M&D. the colonial economy

[Monte Davis]

I too was Brintonized by _The Anatomy of Revolution_ back in the day (and
my brother's name is Crane, which helped it stick). In part, that line of
argument was a corrective to the simplified "Tale of Two Cities" (or
watered down for 1832, "Les Miserables") versions. Both art and political
rhetoric *demand* that the explosion comes just when the grinding evil of
the _ancien regime_ is at its worst -- even if historical fact often
supports Brinton's view that it comes when liberalization is happening, but
not happening fast enough. Brinton also notes the possibility that
proto-revolutionaries look at liberalizing steps and think "they're
starting to give way, now for one big push."

Indignation about stamp taxes is all very well, but we needed that Boston
massacre, just as Gandhi needed Amritsar and both sides in the US Civil War
needed John Brown's raid and execution.

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Quick Google Books search sez No, growth kicked in, in the late 1700s,
> like a rocket booster in 'the West'. But,
> even if their [England's] growth was booming, they might have
> felt/thought they were not getting enough of the colonies' growth
> and what ways did they even have to 'measure" GDP? Dunno.
>
> An historical general 'truth' I once learned in a good History course,
> from a good book by the then-reputable Crane Brinton (who dropped out
> of the academic canon later for very political incorrect ideas, I
> think I learned. Overly reactionary, so get the saltshaker: the famous
> revolutions in History happened not when things were at the worst for
> the exploited but when their lives were getting a bit better---and,
> you couldn't keep them off the barricades once they had tasted good
> bread, or tea. So to speak.
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, David Ewers <dsewers at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 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/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150107/e994b98d/attachment.html>