UKBouldering.com

EU Referendum (Read 279418 times)

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
#475 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 06:41:07 pm
Pete, Will -- I replied to your comments on the previous page. I could be arsed after all, sort of...

seankenny

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
#476 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 07:45:30 pm
as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign - we did plenty to ensure Indian industry, for example, couldn't compete with us. But broadly value is created by putting labour and capital together in new ways to make new stuff, or stuff more cheaply.

You ask if this requires economic growth. I think it's the other way around: it creates economic growth. But not just any old growth - countries got wealthier even before the Industrial Revolution. It was just really really really really slow. Extra productivity gains happened - ships got bigger and better, roads were improved, banking systems developed - but the surplus basically got eaten up in a larger population. Then suddenly - bang - we got exponential growth.

This is great as long as we don't fuck the planet up (different thread no?).

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#477 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 08:10:14 pm
as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...

Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#478 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 08:17:30 pm
as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...

Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.

Yes, I don’t think we ever grew much cotton here, did we?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#479 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 08:56:46 pm

The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign - we did plenty to ensure Indian industry, for example, couldn't compete with us. But broadly value is created by putting labour and capital together in new ways to make new stuff, or stuff more cheaply.

You ask if this requires economic growth. I think it's the other way around: it creates economic growth. But not just any old growth - countries got wealthier even before the Industrial Revolution. It was just really really really really slow. Extra productivity gains happened - ships got bigger and better, roads were improved, banking systems developed - but the surplus basically got eaten up in a larger population. Then suddenly - bang - we got exponential growth.

Thats the spirit! Bring back the glory years! Roll on a hard brexit on the 29th March! ;)

(very much a sarcastic smiley above... :) )

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#480 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 09:00:23 pm
Pete, Will -- I replied to your comments on the previous page. I could be arsed after all, sort of...

Pete, Will -- I replied to your comments on the previous page. I could be arsed after all, sort of...

There isn't anything in the links in your post that we don't already know. And nothing in them that resembles any sort of evidence of the sort of conspiracy that you're implying :blink: :

Phillip May is an investment manager for Capital Group.
Capital Group is a large investment fund that invests in a large number of companies. Companies including Lockheed Martin, BAE, Starbucks, Amazon, among hundreds of others.
The UK, US, France launched airstrikes against Syria on April 14th 2018.
The airstrikes used weapons manufactured by LM (fired by the US) and BAE (in consortium with MBDA) (fired by UK).
Lockheed Martin and BAE share prices increased for a period beginning April 14th.
In the case of Lockheed, the price increased by around 4.5% above the April 13th price, to a peak on April 23rd. Since April 23rd LM's price has decreased and currently sits 11.5% lower than on the day before airstrikes.
BAE's price increased beginning April 14th to a peak on 19th July, where it was 15% higher than on the day before airstrikes. Since 19th July, BAE's price has decreased and today sits 13.5% lower than on April 13th.
We haven't yet seen what profit Capital Group realised from any price movement in the period shortly after April 13th.


As a comparison, another company which Capital Group invest in is Amazon. Amazon's share price rose by 42.5% from the day before the Syria airstrikes to a peak on 4th Sept 2018.

Nothing in the above is in any way evidence of anything other than that Phillip May works as an investment manager for an investment fund that invests, as funds do, in a range of companies including companies that do things that mean they come into contact with things governments are involved with. Lots of people works as investment managers. Investment funds invest in lots of companies. Successful companies do things that bring them int contact with lots of different government policies.
That's life, you can make connections everywhere you look if you want to; if you think there's anything more sinister then you're in conspiracy theory land. Some conspiracies turn out to be true. Most don't.

BTW, Capital Group also took a large investment in BAE in December 2002, before Phillip May joined in 2005.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 09:12:43 pm by petejh »

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#481 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 09:22:08 pm
Nothing in the above is in any way evidence of anything other than that Phillip May works as an investment manager for an investment fund that invests, as funds do, in a range of companies including companies that do things that mean they come into contact with things governments are involved with. That's life, you can make connections everywhere you look if you want to and if you think it's anything more sinister then you're in conspiracy theory land. Some conspiracies turn out to be true. Most don't.

Just to try back tc up a little. And I may be way off as it's not very clear what being got at.

tc's example does seem a bit tenuous and well into the conspiracy theory zone.

But I think tc is trying to get at the general corruption within "The Establishment" which means they do shit to further their own (or families, friends, oldboys) interests and lie about it.

Related to Brexit some examples off top of me head are Mogg launching an investment fund in Dublin, John Redwood advising investors to pull money out of the uk, Nigel Lawson applying for french residency, Farage getting his kids German passports, Dyson moving the Singapore. There are many more examples (not just related to Brexit) on which books have been written or a bi-weekly satrical periodical called Private Eye can be easily purchased to which you can smirk and cry about these bastards to your hearts content!

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#482 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 09:38:14 pm
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to  Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#483 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 09:43:34 pm
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to  Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.

Perfectly true.

I wonder if they charge their own security detail, to stay in hotels, owned by the protected politician/premier...


It’s patently a bad thing, but it’s certainly a global issue.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#484 Re: EU Referendum
February 12, 2019, 11:25:10 pm
Nothing in the above is in any way evidence of anything other than that Phillip May works as an investment manager for an investment fund that invests, as funds do, in a range of companies including companies that do things that mean they come into contact with things governments are involved with. That's life, you can make connections everywhere you look if you want to and if you think it's anything more sinister then you're in conspiracy theory land. Some conspiracies turn out to be true. Most don't.

Just to try back tc up a little. And I may be way off as it's not very clear what being got at.

tc's example does seem a bit tenuous and well into the conspiracy theory zone.

But I think tc is trying to get at the general corruption within "The Establishment" which means they do shit to further their own (or families, friends, oldboys) interests and lie about it.

Related to Brexit some examples off top of me head are Mogg launching an investment fund in Dublin, John Redwood advising investors to pull money out of the uk, Nigel Lawson applying for french residency, Farage getting his kids German passports, Dyson moving the Singapore. There are many more examples (not just related to Brexit) on which books have been written or a bi-weekly satrical periodical called Private Eye can be easily purchased to which you can smirk and cry about these bastards to your hearts content!

I can't comment on those other malcontents, but on Dyson I'll respond. He's a Brexiter, so on that count I disagree with him. However moving his headquarters to Singapore hasn't really got anything to do with Brexit. Dyson wants to enter the electric car market. China is home to tens if not hundreds of millions of newly wealthy and aspirational (read materialistic) consumers. The market there is frighteningly big.

Meanwhile flogging hoovers in the UK represents 4% of Dyson's turnover. Pitiful.

You don't want to move headquarters to China, obviously, because of the 'orrible communist government. Singapore is an obvious choice as its an English-speaking tiger economy with a stable, benevolent-dictatorship government that is very business friendly. And it has a fantastic education system.

The real question is why he hasn't moved HQ already.

seankenny

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
#485 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 12:00:53 am
as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...

Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.

But hideous exploitation isn’t enough to explain why the U.K. got rich, as per Tom’s original point.

Quick question: did Belgium - the second country to industrialise - do so using cheap US slave grown cotton as its raw material? It certainly got rich before it had a colony (the Congo came after as I understand it).


sdm

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 622
  • Karma: +25/-1
#486 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 08:10:40 am
I can't comment on those other malcontents, but on Dyson I'll respond. He's a Brexiter, so on that count I disagree with him. However moving his headquarters to Singapore hasn't really got anything to do with Brexit. Dyson wants to enter the electric car market. China is home to tens if not hundreds of millions of newly wealthy and aspirational (read materialistic) consumers. The market there is frighteningly big.

Meanwhile flogging hoovers in the UK represents 4% of Dyson's turnover. Pitiful.

You don't want to move headquarters to China, obviously, because of the 'orrible communist government. Singapore is an obvious choice as its an English-speaking tiger economy with a stable, benevolent-dictatorship government that is very business friendly. And it has a fantastic education system.

The real question is why he hasn't moved HQ already.
Don't forget that Singapore also has a free trade agreement with the EU. Something that we may not be able to offer in 44 days.

Dyson were going to move sooner or later but the timing of the move is almost certainly due to the uncertainty over brexit.

Dyson has always been in it for himself (nothing wrong with that) so a move to where costs are lower was inevitable. His manufacturing has been shifting for a long time so it was just a matter of time before the administration (and ultimately the research) followed. Add in the various EU rulings against his vacuums and their refusal to bow to his lobbying and he was never going to stay within the EU but a move to Singapore offers the best of both worlds, giving a presence in the far East, while maintaining access to the EU market.

To campaign so heavily for brexit then to fuck off at the first opportunity shows his true colours.

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#487 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 08:30:26 am
To campaign so heavily for brexit then to fuck off at the first opportunity shows his true colours.

Yes it makes you question whether he has the best interests of the UK populous at heart.

There's a piece on this in private eye. Possible reasons for leaving. Free Trade with EU, lower corporation tax, no dividend tax, no ineheritance tax, weaker workers rights, weaker corporate disclosure laws and finally no risk of a Corbyn government.

I guess once we're out the gov can aspire to entice him back. Apparently he move business to Malta and came back 2003-2009.

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#488 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 10:25:01 am
as to make money, someone has to loose money.

Not necessarily so.

Can you elaborate? My point was serious... despite being incorrectly spelt :D

Isn’t all wealth accumulation based upon the exploitation of someone else? UK’s wealth from colonial exploitation, Google/Facebooks wealth from the exploitation of personal data...

Happy to be re-educated with some economics 101 though....

The UK's wealth didn't, in the main, come from colonial exploitation: Britain got much richer than France very quickly in the late 18th/early 19th century and both had large colonial holdings. Britain got rich because it could produce a consumer good (cotton) in vast quantities and much, much cheaper. It had, thanks to its aggressive foreign policy over the previous 100 years, massive markets in which to sell the goods, protected by tariff barriers. These included South America as well as the more obvious colonies, who were fucked because their local output couldn't compete with the British products. It wasn't entirely benign ...

Indeed not. By the early C19th Lancashire was drawing almost all its raw cotton from Southern slave states.

But hideous exploitation isn’t enough to explain why the U.K. got rich, as per Tom’s original point.

Quick question: did Belgium - the second country to industrialise - do so using cheap US slave grown cotton as its raw material? It certainly got rich before it had a colony (the Congo came after as I understand it).

Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?

Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#489 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 11:17:28 am


Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?

Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.

Bloody Liberal Elite, coming in here being all educated ‘n shit.
I reckon you’s one of them “X”spurts the Patriotic Daily Mail warned me about.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#490 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 11:30:16 am
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to  Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.

I don't disagree with that but it raises the question of what jobs are deemed OK and what jobs aren't; for what level of relationship to a politician (or civil servant...) - brother/cousin/partner/uncle; what level of politician (or civil servant...); and what time limits are applied.

Easier to just assume the lizards are conspiring against you actually.

 

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#491 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 12:04:23 pm
Whilst it may be true that Phillip May's activities are entirely normal and above board for an investment manager, it is another question whether or not it is ever appropriate for those activities to be carried on by the spouse of the serving Prime Minister (the same would apply to Dennis [and Mark] Thatcher and to a much lesser extent to  Samantha Cameron or Cherie Blair). I think many people would feel it is not.

I don't disagree with that but it raises the question of what jobs are deemed OK and what jobs aren't; for what level of relationship to a politician (or civil servant...) - brother/cousin/partner/uncle; what level of politician (or civil servant...); and what time limits are applied.

Easier to just assume the lizards are conspiring against you actually.

The “ethics” of big business are such a murky puddle of fetid dingo’s piss, it’s really beyond redemption. How many Non-executive Directors, also sit on the boards of other, related, businesses (or are married to people who do, or siblings of people who do, or are in-laws to people who do, and... You get the picture).
The regulators can only hope to enforce the most blatant breaches of such codes and laws there are.
I remember working on a yacht, hosting a meeting between some international airport owners, about one purchasing several airports from the other etc. At the end of the meeting, the host/owner called the crew into the main saloon and said “I’ve transfered your salaries early, call a broker and buy as much stock as you can in (X) because when we arrive in Antibes tomorrow, I’m making an announcement. Call this your bonus for the past week.”

Now, that was actually totally illegal (not that any of us knew at the time). But, I would infer from that, that it’s quite normal behaviour, where the favoured are close to the principle. I’m also pretty sure the delay in the announcement was not for the crew’s benefit! Tossing some crumbs to the help, while someone else made an absolute killing.

seankenny

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
#492 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 12:10:51 pm

Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?

Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.

Yes we agree on this, my point was more directed at Tom's original comment. Clearly my post not as well worded as it could have been.

Also aware of your academic background...

spidermonkey09

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2815
  • Karma: +159/-4
#493 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 12:35:56 pm

Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style ;)

I think about this question quite a lot in idle moments. Perhaps idealistic, but I do genuinely believe it is possible to make money ethically and without screwing anyone. This logic works better with small businesses rather than large ones and on a micro rather than a macro level I think. At a basic level, if a business pays its staff well, minimises damage to the environment/offsets any damage it does and causes no societal harm that would tick my boxes. However I take the point that 'societal harm' is a nebulous concept and many businesses I see as causing societal harm (pay day lenders, cigarette manufacturing, tax avoiding multinationals) would be and are defended to the hilt by people with differing world views.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#494 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 12:46:07 pm

Of course ethics in business is a sliding scale - as to make money, someone has to loose money. I guess it depends upon your style ;)

I think about this question quite a lot in idle moments. Perhaps idealistic, but I do genuinely believe it is possible to make money ethically and without screwing anyone. This logic works better with small businesses rather than large ones and on a micro rather than a macro level I think. At a basic level, if a business pays its staff well, minimises damage to the environment/offsets any damage it does and causes no societal harm that would tick my boxes. However I take the point that 'societal harm' is a nebulous concept and many businesses I see as causing societal harm (pay day lenders, cigarette manufacturing, tax avoiding multinationals) would be and are defended to the hilt by people with differing world views.

Idealistic, yes.

What’s wrong with that?

Personally, I often wish things could be like that. The “parasite” industries that deal in non-tangibles and speculations and “trading” in futures and ...

Things that are, at heart, wholly imagined, invented, constructs only possible by shared delusion (yes, I know that probably includes “money”. I’m constructing my own wall between sensible delusions (WTF? Did I write that?) and what seem bizarre variants of plain old “gambling”).

Of course, I’m typing this on my iPad, on the internet, which would never have existed without the shared delusion...

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#495 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 12:53:40 pm

Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?

Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.

Yes we agree on this, my point was more directed at Tom's original comment. Clearly my post not as well worded as it could have been.

Also aware of your academic background...

Sorry, that was a complete dick move on my part.

Yossarian

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2354
  • Karma: +351/-5
#496 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 01:19:30 pm

Sorry, that was a complete dick move on my part.

On the contrary. What’s the point in writing a book if you can’t occasionally whop out your author credentials in the course of savagely crushing the opposition in an internet argument...

seankenny

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
#497 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 01:42:50 pm

Pretty certain I started out in this conversation arguing that business is not necessarily exploitative?

Yes, I'm aware industrialization is a complex multifactorial process; as a historian I've published several books and dozens of articles on business in Britain in C18th and C19th.

Yes we agree on this, my point was more directed at Tom's original comment. Clearly my post not as well worded as it could have been.

Also aware of your academic background...

Sorry, that was a complete dick move on my part.

Hahaha no worries Andy.

What's interesting here is the common notion "we got rich cos we nicked a load of stuff/exploited people" vs the economists' explanation for growth which rests on - as far as my flimsy knowledge of long run growth theory goes - improvements in technical ability, knowledge, openness to international trade, etc. Obviously no one agrees but it's interesting that cheap raw materials don't get a (theoretical) look in.

So it got me thinking... just how cheap was US slave cotton anyhow? Was it massively undercutting other sources of cotton (did Europe even have other easily available sources of cotton?), or was it just a bit cheaper? Did other nascent industries in the UK such as the Potteries - to pick an example almost at random - also enjoy really cheap inputs as compared to their competitors elsewhere in the world?

I guess we'd need a noted historian of business in 18th and 19th century Britain to shed some light on these questions. Clearly they have nothing to do with Brexit but since Brexit at the moment mostly consists of UK politicians arguing in the wheelhouse whilst the iceberg heaves into view, we might as well divert ourselves...

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#498 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 02:33:35 pm
such as the Potteries - to pick an example almost at random

 :lol:  North Staffordshire has lots and lots of clay (and coal) but the clay is for the most part crap and all the china clay had to come from Cornwall. Indeed, Wedgwood made a very serious effort to find new sources of clay in the US, so resource endowments certainly don't offer a full explanation. Entrepreneurship, however we definite it, is an clearly an important factor and in that respect and others Wedgwood is a bit of a hero to me. Slavery, on the other hand, whilst generating much scholarship, has actually been largely written out of business and economic history until relatively recently. The (emerging) consensus is that it was a significant factor in industrialization on both sides of the Atlantic.

Actually, I think British business/economic history, even as far back as the C18th, really does matter to Brexit. In my view, particular readings or constructions of British history have played a prominent role in some of the arguments made by Brexiteers and leave voters. Some of that is to do with readings of Imperial history or the history of our relationship with Europe (which still pivots far too heavily on WWII) but some of it is to do with economic history, particularly Britain's loss of its status as a manufacturing nation, when that loss occurred, and the possibilities for its recovery. Most people would date this loss to relatively recent history but Britain was already in effect a service economy by the late C19th, partly because of the huge success of financial services (helped my empire, formal and informal) and partly because many manufacturing industries, including ceramics and cotton, were starting to suffer declining competitiveness. At the same time, the popular reading of British economic history is also wrong in that its too gloomy - Britain remains an important and successful manufacturing nation.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#499 Re: EU Referendum
February 13, 2019, 02:51:50 pm
I read a book a few years back, that challenged the notion of British ingenuity being a “special case”.

The book re-referenced the notion if the invention of the Steam Locamotive (for one, mechanical looms for another), which is in this country, almost always thought of as being a British thing, as happening, with some a somewhat simultaneous nature, in several nations at that time. Rebranding it “Steam engine time”.
The author went on to posit various reasons that such things became “bigger” in Britain, than elsewhere, mostly our political system and lack of absolute monarchy, ircc.
Can’t remember title or author (at work), but do recall it was a well reviewed book.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal