems fairly likely their avenues of escape would be cut down quite a bit

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2014, 03:02:51 AM

Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2014, 02:10:05 AM

Yep, the government were a bunch of ideologically focused numpties, but most of the aid that did come to Ireland was from the UK; this wouldn't be totally removed with an I deodorant Ireland but I would imagine it would be sharply lessened.

Is this supposed to be independent? Talk about a Freudian slip.

Also, numpties? Really?

Freudian slip? :huh:
But that was a horrific autocorrect. :bleeding: It was indeed independent.
Whats wrong with the word numpties?

I'm surprised that it's not all America's fault.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 05:03:27 AM
I'm surprised that it's not all America's fault.

If we had had USAID in 1850 it all would have been different.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 05:03:27 AM
I'm surprised that it's not all America's fault.

Josq certainly does seem much more lenient when it comes to analyzing the results of British hegemony compared to how he views the results of American action and inaction.

Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 11:05:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 05:03:27 AM
I'm surprised that it's not all America's fault.

Josq certainly does seem much more lenient when it comes to analyzing the results of British hegemony compared to how he views the results of American action and inaction.

Well to be fair, I do tend to be more lenient towards people in the past than present.  It is harder for past people to respond to my criticisms.  It is also easier to dismiss people in the past as inferior and come to the false conclusion that we today are so much wiser and future tragedies are impossible.  But that is probably not what Jos is going for  :P

Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2014, 11:20:17 AM

Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 11:05:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 05:03:27 AM
I'm surprised that it's not all America's fault.

Josq certainly does seem much more lenient when it comes to analyzing the results of British hegemony compared to how he views the results of American action and inaction.

Well to be fair, I do tend to be more lenient towards people in the past than present.  It is harder for past people to respond to my criticisms.  It is also easier to dismiss people in the past as inferior and come to the false conclusion that we today are so much wiser and future tragedies are impossible.  But that is probably not what Jos is going for  :P

I prefer attacking people who can't get back at me.  If I criticize Robert Peel, he's not going to come to my house and kick me in the balls.

I might though.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
I prefer attacking people who can't get back at me.  If I criticize Robert Peel, he's not going to come to my house and kick me in the balls.

I'll add stuff later. But I don't know why you'd moan about Robert Peel. His response was effective and he was a pretty impressive PM on the famine. As the Freeman's Journal put it 'no man died of famine during his administration'.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2014, 05:52:03 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
I prefer attacking people who can't get back at me.  If I criticize Robert Peel, he's not going to come to my house and kick me in the balls.

I'll add stuff later. But I don't know why you'd moan about Robert Peel. His response was effective and he was a pretty impressive PM on the famine. As the Freeman's Journal put it 'no man died of famine during his administration'.

Cause he's dead, he can't get me now.  I thought I was clear about that.  I used his name cause I couldn't remember who came after him.

Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 11:05:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 05:03:27 AM
I'm surprised that it's not all America's fault.

Josq certainly does seem much more lenient when it comes to analyzing the results of British hegemony compared to how he views the results of American action and inaction.

Like what?
I've seen it pop up occasionally but I don't know where this idea that I'm anti-American comes from.