Article

2007-12-26 India-Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 15:05|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 It is mystifying why Hindus haven't in recent years taken to suppressing the Muslim minority. The obvious drive to push them into Pakistan and Bangladesh could have long been an incentive based form of ethnic cleansing. Make it easy for them to leave.

But militant Hindus have long been unclear on their objectives, instead of focusing on their enemies, they put too much effort into elevating Hindus.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-12-26 18:34|| 2007-12-26 18:34|| Front Page Top

#2 From around one-fourth of global output at the start of the 19th century, the share of the subcontinent fell to one-tenth of that by the time the British flag was lowered in New Delhi in 1947.

I have to laugh at this statement. On the basis of what statistics are we to believe that India generated 1/4 of global output at the beginning of the 19th century? Are we to believe that a pre-British India without primary schooling, railroads, Industrial Age equipment and so on was more productive than the India after the British ran the place? I understand Indians (Hindus and Muslims alike) have this love for mythology. What Indians need to stop doing is substituting myths for facts when writing their history. It makes them look like parasites and congenital liars rather than potential allies of the West.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-26 21:08|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-26 21:08|| Front Page Top

#3
"At any rate, when Gallus was prefect of Egypt, I accompanied him and ascended the Nile as far as Syene and the frontiers of Ethiopia, and I learned that as many as one hundred and twenty vessels were sailing from Myos Hormos to India, whereas formerly, under the Ptolemies, only a very few ventured to undertake the voyage and to carry on traffic in Indian merchandise."
- Strabo

""there is no year in which India does not drain the Roman Empire of fifty million sesterces,"
"India, China and the Arabian peninsula take one hundred million sesterces from our empire per annum at a conservative estimate: that is what our luxuries and women cost us. For what percentage of these imports is intended for sacrifices to the gods or the spirits of the dead?"
-Pliny the Elder

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 21:58|| 2007-12-26 21:58|| Front Page Top

#4 he Nationalist Movement in India
by Jabez T. Sunderland
The Atlantic Monthly
October 1908
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/08oct/nationmo.htm

Another cause of India's impoverishment is the destruction of her manufactures, as the result of British rule. When the British first
appeared on the scene, India was one of the richest countries of the world; indeed it was her great riches that attracted the British to her shores. The source of her wealth was largely her
splendid manufactures. Her cotton goods, silk goods, shawls, muslins of Dacca, brocades of Ahmedabad, rugs, pottery of Scind, jewelry, metal work, lapidary work, were famed not only all over
Asia but in all the leading markets of Northern Africa and of Europe. What has become of those manufactures? For the most part they are gone, destroyed.

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 21:59|| 2007-12-26 21:59|| Front Page Top

#5 http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5578

Six hundred years ago, China and the area that is now India accounted for about 75 percent of global GDP. Europe was insignificant, and America still lay undiscovered beyond the Atlantic. Then, Portugal's Prince Henry the Navigator led an effort to develop superior ships and nautical technology, enabling his captains to get around Africa and develop sea routes that would evade the Arab/Venetian-controlled overland

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 22:01|| 2007-12-26 22:01|| Front Page Top

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 22:10|| 2007-12-26 22:10|| Front Page Top

#7 Based on such scholars as Bairroch, Parthsarathi, Gura and Pomeranz, Davis brings forth many facts that shore up his argument. 1) In 1800 India's share of the world manufactured product was four times that of Britain, and China's share was even higher. By 1900 India was fully under British control and the ration was 8-1 in England's favor. 2) In 1789 the living standards of China and Western Europe were roughly comparable and it appeared that China was making even better progress with its ecological problems. Naturally, a century later Europeans and Americans were much better off. 3) Despite all the many claims made on behalf of British rule in India, Indian per capita income stayed the same from 1759 to 1947. And contrary to the Malthusian argument, its population didn't grow very much. 4) Indian and Chinese rulers actually had before 1800 a good record of mitigating famines, and one British statistician suggested that whereas for the previous two millennia there was one major famine a century, under British rule there was one every four years.

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 22:17|| 2007-12-26 22:17|| Front Page Top

#8 John, please spare me the contradictory material from Sunderland and Prestowitz, who have but one thing in common - both are American dilettantes in the field of economics. Sunderland, the economic socialist, asserts that countries lose wealth by exporting. Prestowitz, the economic mercantilist, asserts that countries lose wealth by importing*. In neither instance is there any statistical information about what India and China actually produced. We get these airy figures out of nowhere.

The stuff about Britain spiriting wealth out of India is a myth. The Brits bought things from India and sold things to India. Unfortunately for India, its habit of projecting Indian habits (of screwing the other guy) meant that they believed the Brits were screwing them in some way via trade. This led to almost five decades of economic autarky combined with stagnation. It is only now, with it starting to export again, that India is regaining the economic vigor that it attained under the British. Note that economic vigor does not mean that the modern equivalent of Gandhi's hand-operated looms will not become extinct (in the manner of the buggy-whip industries mourned by Sunderland) - it means only that India is progressively becoming more and more open to the free competition that it never encountered prior to its opening by the British Raj.

* Prestowitz believed that Japanese mercantilism would lead it to the top of the economic heap, that Japan would overtake the US in terms of total GDP, never mind per capita GDP. We know that never happened.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-26 22:23|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-26 22:23|| Front Page Top

#9 John, none of your quotations are based on statistics. In today's world, with computers, good roads, airplanes, etc, we can't get a good count of the Chinese or Indian populations. How do you get national output without a count of the population? Extrapolation of the value of exports to the general population is not a good way of counting national output. The highest value items produced by China are sold to the West. The value-added introduced by the Chinese is perhaps 10% of the cost of the item exported. But if we extrapolated the total value of those items to the Chinese population at large, we'd get a number several times that of annual US output. Please stop regurgitating those staples of Indian mythology here. Just because an American dilettante agrees with you doesn't mean it's correct.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-26 22:34|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-26 22:34|| Front Page Top

#10 http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/

World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD Angus Maddison

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 22:35|| 2007-12-26 22:35|| Front Page Top

#11 http://www.theworldeconomy.org/publications/worldeconomy/

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 22:42|| 2007-12-26 22:42|| Front Page Top

#12 John, Angus Maddison is a socialist who came up with the graph in the article Capitalism and the rise of world poverty. If it were up to him, India would still be a closed economy today.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-26 22:46|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-26 22:46|| Front Page Top

#13 I find particularly amusing this little snippet: Angus Maddison has been an advisor to the governments of Brazil, Ghana, Greece and Pakistan and has travelled widely in developing countries as part of his research interests. A socialist who pulls numbers out of the air hands out advice to governments around the world. My feeling is that they came away with a pretty good feel for how to make silly wild-assed guesses about the past, but little more.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-26 22:50|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-26 22:50|| Front Page Top

#14 He is a socialist?

From his 1997 valedictory lecture

The USA not only has much smaller unemployment, but has expanded employment faster than population.
This is not due to demographic differences - the American age structure is similar to the European. American policy is job creating. European policy inhibits the growth of employment.

The difference between the functioning of European and American capitalism can be seen by comparing real income and productivity outcomes in the two areas.

In many European countries, labour markets are highly regulated, with minimum wages, constraints on the freedom of enterprises to fire redundant workers, restrictions on working
hours and other regulations which are intended to prevent downsizing and protect those who already have jobs (see Siebert, 1997). In conditions of sustained labour slack they discourage
employers from hiring workers and discriminate against the unemployed. Practice in public enterprises mimics that in bureaucracy - with an aspiration for lifetime job security, long
vacations, status and perquisites. In some hopelessly uneconomic enterprises, jobs are protected by huge subsidies - e.g. German coalmines.

The European economy would have been sounder with more flexible labour
markets, less micro-meddling, and more expansionary macropolicy.

Certainly not your typical socialist rant....

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 23:27|| 2007-12-26 23:27|| Front Page Top

#15 Hmm...

Global Capitalism: The Solution to World Oppression and Poverty
By Andrew Bernstein

Regarding living standards, one expert, Angus Maddison, states that economic growth during the centuries 500-1500 was non-existent; and that per capita income rose by merely 0.1 percent per year in the years 1500-1700. In 1500, Maddison claims, the European per capita GDP was roughly $215 per year; in 1700, roughly $265. Contrast such economic stagnation with the capitalist epoch, the years 1820 to the present, in which Western Europe and the worlds other freest nations' total economic output increased sixty times, and per capita income grew to be 13 times what it had been previously. The European population roughly tripled during the 19th century while per capita living standards steadily rose. 13

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 23:47|| 2007-12-26 23:47|| Front Page Top

#16 JF: He is a socialist?

From the looks of the following passage, Maddison appears to be no socialist at the present moment:

Other European powers were losers in the British struggle for supremacy. By the end of the Napoleonic wars, the Dutch had lost all their Asian territories except Indonesia. The French were reduced to a token colonial presence in Asia, and lost their major asset in the Caribbean. Shortly after the war, Brazil established its independence from Portugal. Spain lost its huge colonial empire in Latin America, retaining only Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Britain took over what the French and Dutch had lost in Asia and Africa, extended its control over India, and established a privileged commercial presence in Latin America.

Other losers included the former rulers of India, whose power and income were usurped in substantial part by the servants of the British East India Company. Under their rule, from 1757 to 1857, Indian per capita income fell, but British gains were substantial.

Between 1820 and 1913, British per capita income grew faster than at any time in the past - three times as fast as in 1 700-1820. The basic reason for improved performance was the acceleration of technical progress, accompanied by rapid growth of the physical capital stock and improvement in the education and skills of the labour force, but changes in commercial policy also made a substantial contribution. In 1846 protective duties on agricultural imports were removed and in 1849 the Navigation Acts were terminated. By 1860, all trade and tariff restrictions had been removed unilaterally. In 1860 there were reciprocal treaties for freer trade with France and other European countries. These had most-favoured nation clauses which meant that bilateral liberalisation applied equally to all countries.

Free trade was imposed in India and other British colonies, and the same was true in Britain's informal empire. China, Persia, Thailand and the Ottoman Empire were not colonies, but were obliged to maintain low tariffs by treaties which reduced their sovereignty in commercial matters, and granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners. This regime of free trade imperialism favoured British exports, but was less damaging to the interests of the colonies than in the eighteenth century, when Jamaica could only trade with Britain and its colonies, Guadeloupe only with France.

The British policy of free trade and its willingness to import a large part of its food had positive effects on the world economy. They reinforced and diffused the impact of technical progress. The favourable impact was biggest in North America, the southern cone of Latin America and Australasia which had rich natural resources and received a substantial inflow of capital, but there was also some positive effect in India which was the biggest and poorest part of the Empire.

Innovations in communications played a major part in linking national capital markets and facilitating international capital movements. The United Kingdom already had an important role in international finance, thanks to the soundness of its public credit and monetary system, the size of its capital market and public debt, and the maintenance of a gold standard. The existence of the empire created a system of property rights which appeared to be as securely protected as those available to investors in British securities. It was a wealthy country operating close to the frontiers of technology, so its rentiers were attracted to foreign investment even when the extra margin of profit was small.

From the 1870s onward, there was a massive outflow of British capital for overseas investment. The United Kingdom directed half its savings abroad. French, German and Dutch investment was also substantial.

At the same time, it has to be said that this doesn't make his wild guesses any more accurate. How can native Indian industries that are so easily displaced by foreign imports be said to be somehow part of a more productive economy? It would seem that India's closed pre-British rule economy was productive in the same way that Soviet factories were productive prior to the Soviet collapse at the end of the Cold War, that is to say, it wasn't very productive at all. The interesting aspect of this passage by Maddison is that it states that India was the poorest part of the Empire, while being the biggest, due to its massive population (estimated at 255m at the beginning of the 19th century). It may well be that India's population had expanded to the Malthusian limits of its time. China's population reached those levels in a much bigger land mass, and the Taiping Rebellion was the result.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2007-12-26 23:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-12-26 23:49|| Front Page Top

#17 Maddison appears to be no socialist at the present moment:

Was he ever? Searching turns up speeches where his statistics are quoted by Alan Greenspan, James Wolfenson etc

Posted by john frum 2007-12-26 23:57|| 2007-12-26 23:57|| Front Page Top

23:59 Sweta-Zinok
23:58 Sweta-Zinok
23:57 john frum
23:49 Zhang Fei
23:47 john frum
23:27 john frum
22:50 Zhang Fei
22:46 Zhang Fei
22:42 john frum
22:35 john frum
22:34 Zhang Fei
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:26 GORT
22:24 Iblis
22:23 Zhang Fei
22:17 john frum
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:12 3dc
22:10 john frum
22:09 JosephMendiola
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:02 JosephMendiola
22:01 john frum