SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Commodities - The Coming Bull Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: craig crawford who wrote (1106)3/16/2002 5:02:40 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1643
 
Britains "height" of the Empire was about 1910 imho. WW1 killed it. There was also strong movements to treat human beings as equals.

Britain is a fairly small island with limited land.

overpopulation.com

I just downloaded recent population densities for Europe and sorted them in descending order.

Monaco 16,410.3
Gibraltar 4,461.5
Malta 1,187.5
Jersey 767.2
Netherlands 464.2
San Marino 416.7
Belgium 336.6
Guernsey 335.1
United Kingdom 238.9
Germany 234.8
Liechtenstein 200
Italy 193.1
Switzerland 182.5
Luxembourg 164.3
Andorra 144.4
Moldova 132.3
Czech Republic 130.8
Poland 126.8
Denmark 125.8
Albania 121.6
Armenia 120.5
Serbia 119.1
Slovakia 110.5
Hungary 110.5
Portugal 108
France 107.8

United States??

United States 29.5

The EEC can now easily overproduce food. The grain farms in the UK are the amongst the most efficient in the world. France whines about our farms in fact -g-. The EEC had some embarrassing times with "butter mountains" and "wine lakes" etc but farmers are now paid to under produce. The whole food thing thing is weird with subsidies etc. Same in USA I understand.

Back to 19th century topic.

That cheap 19th century USA corn would have got sold somewhere, and the country that ate that corn would have an advantage over it's rivals in providing a cheap labor force to compete in the industrial revolution. Britain did well in that role.

I not totally against trade barriers. If the USA steel tariff was immediately invested in upgrading the USA steel industry to make it really competitive world wide, then yes that would be good for everyone. That does not happen though. The bureaucrats take over, politics gets mixed in, and all conspire to make a royal mess of everything. That tariff money will do harm and little good.

"Dumping" and unregulated trade, guilty of all sorts of things, will also conspire to do bad things because individual nations do not want to form an effective UN and WTO.



To: craig crawford who wrote (1106)3/17/2002 7:40:56 AM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1643
 
(OT) re the "Turbina" mentioned in the link...

In 1887 and 1897 Victoria had celebrated her Jubilees, when Britain’s power and wealth were displayed. Her relatives sat on every throne in Europe, her empire was one on which ‘the sun never set’, covering more than a quarter of the world, and in 1897 visitors to Portsmouth saw her review a Home Fleet consisting of more than 30 miles of warships drawn up in lines each of which was more than six miles in length. Britain still revelled in ‘splendid isolation’, but many of her leaders were realising that though strong and rich we did not have a friend in the world, and indeed some countries positively hated us. At that review in 1897 there appeared a small ship moving through the fleet at more than 30 knots: "The Turbinia", using new turbine engines showed the future - all that mighty fleet was, in fact, now effectively out-of-date. Britain’s great Naval lead over her rivals could now be eliminated. Britain faced the new century with some misgivings: the former confidence was weakening - she would not dominate the new century as she had done the 19th.

Well 30 miles of Warships cost more then a few sacks of wheat to run. Britain's empire was built on commerce and trade. The navel review of just the "Home Fleet" is proof of how powerful free trade had made her. Well that and lots of big guns.

The Admiralty were always out of tune with new developments though. They all probably had shares in reciprocating steam engines. Hence the builder of the "Turbina" had to make such a demonstration.

But warships could be refitted with turbines. Further bungling was required to weaken the British Navy. One English guy invented a new naval gun sight. This is a little known fact. Britain could sunk the German navy with it in WW1 and proved the fast Battle Cruiser concept, but the Germans had bought it after the guy spent years being rejected by the British Admiralty.

siliconinvestor.com

I hope my spelling and diction has improved a bit since then excepted=accepted, navel=naval,