[EyeBrock]

Not really.

So who was the President of India in the 17th century?

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Given your foray into birther tin foiler nonsense I can see why historic facts elude you.

A Democrat, Hillary Clinton, broached the issue and I'm agreeing with her in a remarkable demonstration of bi-partisanship.

[DerbyX]

Hint: "Do you have a flag"?

Just because they don't fit your definition of "country" doesn't mean they weren't one. You are hung up on the word country. Feel free to stick in any descriptor you want if it makes you feel better.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Not really.

So who was the President of India in the 17th century?

Sri Cobananda Badgacatcha?

[DerbyX]

Just because its a great bit from a great performance:

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Hint: "Do you have a flag"?

Just because they don't fit your definition of "country" doesn't mean they weren't one. You are hung up on the word country. Feel free to stick in any descriptor you want if it makes you feel better.

India was no more one country before the British than Germany was one country before Bismarck.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Hint: "Do you have a flag"?

Just because they don't fit your definition of "country" doesn't mean they weren't one. You are hung up on the word country. Feel free to stick in any descriptor you want if it makes you feel better.

Well a country should at least be one. England wasn't a country until the 11th century. I don't use comedians as my source of historical and geo-political facts so my assertions are not impacted by the wisdom of media personalities.

India wasn't a country before the East India Company started pillaging it in the 17th century. Just as Germany and Italy weren't countries then.

There were plenty of countries around at that time though. Flag or no flag.

[DerbyX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

This can easily be considered a country. Like I said, if you prefer use a different term then country. The salient points of plundered riches remain though.

[andyt]

Pretty interesting topic, and in true CKA fashion it devolves into an argument whether India was a country or not. The region was certainly plundered, that's the point of colonialism. And it was rich enough to worth plundering. Compare that to Canada, where the Brits on the commission that drew the boundary between us and the US gave away everything between the 49th and 45 parellels, the original border, because they were more interested in keeping Guyana (or some such) for the sugar cane = rum = equals happy swabbies.

The author makes some very good points. Our consolation can be that as India and China rise in wealth it will drive up their wages, and those call center jobs will come back to us. That's if we've learned Hindi and Mandarin by then, so we can say "Please sir, I want some more" in our masters' languages.

[CommanderSock]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Kind of ironic. India was the richest country in the world before the British came and plundered it. Now they are getting it all back.

India was a country before the Brits got there? I thought it was a myriad of dozens of independent, despotic mini-monarchys?

I'm kinda shocked to find out it was some socio-economic super-power that was felled by the East India Company and a regiment of British Foot.

China was the wealthiest state in the 1700s, followed by Mughal.

These wealthy, but unindustrialized countries lost to smaller, and less wealthy European nations due to their technological inferiority.

The world is being rebalanced, and it will hurt for a while. However this is better than attempting 16-19th century mercantilism.

$1:

Share of World Manufacturing:

1750: Europe 23.2%; US 0.1%; Japan 3.8%; China 32.8%; India 24.5%.
1830: Europe 34.2%; US 2.4%; Japan 2.8%; China 29.8%; India 17.6%
1860: Europe 53.2%; US 7.2%; Japan 2.6%; China 19.7%; India 8.6%
1900: Europe 62%; US 23.6%; Japan 2.4%; China 12.5%; India 1.7%

Also:
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/histosta ... le08-3.pdf

China has historically always been as wealthy as Western Europe, or more. The last 250 years were really an aberration.

http://www.theworldeconomy.org/Maddison ... ble1-3.pdf

Published by the OECD.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

The author makes some very good points. Our consolation can be that as India and China rise in wealth it will drive up their wages, and those call center jobs will come back to us. That's if we've learned Hindi and Mandarin by then, so we can say "Please sir, I want some more" in our masters' languages.

As China and India rise in wealth, they will chew up what resources the planet has
left long before you will have to learn Chinese.

No worries.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

The author makes some very good points. Our consolation can be that as India and China rise in wealth it will drive up their wages, and those call center jobs will come back to us. That's if we've learned Hindi and Mandarin by then, so we can say "Please sir, I want some more" in our masters' languages.

As China and India rise in wealth, they will chew up what resources the planet has
left long before you will have to learn Chinese.

No worries.

You're not a neo-Malthusian, are you? That postion has been proven to be wrong Khar, Proc and Lemmy too I believe. Human ingenuity will always create more resources no matter how many people we have on this planet. It's a fact.

[Khar]

Quit the hyperbole, andyt, and please stop misrepresenting my position. When mentioning human ingenuity, it's about using what resources there are more efficiently or in a different way. The point where resources are "infinite" are when we are so efficient we can recycle the mass majority of what we use, and I make no claim of that (although some have stated they believe the world to be "effectively infinite," I can find a link if you'd like to read why).

If China and India advance quickly, they will either be stopped from using too many resources by natural pricing due to scarcity or alternatives will develop. There will be increased pressure to find these methods. They already have to keep their currency artificially suppressed, or risk economic issues which would naturally correct the problem. Otherwise, demographics will be forced to change on their own, and our way of living will adapt. People live differently in Japan than they do in Canada, with smaller lots, for exactly the reason Malthus was wrong -- human ingenuity, and the fact that the world does not remain static.

I always find it enjoyable when people begin quoting Marx forgetting that actual evidence follows the ideals of Solow. It's also enjoyable when they forget that we live a much better life than we did thirty years ago, even if real wages haven't risen by much. Or how some degree of convergence has occurred and tens of millions of people are living better than they were before. The world's population is already reaching it's zenith naturally. There is still a good amount of farmland, and what is already being used is not being used efficiently in most countries due to the local pressures on the agricultural industry.

We are quite expensive on the world scale, yes. But we are also a resource based nation, and can produce things other people cannot in our industries. Selling ore, oil, and other goods is something that cannot be outsourced. "Over-education" has already been in the economic community for years in various forms, from development panaceas through modern Canadian society. However, this story sounds like the same thing we have been hearing for years, that we are being replaced by technology, that all the jobs are being stolen, that we are in the cusp of falling into economic ruin, even though, ever since the industrial revolution, those things have not come true. Mercantilism is definitely not the answer, or even an answer.

I'm happy I can afford to own a computer, a TV, and read my books because of advancements in human technology and because they are produced by a lower cost manufacturer, personally. It's a bit ironic that the theory you disagree with is the one which likely made it so possible for not only you to lambaste it on the computer, but many other people who might not have been able to afford it had it been made from the ground up locally.

[andyt]

Khar Khar:

position. When mentioning human ingenuity, it's about using what resources there are more efficiently or in a different way. The point where resources are "infinite" are when we are so efficient we can recycle the mass majority of what we use, and I make no claim of that (although some have stated they believe the world to be "effectively infinite," I can find a link if you'd like to read why).

And you see this efficiency on the horizon, do you? And at what world population are there just insufficient resources no matter who efficiently we use them? Do you foresee a time when we can be more than 100% efficient? We're no different than any other natural system - there is always a limiting factor that prevents it from infinite growth. Add that factor, and you bump into the next one down the line.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Compare that to Canada, where the Brits on the commission that drew the boundary between us and the US gave away everything between the 49th and 45 parellels, the original border

The 45th parallel was the demaracation on the east coast. West of the Mississippi, or the Lake of the Woods, the British claim of 45 degrees was disputed by the French who claimed to the 49th and then sold that claim to the USA. In the Oregon border dispute the Brits claimed to 45 degrees and the USA to 54.40 - the compromise was the 49th. With the prior borders in dispute then the 49th becomes the defacto original border as it is the one all parties agreed upon.