Ricardo- You and I are probably the only ones reading this at this point. People interested in the substance of the issues can look at the original articles and book chapters that inform our arguments. In your case, the O'Brien, Engerman, Anstey works, and in my case the Darity, Bailey and other works I have cited, in addition to the Eric Williams and other works, including the mercantilists, Marx, and so on. Let me just say, though, that I have never said you are not Marxist or Marxist enough or that you are eurocentric or any of these other things. You are, however, basing your arguments on materials that are very conventional and conservative, as you probably are aware. Of course, as you have pointed out, there is a tradition in Marxist scholarship that has taken your view. These are old debates, but continue, telling us something, I believe, about the importance and controversial nature of the issues. I also apologize for the weakness of my presentation of Darity's arguments. But I do not believe that you have adequately or fully dealt with Darity's critique of O'Brien, Engerman, and his and others very real refutation of the "small ratios" view, but we do not seem to be making progress in our discussion. People can decide for themselves if they are interested in reviewing the archives or--the much better option--reading the original O'Brien, Darity, and other works. Moving on, Mat >Mat, are you serious? Give me one single substantial argument brought in >pen-l (apart from Ajit's, who with the little he has written has at >least taken issue directly with the arguments I presented rather than >questioning me on the strictly ideological grounds that I am not Marxist enough, >or that I am ethnocentric, or that the people who were colonized did >suffer). > >Ricardo: >> I think I can >> >argue that not even *total* foreign trade of Europe (or even England) >> >was *the major cause* of the industrial revolution, never mind the >> >colonial, or the statistically insignificant slave trade! But let's look, >> for now, >> >at what Darity has to say against O'Brien. >> >> You can *think* you may argue many things, but until you actually make an >> argument, addressing substance, your words dissolve into air. You must >> address substance and your responses must actually possess substance. >> Considering how long you made us wait for your reply, I hope you will >> *actually* argue something, as opposed to considering out loud what you >> "think" you could argue (and then never actually arguing that or anything >> else). Is thinking out loud what you might argue the only way you can sneak >> the phrase "statistically insignificant slave trade" into your post? Still >> waiting...(for substance)... > >I offered statistics which do indicate that the slave trade was >insignificant. Here's more again: Anstey estimated that slave >profits contributed 0.11% to British capital formation. Engerman, for >his part, showed that, even if we calculate those profits *as high as >is possible*, they would have contributed between 2.4% to 10.8% over >the period 1688-1770 - leading aside the question of where they were >invested. He also calculated the gross value of slave trade output >to British national income as being an average of 1%, rising to 1.7% >in 1770. > >Now, of course, this is just the slave trade, which is why I began >this tread with O'Brien's figures on the colonial trade. >Now, let's see what you have to offer - 'cause so far I have seen >little except what you quoted from Darity. > >Ricardo: >> >Mistake #1: O'Brien does not "dismiss" the colonial trade. As I have >> >said, what he questions is the idea that this trade was *the* major >> >source of capital in Europe's industrialization. Yes, he also >> >does *not* think it was *a* major source, but he does say it was >> >significant, though his numbers may suggest it was not even that. >> >However, O'Brien is well aware that his "small ratios" cannot be >> >taken alone, which is why he also examines the connection of the >> >colonial trade to the cotton industry and the effects of this >> >industry - as the first mechanized industry - upon other industries. >> > >> > >Mat: >> Sorry, Ricardo. Perhaps you believe that we cannot tell the difference the >> phrase "importance of" makes in the sentence you have quoted. > > >Speaking about rhetoric, isn't it interesting that this is the second (or third?) >time you use the word "we"? Actually this clearly reveals the whole >emotional texture of this debate: "I", the other, >better watch out with what I say in this list; "I", the other, and only >"I", have the burden of putting forward the evidence and the >arguments against the colonial trade, whereas the "we" has somehow >already proven its case! No wonder Devine feels he has >the right to prattle every triffle that pops into his head >without the slightest embarrassment! > >But let's see what the "substantial" Mat has to say about my >criticisms of Darity. > >Mat: > >It means that >> Darity is not guilty of committing the error you claim. Do you think the >> meaning implied by your statement "O'Brien does not "dismiss" the colonial >> trade" correctly conveys the meaning of the sentence you are supposedly >> addressing, about O'Brien's "attempt to dismiss *the importance* of trade"? >> Your quoting of the single word "dismiss" instead of the full phrase is >> unfortunate, as it makes irrelevant much of your complaint. > >This must be a joke. I cited the whole passage - or the computer >automatically did it for me - from which the word "dismiss" came. >But here it is for the readers again, Darity wrote: "The >best-developed application of Engerman's small ratios argument to the >period of the industrial revolution is Patrick O"Brien's (1982) >attempt *to dismiss* the importance of trade with the entire >periphery..." > >Really, Mat, I just dont have time to respond to this sort of >childish accusations! > >I wrote: > >> >Of course, not matter how many times I say that no serious scholar >> >"dismisses" the colonial trade, the true believer will keep repeating >> >this, since for the believer there is only 'either-or'. >> > >Mat answered: >> This, for example, means nothing now that it is clear that Darity has >> correctly specified what is at issue: "the IMPORTANCE OF TRADE WITH THE >> PERIPHERY." > >What can I say? The periphery here means the colonies exploited by >the core countries - the issue here, I repeat, the issue that O'Brien is debating is >the COLONIAL TRADE, THE TRADE OF EUROPE WITH THE >PERIPHERY. Please, let's deal with the substance! > >I quoted Darity: > >> >O'Brien marshalls >> >> estimates of the shares of foreign trade in overall economic activity for >> >> all of the eighteenth-century Europe to show that the numbers are too >> small >> >> to give credence to the importance of trade of any sort as a critical >> engine >> >> of economic expansion. Presumably, European economic development was >> >> predominantly an internal affair that would have proceeded if the rest of >> >> the world had not existed from the eighteenth century onward. >> > >> > > >Then I commented: >> >Mistake #2: That the sources of Europe's economic development >> >were *primarily* internal, does not mean it would have developed >> >without the existence of the rest of the world, or that England could >> >have developed by itself. It is simply impossible to conceive of >> >modern economic growth as an isolated process. From the 16th century >> >onwards markets were increasingly connected, and prices were converging. >> > >> >But just because things are interconnected it does not follow that >> >one cannot evaluate the numerical contribution of one set of markets >> >to the whole economy. > >Mat responded: >> As we have seen, and despite your attempts to lead us to believe otherwise, >> for Darity and O'Brien the issue is the *IMPORTANCE* of "trade." >> >> One perfectly legitimate way of evaluating the importance of the role played >> by something in the development of a phenomenon is whether or not that >> development would have occured in its absence. You do appear to be >> conceding this point. > >Ricardo. >This is madness. The colonial trade is not the same as total foreign >trade. This is exactly why I criticized Darity for moving from one >type of trade to another without proper subheadings or better >organization of his material - because it leads people, like you, who are not >familiar with this debate confuse the issues. As I said, I will post >something on total trade later - although I am having second thoughts >about this given the poor quality of the responses I have received so >far. > >Well, let's see, maybe Mat will say something substantial this time. > >I quoted Darity: > >> >> Without consideration of the composition of trade, the interindustry >> >> linkages, and differential multiplier effects, O'Brien's small ratios are >> >> empty. >> > > >and commented: >> >Again, not true. O'Brien does consider (if not in 1982, then >> >certainly in 1991) the question of interindustry linkages. (And let's >> >not forget that O'Brien in one source among others, which Darity could >> >have considered). >> > >> >1) Most of the cash crops cultivated in the >> >plantations were, at that time, luxury-consumer goods. "Only in so >> >far as sugar, coffee and rice ... substituted for food and drink >> >processed from grain did they do anything more than complement >> >European food production ...Industrial capacity to process and >> >refine tropical groceries developed in and around European ports, but >> >the value added by these 'new industries' probably represented (less >> >than 1%?) of Europe's total industrial output." >> > >> >2) Such industrial raw materials as cochineal, indigo, logwood, furs, >> >wax, cotton fibres "carry more obvious links with the coming >> >Industrial Revolution", specifically with the textile industry, of which >> >"cotton represents the prime (perhaps the only?) example of a major >> >European industry adopted, nurtured and brought to successful >> >maturity in the context of oceanic trade" ... "But as late as 1841 >> >the cotton industry still accounted for only 7% of Britain's gross >> >national product" >> > >> >3) "...the development of no other manufacturing industry in England >> >or Holland or elsewhere in Western Europe can be linked as closely to >> >transcontinental trade...only a small fraction of the European fleet >> >was emplyed in commerce with Africa, the Indies and the Americas. >> >Technological improvements to ships, to their navigation and to the >> >organization of transportation by water preceded the Voyages of >> >Discovery" >> > > >Mat responded: >> Your arguments here are all "small ratios" arguments, which Darity has >> effectively refuted. > > >Can you believe it? Is this what Mat calls "substance"? >Ok, I will calm down, let's give Mat another chance. > >I commented: >> > >> >How can one compare slave trade to car industry? Everybody knows that >> >the car industry/or the corporate sector play crucial roles in the >> >economy in terms of the nature of the goods, finances, research >> >involved, with substantially deeper/differentiated backward >> >and forward linkages, including multiplier effects, than the slave >> >trade ever did??!! > >Mat responded: >> To answer your questions, first, one can conduct the comparison exactly as >> Darity has: by comparing the importance of the one sector in the economy of >> its period, and then do the same for the other sector in the economy of its >> period. A perfectly legitimate exercise. > >The question is whether the exercise carries any weight in view of >the substantial difference that exists between these two sectors. It >is you task to show me that the slave trade has as many intersectoral >links and multiplier effects as the car industry does today. > > >Mat continues: > >As to the second >> statement/question, "everyone" does not know any such thing. The point is >> that the linkages and related effects have not been adequately considered >> for the slave trade and therefore they need to be considered and the >> importance of the trade reconsidered based on that new evidence. > >Look above again, where I discuss what O'Brien says on just this issue of >intersectoral connections, and I can refer to more work on this, but I wont >as I am tire of having to prove my case when all I get in return is stuff - >which even if it is sometimes interesting - is unrelated to the issue at hand. > > >Finally I said: > >> >What follows is all question-begging, spurious (ahistorical) >> >correlations. Just give me the facts about the role of the slave trade in >> >the 18th British economy. > >Mat responded: >> This is simply not accurate. There can be little more to say. You appear >> to hope that your dismissal will suffice, but it will not. Read what is >> below, and explain how this is not relevant to "the role of the slave trade >> in the 18th century British economy." > >Not any more, Mat. I had it with 'Ricardo do this', 'Oh, but what about this', >'Oh no, do that', and so on and on. Not any more. I really expected something >substantial this time - especially after all that initial talk about how "we" >in pen-l demand substance. >
