5 ms·

"In 1920, North England’s economy as a whole was among the strongest in Europe and thus the world." Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich. An empire do

"In 1920, North England’s economy as a whole was among the strongest in Europe and thus the world." Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich. An empire doesn't make sense if you don't get rich with it (Also see the connection of Slavery and the British Industrial Revolution). The only problems: It's amoral stealing and exploiting others and it's not infinite, people don't want to be exploited so the empire gets more and more expensive to run.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich Colonies have Britain an edge, but plenty of nations had colonies at the time (and have throughout history). Britain became rich because it industrialised first.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  No. Second: "Cotton Capital: a special investigation 2023 Cotton Capital how slavery made Manchester the world’s first industrial city" https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/cotton-capital-how-slavery-made-manchester-the-worlds-first-industrial-city https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Again, plenty of civilisations across history had slaves, and many of Britain’s contemporaries did too.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        I mean, I’m also not suggesting they try re-running a cotton economy. > so I doesn't depend on slaves?" One, don’t fake quote others. Two, nobody argued this. American wealth depends on agriculture and energy (and having taken that from our Indians); that doesn’t mean betting on corn and fracking is a good economic plan, or that Argentina is a surefire bet for sharing those same strengths. Regardless of how it was acquired, Britain sits of a massive pool of capital. That capital gives it opportunities others cannot access. The argument from its previous prowess is not one for returning to colonialism, but for the existence of the social and economic infrastructure for commanding production past what you’d expect from its population in the way America, China, Japan and Germany do. (Economies Nos. 1 through 4. And yes, we see the same common histories in the set.)
        KingOfCoders 2y ago
        One, don't attack people but arguments. I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote. Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation. Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.
  - tim333 2y ago
    The cause and effect in that article seems kind of weak. > The construction of the Bridgewater canal provided regular, cheaper coal supplies to power the new machinery and improved transport links to Liverpool. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 proved crucial in shaping Manchester’s future. And then because a lot of the raw cotton was supplied from slave plantations it implies the slavery caused the cotton gins, whereas I expect it was the other way around. If there had been no slavery they probably would still have got cotton from paid farmers overseas with much the same effect.
- Arn_Thor 2y ago
  Britain has the world’s biggest empire… in part it did so because it industrialized first, but also it was able to industrialize first because of the empire. The two are deeply interlinked
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    The East India Company is from 1600. The Watt Steam Engine is from 1765.
    - Arn_Thor 2y ago
      So what? My point is that the two processes were interlinked and fed off each other. The industrial revolution was helped by empire. But the fact that it took place in the UK helped it expand and deepen that very empire faster than the competition. The Maxim Gun, at the bleeding edge of technology in 1884, was made in London and helped Britain subjugate African countries and nudge out other imperial powers.
      - KingOfCoders 2y ago
        You seem to be more knowledgeable, do you think the Maxim Gun kept the empire or expanded it? If so, into which countries do you think the Maxim Gun helped to expand?
        defrost 2y ago
        The Maxim saw its heyday in "Africa' (region) which was being carved up by European powers who were marking out countries for European maps and stomping across the borders of pre existing kingdoms. The "Scramble for Africa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa hit peak pitch following 1870 or so and saw 90% of Africa "claimed" by 1914, the Great War and the rise of the Vickers Machine Gun (which evolved from the Maxim).
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich Colonies have Britain an edge, but plenty of nations had colonies at the time (and have throughout history). Britain became rich because it industrialised first.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
No. Second: "Cotton Capital: a special investigation 2023 Cotton Capital how slavery made Manchester the world’s first industrial city" https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/cotton-capital-how-slavery-made-manchester-the-worlds-first-industrial-city https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Again, plenty of civilisations across history had slaves, and many of Britain’s contemporaries did too.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      I mean, I’m also not suggesting they try re-running a cotton economy. > so I doesn't depend on slaves?" One, don’t fake quote others. Two, nobody argued this. American wealth depends on agriculture and energy (and having taken that from our Indians); that doesn’t mean betting on corn and fracking is a good economic plan, or that Argentina is a surefire bet for sharing those same strengths. Regardless of how it was acquired, Britain sits of a massive pool of capital. That capital gives it opportunities others cannot access. The argument from its previous prowess is not one for returning to colonialism, but for the existence of the social and economic infrastructure for commanding production past what you’d expect from its population in the way America, China, Japan and Germany do. (Economies Nos. 1 through 4. And yes, we see the same common histories in the set.)
      - KingOfCoders 2y ago
        One, don't attack people but arguments. I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote. Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation. Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.
- tim333 2y ago
  The cause and effect in that article seems kind of weak. > The construction of the Bridgewater canal provided regular, cheaper coal supplies to power the new machinery and improved transport links to Liverpool. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 proved crucial in shaping Manchester’s future. And then because a lot of the raw cotton was supplied from slave plantations it implies the slavery caused the cotton gins, whereas I expect it was the other way around. If there had been no slavery they probably would still have got cotton from paid farmers overseas with much the same effect.
Arn_Thor 2y ago
Britain has the world’s biggest empire… in part it did so because it industrialized first, but also it was able to industrialize first because of the empire. The two are deeply interlinked
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  The East India Company is from 1600. The Watt Steam Engine is from 1765.
  - Arn_Thor 2y ago
    So what? My point is that the two processes were interlinked and fed off each other. The industrial revolution was helped by empire. But the fact that it took place in the UK helped it expand and deepen that very empire faster than the competition. The Maxim Gun, at the bleeding edge of technology in 1884, was made in London and helped Britain subjugate African countries and nudge out other imperial powers.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      You seem to be more knowledgeable, do you think the Maxim Gun kept the empire or expanded it? If so, into which countries do you think the Maxim Gun helped to expand?
      - defrost 2y ago
        The Maxim saw its heyday in "Africa' (region) which was being carved up by European powers who were marking out countries for European maps and stomping across the borders of pre existing kingdoms. The "Scramble for Africa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa hit peak pitch following 1870 or so and saw 90% of Africa "claimed" by 1914, the Great War and the rise of the Vickers Machine Gun (which evolved from the Maxim).
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago