Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Dan B. who wrote (1304)	5/21/2002 2:36:57 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1643

The Corn Law-mandated price of corn was so high in the 1820s that it took most of a middle-class income to feed one's family ... many working people didn't earn enough to buy sufficient bread, and starved ... yet Britain still could not feed herself, over ten per cent of corn was imported still, some legally, some contraband, it made opportunity for young men of enterprise and sailing abilities Situation got that way because parliament was dominated by landowners, due to outdated ridings [electoral subdivisions] and a highly restricted franchise, few had the vote ..... the impetus for raising the mandated corn price was the end of the napoleonic wars, in which corn had quite naturally risen in price due to the continent being occupied with pursuits other than farming .... so by 1816 or so UK farmland had risen in value considerably, and much of it had changed hands at high prices .... it was to 'protect this vital interest' that landowners voted themselves a guaranteed extortionate price for corn, and voted the rest into starvation, voted the nation out of the industrial revolution business How about that US farm bill the other day, eh .... 190 billions USD ... heeeere piggy piggy piggy craig is way wrong 'Canada and US Free Trade Issues' - #Subject-52940 - for about twenty years now a lobby with a core of southern landowners with yellow pine planted on old worked-out slave land has been getting control of the US 'Commerce' department, in an effort to drive out of the market the superior wood of the british columbians ... and it's been intensifying lately, current US administration seems to pander to this sort of thing

To: Dan B. who wrote (1304)	6/6/2002 7:40:57 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1643

>> But CRAIG, you DID plainly and simply say Britians nearly "STARVED(your word, not mine)", in your direct disagrement with my suggestion that Britians ate better after repeal of the Corn Laws << they did nearly starve thanks to the german sub! >> First off, despite your words above, it remains correct to say that near WWI, Britian successfully was STILL feeding its citizens well(i.e. via trade by choice). << of course, they ate. when i say fed themselves, they didn't produce their own food. they had to rely on imports to feed themselves, opening them up for an attack by germany who thought they could interrupt their food supply shipments with their arsenal of u-boats. america to the rescue of britain. >> Britians simply always ate well after repeal of the corn laws, and such wasn't the case before repeal(hence the clamor to try repeal) << the point is they became dependant on imports full time, rather than supplementing shortages with imports. that was a mistake. there is nothing wrong with importing some food to go along with the food you grow yourself. but to totally abandon agriculture is foolhardy. that's exactly what they did. >> They believed the Corn Laws had saddled them with the suffering, so they repealed them and it worked << hmm...the slogan of the anti-corn law league was "free trade, peace and good-will among nations." how well did that work out for them? britain was involved in more wars than any other nation following the repeal fo the corn laws. doh! >> Such a positive result invariably occurs whenever more freedom is introduced, and history cleary and repeatedly shows us so, if one really looks << so in the near century and a half when america operated under the tariff system we were not free nor well fed? >> The "liberals" of the time were also American Revolutionaries << george washington was a "liberal"? >> Say what you will Craig, but I'm quite confident most observers know well that free traders have long come mainly from the ranks of modern conservatives. Modern conservatives were once largely known as liberals(now, as classic liberals) << here is your mistake. modern conservatives are not classic liberals, even though they may label themselves as such.