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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (33244)	3/24/1999 3:44:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Steve -- Consider that the British Aristocracy got most of its loot from land rents, and with the abolition of the corn laws in mid-1800's lost their principal source of wealth. Some noblemen lost money in settling America, but with few exceptions those who led colonial and trade expansion were from the middle class or at most penniless younger sons of noblemen (young Duke of Wellington an example). There is little question that British colonialism was an almost purely commercial proposition, in which those who actually went overseas accumulated most of the loot, and the businessmen who stayed home made profit from trade. British profits from trade with the U.S. after independence were far greater than ever they made while the Americans were colonized. For the most part, colonialism (taken as a whole) was an economic bust for the countries involved, although some individuals made out. Spain, despite the flow of bullion that financed its try for European hegemony, was bankrupt in the late 16th century, its once great woolen trade destroyed by inflation that helped England's woolen exports and tore the Netherlands from Spain, beginning the destruction of Charles V's great inheritance. Do you know of any great fortunes made by Americans in the Philippines? In my opinion, the seizure and occupation were the greatest political disaster in American history. Without that, Us would not have annexed Hawaii and would have had not involvement in Asia at all -- no Great Pacific War -- no next Great Pacific War -- etc. Colonialism was the result of temporary vastly different political and military differences in capacity between poor states and the big few. A few borrowed millions or an insurrection, a few cruisers, a landing party of marines, and almost any 19th century third world state was history. Before colonialism could be overthrown the colonialists had to learn that trying to stay was too expensive to be worthwhile. Colonial people had to suppress the divisions among themselves -- at least temporarily -- long enough to make the price too high. Rebels didn't have to win, just hand on and drain the colonialist governments. Most of the difficulties of the newly independent countries reflects echoes of the political weaknesses that got them colonialized in the first place.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (33244)	3/24/1999 8:43:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

US and British economic development One key was the invention of the Bessemer-Thomas-Gilchrist process in England that permitted use of phosphoric acidic iron ores and feeds for making steel, making steel cheap enough to replace iron in rail and machinery. Oddly enough, the same process was simultaneous invented by an American about the same time. It was obviously time. Economies of location made the US steel industry (licensing patents from England) grow rapidly. Agricultural settlement in the US was decisive. Starting with canals and then railroads, the price of grain at the Atlantic and Mississippi docks fell so low as to revolutionize Europe (especially England) releasing floods of labor to migrate to industrial cities everywhere and agricultural labor to the American midwest and Great Plains. There were enormous flows of capital and labor to the US after 1840, and labor productivity in the U.S. started a steady approximately 2% p.a. growth at the same time. The Resulting European-US growth led to 100 years of modernization, pushed along by mechanization, electrification, and marked improvements in transportation -- much of this simply the result of the discovery and spread of modern engineering based on science. One of the major development toward the end of the century was the replacement of craft-based work (especially in steel and machine making), the separation of ownership and control (development of professional management and money management), and the growth of the modern corporation (first in the railroads).