M&D. the colonial economy

[David Ewers]

Thank you.  It's amazing (and depressing) to think of what American nature looked like then.  Too many resources for the manpower?  So, economic growth simply by adding people?  But was Great Britain getting the same proportion of the new growth, or were they seeing their share shrink, is what I wonder.  

On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:

> The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other
> regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America
> but labor was scarce.
> 
> From 1700 to 1775 the output of the colonies increased 12 fold, giving
> the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of
> independence. The free white population of the colonies enjoyed the
> highest standard of living in the world. Population growth was
> responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the
> British American colonies. There was very little change in
> productivity and little in the way of introduction of new goods and
> services.[1]
> 
> The beginning of DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA will fill you with perspective
> on the incredible natural resources that were America. I thought of
> this with the ending riff of M & D. "The Fish jump into your arms".
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l