4 ms·

Which is?

by injb 7y ago

Which is?

andrepd 7y ago
I haven't watched this particular lecture, but I watched (part of) a rather popular series of lectures, and he had such gems as "colonial empires spent more money in the colonies than they got in return", or "the wheel was never invented in Africa until Europeans arrived", which are such ludicrous, patently false statements that you're even at a loss as how to react.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Do you have a source for the first claim? Adam smith himself writes about how it is more expensive for the British to provide military defense for Colonial America than what they get from the trade rights.
  - ssivark 7y ago
    Well, presumably that was why they didn’t put up as much of a fight when the American states wanted freedom. Compare with what happened in the other colonies. It is silly to think they would have continued a multi-century high-effort enterprise at a continuing operating loss. EDIT: multi-century. Yes, governments sometimes do stupid things (on shorter timescales), but it’s also a great opportunity for each new government/generation to pin the folly on the old, and do better.
    - oDot 7y ago
      Regardless of that specific example, government does this all the time. It is much easier for them to lose money that isn't theirs. If you're at disbelief at that, wait until you take a look as the US national debt
    - injb 7y ago
      Silly to do it? Yes. Silly to think that a government would do it with money they took from other people, and can take again, at will, no matter how badly they misadventure?
    - leftyted 7y ago
      Not everything is about economics. It is often argued that the gulag in the USSR was never a net gain economically. You could conclude one of two things from that: 1. The Soviets were dumb or 2. The Soviets had other reasons for maintaining an expansive network of prisons I would go with 2 and I'd also argue that the colonial powers had other reasons for maintaining colonies.
      - andrepd 7y ago
        ? How is that remotely comparable? The main purpose of the gulag system is plain enough: punishment, control, and only secondarily, slave/forced labour for economic gain. The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to extract value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies to the mainland.
        leftyted 7y ago
        It's "remotely comparable" because it has been argued that the Soviet economy only worked as well as it did due to slave labor, i.e. that the gulag existed primarily for "slave/forced labour for economic gain". And people make similar arguments about the colonial powers. > The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to extract value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies to the mainland. That's your opinion; I don't think it's true. I think the point of colonialism is an attempt to guarantee the nation state's survival. Churchill: > We shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. I don't pretend to know whether or not colonies were a net-benefit economically. But, either way, I don't think economic arguments provided the fundamental justification for colonialism. I think the colony exists for the same reason the family, the polis, the nation state, and the empire exist, which is a desire for immortality or, if you prefer, an attempt to prevent the achievements of men from being obliterated by time.
throwanem 7y ago
In this case, that "...it is difficult to do harm because by preventing a concentration of power, capitalism prevents people from committing sustained, serious harm." Specifically, that capitalism is effective in preventing the concentration of power. From a perspective shaped by a strong commitment to an ideology and also by the Soviet Union being, in 1977, still a going concern, I can see how someone could err in this way. But that's no reason why we still need to take it seriously, four decades on.

Which is?

by injb 7y ago

Which is?

I haven't watched this particular lecture, but I watched (part of) a rather popular series of lectures, and he had such gems as "colonial empires spent more money in the colonies than they got in return", or "the wheel was never invented in Africa until Europeans arrived", which are such ludicrous, patently false statements that you're even at a loss as how to react.

conanbatt 7y ago
Do you have a source for the first claim? Adam smith himself writes about how it is more expensive for the British to provide military defense for Colonial America than what they get from the trade rights.
- ssivark 7y ago
  Well, presumably that was why they didn’t put up as much of a fight when the American states wanted freedom. Compare with what happened in the other colonies. It is silly to think they would have continued a multi-century high-effort enterprise at a continuing operating loss. EDIT: multi-century. Yes, governments sometimes do stupid things (on shorter timescales), but it’s also a great opportunity for each new government/generation to pin the folly on the old, and do better.
  - oDot 7y ago
    Regardless of that specific example, government does this all the time. It is much easier for them to lose money that isn't theirs. If you're at disbelief at that, wait until you take a look as the US national debt
  - injb 7y ago
    Silly to do it? Yes. Silly to think that a government would do it with money they took from other people, and can take again, at will, no matter how badly they misadventure?
  - leftyted 7y ago
    Not everything is about economics. It is often argued that the gulag in the USSR was never a net gain economically. You could conclude one of two things from that: 1. The Soviets were dumb or 2. The Soviets had other reasons for maintaining an expansive network of prisons I would go with 2 and I'd also argue that the colonial powers had other reasons for maintaining colonies.
    - andrepd 7y ago
      ? How is that remotely comparable? The main purpose of the gulag system is plain enough: punishment, control, and only secondarily, slave/forced labour for economic gain. The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to extract value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies to the mainland.
      - leftyted 7y ago
        It's "remotely comparable" because it has been argued that the Soviet economy only worked as well as it did due to slave labor, i.e. that the gulag existed primarily for "slave/forced labour for economic gain". And people make similar arguments about the colonial powers. > The colonial system is precisely the opposite: the main purpose is to extract value, through extraction, trade, industry, etc, from the colonies to the mainland. That's your opinion; I don't think it's true. I think the point of colonialism is an attempt to guarantee the nation state's survival. Churchill: > We shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. I don't pretend to know whether or not colonies were a net-benefit economically. But, either way, I don't think economic arguments provided the fundamental justification for colonialism. I think the colony exists for the same reason the family, the polis, the nation state, and the empire exist, which is a desire for immortality or, if you prefer, an attempt to prevent the achievements of men from being obliterated by time.

throwanem 7y ago

In this case, that "...it is difficult to do harm because by preventing a concentration of power, capitalism prevents people from committing sustained, serious harm." Specifically, that capitalism is effective in preventing the concentration of power. From a perspective shaped by a strong commitment to an ideology and also by the Soviet Union being, in 1977, still a going concern, I can see how someone could err in this way. But that's no reason why we still need to take it seriously, four decades on.