Comments on: International Trade, Population and Productivity http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/ Issues & insights Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:34:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: sherkhan http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264134 sherkhan Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:06:41 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264134 What was there in India before 1900 and after 1900? Well, my dear uncle toms defending colonialism here...why don't you ask your "masters" what kept them here after 1900 when there was nothing to loot? oooops, I am sorry, me a dirty uncouth native, I forgot that your "masters" were here in a noble mission to civilize the heathen. Unfortunately, as you can see they did not do a good job of that either (me being an example). Anyway, India went from foreign colonialism to Anglicized Indian colonialism in '47. Technically India is still colonized by a minority english speaking elite that has bled whatever that remained of the rest of the population in the name of socialism. Nobody here talks about the destruction of artisans and they way of life with the "outsourcing" of textiles by the english which in turn gave rise to poverty and lingering caste issues. Not a word about the stiff duties imposed with international trade. Or the very "efficient" taxation of agriculture whose effects we are still living today. What was there in India before 1900 and after 1900? Well, my dear uncle toms defending colonialism here…why don’t you ask your “masters” what kept them here after 1900 when there was nothing to loot? oooops, I am sorry, me a dirty uncouth native, I forgot that your “masters” were here in a noble mission to civilize the heathen. Unfortunately, as you can see they did not do a good job of that either (me being an example).

Anyway, India went from foreign colonialism to Anglicized Indian colonialism in ‘47. Technically India is still colonized by a minority english speaking elite that has bled whatever that remained of the rest of the population in the name of socialism.

Nobody here talks about the destruction of artisans and they way of life with the “outsourcing” of textiles by the english which in turn gave rise to poverty and lingering caste issues. Not a word about the stiff duties imposed with international trade. Or the very “efficient” taxation of agriculture whose effects we are still living today.

]]> By: swaptions7 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264124 swaptions7 Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:57:21 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264124 Observer "I admire swaptions7. In spite of having been refuted on multiple occasions, he/she comes back for more punishment." I don't mind getting punished as long as my only point is well taken:-).. "If one country/race/… is conquered by another distinct one, mostly it will be for the benefit of the conqueror " and britain and India did not have any exception in the relation... PS:"With the advent of the Moghuls, and their practice of decapitating the intellectuals and aristocrats of the conquered lands..." I would have argued against this oversimplified generalization ...pointer..."Argumentative Indian-Amartya Sen"...but lets save that for some other day :-) Observer
“I admire swaptions7. In spite of having been refuted on multiple occasions, he/she comes back for more punishment.”

I don’t mind getting punished as long as my only point is well taken:-)..

“If one country/race/… is conquered by another distinct one, mostly it will be for the benefit of the conqueror ” and britain and India did not have any exception in the relation…

PS:”With the advent of the Moghuls, and their practice of decapitating the intellectuals and aristocrats of the conquered lands…” I would have argued against this oversimplified generalization …pointer…”Argumentative Indian-Amartya Sen”…but lets save that for some other day :-)

]]> By: Observer http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264121 Observer Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:44:41 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264121 I admire swaptions7. In spite of having been refuted on multiple occasions, he/she comes back for more punishment. Good show! Anyway, from reading Angus McFadden's book, it appears that India's glory days were numbered by early 1000, where the per-capita GDP of the Indian subcontinent was already being crossed in Western Europe. Of course, given India's historical (and current) gift on the population front, the overall GDP was not overtaken until the late 1700s. Given that human beings have not really evolved much in the last few thousand years, a study of history would be instructive in divining future shifts in economic activity. I have a rather controversial theory regarding India's decline. With the advent of the Moghuls, and their practice of decapitating the intellectuals and aristocrats of the conquered lands, a substantial source of the fountain of innovation and enterprise was lost. In most societies, including Western ones, the contributions of a few individuals (the top 0.1%) of the population in terms of technology and arts make a huge difference in the evolution of that society. Take out these individuals, and society suffers a big blow. As Tata put it so eloquently, a society which allows its very best to achieve their maximum potential will reap rewards compared to one where the emphasis is on helping the poor. No matter how many boatloads of foodgrains are shipped to Sub-saharan Africa or India, they are not going to become developed societies. It requires a fundamental shift in the culture. I admire swaptions7. In spite of having been refuted on multiple occasions, he/she comes back for more punishment. Good show! Anyway, from reading Angus McFadden’s book, it appears that India’s glory days were numbered by early 1000, where the per-capita GDP of the Indian subcontinent was already being crossed in Western Europe. Of course, given India’s historical (and current) gift on the population front, the overall GDP was not overtaken until the late 1700s. Given that human beings have not really evolved much in the last few thousand years, a study of history would be instructive in divining future shifts in economic activity. I have a rather controversial theory regarding India’s decline.

With the advent of the Moghuls, and their practice of decapitating the intellectuals and aristocrats of the conquered lands, a substantial source of the fountain of innovation and enterprise was lost. In most societies, including Western ones, the contributions of a few individuals (the top 0.1%) of the population in terms of technology and arts make a huge difference in the evolution of that society. Take out these individuals, and society suffers a big blow. As Tata put it so eloquently, a society which allows its very best to achieve their maximum potential will reap rewards compared to one where the emphasis is on helping the poor.

No matter how many boatloads of foodgrains are shipped to Sub-saharan Africa or India, they are not going to become developed societies. It requires a fundamental shift in the culture.

]]> By: swaptions7 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264117 swaptions7 Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:34:02 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264117 "take up white man’s burden”? is from our great imperial poet and Moglee famed Kipling on US occupation of phillipine... I'm no one to comment what is "should" and "Must" but my point is simple... If one country/race/... is conquered by another distinct one, mostly it will be for the benfit of the conquerer and it seems you too agree on the same. Also on Indian History as well as world history there has been conquest by the stronger nation/race/religion on another. So indian history is not very differnt. “take up white man’s burden”? is from our great imperial poet and Moglee famed Kipling on US occupation of phillipine…
I’m no one to comment what is “should” and “Must” but my point is simple…
If one country/race/… is conquered by another distinct one, mostly it will be for the benfit of the conquerer and it seems you too agree on the same.
Also on Indian History as well as world history there has been conquest by the stronger nation/race/religion on another. So indian history is not very differnt.

]]> By: KK http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264115 KK Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:35:32 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264115 If you are saying a "white man" must not try to rule over "non-white men", then thats racism and I will not comment on that. If you are saying, one community must not rule over another, or one country must not rule over another, or one race must not rule over another race, then read up on some Indian history. If the Brits conquered India and decided to exploit India - well bad luck. We would have done the same if we could - we were just not powerful enough. When we could, we conquered SE Asia and Indonesia. Even Sri Lanka. Well you could argue North Indian kings invaded South India. Or the Marathas of Maharashtra conquered non-Marathi-speaking people. Meaningless arguments of course. The Brits themselves were conquered by the Romans and the Vikings - but they dont blame Caesar or William for their current day problems. We have been independent for over 50 years. Lots of countries overtook us after that. If you are saying a “white man” must not try to rule over “non-white men”, then thats racism and I will not comment on that.

If you are saying, one community must not rule over another, or one country must not rule over another, or one race must not rule over another race, then read up on some Indian history. If the Brits conquered India and decided to exploit India - well bad luck. We would have done the same if we could - we were just not powerful enough. When we could, we conquered SE Asia and Indonesia. Even Sri Lanka. Well you could argue North Indian kings invaded South India. Or the Marathas of Maharashtra conquered non-Marathi-speaking people. Meaningless arguments of course.

The Brits themselves were conquered by the Romans and the Vikings - but they dont blame Caesar or William for their current day problems. We have been independent for over 50 years. Lots of countries overtook us after that.

]]> By: swaptions7 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264107 swaptions7 Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:03:04 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264107 Well let me keep it in bold "Why are MOST colonial country still in 3rd world?" there are more than 50 countries (may be 100..may be more) that were colonized..above is the list of 8 Also the term third world came after 2nd world war (which was also the end of imperalism..that we knew of...I don't want to discuss..US imperialism:-)) so comparison of US/Canada may not be relevant in terms of colonization...I'm not sure. Also I can argue abt the colonization/de-colonization of US /Australia/New zeland....where the original race were marginalized anyway? My point was simple I can't think why should a country/community/race come, crossing half of the world to improve "governance/industry"...to "take up white man's burden"? Well let me keep it in bold “Why are MOST colonial country still in 3rd world?” there are more than 50 countries (may be 100..may be more) that were colonized..above is the list of 8
Also the term third world came after 2nd world war (which was also the end of imperalism..that we knew of…I don’t want to discuss..US imperialism:-)) so comparison of US/Canada may not be relevant in terms of colonization…I’m not sure.
Also I can argue abt the colonization/de-colonization of US /Australia/New zeland….where the original race were marginalized anyway?
My point was simple I can’t think why should a country/community/race come, crossing half of the world to improve “governance/industry”…to “take up white man’s burden”?

]]> By: KK http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264104 KK Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:17:05 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264104 "why are most colonial country still in 3rd world?" List of first world countries that were colonies: 1. United States (Britain) 2. Australia (Britain) 3. Canada (Britain) 4. New Zealand (Britain) 5. Singapore (Britain, Japan) Other non-third world countries: South Korea (Japan) Ireland (Britain) Most of the Middle East (Britain, France) “why are most colonial country still in 3rd world?”
List of first world countries that were colonies:
1. United States (Britain)
2. Australia (Britain)
3. Canada (Britain)
4. New Zealand (Britain)
5. Singapore (Britain, Japan)
Other non-third world countries:
South Korea (Japan)
Ireland (Britain)
Most of the Middle East (Britain, France)

]]> By: swaptions7 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264099 swaptions7 Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:39:20 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264099 British invested on railways, postal services, tea etc. but was reluctant to promote Iron and steel, textile mills which were pillars of British empire. JRD was allowed for tata steel only in 1899 by lord Curzon only when Britain had lost its monopoly of world steel market to Belgium, Germany etc. Looting does not necessarily mean taking out gold/Jewelry from India to Britain(though that happened) but forcing opium cultivation, killing the textiles industry and selling processed cotton (clothes) from Manchester and not allowing any such industry to be set up in India is also looting. For Satish if you want to believe what u already seem to believe there was nothing in India...u can find that in James Mill, History of India..which later formed the basis of british colonization terming all east has can be contained in half selve of a british library (I don't remember the exact quote)...this guy never visited india. Or if you want you can start with Albruni's India the Iranian Arab traveller who stayed in India for 13 years (around 1030 AD)and translated most of the work from sankrit to arabic...and end with Romila Thapar..both of which gives bad as well as good things that were present Just a pointer....if colonization was to promote good governance why are most colonial country still in 3rd world? Also a little to harsh criticism on colonial rule in"John Newsinger’s The blood never dried" British invested on railways, postal services, tea etc. but was reluctant to promote Iron and steel, textile mills which were pillars of British empire. JRD was allowed for tata steel only in 1899 by lord Curzon only when Britain had lost its monopoly of world steel market to Belgium, Germany etc.
Looting does not necessarily mean taking out gold/Jewelry from India to Britain(though that happened) but forcing opium cultivation, killing the textiles industry and selling processed cotton (clothes) from Manchester and not allowing any such industry to be set up in India is also looting.
For Satish if you want to believe what u already seem to believe there was nothing in India…u can find that in James Mill, History of India..which later formed the basis of british colonization terming all east has can be contained in half selve of a british library (I don’t remember the exact quote)…this guy never visited india.
Or if you want you can start with Albruni’s India the Iranian Arab traveller who stayed in India for 13 years (around 1030 AD)and translated most of the work from sankrit to arabic…and end with Romila Thapar..both of which gives bad as well as good things that were present

Just a pointer….if colonization was to promote good governance why are most colonial country still in 3rd world?
Also a little to harsh criticism on colonial rule in”John Newsinger’s The blood never dried”

]]> By: Kiran http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264055 Kiran Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:42 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264055 The Unified Growth Theory assumes a certain homogeneity across development in a nation. However, what we are seeing in countries like India and China is the exaggeration of economic inequalities, such that the rich are getting comparable with the rich in the developed countries, while the poor get poorer (in relative terms at least). So no, it is not that simple. The Unified Growth Theory assumes a certain homogeneity across development in a nation.

However, what we are seeing in countries like India and China is the exaggeration of economic inequalities, such that the rich are getting comparable with the rich in the developed countries, while the poor get poorer (in relative terms at least).

So no, it is not that simple.

]]> By: MK http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264008 MK Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:09:01 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2008/01/26/international-trade-population-and-productivity/#comment-264008 satish, you seem to hugely ignorant of history when you say "what was there in india to loot since 1900" and even before. India was world's largest manufacturing economy till the 18th century, leave alone its agricultural production to sustain the craft manufacturing population. You could do better service to yourself by reading some basic text-books before sounding too imperialist. satish,
you seem to hugely ignorant of history when you say “what was there in india to loot since 1900″ and even before. India was world’s largest manufacturing economy till the 18th century, leave alone its agricultural production to sustain the craft manufacturing population. You could do better service to yourself by reading some basic text-books before sounding too imperialist.

]]>