Re: some history! RE: economic history question
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Fred Foldvary wrote: > > If there was a capitalistic system with very few or no poor people, it's > > answer to the question of the poor would be extremely interesting. > > Tom Grey > > Taiwan has develped rapidly while maintaining a distribution of income more > equal than that of Sweden. > > It was able to do this with land reform combined with taxing much of the land > rent. > Could you give a reference where this is discussed in more detail? Tony
Re: some history! RE: economic history question
> If there was a capitalistic system with very few or no poor people, it's > answer to the question of the poor would be extremely interesting. > Tom Grey Taiwan has develped rapidly while maintaining a distribution of income more equal than that of Sweden. It was able to do this with land reform combined with taxing much of the land rent. A market economy can have both more efficiency and more equity relative to today's economies by shifting taxation off of wages and capital and onto rent. Excessive regulations would also need to be removed. That would go a long way to reducing poverty, without a welfare state. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
some history! RE: economic history question
A friend told me about her grandfather, on a striking picket line at Ford Motor Co. in freezing winter, during the Depression. The poor workers, peacefully striking on government streets, were sprayed with water by the Detroit fire department, who was there with the police. The water rapidly cooled towards freezing. This kind of gov't cruelty to protect the rich and their "property rights" is, to a large extent, the impetus to the creation of such socialistic/leftist orgs as the ACLU, etc. I'm sure most of FDR's New Deal was based on an attempt to solve "The Problem of the Poor People". And very subject to the various existing political influences. If there was a capitalistic system with very few or no poor people, it's answer to the question of the poor would be extremely interesting. Until there are "better" answers, in practical examples, of systems that are "more capitalist with fewer poor", the socialist example (threat?) remains seductive to many, many people. I'm keeping my eye out for answers, including this Armchair list. Tom Grey PS I found this Abstract on the net: - Katherine Baicker, Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz NBER Working Paper No.w5889* Issued in January 1997 Abstract - Unemployment compensation in the United States was signed into law in August 1935 as part of the omnibus Social Security Act. Drafted in a period of uncertainty and economic distress, the portions that dealt with unemployment insurance were crafted to achieve a multiplicity of goals, among them passage of the act and a guarantee of its constitutionality. Along with the federal-state structure went experience-rating and characteristics added by the states, such as the limitation on duration of benefits. The U.S. unemployment compensation system is distinctive among countries by virtue of its federal-state structure, experience-rating, and limitation on benefits. We contend that these features were products of the times, reflecting expediency more than efficiency, and thus that UI would have been different had it been passed in another decade. But how different is the UI system in the United States because of these features, and how have they affected the U.S. labor market? We present evidence showing that more seasonality in manufacturing employment in 1909-29 is related to higher UI benefits from 1947 to 1969, if a state's manufacturing employment share is below the national mean. Lobbying activities of seasonal industries appear important in the evolution of the parameters. We also present suggestive evidence on the relationship between declining seasonality and experience-rating. *Published: Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the TwentiethCentury. Edited by Michael D. Bordo, Claudia Goldin, and Eugene N. White,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998, pp. 227-263. You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery. Information for subscribers and others expecting no-cost downloads If you normally receive free downloads but are having trouble with the new system, please contact us and use this link to download the paper. --
Re: some history
What about the benefits of free trade (efficiency, economies of scale etc...). If the nations outside the empire have protectionist policies and there are gains from international free trade, could not the gains of free trade justify the expense of the empire? What is the value of an economic union (even if this is accomplished by force)? Does the previously mentioned cost benefit analysis include this? Andrew Nigrinis - Original Message - From: "Chirag Kasbekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:16 PM Subject: Re: some history > > > I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone > > > who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to > >Britain > > > of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than > > > it was worth. > > > David Friedman > > I had also sent my second question to the "Ask the Professor" service at > EH.net. THe professor on duty turned out to be Robert Whaples of Wake Forest > University, who actually teaches the Industrial Revolution. He sent me the > following: > > ___ > > Probably the best work on this subject is > Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British > Imperialism, 1860-1912 by Lance E. Davis, Robert A. Huttenback, Susan > Gray Davis. > Their evidence shows that Britain generally transfered resource _to_ its > self-governing colonies. Very few economic historians would accept the > notion that British capitalism depended much on its imperial activities, > which were probably a net drain on the economy. > This book is packed full of information and discusses India at length. > > R. Whaples > Wake Forest University > > > He also clarified later that "self-governing" colonies was not an oxymoron > and was actually part of the classification used in the book. Places like > India, which had partially a local government. > > -- Chirag > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. >
Re: some history
> > I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone > > who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to >Britain > > of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than > > it was worth. > > David Friedman I had also sent my second question to the "Ask the Professor" service at EH.net. THe professor on duty turned out to be Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University, who actually teaches the Industrial Revolution. He sent me the following: ___ Probably the best work on this subject is Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British Imperialism, 1860-1912 by Lance E. Davis, Robert A. Huttenback, Susan Gray Davis. Their evidence shows that Britain generally transfered resource _to_ its self-governing colonies. Very few economic historians would accept the notion that British capitalism depended much on its imperial activities, which were probably a net drain on the economy. This book is packed full of information and discusses India at length. R. Whaples Wake Forest University He also clarified later that "self-governing" colonies was not an oxymoron and was actually part of the classification used in the book. Places like India, which had partially a local government. -- Chirag _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: some history
I've often wondered if those cost-benefit analysis didn't in fact underestimate the non-pecuniary benefits that accrued to the british citizenry from their empire building. What, for instance, was the utility of having an empire that the sun never set on? If I were a british that might be something I was willing to pay for (in fact it was something that they did pay for). Similarly if I were racist, finding an outlet for me to express my racism might also be something that yielded utility. To say that colonialism didn't on net benefit the british people seems to ignore or at least discount these potential benefits. V -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue Sep 19 08:55:31 2000 Subject: Re: some history > I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone > who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain > of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than > it was worth. > David Friedman Because of British colonization, including of North America, English is now the predominant language. That saves many English speakers the costs of learning and using a foreign language, an on-going benefit. I wonder if such benefits have been included. The cost/benefit to the British includes having their former colonies, including the United States, as allies during the world wars. This may be a net loss, since if the Germans had not lost W.W.I, they would not have started WWII. The US-influenced W.W.I settlements also contributed to WWII - had the Austro-Hungarian empire not been broken up, the Germans would not have started their expansion into Austria and Czechia. So the colonization of the US by Britain and the creation of the USA may have indeed caused a large net loss for the British by contributing to the cause of World War II. Fred Foldvary
Re: some history
> I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone > who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain > of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than > it was worth. > David Friedman Because of British colonization, including of North America, English is now the predominant language. That saves many English speakers the costs of learning and using a foreign language, an on-going benefit. I wonder if such benefits have been included. The cost/benefit to the British includes having their former colonies, including the United States, as allies during the world wars. This may be a net loss, since if the Germans had not lost W.W.I, they would not have started WWII. The US-influenced W.W.I settlements also contributed to WWII - had the Austro-Hungarian empire not been broken up, the Germans would not have started their expansion into Austria and Czechia. So the colonization of the US by Britain and the creation of the USA may have indeed caused a large net loss for the British by contributing to the cause of World War II. Fred Foldvary
RE: some history
Donald McCarthy Centre for Post-Collectivist Studies Social Market Foundation [EMAIL PROTECTED] T: +44 020 72227060 F: +44 020 72220310 I've seen a few cost-benefit analyses a while ago that suggested that almost all British colonies were a net cost to Britain with the exception of Malaya and Ghana which were both big commodity producers (rubber and tin and cocoa respectively) I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain (meaning, I think, everyone in Britain) of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than it was worth. But I'm afraid I don't remember who gave the talk, let alone whether the work was published and where. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Re: some history
Ed Dodson responding... I wrote:. >In Britain, factory owners imported labor from Ireland to prevent labor from >effectively organizing and to keep wages down to subsistence levels. David Friedman asks: What dates are you thinking of? As best I recall from Ashton, real wages were rising from about 1840 on. Checking the _Atlas of World Population History_, the population of England and Wales rose from about 1400 on, with the increase becoming much steeper starting about 1750-1800, which seems inconsistent with "subsistence wages." Roughly the same thing is true of the graph for the British Isles as a whole, so it isn't just a matter of moving people from Ireland to England. Ed here: An interesting historical study of the early 19th century is contained in the *The Reason Why* written by Cecil-Woodham Smith around 1950-52. This story details how England's military adventures in the Crimea were financed (to a considerable extent) by rackrents charged Irish tenant farmers. Few could pay the rents and were expelled from their plots of land. Many perished, many others migrated, in large numbers to the factories of England. Their arrival drove down wages in the factories to subsistence level. Rising unemployment and worsening conditions sent large numbers of English, Scot and Welsh (as well as Irish) to the Americas, to Australia, to South Africa and to New Zealand. Smith's book also presents what might be described as a worst-case direct correlation between impoverishment and population growth. High infant mortality, the lack of opportunity for education or employment, short life expectancy -- all contribute to poor families being large even after the benefit of a large family disappeared with the enclosures and transition from subsistence to commercial (sheep and cattle) agriculture. England inadvertently ran its colonial empire a bit more prudently than did the French, Spanish or Portuguese. England exported people to, in effect, recreate smaller versions of English communities. In North America, the period up to the late 1750s was called by historian Charles Andrews, the era of "salutary neglect," ending because of the huge debt incurred during the Seven Years War (i.e., the French and Indian War). The landed aristocracy and financiers of England were not about to tax themselves to pay off this debt and so decided their lesser counterparts in the Americas ought to bare the burden. You know what happened after that. Mr. Kasbekar asked: > > Also, a question: How vital was the economic exploitation of its colonies >> (esp. India) to the growth and development of British capitalism? Some >> people seem to believe it was extremely vital. Some that the British economy >> was already well-developed by the time the exploitation took effect. > >I responded: >The question is, "vital to whom?" The costs of maintaining an imperial empire >are clearly far greater than any aggregate financial gains that accrue to the >general citizenry. The financial benefits are attached to monopoly licenses >granted by government to certain individuals or entities. David Friedman responds: I don't know about "clearly." There's no a priori reason why robbery can't be profitable. I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain (meaning, I think, everyone in Britain) of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than it was worth. But I'm afraid I don't remember who gave the talk, let alone whether the work was published and where. Ed Dodson here: There are a number of excellent sources for the details, from Adam Smith in *The Wealth of Nations* to Ferdinand Lott's description of the fall of the Roman empire, to Will and Ariel Durant's detailed studies. If we put the various empire-building countries on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the worst in terms of laws that transferred the costs of empire to those who benefitted least, perhaps England would appear somewhere in the 4-5 range, while Spain and Portugal would appear at 9-10. The Spanish people, during Spain's empire-building era, suffered from very heavy taxation (remember that neigher Spain's aristocracy nor the Church were taxed to pay for the adventures of its monarchy). And, the treasure brought from the New World had to be exchanged, in part, for food and other basic goods the heavily-taxed Spanish could not produce for themselves. begin:vcard n:Dodson;Edward tel;fax:215-575-1718 tel;home:856-428-3472 tel;work:215-575-1819 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO) version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A. fn:Edward J. Dodson end:vcard
Re: some history
At 9:50 AM -0400 9/18/00, Edward Dodson wrote: >Ed Dodson responding... >Chirag Kasbekar wrote: ... >In Britain, factory owners imported labor from Ireland to prevent labor from >effectively organizing and to keep wages down to subsistence levels. What dates are you thinking of? As best I recall from Ashton, real wages were rising from about 1840 on. Checking the _Atlas of World Population History_, the population of England and Wales rose from about 1400 on, with the increase becoming much steeper starting about 1750-1800, which seems inconsistent with "subsistence wages." Roughly the same thing is true of the graph for the British Isles as a whole, so it isn't just a matter of moving people from Ireland to England. ... > > Also, a question: How vital was the economic exploitation of its colonies >> (esp. India) to the growth and development of British capitalism? Some >> people seem to believe it was extremely vital. Some that the British economy >> was already well-developed by the time the exploitation took effect. > >Ed Dodson here: >The question is, "vital to whom?" The costs of maintaining an imperial empire >are clearly far greater than any aggregate financial gains that accrue to the >general citizenry. The financial benefits are attached to monopoly licenses >granted by government to certain individuals or entities. I don't know about "clearly." There's no a priori reason why robbery can't be profitable. I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to Britain (meaning, I think, everyone in Britain) of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than it was worth. But I'm afraid I don't remember who gave the talk, let alone whether the work was published and where. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Re: some history
Ed Dodson responding... Chirag Kasbekar wrote: > An American political philosopher friend of mine was wondering how market > practices and institutions would have been affected had economic, cultural > and political conditions been slightly different during the Industrial > Revolution in Britain. For example, he speculates that the factory structure > would have been less authoritarian had labour been more scarce and more > dear. Any thoughts? Ed Dodson here: When the supply of labor is scarce relative to demand, wages tend to increase. In Britain, factory owners imported labor from Ireland to prevent labor from effectively organizing and to keep wages down to subsistence levels. Nothing to mysterious about that. Britain also had the unique policy of sending off its most dissident dissidents to places like Australia and New Zealand. > > > Also, a question: How vital was the economic exploitation of its colonies > (esp. India) to the growth and development of British capitalism? Some > people seem to believe it was extremely vital. Some that the British economy > was already well-developed by the time the exploitation took effect. Ed Dodson here: The question is, "vital to whom?" The costs of maintaining an imperial empire are clearly far greater than any aggregate financial gains that accrue to the general citizenry. The financial benefits are attached to monopoly licenses granted by government to certain individuals or entities. > > > Any thoughts? Are there any good books/articles on these subjects? > > Chirag Kasbekar > MA (economics), University of Mumbai (Bombay), India > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. begin:vcard n:Dodson;Edward tel;fax:215-575-1718 tel;home:856-428-3472 tel;work:215-575-1819 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Fannie Mae;Housing and Community Development, Northeast Regional Office (NERO) version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Senior Affordable Housing Business Manager note:If you need to reach me during non-business hours, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] adr;quoted-printable:;;1900 Market Street=0D=0ASuite 800;Philadelphia;PA;19103;U.S.A. fn:Edward J. Dodson end:vcard
some history
Some historical ponderings. An American political philosopher friend of mine was wondering how market practices and institutions would have been affected had economic, cultural and political conditions been slightly different during the Industrial Revolution in Britain. For example, he speculates that the factory structure would have been less authoritarian had labour been more scarce and more dear. Any thoughts? Also, a question: How vital was the economic exploitation of its colonies (esp. India) to the growth and development of British capitalism? Some people seem to believe it was extremely vital. Some that the British economy was already well-developed by the time the exploitation took effect. Any thoughts? Are there any good books/articles on these subjects? Chirag Kasbekar MA (economics), University of Mumbai (Bombay), India _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
