Originally posted by KrazyHorse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Should America ditch Pakistan for India?
Collapse
X
-
Well it's obvious that a rational investor would be putting money where it will produce the best returns. My understanding though is that a lot of colonial investment failed, either because it was fraudulent from the get-go, or because the investors didn't realize the true costs of operating a business half a world away.John Brown did nothing wrong.
-
I'm thinking of bringing up the fall of the Empire in other threads. This should be a running gag at this point.“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View PostI'm quite happy with how things turned out. I wasn't the one arguing that Britain was facing "severely diminishing returns" on capital in an era of rapid technological advancement and less than full unemployment.

Technological advancement simply means that the amount of useful capital which can be employed has a secular trend. It doesn't mean that at any moment (or even for an extended period of time) a country is not at that limit.
Secondly, I'd like to hear your thoughts on exactly what unemployment figures (from what source, exactly?) tell you about capital intensity and the rate of return on capital.
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
It doesn't mean that at any moment (or even for an extended period of time) a country is not at that limit.
You've provided absolutely zero evidence that Britain was at the limit. It's a historical fact that it wasn't, as has been demonstrated by any number of economic historians.KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Comment
-
You've provided absolutely zero evidence that Britain was at the limit. It's a historical fact that it wasn't, as has been demonstrated by any number of economic historians.
Feel free to expand on this, son.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
at your claim that this is revisionist history instead of simply disagreeing with whatever comic book version of history you read.
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
I doubt that either Keynes or Adam Smith had anything close to the requisite data OR theoretical structure to analyze this problem correctly.
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Good point though the Islamists do claim wide spread support in any event.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostThe last election results would call into question those numbers or an Islamist takeover.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Drake: It's fairly clear that in the 19th century Britain was the world's most developed country and certainly the most industrialized so clearly, even if the limit hadn't been reached, it was the closest to that limit, therefore, it seems obvious that the lowest hanging fruit had already been picked while other countries were still getting good returns from domestic capital investment because they were still picking low hanging fruit.Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View PostIt doesn't mean that at any moment (or even for an extended period of time) a country is not at that limit.
You've provided absolutely zero evidence that Britain was at the limit. It's a historical fact that it wasn't, as has been demonstrated by any number of economic historians.
Now for KH:
As others have pointed out colonialism was a net cost to the British government and they most certainly did not largely live off the land they controlled. The soldiers needed to be paid by the British government, roads & rails needed to be constructed to supply those troops, ports had to be made for shipping, forts had to be built, and numerous other things. This all had to be paid by the government while most of the actual profits went to individual persons or corporations. Much of the reason for the end of colonialism is people got tired of paying day to day expenses in far off places.Originally posted by KrazyHorse View PostColonialism was a bit different back then than US military adventurism is today. They largely lived off the land they controlled, you ignoramus.
One of the big reasons for originally going after colonies was that in the age of mercantilism they were captive markets for industrial goods from the home country but starting in the 1850's the British started championing free trade. As more and more countries joined on for free trade Britain started to ask itself why it was still paying all the expenses even while most of the profits went else where.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
Comment