nhaliday + automation + piracy   3

How important was colonial trade for the rise of Europe? | Economic Growth in History
The latter view became the orthodoxy among economists and economic historians after Patrick O’Brien’s 1982 paper, which in one of many of Patrick’s celebrated phrases, claims that “”the periphery vs peripheral” for Europe. He concludes the paper by writing:

“[G]rowth, stagnation, and decay everywhere in Western Europe can be explained mainly by reference to endogenous forces. … for the economic growth of the core, the periphery was peripheral.”

This is the view that remarkable scholars such as N. Crafts, Deirdre McCloskey, or Joel Mokyr repeat today (though Crafts would argue cotton imports would have mattered in a late stage, and my reading of Mokyr is that he has softened his earlier view from the 1980s a little, specifically in the book The Enlightened Economy.) Even recently, Brad deLong has classifyied O’Brien’s 1982 position as “air tight”.

Among economists and economic historians more on the economics side, I would say that O’Brien’s paper was only one of two strong hits against the “Worlds-System” and related schools of thoughts of the 1970s, the other hit being Solow’s earlier conclusion that TFP growth (usually interpreted as technology, though there’s more to it than that) has accounted for economic growth a great deal more than capital accumulation, which is what Hobsbawm and Wallerstein, in their neo-Marxist framework, emphasize.

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/890034395456974848
A friend tonight, on the third world and the first world, and our relationships to the past: "They don't forget, and we don't remember."
https://twitter.com/edwest/status/872337163458932736
imo the European Intifada is being fueled by anti-Europeanism & widely taught ideas like this one discussed - Europe stole its riches

https://www.thinkpragati.com/opinion/1863/dont-blame-empire/
The British Empire was cruel, rapacious and racist. But contrary to what Shashi Tharoor writes in An Era Of Darkness, the fault for India’s miseries lies upon itself.

Indeed, the anti-Tharoor argument is arguably closer to the truth, because the British tended to use the landlord system in places where landlords were already in place, and at times when the British were relatively weak and couldn’t afford to upset tradition. Only after they became confident in their power did the British start to bypass the landlord class and tax the cultivators directly. King’s College London historian Jon Wilson (2016) writes in India Conquered, “Wherever it was implemented, raiyatwar began as a form of military rule.” Thus the system that Tharoor implicitly promotes, and which is associated with higher agricultural productivity today, arose from the very same colonialism that he blames for so many of India’s current woes. History does not always tell the parables that we wish to hear.

...

India’s share of the world economy was large in the eighteenth century for one simple reason: when the entire world was poor, India had a large share of the world’s population. India’s share fell because with the coming of the Industrial Revolution, Europe and North America saw increases of income per capita to levels never before seen in all of human history. This unprecedented growth cannot be explained by Britain’s depredations against India. Britain was not importing steam engines from India.

The big story of the Great Divergence is not that India got poorer, but that other countries got much richer. Even at the peak of Mughal wealth in 1600, the best estimates of economic historians suggest that GDP per capita was 61% higher in Great Britain. By 1750–before the battle of Plassey and the British takeover–GDP per capita in Great Britain was more than twice what it was in India (Broadberry, Custodis, and Gupta 2015). The Great Divergence has long roots.

Tharoor seems blinded by the glittering jewels of the Maharajas and the Mughals. He writes with evident satisfaction that when in 1615 the first British ambassador presented himself to the court of Emperor Jehangir in Agra, “the Englishman was a supplicant at the feet of the world’s mightiest and most opulent monarch.” True; but the Emperor’s opulence was produced on the backs of millions of poor subjects. Writing at the same time and place, the Dutch merchant Francisco Pelsaert (1626) contrasted the “great superfluity and absolute power” of the rich with “the utter subjection and poverty of the common people–poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted…only as the home of stark want and the dwelling-place of bitter woe.” Indian rulers were rich because the empire was large and inequality was extreme.

In pre-colonial India the rulers, both Mughal and Maratha, extracted _anywhere from one-third to one half of all gross agricultural output_ and most of what was extracted was spent on opulence and the armed forces, not on improving agricultural productivity (Raychaudhuri 1982).

...

The British were awful rulers but the history of India is a long story of awful rulers (just as it is for most countries). Indeed, by Maddison’s (2007) calculations _the British extracted less from the Indian economy than did the Mughal Dynasty_. The Mughals built their palaces in India while the British built most of their palaces in Britain, but that was little comfort to the Indian peasant who paid for both. The Kohinoor diamond that graces the cover of Inglorious Empire is a telling symbol. Yes, it was stolen by the British (who stole it from the Sikhs who stole it from the Afghanis who stole it from the Mughals who stole it from one of the kings of South India). But how many Indians would have been better off if this bauble had stayed in India? Perhaps one reason why more Indians didn’t take up arms against the British was that for most of them, British rule was a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

more for effect on colonies: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:4b0128372fe9

INDIA AND THE GREAT DIVERGENCE: AN ANGLO-INDIAN COMPARISON OF GDP PER CAPITA, 1600-1871: http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Guptaetal.pdf
This paper provides estimates of Indian GDP constructed from the output side for the pre-1871 period, and combines them with population estimates to track changes in living standards. Indian per capita GDP declined steadily during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries before stabilising during the nineteenth century. As British living standards increased from the mid-seventeenth century, India fell increasingly behind. Whereas in 1600, Indian per capita GDP was over 60 per cent of the British level, by 1871 it had fallen to less than 15 per cent. As well as placing the origins of the Great Divergence firmly in the early modern period, the estimates suggest a relatively prosperous India at the height of the Mughal Empire, with living standards well above bare bones subsistence.

https://twitter.com/pseudoerasmus/status/832288984009207810
but some of the Asian wage data (especialy India) have laughably small samples (see Broadberry & Gupta)

How profitable was colonialism for various European powers?: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/p1q1q/how_profitable_was_colonialism_for_various/

How did Britain benefit from colonising India? What did colonial powers gain except for a sense of power?: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Britain-benefit-from-colonising-India-What-did-colonial-powers-gain-except-for-a-sense-of-power
The EIC period was mostly profitable, though it had recurring problems with its finances. The initial voyages from Surat in 1600s were hugely successful and brought profits as high as 200%. However, the competition from the Dutch East India Company started to drive down prices, at least for spices. Investing in EIC wasn’t always a sure shot way to gains - British investors who contributed to the second East India joint stock of 1.6 million pounds between 1617 and 1632 ended up losing money.

...

An alternate view is that the revenues of EIC were very small compared to the GDP of Britain, and hardly made an impact to the overall economy. For instance, the EIC Revenue in 1800 was 7.8m pounds while the British GDP in the same period was 343m pounds, and hence EIC revenue was only 2% of the overall GDP. (I got these figures from an individual blog and haven’t verified them).

...

The British Crown period - The territory of British India Provinces had expanded greatly and therefore the tax revenues had grown in proportion. The efficient taxation system paid its own administrative expenses as well as the cost of the large British Indian Army. British salaries were lucrative - the Viceroy received £25,000 a year, and Governors £10,000 for instance besides the lavish amenities in the form of subsidized housing, utilities, rest houses, etc.

...

Indian eminent intellectual, Dadabhai Naoroji wrote how the British systematically ensured the draining of Indian economy of its wealth and his theory is famously known as ‘Drain of Wealth’ theory. In his book 'Poverty' he estimated a 200–300 million pounds loss of revenue to Britain that is not returned.

At the same time, a fair bit of money did go back into India itself to support further colonial infrastructure. Note the explosion of infrastructure (Railway lines, 100+ Cantonment towns, 60+ Hill stations, Courthouses, Universities, Colleges, Irrigation Canals, Imperial capital of New Delhi) from 1857 onward till 1930s. Of course, these infrastructure projects were not due to any altruistic motive of the British. They were intended to make their India empire more secure, comfortable, efficient, and to display their grandeur. Huge sums of money were spent in the 3 Delhi Durbars conducted in this period.

So how profitable was the British Crown period? Probably not much. Instead bureaucracy, prestige, grandeur, comfort reigned supreme for the 70,000 odd British people in India.

...

There was a realization in Britain that colonies were not particularly economically beneficial to the home economy. … [more]
econotariat  broad-econ  article  history  early-modern  age-of-discovery  europe  the-great-west-whale  divergence  conquest-empire  economics  growth-econ  roots  trade  endo-exo  patho-altruism  expansionism  multi  twitter  social  discussion  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  🎩  attaq  albion  journos-pundits  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  cjones-like  big-picture  chart  news  org:mag  org:foreign  marginal-rev  wealth-of-nations  britain  india  asia  cost-benefit  leviathan  antidemos  religion  islam  class  pop-structure  nationalism-globalism  authoritarianism  property-rights  agriculture  econ-metrics  data  scale  government  industrial-revolution  pdf  regularizer  pseudoE  measurement  volo-avolo  time-series  anthropology  macro  sapiens  books  review  summary  counterfactual  stylized-facts  critique  heavy-industry  pre-ww2  study  technology  energy-resources  labor  capitalism  debate  org:data  org:lite  commentary  usa  piketty  variance-components  automation  west-hunter  scitariat  visualization  northeast  the-south  aphorism  h2o  fluid 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Assortive mating and income inequality | West Hunter
More than in the past, we have doctors marrying other doctors, rather than nurses, basically because of an increase in assortative mating for education. Ceteris paribus, this would tend to cause greater income equality among families. Is it the main driver of increasing income inequality?

Not at all. Most of the increase over the last 30 years has been among business executives and people working in finance. Since 1979, 58% of the expansion of income of the top 1% of households has this origin. For the top 0.1% of households, it’s been 67%.

...

Now I’m about to say something a little dangerous – so get your nitroglycerin pills ready.

Maybe those finance guys and CEOs are delivering enormously more value than they did in the 1950s!

For those remaining readers that haven’t died laughing, increased assortative mating probably has contributed to income inequality. Just not very much. Changes in the tax code, outsourcing, automation, smothering the board of directors in cream, and inattentive stockholders all matter more.

capital gains: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/assortive-mating-and-income-inequality/#comment-24318
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/assortative-mating-and-income-inequality/
Educational Homogamy and Assortative Mating Have Not Increased: http://sci-hub.tw/http://www.nber.org/papers/w22927.pdf
1960-2010, so all post WW2
https://twitter.com/whyvert/status/840379325908049920
Highly educated women partner more often “downwards” and medium educated women partner less often “upwards”
The new assortative mating (phenotypical, perhaps no change in genotypical assortative mating) due to women outnumbering men at university
If this means less genotypic assortative mating, then BAD NEWS: the smart fraction will shrink, and #decline will accelerate
Counterrevolutionary and reactionary elements warned it was a mistake to debauch higher education by over-expansion. Maybe they were right?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-016-9407-z
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  assortative-mating  inequality  winner-take-all  finance  class  trends  labor  automation  crooked  vampire-squid  capital  taxes  class-warfare  multi  poast  news  org:mag  right-wing  commentary  links  econotariat  marginal-rev  data  history  mostly-modern  usa  education  chart  coming-apart  zeitgeist  europe  twitter  social  study  summary  biodet  dysgenics  higher-ed  gender  sociology  behavioral-gen  social-norms  economics  contrarianism  hmm  regularizer  behavioral-econ  mobility  correlation  compensation  null-result  age-generation  social-capital  madisonian  rot  the-bones  modernity  realness  🎩  management  rent-seeking  elite  money  pdf  piracy  time-series  human-capital  gnon  leadership  markets  investing  ability-competence  roots  explanans  marginal 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Edge.org: 2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?
highlights:
- quantum supremacy [Scott Aaronson]
- gene drive
- gene editing/CRISPR
- carcinogen may be entropy
- differentiable programming
- quantitative biology
soft:
- antisocial punishment of pro-social cooperators
- "strongest prejudice" (politics) [Haidt]
- Europeans' origins [Cochran]
- "Anthropic Capitalism And The New Gimmick Economy" [Eric Weinstein]

https://twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/986253381344907265
https://archive.is/gNGDJ
There's an underdiscussed contradiction between the idea that our society would make almost all knowledge available freely and instantaneously to almost everyone and that almost everyone would find gainful employment as knowledge workers. Value is in scarcity not abundance.
--
You’d need to turn reputational-based systems into an income stream
technology  discussion  trends  gavisti  west-hunter  aaronson  haidt  list  expert  science  biotech  geoengineering  top-n  org:edge  frontier  multi  CRISPR  2016  big-picture  links  the-world-is-just-atoms  quantum  quantum-info  computation  metameta  🔬  scitariat  q-n-a  zeitgeist  speedometer  cancer  random  epidemiology  mutation  GT-101  cooperate-defect  cultural-dynamics  anthropology  expert-experience  tcs  volo-avolo  questions  thiel  capitalism  labor  supply-demand  internet  tech  economics  broad-econ  prediction  automation  realness  gnosis-logos  iteration-recursion  similarity  uniqueness  homo-hetero  education  duplication  creative  software  programming  degrees-of-freedom  futurism  order-disorder  flux-stasis  public-goodish  markets  market-failure  piracy  property-rights  free-riding  twitter  social  backup  ratty  unaffiliated  gnon  contradiction  career  planning  hmm  idk  knowledge  higher-ed  pro-rata  sociality  reinforcement  tribalism  us-them  politics  coalitions  prejudice  altruism  human-capital  engineering  unintended-consequences 
november 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : dismalityeconmetatechie

related tags

aaronson  ability-competence  age-generation  age-of-discovery  agri-mindset  agriculture  albion  altruism  analysis  anthropology  antidemos  aphorism  article  asia  assortative-mating  attaq  authoritarianism  automation  backup  behavioral-econ  behavioral-gen  big-picture  biodet  biotech  books  britain  broad-econ  cancer  capital  capitalism  career  chart  cjones-like  class  class-warfare  cliometrics  coalitions  coming-apart  commentary  communication  compensation  computation  conquest-empire  contradiction  contrarianism  cooperate-defect  correlation  cost-benefit  counterfactual  creative  CRISPR  critique  crooked  cultural-dynamics  data  debate  degrees-of-freedom  discussion  divergence  duplication  dysgenics  early-modern  econ-metrics  econ-productivity  economics  econotariat  eden-heaven  education  elite  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  energy-resources  engineering  epidemiology  essay  europe  expansionism  expert  expert-experience  explanans  film  finance  fluid  flux-stasis  free-riding  frontier  futurism  gavisti  gender  geoengineering  gnon  gnosis-logos  government  growth-econ  GT-101  h2o  haidt  heavy-industry  higher-ed  history  hmm  homo-hetero  human-capital  ideas  idk  impact  india  industrial-revolution  inequality  info-dynamics  innovation  institutions  intellectual-property  internet  investing  islam  iteration-recursion  journos-pundits  knowledge  labor  leadership  leviathan  links  list  macro  madisonian  management  marginal  marginal-rev  market-failure  markets  measurement  media  memes(ew)  metameta  mobility  modernity  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  monetary-fiscal  money  mostly-modern  multi  mutation  nationalism-globalism  news  northeast  null-result  order-disorder  org:anglo  org:biz  org:data  org:edge  org:foreign  org:lite  org:mag  org:rec  patho-altruism  pdf  piketty  piracy  planning  poast  politics  pop-structure  pre-ww2  prediction  prejudice  primitivism  pro-rata  programming  property-rights  pseudoE  public-goodish  q-n-a  qra  quantum  quantum-info  questions  race  random  rant  ratty  realness  reddit  reference  regularizer  reinforcement  religion  rent-seeking  reputation  review  revolution  rhetoric  right-wing  roots  rot  sapiens  scale  science  scitariat  similarity  social  social-capital  social-norms  sociality  sociology  software  speedometer  study  stylized-facts  summary  supply-demand  taxes  tcs  tech  technology  the-bones  the-great-west-whale  the-south  the-world-is-just-atoms  thiel  time-series  top-n  track-record  trade  trends  tribalism  twitter  unaffiliated  unintended-consequences  uniqueness  us-them  usa  vampire-squid  variance-components  video  visualization  volo-avolo  war  wealth  wealth-of-nations  west-hunter  wiki  winner-take-all  zeitgeist  🎩  🔬 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: