Tweet
A few items while I have a few minutes.
An early example of trickle down? 
This is a reasonable argument to make. I would argue that the critical period for the US was not the ten years prior to the Civil War, but rather the 10 to 20 years after the Civil War. This would make the role of slavery much less consequential both in timing and in magnitude, since the later growth was much greater. More on this below.
Rostow does argue something similar. However there are two critiques of Rostow's argument. First, not all coutries appear to have clearly defined critical periods. Second, the key industries identified by Rostow account for much less output than one would expect. IIRC, production of rails accounted for only 10 or 20 percent of US steel production in the critical period.
OK, now I understand where you are coming from. Don't necessariliy agree with it, for some of the reasons outlined below, but I understand the argument.
[AS hereby exempts Chegitz from blanket charge of lack of knowledge of economic history. I should have known better.
]
A couple factors that I dont think have been mentioned yet.
1. As I suggested above, the growth of the frontier after 1865 appears to have been a much greater factor in US economic growth than the contribution of slavery both in terms of the size of the impact and in the timing.
2. Beyond that, another critical factor was the set of policies which enabled the conversion of unoccupied land into productive capital. These include
Homestead Act, provisions of which are still in force today, helped convert undeveloped land into productive farms
Railroad Land Grants, which were actually in-kind loans, helped convert undeveloped land into efficinet transportation.
Morrill Act, successor to Northwest Ordinance, helped convert unoccupied land into schools and universities, which in turn helped develop human capital.
North and Thomas identified a similar set of policies used by the British in the late 1600's and early 1700's, primarily focussed on obtaining industrial know-how and disolving royal grants of monopoly (at least domestically).
3. To the extent that British capital financed American development, slavery was a pretty small factor. What the British earned from India was far greater than anything they earned in the Americas. Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. IIRC, the British East India Company was more profitable than the West India Company and the Hudson Bay Company combined, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Consider
1. Establishment of the Raj. What Clive and Hastings extorted from local rulers made everybody else look like pikers in comparison. Naked imperialism at its worst.
2. The Salt Tax. Salt was essential for preserving food in a tropical environment, so this was essentially a poll tax on hundreds of millions of people. This was a form of mercantilism.
3. The Cloth Trade. Buy cotton from India at below market prices, sell cloth to India at above market prices, keeping the mills of Lancashire busy and profitable. The ultimate mercantilist policy.
4. Growth of Opium. Opium grown in India was sold in China to cover the trade deficit. Again, another form of mercantilism.
In sum, I would argue that the opening of new lands (which was accompanied by the displacement of native peoples), earnings from mercantilism, and development of efficeint institutions were the most important factors contributing to the rise of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That silver doesn't just stay in the hands of Spanish nobles, but finds its way into the hands of the middle classes, who can then begin buying goods themselves.
That silver doesn't just stay in the hands of Spanish nobles, but finds its way into the hands of the middle classes, who can then begin buying goods themselves.
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not all capital accumulation, but a critical burst of accumulated capital that allowed/created the conditions for capitalist take off. I want to say W.W. Rostow argued something similar to this (about periods of industrial take-off). That once this take off has begun, economic growth is pretty much sustained.
Not all capital accumulation, but a critical burst of accumulated capital that allowed/created the conditions for capitalist take off. I want to say W.W. Rostow argued something similar to this (about periods of industrial take-off). That once this take off has begun, economic growth is pretty much sustained.
Rostow does argue something similar. However there are two critiques of Rostow's argument. First, not all coutries appear to have clearly defined critical periods. Second, the key industries identified by Rostow account for much less output than one would expect. IIRC, production of rails accounted for only 10 or 20 percent of US steel production in the critical period.
If hyper-exploitation provided the fuel for the initial burst of industrialization/capitalist growth, then we can say that capitalism is based on "slavery and genocide." But in this case, based means the original starting condtions rather than capitalism requires this condition at all times.
[AS hereby exempts Chegitz from blanket charge of lack of knowledge of economic history. I should have known better.
]A couple factors that I dont think have been mentioned yet.
1. As I suggested above, the growth of the frontier after 1865 appears to have been a much greater factor in US economic growth than the contribution of slavery both in terms of the size of the impact and in the timing.
2. Beyond that, another critical factor was the set of policies which enabled the conversion of unoccupied land into productive capital. These include
Homestead Act, provisions of which are still in force today, helped convert undeveloped land into productive farms
Railroad Land Grants, which were actually in-kind loans, helped convert undeveloped land into efficinet transportation.
Morrill Act, successor to Northwest Ordinance, helped convert unoccupied land into schools and universities, which in turn helped develop human capital.
North and Thomas identified a similar set of policies used by the British in the late 1600's and early 1700's, primarily focussed on obtaining industrial know-how and disolving royal grants of monopoly (at least domestically).
3. To the extent that British capital financed American development, slavery was a pretty small factor. What the British earned from India was far greater than anything they earned in the Americas. Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. IIRC, the British East India Company was more profitable than the West India Company and the Hudson Bay Company combined, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Consider
1. Establishment of the Raj. What Clive and Hastings extorted from local rulers made everybody else look like pikers in comparison. Naked imperialism at its worst.
2. The Salt Tax. Salt was essential for preserving food in a tropical environment, so this was essentially a poll tax on hundreds of millions of people. This was a form of mercantilism.
3. The Cloth Trade. Buy cotton from India at below market prices, sell cloth to India at above market prices, keeping the mills of Lancashire busy and profitable. The ultimate mercantilist policy.
4. Growth of Opium. Opium grown in India was sold in China to cover the trade deficit. Again, another form of mercantilism.
In sum, I would argue that the opening of new lands (which was accompanied by the displacement of native peoples), earnings from mercantilism, and development of efficeint institutions were the most important factors contributing to the rise of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Imran
. That's not a bad thing to say.
True capitalists were also abolishionists. Adam Smith (the Scottish one 
Comment