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/
