Big G used the internet to buy his season tickets in the 1990s?
OK.
You have misread my post
I did not have a season ticket but I took 18 journeys to London in 2 years and never went near a ticket office
But you said you bought them online, earlier in your reply to me. Thinking back, that wasn't possible in 1993 - I changed jobs and email was barely a thing. 1999?
Edit: it hardly matters when. The basic point was you knew what ticket to buy and where to go. But the ticketing and fares system is still horrendous. It's a ripoff charter to abolish ticket offices.
As I recall I ordered and paid my tickets direct to Virgin Trains
Biut I repeat: you knew which tickets to order, and where to get them. And had the kit to get them.
Indeed but then we are 30 years on and in the age of the internet
Many in my age group worry about parking apps but it is getting impossible not to have to use them
It is not as convenient for some but it is the way the world is going
That's rather too convenient for some. Look at this, and look at the DM reports and the comments there. They are absolutely ballistic.
They are barbarians who dreamt up this policy and should not be let off so lightly.
I have little doubt they will be closed in due course but if I were to travel by rail I would use Trainline or similar anyway
In other words - you are happy to justify the further deterioration of public services, presumably by way oif support for a non-Labour government, and rely on a website known not to give good value remiably or be propery coordinated with the operators. For instance:
I would just say I have travelled extensively by train in the UK and also abroad including the Ghan and the Blue Train in South Africa and have not experienced problems you mention in either web sites or any other agency
It is not a political issue for me but as in parking apps so rail will inevitably follow though the unions will resist no doubt
Parking apps is an obvious area where the state should just sanction one app - have competitive a 5 year franchise by all means but one app nationwide.
What advantage would having 1 app nationwide bring?
Not having to have 38 different apps on one's phone
See, you don't have 38 parking apps on your phone
I've just checked - I've got 5 parking apps, 4 of which are out of date and will need a download next time I happen to park at a carpark that needs that app. It's painful. And pointless.
I don't bother with parking apps, just leave a couple of pound coins on the dashboard and a note saying 'here's what you could have won'.
To which the reply is a parking ticket worth quite a lot more.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
The Atlantic slave trade combined slavery with colonialism and capitalism, that was what was new. Slavery produced huge profits because it brought together abundant land in the new world, cheap labour and new agricultural products for which there was huge demand. These profits - capital - were then funnelled by the capitalist system into driving the investment required by the industrial revolution. It also provided raw materials and products for the industrial workers to consume. Our whole economy was built on slavery and its profits.
I think this is broadly right.
But some caveats:
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, whereas economic historians seem to keep pushing back the Industrial Revolution “lift off” later and later, perhaps to the post-Napoleonic era.
If the “whole economy” was built on slavery, how did Britain ever find itself able to ban it? Contrast with the American South who - as cotton exports became ever more lucrative - increasingly wanted to double down on slavery.
It also begs the question, why the UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, rather than France, Spain, or Portugal. A big part of Eric Williams' argument was that slavery was simply becoming a lot less profitable, from the 1780's, and it was that, and fear of slave revolts, rather than humanitarian concern, that drove abolitionist sentiment. But, there's quite the gap between the decline in the profitability of slavery, and the real growth in industrialisation. IMHO, the war against Napoleon drove a huge amount of industrialisation. War is so often a key to innovation.
I would guess that the focus by Britain on the Navy rather than huge land armies played a major role in Britain forging ahead of France.
With large land armies each man needs a musket, bayonet or sword. You need some artillery and horses to move them but with a navy there are countless individual parts of each ship that can be improved to increase speed, safety, strength, manoeuvrability, weapons systems, feeding crew which probably needs a more technological mindset and production techniques.
Not saying that the French Navy was a minor concern but the Royal Navy had the edge for many tech reasons as much as numbers.
The British commitment to Spain and Portgual in terms of providing weapons, uniforms, gunpowder etc. for land armies was immense. The British government would not let the Spanish and Portugese purchase these items from its manufacturers (it wanted to be in sole control of the process) but it borrowed huge sums, bought them in bulk, and then gave them to its allies.
There were even British manufacturers selling to the French (something the government winked at, because it wanted gold currency) because the French simply didn't have a big enough industrial base to supply its armies.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
Though you do need to allow that a lot of NE USA economic development was like the North of England and boomed on manufactures for the sugar/slave trade. The Cotton boom came later in the 1820s with the invention of the cotton gin.
The Caribbean slaves were fed on imported food from the 13 colonies, particularly dried cod and cornmeal, barrels were imported from New England, ships built there etc. New York and Boston financed and insured etc
The slave trade involved much more than simply picking cotton or tobacco. It was was a major international business with different economic specialisations in different places united by maritime shipping. Indeed the trade was a major driver of economic globalisation in the modern era.
I think it was one of the causes of economic growth, but there were multiple causes.
Big G used the internet to buy his season tickets in the 1990s?
OK.
You have misread my post
I did not have a season ticket but I took 18 journeys to London in 2 years and never went near a ticket office
But you said you bought them online, earlier in your reply to me. Thinking back, that wasn't possible in 1993 - I changed jobs and email was barely a thing. 1999?
Edit: it hardly matters when. The basic point was you knew what ticket to buy and where to go. But the ticketing and fares system is still horrendous. It's a ripoff charter to abolish ticket offices.
As I recall I ordered and paid my tickets direct to Virgin Trains
Biut I repeat: you knew which tickets to order, and where to get them. And had the kit to get them.
Indeed but then we are 30 years on and in the age of the internet
Many in my age group worry about parking apps but it is getting impossible not to have to use them
It is not as convenient for some but it is the way the world is going
That's rather too convenient for some. Look at this, and look at the DM reports and the comments there. They are absolutely ballistic.
They are barbarians who dreamt up this policy and should not be let off so lightly.
I have little doubt they will be closed in due course but if I were to travel by rail I would use Trainline or similar anyway
In other words - you are happy to justify the further deterioration of public services, presumably by way oif support for a non-Labour government, and rely on a website known not to give good value remiably or be propery coordinated with the operators. For instance:
I would just say I have travelled extensively by train in the UK and also abroad including the Ghan and the Blue Train in South Africa and have not experienced problems you mention in either web sites or any other agency
It is not a political issue for me but as in parking apps so rail will inevitably follow though the unions will resist no doubt
Parking apps is an obvious area where the state should just sanction one app - have competitive a 5 year franchise by all means but one app nationwide.
What advantage would having 1 app nationwide bring?
Not having to have 38 different apps on one's phone
See, you don't have 38 parking apps on your phone
I've just checked - I've got 5 parking apps, 4 of which are out of date and will need a download next time I happen to park at a carpark that needs that app. It's painful. And pointless.
I don't bother with parking apps, just leave a couple of pound coins on the dashboard and a note saying 'here's what you could have won'.
Doesn't that risk a hefty bill winging your way, as I'd have thought the carparks are backed up by ANPR... ?
Car parks usually have machines that accept coins or credit cards. It's the parking on the public highway where the council insists on an app that I ignore
Sounds like bullshit tbh - you'll still be racking up fines and, if unpaid, CCJs and a crap credit score.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Confederate apologist would say - "our slavery was fine until the Yankees brutalised it with their money obsessed industrialisation".
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
‘After humble beginnings and a misspent youth, I’ve worked my way up to becoming a successful businessman and have spent 10 years of my life and expended blood, sweat and tears (admittedly mainly other people’s) in building a world beating mercenary army and a multi million $ international business. Can I become a Canuck?’
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
The South was actively anti “improvement” - the Fire Eaters saw industrialisation as the enemy of slavery.
The North saw the South as the Slavocracy. The South saw the North as “cheating” - importing masses of anti-slavery immigrants*, who went straight to work in the factories**, creating money and votes***
*in the Civil war, they recruited on the decks of the immigrant boats, with a high rate of enlistment. ** not really true - much of the North was agricultural *** the masses of new voters meant more seats in Congress and electoral votes for the Presidency. The Southern Fire Eaters were convinced that the North would split states/territories to create multiple new states. Which would give them more votes in the Senate. This was the origin of the option for Texas (slave state) to split, after joining the Union. This was as a prepared retaliation in case the North did this.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
Except that if you read on the history of the Industrial Revolution, there’s nothing so common as stuff like - “He invested all his money in a new iron making process - which failed, and he died in relative poverty.”
People invested their *all* quite regularly
OK but maybe it was an anomalous period, and Britain reverted quickly to type as what looked like monopolistic profits emerged (ie before the rest of the world caught up).
As I say, Britain is a global laggard for both private and public capital investment, and it has long been so.
It would make an interesting PhD, but my sense is that something changed something changed around the.turn of the 20th Cent.
One that sticks in my mind is Jellicoe being told by the gun makers that they *wouldn’t* change from wire wound guns pre WWI.
Edit; one theory is that the money men had taken over the boards of the innovative companies, kicking out the mad inventor types.
Another hypothesis.
As the British empire reached its peak, the British economy over-indexed on extractive, low skill industry instead of competing with European and U.S. peers higher up the value chain.
Kind of the same issue the US South had, except replace cotton and slavery with coal and low skill imperial subjects.
The patterns you see in records from the period, suggest that change was beginning to be seen as an enemy.
Another example - Denny (Admiralty constructor) proper and had trialed longitudinal framing for destroyers before WWI. The result was a deputation from the shipyard owners *and* the unions with the aim of getting him fired.
Remember that at this period, the U.K. industrial economy was at the top of the value chain.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
The Atlantic slave trade combined slavery with colonialism and capitalism, that was what was new. Slavery produced huge profits because it brought together abundant land in the new world, cheap labour and new agricultural products for which there was huge demand. These profits - capital - were then funnelled by the capitalist system into driving the investment required by the industrial revolution. It also provided raw materials and products for the industrial workers to consume. Our whole economy was built on slavery and its profits.
I think this is broadly right.
But some caveats:
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, whereas economic historians seem to keep pushing back the Industrial Revolution “lift off” later and later, perhaps to the post-Napoleonic era.
If the “whole economy” was built on slavery, how did Britain ever find itself able to ban it? Contrast with the American South who - as cotton exports became ever more lucrative - increasingly wanted to double down on slavery.
It also begs the question, why the UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, rather than France, Spain, or Portugal. A big part of Eric Williams' argument was that slavery was simply becoming a lot less profitable, from the 1780's, and it was that, and fear of slave revolts, rather than humanitarian concern, that drove abolitionist sentiment. But, there's quite the gap between the decline in the profitability of slavery, and the real growth in industrialisation. IMHO, the war against Napoleon drove a huge amount of industrialisation. War is so often a key to innovation.
I would guess that the focus by Britain on the Navy rather than huge land armies played a major role in Britain forging ahead of France.
With large land armies each man needs a musket, bayonet or sword. You need some artillery and horses to move them but with a navy there are countless individual parts of each ship that can be improved to increase speed, safety, strength, manoeuvrability, weapons systems, feeding crew which probably needs a more technological mindset and production techniques.
Not saying that the French Navy was a minor concern but the Royal Navy had the edge for many tech reasons as much as numbers.
The change in organisation, mentality and working was considered staggering in its day. It was a revolution to those who saw it.
There is (was?) a display of some of the machines in Pompey Dockyard, in the museum of the history of the yard. And at least one fine book about the production line. Superb stuff. So well made some machines were still working into the later C20 for the residual demand for blocks.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
Though you do need to allow that a lot of NE USA economic development was like the North of England and boomed on manufactures for the sugar/slave trade. The Cotton boom came later in the 1820s with the invention of the cotton gin.
The Caribbean slaves were fed on imported food from the 13 colonies, particularly dried cod and cornmeal, barrels were imported from New England, ships built there etc. New York and Boston financed and
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
The Atlantic slave trade combined slavery with colonialism and capitalism, that was what was new. Slavery produced huge profits because it brought together abundant land in the new world, cheap labour and new agricultural products for which there was huge demand. These profits - capital - were then funnelled by the capitalist system into driving the investment required by the industrial revolution. It also provided raw materials and products for the industrial workers to consume. Our whole economy was built on slavery and its profits.
I think this is broadly right.
But some caveats:
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, whereas economic historians seem to keep pushing back the Industrial Revolution “lift off” later and later, perhaps to the post-Napoleonic era.
If the “whole economy” was built on slavery, how did Britain ever find itself able to ban it? Contrast with the American South who - as cotton exports became ever more lucrative - increasingly wanted to double down on slavery.
It also begs the question, why the UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, rather than France, Spain, or Portugal. A big part of Eric Williams' argument was that slavery was simply becoming a lot less profitable, from the 1780's, and it was that, and fear of slave revolts, rather than humanitarian concern, that drove abolitionist sentiment. But, there's quite the gap between the decline in the profitability of slavery, and the real growth in industrialisation. IMHO, the war against Napoleon drove a huge amount of industrialisation. War is so often a key to innovation.
Slavery had had its moment. We didn't need it any more and the resistance of enslaved people was raising its cost. But the profits it generated had created a huge pool of savings in Britain that helped to fuel our industrial revolution, while the latter allowed for many new ways of creating even more surplus value from "free" labour (in the absence of democracy nobody is really free).
The key factor, and grossly underrated as a pivot in history of the western hemisphere, was the success of the Haitian revolution. After the writing was on the wall for slavery. It was no coincidence that we suppressed the Atlantic slave trade beginning just a few years later.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
Not for the Chinese. Very much not. So what did the British *Government* do? Fight a series of wars, invade China and loot and burn down their equivalent of Westminster Abbey, Buck House and the Tower of London.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Well, that settles it then. Thanks for the benefit of your analysis.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
Yes, I can see that too. Slavery is only really profitable if you can work people to death and then replace them cheaply. Otherwise, you're just owning slaves for reasons of prestige. The South had a slave population that was big enough to do this, but not big enough to risk overthrowing the system, as in Haiti.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Well, that settles it then. Thanks for the benefit of your analysis.
Interesting that our wokefidners indignantly deny the paper without actually reading it ... it's actually about one specific process, at one specific time, and one specific set of people. Not everything that was ever invented.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
Except that if you read on the history of the Industrial Revolution, there’s nothing so common as stuff like - “He invested all his money in a new iron making process - which failed, and he died in relative poverty.”
People invested their *all* quite regularly
OK but maybe it was an anomalous period, and Britain reverted quickly to type as what looked like monopolistic profits emerged (ie before the rest of the world caught up).
As I say, Britain is a global laggard for both private and public capital investment, and it has long been so.
It would make an interesting PhD, but my sense is that something changed something changed around the.turn of the 20th Cent.
One that sticks in my mind is Jellicoe being told by the gun makers that they *wouldn’t* change from wire wound guns pre WWI.
Edit; one theory is that the money men had taken over the boards of the innovative companies, kicking out the mad inventor types.
Perhaps by 1900 it had been too many generations since the initial industrialisation that the entrepreneurial spirit had faded among the initial industrialists.
And that by 1900 the size and economies of scale of industry acted as a barrier to entry against outsiders who did have entrepreneurial spirit.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
Though you do need to allow that a lot of NE USA economic development was like the North of England and boomed on manufactures for the sugar/slave trade. The Cotton boom came later in the 1820s with the invention of the cotton gin.
The Caribbean slaves were fed on imported food from the 13 colonies, particularly dried cod and cornmeal, barrels were imported from New England, ships built there etc. New York and Boston financed and
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
The Atlantic slave trade combined slavery with colonialism and capitalism, that was what was new. Slavery produced huge profits because it brought together abundant land in the new world, cheap labour and new agricultural products for which there was huge demand. These profits - capital - were then funnelled by the capitalist system into driving the investment required by the industrial revolution. It also provided raw materials and products for the industrial workers to consume. Our whole economy was built on slavery and its profits.
I think this is broadly right.
But some caveats:
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, whereas economic historians seem to keep pushing back the Industrial Revolution “lift off” later and later, perhaps to the post-Napoleonic era.
If the “whole economy” was built on slavery, how did Britain ever find itself able to ban it? Contrast with the American South who - as cotton exports became ever more lucrative - increasingly wanted to double down on slavery.
It also begs the question, why the UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, rather than France, Spain, or Portugal. A big part of Eric Williams' argument was that slavery was simply becoming a lot less profitable, from the 1780's, and it was that, and fear of slave revolts, rather than humanitarian concern, that drove abolitionist sentiment. But, there's quite the gap between the decline in the profitability of slavery, and the real growth in industrialisation. IMHO, the war against Napoleon drove a huge amount of industrialisation. War is so often a key to innovation.
Slavery had had its moment. We didn't need it any more and the resistance of enslaved people was raising its cost. But the profits it generated had created a huge pool of savings in Britain that helped to fuel our industrial revolution, while the latter allowed for many new ways of creating even more surplus value from "free" labour (in the absence of democracy nobody is really free).
The key factor, and grossly underrated as a pivot in history of the western hemisphere, was the success of the Haitian revolution. After the writing was on the wall for slavery. It was no coincidence that we suppressed the Atlantic slave trade beginning just a few years later.
Have you read the Black Jacobins by CLR James? It's brilliant. His book about cricket is excellent too.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
The plundering of money and goods from Jews in the 30s and 40s was legal under the laws of the Reich.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
Though you do need to allow that a lot of NE USA economic development was like the North of England and boomed on manufactures for the sugar/slave trade. The Cotton boom came later in the 1820s with the invention of the cotton gin.
The Caribbean slaves were fed on imported food from the 13 colonies, particularly dried cod and cornmeal, barrels were imported from New England, ships built there etc. New York and Boston financed and
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
The Atlantic slave trade combined slavery with colonialism and capitalism, that was what was new. Slavery produced huge profits because it brought together abundant land in the new world, cheap labour and new agricultural products for which there was huge demand. These profits - capital - were then funnelled by the capitalist system into driving the investment required by the industrial revolution. It also provided raw materials and products for the industrial workers to consume. Our whole economy was built on slavery and its profits.
I think this is broadly right.
But some caveats:
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, whereas economic historians seem to keep pushing back the Industrial Revolution “lift off” later and later, perhaps to the post-Napoleonic era.
If the “whole economy” was built on slavery, how did Britain ever find itself able to ban it? Contrast with the American South who - as cotton exports became ever more lucrative - increasingly wanted to double down on slavery.
It also begs the question, why the UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, rather than France, Spain, or Portugal. A big part of Eric Williams' argument was that slavery was simply becoming a lot less profitable, from the 1780's, and it was that, and fear of slave revolts, rather than humanitarian concern, that drove abolitionist sentiment. But, there's quite the gap between the decline in the profitability of slavery, and the real growth in industrialisation. IMHO, the war against Napoleon drove a huge amount of industrialisation. War is so often a key to innovation.
Slavery had had its moment. We didn't need it any more and the resistance of enslaved people was raising its cost. But the profits it generated had created a huge pool of savings in Britain that helped to fuel our industrial revolution, while the latter allowed for many new ways of creating even more surplus value from "free" labour (in the absence of democracy nobody is really free).
The key factor, and grossly underrated as a pivot in history of the western hemisphere, was the success of the Haitian revolution. After the writing was on the wall for slavery. It was no coincidence that we suppressed the Atlantic slave trade beginning just a few years later.
Haiti, in the 1780's, was probably the most profitable slave economy ever created. That one island was producing about half the world's sugar, and a quarter of its coffee.
And, it absolutely was hell earth for 80% of its population, a gigantic concentration camp, in reality.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
Yes, I can see that too. Slavery is only really profitable if you can work people to death and then replace them cheaply. Otherwise, you're just owning slaves for reasons of prestige. The South had a slave population that was big enough to do this, but not big enough to risk overthrowing the system, as in Haiti.
And big enough to keep the poor whites from threatening the social system.
But not big enough in Southern Appalachia where the poor whites supported the Union.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
The plundering of money and goods from Jews in the 30s and 40s was legal under the laws of the Reich.
I was going to add including gold teeth, but I'm not actually sure whether that was legal or just in a complete legal black hole.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
The Atlantic slave trade combined slavery with colonialism and capitalism, that was what was new. Slavery produced huge profits because it brought together abundant land in the new world, cheap labour and new agricultural products for which there was huge demand. These profits - capital - were then funnelled by the capitalist system into driving the investment required by the industrial revolution. It also provided raw materials and products for the industrial workers to consume. Our whole economy was built on slavery and its profits.
I think this is broadly right.
But some caveats:
Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, whereas economic historians seem to keep pushing back the Industrial Revolution “lift off” later and later, perhaps to the post-Napoleonic era.
If the “whole economy” was built on slavery, how did Britain ever find itself able to ban it? Contrast with the American South who - as cotton exports became ever more lucrative - increasingly wanted to double down on slavery.
It also begs the question, why the UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, rather than France, Spain, or Portugal. A big part of Eric Williams' argument was that slavery was simply becoming a lot less profitable, from the 1780's, and it was that, and fear of slave revolts, rather than humanitarian concern, that drove abolitionist sentiment. But, there's quite the gap between the decline in the profitability of slavery, and the real growth in industrialisation. IMHO, the war against Napoleon drove a huge amount of industrialisation. War is so often a key to innovation.
I would guess that the focus by Britain on the Navy rather than huge land armies played a major role in Britain forging ahead of France.
With large land armies each man needs a musket, bayonet or sword. You need some artillery and horses to move them but with a navy there are countless individual parts of each ship that can be improved to increase speed, safety, strength, manoeuvrability, weapons systems, feeding crew which probably needs a more technological mindset and production techniques.
Not saying that the French Navy was a minor concern but the Royal Navy had the edge for many tech reasons as much as numbers.
Acvtually, the French ships were often better sailers (which is why captured ones often ended up in the RN). One would need to drill down more, but one obvious difference is the use of iron hanging knees and braces in RN ships under Seppings.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
Except that if you read on the history of the Industrial Revolution, there’s nothing so common as stuff like - “He invested all his money in a new iron making process - which failed, and he died in relative poverty.”
People invested their *all* quite regularly
OK but maybe it was an anomalous period, and Britain reverted quickly to type as what looked like monopolistic profits emerged (ie before the rest of the world caught up).
As I say, Britain is a global laggard for both private and public capital investment, and it has long been so.
It would make an interesting PhD, but my sense is that something changed something changed around the.turn of the 20th Cent.
One that sticks in my mind is Jellicoe being told by the gun makers that they *wouldn’t* change from wire wound guns pre WWI.
Edit; one theory is that the money men had taken over the boards of the innovative companies, kicking out the mad inventor types.
Perhaps by 1900 it had been too many generations since the initial industrialisation that the entrepreneurial spirit had faded among the initial industrialists.
And that by 1900 the size and economies of scale of industry acted as a barrier to entry against outsiders who did have entrepreneurial spirit.
If you look, the big companies were all in the hand of professional business men. The TechBros had all been retired/pushed out…
William Armstrong would have been knocking on the Admiralty door, not telling them no - “Please, sir, buy my New Improved Built Up Gun. Cheaper than wire-wound, Sir. Only explodes if you use it wrong…” etc
As opposed to *Elswick* saying that they wouldn’t make such guns
Slide Rule has some interesting stuff on the interactions between the old industrial base (ship building) and the new (aviation)
Labour and the LDs now forecast to have more MSPs than the SNP and Greens.
On latest Holyrood poll Labour projected to have 38 MSPs and the LDs 15 making 53 combined while the SNP is forecast to have 40 MSPs and the Greens 10 making 50 MSPs. So Sarwar could replace Yousaf as FM in 2026 in a Labour and LD agreement.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
The plundering of money and goods from Jews in the 30s and 40s was legal under the laws of the Reich.
I was going to add including gold teeth, but I'm not actually sure whether that was legal or just in a complete legal black hole.
Knowing the Reich’s appetite for regulation I imagine it was closely controlled. I seem to recall that one of the elderly SS men tried recently served an entirely clerical role counting the spoils.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Labour and the LDs now forecast to have more MSPs than the SNP and Greens.
On latest Holyrood poll Labour projected to have 38 MSPs and the LDs 15 making 53 combined while the SNP is forecast to have 40 MSPs and the Greens 10 making 50 MSPs. So Sarwar could replace Yousaf as FM in 2026 in a Labour and LD agreement.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
What does beign gay have to do with it? Unless your ancestors ran a gay brothel, and you are in line to inherit, or something?
Basic fact is - you can't be snotty about New Canadians without recognising the very nasty history of some Posh Old Brit family wealth.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
The plundering of money and goods from Jews in the 30s and 40s was legal under the laws of the Reich.
I was going to add including gold teeth, but I'm not actually sure whether that was legal or just in a complete legal black hole.
Knowing the Reich’s appetite for regulation I imagine it was closely controlled. I seem to recall that one of the elderly SS men tried recently served an entirely clerical role counting the spoils.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
And of course the workers also ran on fresh air and the clean, or no longer clean, water of Lancashire. No need for the cheap, but nonalcoholic (and so non-disruptive of timetabling), energy provided by sugar in tea and coffee. While the ironworkers didn'tr need the markets for nails and boilers and machinery on the plantations. And the mills didn#'t need the markets for cheap cloth.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
God bless the Sacklurs, Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin.
What's homosexually got to do with biblical opioid abuse? Ah, it's Vanilla isn't it? Saving the last post and adding it to the next.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
God bless the Sacklurs, Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin.
What's homosexually got to do with biblical opioid abuse? Ah, it's Vanilla isn't it? Saving the last post and adding it to the next.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Labour and the LDs now forecast to have more MSPs than the SNP and Greens.
On latest Holyrood poll Labour projected to have 38 MSPs and the LDs 15 making 53 combined while the SNP is forecast to have 40 MSPs and the Greens 10 making 50 MSPs. So Sarwar could replace Yousaf as FM in 2026 in a Labour and LD agreement.
Yes and so like the SNP their numbers of MSPs will fall.
However if Yousaf was willing to do a deal with Ross he could stay FM as the SNP would still win most seats.
For even though Labour and the LDs are forecast to have more MSPs than the SNP and Greens, the SNP and Tories are forecast to have more MSPs than Labour and the LDs. However I can't see Yousaf ever doing a deal with the Tories, though if Forbes ever replaced him as SNP leader she might
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
When the South tried King Cotton, Lancashire switched very rapidly to Egyptian cotton.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I think the problem is that you don't interpret it at all.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
The plundering of money and goods from Jews in the 30s and 40s was legal under the laws of the Reich.
I was going to add including gold teeth, but I'm not actually sure whether that was legal or just in a complete legal black hole.
Knowing the Reich’s appetite for regulation I imagine it was closely controlled. I seem to recall that one of the elderly SS men tried recently served an entirely clerical role counting the spoils.
Hmm, so it would be. Ta muchly.
Aryanisation of Jewish property was in theory, lawful, with an established price mechanism. In practice, a lot of party members just grabbed Jewish property.
The Holocaust itself was totally against both German domestic law, and customary international law. That's why the Nazis went to great lengths to hide what they were doing.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
And there you have the origin of religious wars in a nutshell.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Not sure he’d been in to that - God goes hippy, has a child with a married woman. Kid comes to a very bad end after difficult relationship with God. God mellows out. A lot.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
That is the most massive misunderstanding of that parable. Clue: it's not about investment return.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
Ok, so what do you think Jesus would have said about the Opium Wars and the people who benefitted from the opium trade?
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
The Loaves and Fishes incident seems like a biblical money tree.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
And there you have the origin of religious wars in a nutshell.
Not really, neither Medieval and Early Modern Christians or Muslims or indeed Roman Catholics or Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were exactly left liberals
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Add: denying gays the right to marry in the state church when the state itself supposedly guarantees that very right.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Yes. From a religious ethics perspective. Because that is what that religion dictates (cf witches in Europe/US).
Once you buy into the whole religious thing you can't apply logic or "what is right" to anything because religion creates its own rules and morality.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
And there you have the origin of religious wars in a nutshell.
Not really, neither Medieval and Early Modern Christians or Muslims or indeed Roman Catholics or Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were exactly left liberals
Diggers? Levellers? Quakers? Fifth Monarchists? All impeccably 17th century lefties.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
Very true.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
That is the most massive misunderstanding of that parable. Clue: it's not about investment return.
Obviously - it’s about the rate of return relative to the risk and the zero risk rate of return.
Bet you didn’t know the Parable of Black-Scholes, either?
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Legally it is OK in that nation.
If morally you want to remove all wealth and buildings and art funded from the Opium trade or slavery then there would not be many banks or family wealth or indeed historic buildings and sculptures and university colleges left.
What morals are in the 21st century UK were not exactly the same as those in previous centuries in the UK, many then would be shocked at levels of divorce or pre marital sex or homosexuality in today's UK for example
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
That is the most massive misunderstanding of that parable. Clue: it's not about investment return.
Obviously - it’s about the rate of return relative to the risk and the zero risk rate of return.
Bet you didn’t know the Parable of Black-Scholes, either?
On the face of it - but what it is about is something else entirely, and not money. HYUFD's cxlaim is like saying that the Prodigal Son is about roast beef cuisine.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Confederate apologist would say - "our slavery was fine until the Yankees brutalised it with their money obsessed industrialisation".
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
It's in no way an apologia - but it's also entirely true that the customers for the product tolerated a system of indefensible brutality.
The industrialised sugar plantations in South America were if anything worse still.
Yet more Ulez-x whining this morning from the PB Bumpkins (Non London Division).
Again. AGAIN. It’s been in force inside the North Circ for 18 MONTHS. It’s working well.
Get. It. Done.
And south circular! I bought a new (second hand) car and got on with it. We are already reaping the benefits in terms of cleaner air.
It's another manifestation of the lack of investment mindset.
No question that there are upfront costs. But some would rather go for the cheaper option of continuing to make life worse for other people.
And yes, the pollution problem is less bad by the time you get to the edge of London. But the only two boundaries that work traffic wise are the N/S Circular and the M25. And the circle of the circulars is too small- especially on the south side.
One other thought; aren't people who quibble and chase a decision they don't like through the courts the bad guys? Enemies of the people?
The new zone isnt particularly aligned to the m25, especially in Herts and Surrey.
Are you against my modifications of:
7am-7pm £5 in expanded zone, phasing the price increase to full fare over 5 years but keeping the hours £3000 scrappage available for all who live in the zone First 2 visits free to avoid fines for once a year drivers
These would see more of the bad cars scrapped, shift traffic away from congestion times, support the evening and nighttime economies, be fairer and focus on growing support for the policy instead of winning but dividing into the enlightened and numpties.
I think a 7-7 rule would be a mistake. I don't know how quickly these things disperse, but I'd worry that bad stuff given off at 6.30am would still be around during the school run. Maybe 7pm to 2am? But then- what's the point?
Making scrappage more available would be good. That's probably limited by the overall budget, which ultimately comes down to what Westminster allows TfL to spend. We really have to let local government raise more of its own money, even though that is Higher Local Taxes.
Fining once a year types would be bad (how common is that in the current ULEZ, I wonder?) But I'd rather that were dealt with by gentle enforcement, as happens with the Dartford crossing. (First offenders get a "I'm sure it was a mistake... letter, with heavyweight stuff saved for repeat offenders.) Keep the upfront scheme simple.
So, yes, bits of the scheme are crude, there are some edge effects that aren't perfectly smoothed right now. But we are talking about a scheme that's coming in at the end of next month. And an imperfect scheme is better than no scheme, which is what some want.
I don't disagree that this scheme is better than no scheme. 7-7 was to shift traffic from congestion traffic to free flowing traffic. Not an expert on pollution but would be surprised if a <£3,000 old compliant car travelling in congestion is actually less polluting than a non compliant car travelling at normal speeds.
I think that the win at all costs divisive style of politics on pb on this debate is hugely counterproductive though. To win the debate seems to involve trivialising the real concerns of opponents rather than working through and trying to alleviate them within a framework that meets the main goals. Englighted vs numpties or eco-socialists vs the hard working. So reminiscent of Brexit implementation and failure.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
The Loaves and Fishes incident seems like a biblical money tree.
Jesus was actually a time traveller trying to get the locals to invest in a Crypto NFT Space Launch thing.
The loaves and the fishes was a demo of 800% returns per day.
His investment pitch went sideways and shit went down.
“The Romans bought Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. And have been selling him ever since, God rot them.”
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
And there you have the origin of religious wars in a nutshell.
Not really, neither Medieval and Early Modern Christians or Muslims or indeed Roman Catholics or Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were exactly left liberals
Diggers? Levellers? Quakers? Fifth Monarchists? All impeccably 17th century lefties.
All small minorities and even they were not keen on homosexuality or abortion then
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
And there you have the origin of religious wars in a nutshell.
Not really, neither Medieval and Early Modern Christians or Muslims or indeed Roman Catholics or Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were exactly left liberals
Diggers? Levellers? Quakers? Fifth Monarchists? All impeccably 17th century lefties.
All small minorities and even they were not keen on homosexuality or abortion
All highly influential at the time and later. And you said Protestants.
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
That is the most massive misunderstanding of that parable. Clue: it's not about investment return.
Obviously - it’s about the rate of return relative to the risk and the zero risk rate of return.
Bet you didn’t know the Parable of Black-Scholes, either?
On the face of it - but what it is about is something else entirely, and not money. HYUFD's cxlaim is like saying that the Prodigal Son is about roast beef cuisine.
What kind of glue should I use to stick your leg back on?
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Confederate apologist would say - "our slavery was fine until the Yankees brutalised it with their money obsessed industrialisation".
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
It's in no way an apologia - but it's also entirely true that the customers for the product tolerated a system of indefensible brutality.
The industrialised sugar plantations in South America were if anything worse still.
There was, in fact, a movement to have slave-free sugar, and some people were careful to buy it.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
And there you have the origin of religious wars in a nutshell.
Not really, neither Medieval and Early Modern Christians or Muslims or indeed Roman Catholics or Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries were exactly left liberals
You have an interpretation of the bible. Someone else will have a different interpretation of the bible.
There is no ultimate judge so depending upon the seriousness of the disagreement the only resolution is usually or often war.
As Russell said, religion is based upon fear, and fear creates the right conditions for cruelty.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
Very true.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
Yes, that would be unsustainable.
Even when we switched to buying Egyptian cotton, it was being produced by unfree labourers.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
That is the most massive misunderstanding of that parable. Clue: it's not about investment return.
Obviously - it’s about the rate of return relative to the risk and the zero risk rate of return.
Bet you didn’t know the Parable of Black-Scholes, either?
On the face of it - but what it is about is something else entirely, and not money. HYUFD's cxlaim is like saying that the Prodigal Son is about roast beef cuisine.
What kind of glue should I use to stick your leg back on?
It's actually about faith and teaching. Not money, and certainly nor thrift.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Confederate apologist would say - "our slavery was fine until the Yankees brutalised it with their money obsessed industrialisation".
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
It's in no way an apologia - but it's also entirely true that the customers for the product tolerated a system of indefensible brutality.
The industrialised sugar plantations in South America were if anything worse still.
There was, in fact, a movement to have slave-free sugar, and some people were careful to buy it.
Yes - a large part of the abolition movement in the U.K. was boycotting slave made products and using alternatives. As much to raise awareness as to actually hit the slave holders economically.
The classic was the housewife telling her friends that the sugar in the tea she was serving was made with free labour and they should switch as well.
Yet more Ulez-x whining this morning from the PB Bumpkins (Non London Division).
Again. AGAIN. It’s been in force inside the North Circ for 18 MONTHS. It’s working well.
Get. It. Done.
And south circular! I bought a new (second hand) car and got on with it. We are already reaping the benefits in terms of cleaner air.
It's another manifestation of the lack of investment mindset.
No question that there are upfront costs. But some would rather go for the cheaper option of continuing to make life worse for other people.
And yes, the pollution problem is less bad by the time you get to the edge of London. But the only two boundaries that work traffic wise are the N/S Circular and the M25. And the circle of the circulars is too small- especially on the south side.
One other thought; aren't people who quibble and chase a decision they don't like through the courts the bad guys? Enemies of the people?
The new zone isnt particularly aligned to the m25, especially in Herts and Surrey.
Are you against my modifications of:
7am-7pm £5 in expanded zone, phasing the price increase to full fare over 5 years but keeping the hours £3000 scrappage available for all who live in the zone First 2 visits free to avoid fines for once a year drivers
These would see more of the bad cars scrapped, shift traffic away from congestion times, support the evening and nighttime economies, be fairer and focus on growing support for the policy instead of winning but dividing into the enlightened and numpties.
Interesting though typically lazy article, shooting off random half facts. The point he misses is that within western democratic culture generally there are a number of ways of running a country, with varying degrees of state, private, corporate and legislative engagement. These have left/right/conservative/liberal etc labels. All are flawed. All are OK in parts. All have points, from Texas to Norway.
Joe Public the voter is little interested in the nice distinctions. What we notice is competence of delivery by government and the integrity of parliament. If you fail to house people, bankrupt the young, miss every target, act dishonourably, fail to keep promises, address the extremes and raise taxes people will look elsewhere.
There are reasons why the current Overton window veers towards anything but the current government. It is both useless in delivery and no-one has any idea what its care principles are. Allister heath can't tell us either.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
That is the most massive misunderstanding of that parable. Clue: it's not about investment return.
Obviously - it’s about the rate of return relative to the risk and the zero risk rate of return.
Bet you didn’t know the Parable of Black-Scholes, either?
On the face of it - but what it is about is something else entirely, and not money. HYUFD's cxlaim is like saying that the Prodigal Son is about roast beef cuisine.
What kind of glue should I use to stick your leg back on?
It's actually about faith and teaching. Not money, and certainly nor thrift.
No, its about teaching the management of bond portfolios according to Christ.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Confederate apologist would say - "our slavery was fine until the Yankees brutalised it with their money obsessed industrialisation".
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
It's in no way an apologia - but it's also entirely true that the customers for the product tolerated a system of indefensible brutality.
The industrialised sugar plantations in South America were if anything worse still.
There was, in fact, a movement to have slave-free sugar, and some people were careful to buy it.
Yes - a large part of the abolition movement in the U.K. was boycotting slave made products and using alternatives. As much to raise awareness as to actually hit the slave holders economically.
The classic was the housewife telling her friends that the sugar in the tea she was serving was made with free labour and they should switch as well.
This rings a bell - and yes they evcen had special sugar bowls.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
Very true.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
There were certainly connections, as there always has been throughout history until the present day.
There are very few of us who aren't benefitting from the exploitation of others but now we prefer it to be done as far away as possible.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
You don't interpret from Christ's point of view either !!!!!
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
I'm not sure about "inspired". Every empire had slavery. Esp the Muslims
If slaves is all you need, then the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Arabs, Chinese, Mughals, and so on, would have devised the Industrial Revolution. They did not
Did slaves power the industrial revolution? Certainly: cotton picking slaves in Deep South USA fed English mills, and on we went. Shameful
But let's not alter the truth to fit our political convictions
Surely it's more likely to be the opposite: the lack of cheap labour meant people were forced to innovate.
(While swimming today, I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that touched in this very issue, making the case that the industrial revolution happened in the UK for - among other reasons - the fact that the UK was more of a bottom minimisation than a top maximisation society.)
The USA provides a controlled experiment. By 1860, the North, without slavery, was industrialising rapidly. The South, with slavery, had barely got started in the process of industralisation. The profits of slavery could, in principle, have been invested in new technologies, but that's not the mentality of a slave owner. Slave owners tended to spend heavily, on new Neo-classical houses, race horses, art works, hunting dogs, and other objects of conspicuous consumption.
I'd say that the balance of evidence is that - rather like suddenly discovering some lucrative natural resource - slavery and slave-trading tend to retard, rather than boost, economic development. That's pretty much the standard answer as to why the Roman empire (which potentially had the know how to industrialise) never did so.
That's not quite true, since those resource curses - in both the cases you cite - provided the fuel for rapid economic expansion in the industrialising economies.
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal. Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south.
Southern slavery became considerably more brutal post industrialisation.
That sounds like the sort of thing a Confederate apologist would say - "our slavery was fine until the Yankees brutalised it with their money obsessed industrialisation".
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
It's in no way an apologia - but it's also entirely true that the customers for the product tolerated a system of indefensible brutality.
The industrialised sugar plantations in South America were if anything worse still.
There was, in fact, a movement to have slave-free sugar, and some people were careful to buy it.
Yes, I'm not suggesting a moral equivalence between the slave owners and their customers - but there was a degree of complicity. Many of our cotton manufacturers supported the south at the outset of the civil war.
O/T but for PB Brains Trust - the mention of Jesus's teaching on bond portfolios reminds me that it's always a good idea to understand one's investments before one makes them.
I am getting confused about the merits of corporate bonds (and unit trusts etc. heavy on them) at the current time of high inflation and increasing bank rate. It seems to me that they are (a) riskier as the companies may be more likely to go bust and (b) not very good in terms of locking one into a lower rate when (c) one can get 4%+ and probably more soon in cash open access (for instance, I have just got a Bank Rate -0.7 tracker with Newcastle BS). Any views please?.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Yes. From a religious ethics perspective. Because that is what that religion dictates (cf witches in Europe/US).
Once you buy into the whole religious thing you can't apply logic or "what is right" to anything because religion creates its own rules and morality.
In deciding what is right the question of God in itself is irrelevant, as Plato spotted when he asked "Does God command X because it is right, or is X right because God commands it?"
People claim to act in XYand Z ways because God commands it; in every case (apart from insane people) this is false. Ludicrous Christian fundamentalists claim to believe and follow the Bible as God's commands, and then ignore the racial genocides in the Old Testament, and thankfully, fail to follow them. Just as they are opposed to gays, but don't propose killing them.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66112648
There were even British manufacturers selling to the French (something the government winked at, because it wanted gold currency) because the French simply didn't have a big enough industrial base to supply its armies.
I suspect that many technological breakthroughs make things worse for workers initially as it breaks up the current work practices and unbalances things. The benefits come through later and often disproportionally to others.
The North saw the South as the Slavocracy. The South saw the North as “cheating” - importing masses of anti-slavery immigrants*, who went straight to work in the factories**, creating money and votes***
*in the Civil war, they recruited on the decks of the immigrant boats, with a high rate of enlistment.
** not really true - much of the North was agricultural
*** the masses of new voters meant more seats in Congress and electoral votes for the Presidency. The Southern Fire Eaters were convinced that the North would split states/territories to create multiple new states. Which would give them more votes in the Senate. This was the origin of the option for Texas (slave state) to split, after joining the Union. This was as a prepared retaliation in case the North did this.
The Caribbean slaves were fed on imported food from the 13 colonies, particularly dried cod and cornmeal, barrels were imported from New England, ships built there etc. New York and Boston financed and
The slave The key factor, and grossly underrated as a pivot in history of the western hemisphere, was the success of the Haitian revolution. After the writing was on the wall for slavery. It was no coincidence that we suppressed the Atlantic slave trade beginning just a few years later.
And that by 1900 the size and economies of scale of industry acted as a barrier to entry against outsiders who did have entrepreneurial spirit.
And, it absolutely was hell earth for 80% of its population, a gigantic concentration camp, in reality.
But not big enough in Southern Appalachia where the poor whites supported the Union.
The cult of the NHS, the woke takeover, the return of socialism, eco-insanity: all are worse since 2010'
https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1676833563503673344?s=20
William Armstrong would have been knocking on the Admiralty door, not telling them no - “Please, sir, buy my New Improved Built Up Gun. Cheaper than wire-wound, Sir. Only explodes if you use it wrong…” etc
As opposed to *Elswick* saying that they wouldn’t make such guns
Slide Rule has some interesting stuff on the interactions between the old industrial base (ship building) and the new (aviation)
On latest Holyrood poll Labour projected to have 38 MSPs and the LDs 15 making 53 combined while the SNP is forecast to have 40 MSPs and the Greens 10 making 50 MSPs. So Sarwar could replace Yousaf as FM in 2026 in a Labour and LD agreement.
Scottish Conservatives projected to have 26 MSPs
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1676625987532931072?s=20
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Basic fact is - you can't be snotty about New Canadians without recognising the very nasty history of some Posh Old Brit family wealth.
Scotland v Netherlands
If Scotland win they are through to the World Cup. If they lose they may still qualify if they don’t lose heavily.
What's homosexually got to do with biblical opioid abuse? Ah, it's Vanilla isn't it? Saving the last post and adding it to the next.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/09/cotton-slave-labor-uyghur-region-china
However if Yousaf was willing to do a deal with Ross he could stay FM as the SNP would still win most seats.
For even though Labour and the LDs are forecast to have more MSPs than the SNP and Greens, the SNP and Tories are forecast to have more MSPs than Labour and the LDs. However I can't see Yousaf ever doing a deal with the Tories, though if Forbes ever replaced him as SNP leader she might
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
The Holocaust itself was totally against both German domestic law, and customary international law. That's why the Nazis went to great lengths to hide what they were doing.
So Good Morning everyone.
It’s all a bit woke, isn’t it?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
Once you buy into the whole religious thing you can't apply logic or "what is right" to anything because religion creates its own rules and morality.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
Bet you didn’t know the Parable of Black-Scholes, either?
If morally you want to remove all wealth and buildings and art funded from the Opium trade or slavery then there would not be many banks or family wealth or indeed historic buildings and sculptures and university colleges left.
What morals are in the 21st century UK were not exactly the same as those in previous centuries in the UK, many then would be shocked at levels of divorce or pre marital sex or homosexuality in today's UK for example
Which is why the plantation system which developed in the US south was so brutal.
Whitney believed his cotton gin would alleviate the burdens of slavery - but by making the processing of raw cotton efficient, it increased the geographical spread of cotton plantations in the south. It's in no way an apologia - but it's also entirely true that the customers for the product tolerated a system of indefensible brutality.
The industrialised sugar plantations in South America were if anything worse still.
I think that the win at all costs divisive style of politics on pb on this debate is hugely counterproductive though. To win the debate seems to involve trivialising the real concerns of opponents rather than working through and trying to alleviate them within a framework that meets the main goals. Englighted vs numpties or eco-socialists vs the hard working. So reminiscent of Brexit implementation and failure.
The loaves and the fishes was a demo of 800% returns per day.
His investment pitch went sideways and shit went down.
“The Romans bought Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. And have been selling him ever since, God rot them.”
There is no ultimate judge so depending upon the seriousness of the disagreement the only resolution is usually or often war.
As Russell said, religion is based upon fear, and fear creates the right conditions for cruelty.
Even when we switched to buying Egyptian cotton, it was being produced by unfree labourers.
The classic was the housewife telling her friends that the sugar in the tea she was serving was made with free labour and they should switch as well.
Joe Public the voter is little interested in the nice distinctions. What we notice is competence of delivery by government and the integrity of parliament. If you fail to house people, bankrupt the young, miss every target, act dishonourably, fail to keep promises, address the extremes and raise taxes people will look elsewhere.
There are reasons why the current Overton window veers towards anything but the current government. It is both useless in delivery and no-one has any idea what its care principles are. Allister heath can't tell us either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/abolition_tools_gallery_07.shtml
There are very few of us who aren't benefitting from the exploitation of others but now we prefer it to be done as far away as possible.
Many of our cotton manufacturers supported the south at the outset of the civil war.
I am getting confused about the merits of corporate bonds (and unit trusts etc. heavy on them) at the current time of high inflation and increasing bank rate. It seems to me that they are (a) riskier as the companies may be more likely to go bust and (b) not very good in terms of locking one into a lower rate when (c) one can get 4%+ and probably more soon in cash open access (for instance, I have just got a Bank Rate -0.7 tracker with Newcastle BS). Any views please?.
People claim to act in XYand Z ways because God commands it; in every case (apart from insane people) this is false. Ludicrous Christian fundamentalists claim to believe and follow the Bible as God's commands, and then ignore the racial genocides in the Old Testament, and thankfully, fail to follow them. Just as they are opposed to gays, but don't propose killing them.