Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BryllCream wrote:

The economy grew a lot more from 97-08 than it did from 79-97, at annualised rates.

UK national debt history:



Notice the rising line of labour's public spending. Now notice that a) Labour actually reduced spending more than they increased it, and b) the huge spike caused by the recession. You can't say that an extra 1-2% on that graph would make any actual difference to our situation. If that were the case we could just print money to pay off 2% of our debt.

You don't know how to read a graph Brylcream.

The graph for theearly 90's are the result of the banking crisis in 91.
The drop in 'New Labour years' are due to savings made by John Major.
the sustained dip in '00-'03 is due to selling off gold reserves and long term asset squandering for short term gain.
The very rapid climb in 08-09 was due to mismanagment of the banking crisis of 08 and the immiedate borrowing spree that Gordon Brown tried to solve it with.
The massive debt spike following is due to the interest of that, including deferred interest because government spending has actually fallen.

The debt was worked off by Thatcher, and again by Major after the 91 credit crunch. Blairs only 'achievement' was selling off long term assets for short term gain and the collosal feth up is Gordon Browns fault, not the fault of austerity.

If you think printing money solves the problem go visit Zimbabwe, come back when you have learned something about economic sanity. Its bad enough there that even your eyes might be opened.

 sebster wrote:
[

Sure, not saying they didn't colonise, just wondering why they were picked. It's an odd choice to pick out, is all.

Because they're mean. Like, really mean. They are all mean to people and stuff.

In the olden days, they wouldn't let you have toys or milk, and if you had cows and stuff that they wanted, they'd take them. Unless you gave them a thumb. If you gave both of your thumbs, they left you alone. That's where Rule of Thumb comes from.

 BryllCream wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It's my sincere belief that Cameron would be wildly popular as President of the USA. He's a libertarian, stands up for his country on the world stage and is committed to fiscal responsibility. By the same token, Obama would probably be very popular as Prime Minister over here.

Adding 5% of GDP to our debt every year is a "fiscal conservative"? Yikes I'd hate to meet a fiscal liberal

Have you seen our government across the pond? Only 5%? Hell the conservatives would canonize him!

g
Can't really compare a federal republic of 300 million souls that spans an entire continent to a tiny rock off Northern Europe. Not only does America refuse to tax its citizens properly, it also has an ernourmous defence budget. There's nothing wrong with either of those, but they're incompatable. If the US wants to keep its position as the only military super-power then it needs to pay for it.

Er...wat? We "refuse" to take the citizens properly? Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

Our Defense Budget is "big" relative to other nations... but, it ain't that big. Entitlement spending is what is driving our budgets up.

 whembly wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

You would think the number of times that it has been pointed out what is wrong with this statement would mean people would quit saying it.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

You would think the number of times that it has been pointed out what is wrong with this statement would mean people would quit saying it.

? what do you mean? I guess I should clarify federal income tax...eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

You would think the number of times that it has been pointed out what is wrong with this statement would mean people would quit saying it.

? what do you mean? I guess I should clarify federal income tax...eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

You act as if there isn't a huge difference in saying "they don't pay any taxes" and "they don't pay any Federal Income Tax". They still pay taxes, they even still pay Federal Taxes, they just don't pay Federal Income Tax. The former makes it sound as if it is a dodge and that they pay no taxes, the other makes it sound as if they they still paying taxes, just not that one. One is used to vilify the working poor, the other recognizes that they are the working poor.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

You would think the number of times that it has been pointed out what is wrong with this statement would mean people would quit saying it.

? what do you mean? I guess I should clarify federal income tax...eh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

You act as if there isn't a huge difference in saying "they don't pay any taxes" and "they don't pay any Federal Income Tax". They still pay taxes, they even still pay Federal Taxes, they just don't pay Federal Income Tax. The former makes it sound as if it is a dodge and that they pay no taxes, the other makes it sound as if they they still paying taxes, just not that one. One is used to vilify the working poor, the other recognizes that they are the working poor.

Um... let's not derail this thread anymore, but I'd be happy to joust with ya in a different thread. No... I'm not "vilifying" anyone here... it's simple math really. O.o

 whembly wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It's my sincere belief that Cameron would be wildly popular as President of the USA. He's a libertarian, stands up for his country on the world stage and is committed to fiscal responsibility. By the same token, Obama would probably be very popular as Prime Minister over here.

Adding 5% of GDP to our debt every year is a "fiscal conservative"? Yikes I'd hate to meet a fiscal liberal

Have you seen our government across the pond? Only 5%? Hell the conservatives would canonize him!

g
Can't really compare a federal republic of 300 million souls that spans an entire continent to a tiny rock off Northern Europe. Not only does America refuse to tax its citizens properly, it also has an ernourmous defence budget. There's nothing wrong with either of those, but they're incompatable. If the US wants to keep its position as the only military super-power then it needs to pay for it.

Er...wat? We "refuse" to take the citizens properly? Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

Our Defense Budget is "big" relative to other nations... but, it ain't that big. Entitlement spending is what is driving our budgets up.

No I'm referring to the fact that US spending as a percentage of GDP is too small. I don't know/care how individuals are taxed but it's clearly too low.

 BryllCream wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It's my sincere belief that Cameron would be wildly popular as President of the USA. He's a libertarian, stands up for his country on the world stage and is committed to fiscal responsibility. By the same token, Obama would probably be very popular as Prime Minister over here.

Adding 5% of GDP to our debt every year is a "fiscal conservative"? Yikes I'd hate to meet a fiscal liberal

Have you seen our government across the pond? Only 5%? Hell the conservatives would canonize him!

g
Can't really compare a federal republic of 300 million souls that spans an entire continent to a tiny rock off Northern Europe. Not only does America refuse to tax its citizens properly, it also has an ernourmous defence budget. There's nothing wrong with either of those, but they're incompatable. If the US wants to keep its position as the only military super-power then it needs to pay for it.

Er...wat? We "refuse" to take the citizens properly? Are you referring to the fact that 47-ish% of tax payers effectively pay zero income tax?

Our Defense Budget is "big" relative to other nations... but, it ain't that big. Entitlement spending is what is driving our budgets up.

No I'm referring to the fact that US spending as a percentage of GDP is too small. I don't know/care how individuals are taxed but it's clearly too low.

Too low for what? We have a government spending too much money on useless gak as it is.

Yeah... consider me confused. o.O

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Too low for what? We have a government spending too much money on useless gak as it is.

Governement spending accounts for 38.9% of GDP, according to wikipedia. Many would say that was far too low, especially for a nation which aspires to European standards of living.

 BryllCream wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Too low for what? We have a government spending too much money on useless gak as it is.

Governement spending accounts for 38.9% of GDP, according to wikipedia. Many would say that was far too low, especially for a nation which aspires to European standards of living.

er... "aspires to European standards of living"...

wut?

I won't allow you to flamebait me into being Anti-American. My point has been made, ignore it or counter it as you will.

 BryllCream wrote:
I won't allow you to flamebait me into being Anti-American.

Oh, come the feth on. You know full well that what you said was inflammatory. Have you ever actually been to the USA? Have you experienced American living standards first hand? I have, and it's not exactly Romania, even if their roads have a few more pot-holes than ours do.

 Albatross wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I won't allow you to flamebait me into being Anti-American.

Oh, come the feth on. You know full well that what you said was inflammatory. Have you ever actually been to the USA? Have you experienced American living standards first hand? I have, and it's not exactly Romania, even if their roads have a few more pot-holes than ours do.

I based what I said on figures of government spending as a percentage of GDP. It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution, which means a lower standard of living for the working poor. I'd gladly be corrected on this assumption, though I don't know if this thread is ideal for it.

And yes, I have been to the USA, and I have experienced American standards of living first-hand. I must say though I am loathe to reply to any of your future posts, considering more or less everything I've read from you consists of you deciding to disagree with me and then grasping for reasons why

 BryllCream wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I won't allow you to flamebait me into being Anti-American.

Oh, come the feth on. You know full well that what you said was inflammatory. Have you ever actually been to the USA? Have you experienced American living standards first hand? I have, and it's not exactly Romania, even if their roads have a few more pot-holes than ours do.

I based what I said on figures of government spending as a percentage of GDP. It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution, which means a lower standard of living for the working poor. I'd gladly be corrected on this assumption, though I don't know if this thread is ideal for it.

And yes, I have been to the USA, and I have experienced American standards of living first-hand. I must say though I am loathe to reply to any of your future posts, considering more or less everything I've read from you consists of you deciding to disagree with me and then grasping for reasons why

You're loth to reply to my posts because you don't like being called out on your bs. I am willing to bet that you're the most intelligent of your social circle, but that your social circle is generally of average (or below-average) intelligence - that's a sure-fire way to catch 'Smartest Guy in the Room Syndrome' when it isn't actually warranted. You are not the most intelligent person in this room, and if you don't like being called out, stop making outrageous and inflammatory statements. Don't get me wrong, I don't consider myself to be some sort of genius, but let me tell you buddy, you fething certainly aren't.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I won't allow you to flamebait me into being Anti-American.

Oh, come the feth on. You know full well that what you said was inflammatory. Have you ever actually been to the USA? Have you experienced American living standards first hand? I have, and it's not exactly Romania, even if their roads have a few more pot-holes than ours do.

I based what I said on figures of government spending as a percentage of GDP. It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution, which means a lower standard of living for the working poor. I'd gladly be corrected on this assumption, though I don't know if this thread is ideal for it.

And yes, I have been to the USA, and I have experienced American standards of living first-hand. I must say though I am loathe to reply to any of your future posts, considering more or less everything I've read from you consists of you deciding to disagree with me and then grasping for reasons why

Oh ho! Are you a commie? Where does this " It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution" come from?

Why is it the government's job to "redistribute wealth? As if that's a good thing...

 BryllCream wrote:

I based what I said on figures of government spending as a percentage of GDP. It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution, which means a lower standard of living for the working poor. I'd gladly be corrected on this assumption, though I don't know if this thread is ideal for it.

I'm certainly no economist, but it would seem to me that you cannot extrapolate wealth redistribution simply from the percentage of GDP spent by the government. You'd have to look specifically at the amount collected from the rich, and the amount it makes up in public services for the middle and lower class.

You would also have to make sense of your assertion that wealth redistribution is a value aimed at by the U.S population. From the little that I know, individual success is such a value in the U.S that even middle class (and some from lower) seem to refuse programs of wealth redistribution.

Also, because of Albatross epic post, I feel obligated to inform you that there are currently, on Dakka, 350.42 people more intelligent then me.

Albatross I've reported your post as flaming - I suggest you make more constructive posts in future.

 whembly wrote:

Oh ho! Are you a commie? Where does this " It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution" come from?

Why is it the government's job to "redistribute wealth? As if that's a good thing...

Well it's generally a good thing if you're poor!

In general though, it's generally agreed that the US does not raise enough in taxes. Consider that the US government currently has a deficit of around ~$1 trillion, then compare their taxation rate to the rest of the developed world. I think the US economy could stand a little more taxation to pay some of this off, since there's so little to be cut in the first place.

 BryllCream wrote:
Albatross I've reported your post as flaming - I suggest you make more constructive posts in future.

And yours wasn't?

No need to have MODS involved, we can have a conversation here. We're CONVERSATING! ( stole that word from 'nuther thread)

 whembly wrote:

Oh ho! Are you a commie? Where does this " It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution" come from?

Why is it the government's job to "redistribute wealth? As if that's a good thing...

Well it's generally a good thing if you're poor!

In general though, it's generally agreed that the US does not raise enough in taxes. Consider that the US government currently has a deficit of around ~$1 trillion, then compare their taxation rate to the rest of the developed world. I think the US economy could stand a little more taxation to pay some of this off, since there's so little to be cut in the first place.

Sure, our tax codes are pretty fethed up.

The issue really isn't that we ain't taxed enough... it's more how its constructed with the plethora of deductions/shenanigans that folks can take advantage of...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

I based what I said on figures of government spending as a percentage of GDP. It seems obvious that lower government spending means less wealth redistrubution, which means a lower standard of living for the working poor. I'd gladly be corrected on this assumption, though I don't know if this thread is ideal for it.

I'm certainly no economist, but it would seem to me that you cannot extrapolate wealth redistribution simply from the percentage of GDP spent by the government. You'd have to look specifically at the amount collected from the rich, and the amount it makes up in public services for the middle and lower class.

You would also have to make sense of your assertion that wealth redistribution is a value aimed at by the U.S population. From the little that I know, individual success is such a value in the U.S that even middle class (and some from lower) seem to refuse programs of wealth redistribution.

Also, because of Albatross epic post, I feel obligated to inform you that there are currently, on Dakka, 350.42 people more intelligent then me.

So you're saying that increased taxation is a good or a bad thing? I don't know how many people would oppose taxing the richest 10% higher in return for a greater safety net for the 90%.

Regardless economically speaking the US, like other countries, has to balance it books. It can't really do this simply by reducing spending - and in comparison to other developed nations it doesn't have to, it merely has to increase taxation.

 BryllCream wrote:
So you're saying that increased taxation is a good or a bad thing?

No, I'm saying that you would need a much more comprehensive analysis to determine weither or not a simple increase in taxation would increase the redistribution of wealth.

I don't know how many people would oppose taxing the richest 10% higher in return for a greater safety net for the 90%.

If such a value was so important to the lower and middle class of the U.S, Democrats would win about 98% of the votes with their current platform. Clearly, that's not the case.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
So you're saying that increased taxation is a good or a bad thing?

No, I'm saying that you would need a much more comprehensive analysis to determine weither or not a simple increase in taxation would increase the redistribution of wealth.

While this is true, more or less all government spending is redistributive, though to wildly differing degrees.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

If such a value was so important to the lower and middle class of the U.S, Democrats would win about 98% of the votes with their current platform. Clearly, that's not the case.

If the general public got their own way, democracies wouldn't work now, would they?

Regardless if you put a blunt question to the American public, I'd hazard to bet that a majority would agree. Something along the lines of "Should the top 10% of income earners pay 2% more in tax in order to provide universal free healthcare to the bottom 50% of earners?". Nevermind the fact that simply getting rid of the beurocratic nightmare of privitised healthcare would be enough to pay for everyone's unviersal healthcare...but being dakka, someone will pick up on this and demand a comprehensive debate about the US's healthcare system. Sigh.

You just went from generic wealth redistribution to a very specific form of universal insurance. You also went from 'I don't know many people' to 'I bet the majority agrees with me'. Between the two there's a hell of a difference.


The simple fact that only 62-65% of the american population are in favour of universal healthcare, a very obviously beneficial form of insurance, should be enough to indicate that americans, as a whole, don't share the same value as you.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I agree with the thinking that it was bad for Indian economic development, but I also think that it was good for Indian social development, as well as instigating a certain amount of stability and predictability into the nations government, in addition to mitigating some of the more distasteful local practices. As was mentioned above. For instance, they outlawed the burning of wives upon their husbands funeral pyres, among other things. A policy of colonization with social goals in line is somewhat more palatable then for pure economic exploitation.

True, they modernised a lot of Indian practices, for sure. The problem is in assuming that otherwise India wouldn't have modernised at all. I'm not saying they would have, I'm just saying we can't know. On the one hand modernisation naturally brings with it social reform (witness the changes in modern India since independance) but on the other hand the caste system and other problems would have been far harder to reform, and could have seen much less reform (which in turn would have negatively impacted modernisation).

But then the British also played up ethnic and religious tensions to secure their own power base as well, so there's that as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
That's the interest repayments your hero Gordon Brown left us.

If I run up a huge debt as a company director and you take over the company, you are responsible for paying that debt, but it's not your fault you are in that mess. Sometime you might wake up and realise that is our economic reality.

5% of GDP as interest?! Where in the hell did you get that from?

Interest on debt is about 30 billion, out of a total government spend of just under 600 billion, or out of total GDP of 2.5 billion. These aren't magic numbers known only to a few select wizards.


For what it's worth, the current deficit problem in the UK is due, like everywhere else, to a collapse in economic activity following the GFC. That drives tax revenues down, and welfare payments up. Not that that's a bad thing, deficit spending in recession is what's supposed to happen. The problem with UK policy is that Brown's listened to the insanity of the Austrian school, and thinks cutting government spending will lead to magical confidence fairies restoring the economy. That isn't working because it's insane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Some interesting figures from Niall Ferguson's Empire:

Niall Ferguson wrote:...The colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony... amounted to little more than 1 per cent of Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930. That was a lot less than the Dutch 'drained' from their East Indies empire, which amounted to between 7 and 10 per cent of Indonesian net domestic product in the same period.

Oh feth me here it is again. Somebody else was worse in their colony (and therefore we'll just make the giant conclusion that are colony was just fine). Also, Ferguson is a nut. Certainly worth reading given his creative thoughts, but given his intent is always to prove his extremely conservative political views, and draw on whatever facts he can produce to justify his politics. Look up Beevor's comments on the man, they should prove quite enlightening, and make you a lot more wary about dumping quotations from the guy here as evidence of anything.

I've given the numbers for economic decline in India during colonisation. You can post whatever you want about whatever you want, but the numbers tell the story absolutely, completely, and undeniably. India went from having nearly a quarter of the world's GDP, to less than 4%.

...On the other side of the balance sheet were the immense British investments in Indian infrastructure, irrigation and industry. By the 1880s the British had invested £270 million in India, not much less than one-fifth of their entire investment overseas. By 1914 the figure had reached £400 million. The British increased irrigated land by a factor of eight, so that by the end of the Raj a quarter of all land was irrigated, compared with just 5 per cent of it under the Mughals.

Yes, they did. That's the point. They pulled apart India's trade and craft industries, and pushed them back into being a purely agricultural nation. Coupled with enforcing a silver standard on India and a range of other polices to suit British domestic industry, this led to a decline in GDP in India.

 Albatross wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I won't allow you to flamebait me into being Anti-American.

Oh, come the feth on. You know full well that what you said was inflammatory. Have you ever actually been to the USA? Have you experienced American living standards first hand? I have, and it's not exactly Romania, even if their roads have a few more pot-holes than ours do.

You know, you say that, but from where I'm sitting at this exact moment, ten miles in any direction but directly into the state capital would leave me in what may as well be a third world country: just fields and rundown shacks interspersed with trailers. Sure, they have mechanical pumps bringing them their contaminated well water, but the living conditions are still absolutely horrible. Half the population lives either in those conditions, or in the even worse ones in urban or suburban slums. We're not as bad off overall as any third world country, but we're not as well off as the better European states by a longshot, despite having a much larger economy.

 Albatross wrote:
Which is a biased statement itself. In the very text I quoted, Ferguson enumerates the shortcomings of the British Empire in detail. The difference between him and many post-colonial historians is that he isn't afraid to point out that it wasn't all whips and exploitation.

Well, yeah, of course it isn't all just one thing or another. It's India man, everything is complex. And what's more, its British Imperial policy, which itself is based on a very complex, almost bizarre collection of desires and beliefs among the British population (chasing profit through control of overseas colonies, but that was offset by a genuine desire and belief that they ought to properly care for the people living there, but that was unfortunately compromised by a significant level of ignorance towards those people, but that itself was offset by the natural state in which trade and interaction between two significantly different populations will both benefit and so on).

Point being, no matter what policies were in place here there or everywhere, long term India suffered economically through the basic reality of what colonisation is - an effort to extract natural resources for use in the colonising country. While other benefits and complicating factors may add significantly to that, it's a goddamn mile from the original claim made in this thread - "British Imperialism was the best thing that ever happened to India."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Why is it the government's job to "redistribute wealth? As if that's a good thing...

Yes, of course its there job. It should be obvious that capitalism, while very effective at growing the overall wealth, has a tendency to give some far more than they could possibly benefit from, and others far less than they need to survive. To the extent that one cares at all for the material well being of others there must be some kind of motivation to control this.

And then, to the extent that one knows anything at all about how systems work, then they'd know running such a social safety net is much, much cheaper when run by government than when run by charities. Or for that matter, if one had any understanding at all of the history of society, it should be clear that non-governmental efforts to control poverty failed on a massive, systemic level (it relied on the hope that private individuals would give enough money that we can have enough housing and food for the impoverished... well go read about Victorian England some time).

As such, the only answer is government redistribution. There is a good question about how much, and the nature of that aid... but any effort to question whether it should be there at all just isn't rational.

 sebster wrote:

I can't see it being very plausible for Russia to sustain such an operation. Given the limited forces they could bring to the Crimea, I've got a really hard time believing they could bring adequate forces to India. Most likely they'd bring a core of officers and a chequebook, and rely on local troops. At which point I'm not sure there's any reason they'd succeed any better than the French trying the same thing.

Honestly, I think I might just be biased towards Russia on account of having conquered India with them in Empire: Total War. Of course, I also conquered Europe with the Maratha Confederacy...

Ah, I thought it might be soemthing like that. Thankyou.

It is just speculation, but that's what jumped to mind when I saw Russia mentioned in that context.

Historic GDP figures are an important field in economic history. Angus Maddison produced what is, more or less, the definitive figures giving Indian GDP at about 24%, but you won't find another work that differs too much from that. If you're interested you can start with his The World Economy: Historical Statistics.

It should be noted that the trade goods produced in India (the most valuable at least) were all worth significantly more in the time period before the British conquest than at the end of the Raj. They would inherently account for a greater portion of the value of all goods produced before the industrial revolution entered full swing, and a lesser percentage after.

Yes, which is a large part of the reason the British were able to take control. But the point here isn't the Mughal Empire, but the economy of the region (though the decline of the Empire was certainly a factor in the economic decline).

It was more meant as part of the "when was it that high" bit, because they were sort of coming apart when the British showed up.

The economic incentives for a locally based landowner or noble is very different to a colonial authority. The latter derives its wealth from the production of trade goods, and for political reasons will priorities home industrial expansion over colonial expansion. Once again, India had a significant local industry dedicated to the processing of raw materials into trade goods. This industry was dismantled (in some places deliberately) in order for the raw materials to instead be shipped to English factories.

Tying into what I was saying above: as the British found it more economical to ship the raw resources home and process them there, rather than use local labor, surely they would have simply prefered to buy the raw goods even were they not running the show, and considering the expense of industrialization it seems likely that that would preclude independant local development, simply through a lack of a market. If the local authorities decided to try to make the resources unavailable or more expensive than buying processed goods, then the British would have a sufficient casus belli to hand out a beatdown and insist they not do so. Similar to how they treated China when it tried to stamp out the trade in opium (just think how much better off China would have been as a colony: no opium, same general trade stuff, and Britain footing the bill for their infrastructure and defense).

India would have been in the same boat regardless of whether or not Britain was formally running the show, so they were far better off being a colony, and having the British Empire provide for their defense, infrastructure, administration, and all the other things that have been repeated ad nauseam in this thread.

Japan? Before the war they'd modernised in a way the rest of Asia didn't. In a way the rest of Asia managed only after the war... once they were no longer colonies.

They were forced to Europeanize at gunpoint, and even during WWII their industry was just an advanced cottage craft one. Their modern state also has a lot to do with their post-war relationship with the US.

Complaints about black armband history are as old as studies of history. And there's no doubting there exists some faction that for whatever reason attempts to dump everything on those mean old Europeans. But the opposite is just as common, there is just as much of an effort to pretend the world outside of Europe was a wild land needing European civilisation, morals and government. Both sides are so general that they're annoying distractions from learning about what really happened.

I don't think it's so much a political faction as just that someone who doesn't have some heavy bias towards native cultures (a fascination with them, some personal connection, that sort of thing) is going to dedicate their life to studying them.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that the person doesn't matter, certainly not in aggregate. Across the whole we all act largely in the same ways, what motivates us are the economic systems in place.

And studies of the economics of colonialism, and the incentives they put in place for the various actors, tell a very clear story, and that is colonised country sees very little economic benefit from the arrangement, and likely a great deal of harm.

Now, given that anyone in that position will likely act in the same way, the point isn't to wag a finger at the coloniser, and make the current generation feel bad about having distant ancestors who exploited some other country. The point is to properly understand how it worked, why it worked like that, and how we can build less exploitative economic systems today.

Don't think I was aiming that at you in a roundabout way: I've seen enough of what you've said here to know better. It was just an expansion of my general distaste for anthropology when it comes down to specific cultures and how they just find them so wonderful. If it's not apparent from my comments on the destruction of localized culture by mass-communication technology (in one of these quotes I culled to avoid quote pyramids, I can't recall which one, specifically), I do rather fall diametrically opposed to them, ideologically speaking.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BryllCream wrote:
I like Fergusson, but he does have a blatent pro-Imperial bias.

Having said that, modern India would clearly be impossible were it not for the UK. Britain built schools, hospitals, railroads, factories. They raised life expectancy by ten years and are solely responsable for the educated middle class in India. I can see why they'd be bummed that we have their diamond but meh. Rome can keep Britain's bluejohn, and we can keep the Indians' diamond

It should be noted the diamond wasn't Indian, it was taken from a sikh kingdom that tried to attack India, but was defeated by the British.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Honestly, I think I might just be biased towards Russia on account of having conquered India with them in Empire: Total War. Of course, I also conquered Europe with the Maratha Confederacy...

Heh, you kids and your almost sort of somewhat kind of plausible computer games. I grew up in a generation that got taught WWII by Axis and Allies, where it was taken for granted that of course the Axis would have won, if the USA didn't stop Japan advancing over Siberia

It is just speculation, but that's what jumped to mind when I saw Russia mentioned in that context.

Given kronk's actual answer didn't help at all, I'm going with your explanation

It should be noted that the trade goods produced in India (the most valuable at least) were all worth significantly more in the time period before the British conquest than at the end of the Raj. They would inherently account for a greater portion of the value of all goods produced before the industrial revolution entered full swing, and a lesser percentage after.

That's a fair counterpoint. The greater point, though, is that industry in India didn't develop at all like it did in Britain. Had they been a seperate nation the funds and economic foundations would have been there.

It was more meant as part of the "when was it that high" bit, because they were sort of coming apart when the British showed up.

Yeah, and their coming apart would both account in part for a decline in trade & industry (in some part explaining the decline in GDP). I accept it as a counterpoint.

Tying into what I was saying above: as the British found it more economical to ship the raw resources home and process them there, rather than use local labor, surely they would have simply prefered to buy the raw goods even were they not running the show, and considering the expense of industrialization it seems likely that that would preclude independant local development, simply through a lack of a market. If the local authorities decided to try to make the resources unavailable or more expensive than buying processed goods, then the British would have a sufficient casus belli to hand out a beatdown and insist they not do so.

Yes, but the point is that elsewhere economic growth flourished through industrialisation. This didn't happen in India, because the British Raj didn't benefit from general Indian economic development.

Look, as an example look at the railways. People always talk about the British building the railways in India, as an argument for the benefits of colonisation. But they don't realise where and why those railways were built - it was infrastructure dedicated to taking natural resources and shipping it to ports for export to England.

They were forced to Europeanize at gunpoint, and even during WWII their industry was just an advanced cottage craft one. Their modern state also has a lot to do with their post-war relationship with the US.

Yes, by WWII they were still relatively backward compared to the developed world. But they had developed in a way none of the colonised countries could even dream of. To look at those world GDP figures again, in 1870, early days of the Raj, India had an economy producing about 135 billion, or about 12% of the world economy. At the same time Japan was producing 25 billion, or about 2% of the world economy. Move forward to 1950, and India is now producing 222 billion, or 4% of world GDP. Japan, despite the war they just went through, is 161 billion, up to 3% of world GDP.

While India, like the colonies, declined massively as an economic force, Japan modernised and didn't just keep pace with world economic development, but actually outgrew it overall. Japan also positioned itself for further expansion in the subsequent generations.

Note those figures are 1990 USD, ifyou were wondering.

I don't think it's so much a political faction as just that someone who doesn't have some heavy bias towards native cultures (a fascination with them, some personal connection, that sort of thing) is going to dedicate their life to studying them.

I'm not sure that's the case, as so many of the people who take up the position show a staggering ignorance towards native populations. I mean, if it was just an interest in the local population, they wouldn't fall for so many myths about them (local populations living sustainably etc).

And now it appears I'm arguing against the black armband faction. Hmmm...

Duck season.
Wabbit season.
Wabbit season.
Duck season.
Blam.

Don't think I was aiming that at you in a roundabout way: I've seen enough of what you've said here to know better. It was just an expansion of my general distaste for anthropology when it comes down to specific cultures and how they just find them so wonderful. If it's not apparent from my comments on the destruction of localized culture by mass-communication technology (in one of these quotes I culled to avoid quote pyramids, I can't recall which one, specifically), I do rather fall diametrically opposed to them, ideologically speaking.

Sure thing. And note I don't want to come out saying colonialism was a great sin blah blah blah. It was a hell of a lot more complicated than that, and looking at the economics of it, I think it was probably an inevitability in some form or another. The age of sail was destined to look for the most effective means of gathering natural resources. If the Europeans hadn't done it someone else would have, and maybe even done it to the Europeans.

I was just looking to counter the claim made earlier that the British were the best thing to ever happen to the Indians. That statement was pure nonsense.

 sebster wrote:

Heh, you kids and your almost sort of somewhat kind of plausible computer games. I grew up in a generation that got taught WWII by Axis and Allies, where it was taken for granted that of course the Axis would have won, if the USA didn't stop Japan advancing over Siberia

Entirely unrelated to the matter at hand, but I learned the rough geography of Europe without national borders from playing Rome, even managing to place Antwerp (which at the time I'd only heard of through it being a settlement in Rome) on an unmarked map.

That's a fair counterpoint. The greater point, though, is that industry in India didn't develop at all like it did in Britain. Had they been a seperate nation the funds and economic foundations would have been there.

...

Yeah, and their coming apart would both account in part for a decline in trade & industry (in some part explaining the decline in GDP). I accept it as a counterpoint.

I did actually mean the "when" bit as a point of curiosity as to how far before the British arrived it was such a large percentage. While the numbers seemed rather extreme when I first saw them, seeing the pricetag on a package of cinnamon I had giving the price-by-weight as $6.99 a pound brought to mind how, a few hundred years ago, a pound of cinnamon could probably have bought any village in Europe with quite a bit left over, and the numbers suddenly made sense: almost everything that came out of the Indian subcontinent and southeast Asia was just ridiculously valuable in the right markets.

Yes, but the point is that elsewhere economic growth flourished through industrialisation. This didn't happen in India, because the British Raj didn't benefit from general Indian economic development.

Look, as an example look at the railways. People always talk about the British building the railways in India, as an argument for the benefits of colonisation. But they don't realise where and why those railways were built - it was infrastructure dedicated to taking natural resources and shipping it to ports for export to England.

The question is: would this exploitative trading have still taken place were the British Empire not formally running the show? I think the China of the day, and what we see in this post-imperial era, is that it very much does. I can't help but feel that having the more powerful nation then foot the bill for defense and all that, while exploitatively trading with the colony, is a far cry better than just exploitatively trading and leaving the local authorities to fend for themselves, handing out beatdowns if they try to subvert your desired trade practices.

Yes, by WWII they were still relatively backward compared to the developed world. But they had developed in a way none of the colonised countries could even dream of. To look at those world GDP figures again, in 1870, early days of the Raj, India had an economy producing about 135 billion, or about 12% of the world economy. At the same time Japan was producing 25 billion, or about 2% of the world economy. Move forward to 1950, and India is now producing 222 billion, or 4% of world GDP. Japan, despite the war they just went through, is 161 billion, up to 3% of world GDP.

While India, like the colonies, declined massively as an economic force, Japan modernised and didn't just keep pace with world economic development, but actually outgrew it overall. Japan also positioned itself for further expansion in the subsequent generations.

Note those figures are 1990 USD, ifyou were wondering.

Just out of curiosity, do we have any other examples of nations that remained free of colonialism and exploitative trading, while still being advanced enough to have enough of an idea as to what Europe was doing to mimic it to any extent?

I'm not sure that's the case, as so many of the people who take up the position show a staggering ignorance towards native populations. I mean, if it was just an interest in the local population, they wouldn't fall for so many myths about them (local populations living sustainably etc).

And now it appears I'm arguing against the black armband faction. Hmmm...

Duck season.
Wabbit season.
Wabbit season.
Duck season.
Blam.

Presumably it's the myths they get exposed to first, thus they're what forms their image of the native populations, and it's those images that so fascinate them; if you dedicate your life to something that, on further examination, is not true to the image that originally motivated you, it must be quite easy to fall into a state of trying to explain away or ignore the details that don't mesh with the idealized version.

I was just looking to counter the claim made earlier that the British were the best thing to ever happen to the Indians. That statement was pure nonsense.

I was exaggerating a bit with that one. It's just rather galling to have a modern state that owes just about everything to the British Empire (whether or not it might have wound up doing it for itself if left alone) demanding effectively random reparations (or any at all, for that matter, but a diamond that wasn't even Indian, properly speaking, makes it even more egregious). Really the notion in general that people should make restitution for what their political predecessors did is just wrongheaded in the extreme; we might believe in being nicer now, but the world's always been a brutal, vicious place, and trying to demand something of the ones who came out on top is silly enough, but when one's talking about demanding it of people who notably are not, and are only tenuously connected to, the people who won it becomes absolutely farcical.*


*Speaking in terms of the interaction between states or other large groups/power structures; when talking about the inner workings of a state/group there is an inherent benefit to obliging the strong to support the weak, and fostering the growth of the presence of strength (really meaning, largely, education in a modern context).