[spacebanana7]

People generally underestimate just how special the conditions of 17th century Britain were.

Somehow something happened that started the modern era of economic, technological and industrial progress. Before then pretty much everyone lived in a Malthusian trap where economic development was temporary at best.

And there’s still not a great deal of consensus on what exactly caused modern economic development to start happening in Britain.

[jemmyw]

I think this link has been posted before. The conditions for using coal for steam power were pretty unique. They were using it in larger amounts for heating, it was plentiful and easily accessible, but getting slightly harder. The fuel was right at the location where they needed to move things and pump water, so it didn't matter that the first machines were wildly inefficient. And then iteration upon iteration. It must have been an exciting time for those seeing the changes happen, although it wasn't fast by our standards today.

The Roman Empire didn't have this confluence of circumstances. The question is, was the IR inevitable?

[spacebanana7]

Social scientists would say the IR was inevitable given the political institutions of Britain at the time. Military people might say similar from naval strength; the geopolitically inclined might argue it from geography/politics. Technologists lean on utility and feasibility of coal.

I think all of these arguments have merit. The IR couldn’t have happened in a desert country or one defeated by foreign conquerors or one with ancient Egyptian political institutions.

[temporarely]

East India company calls to say forget me not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_india_company

The beginnings of capitalism & colonialism. Systemic wealth transfer is not a mystery.

[spacebanana7]

My personal view is that military adventures were generally a drag on economic growth that never paid for themselves.

People at the time argued slavery, resource exploitation and trade were economically important and could only happen through imperial strength.

But I’d argue that 1) those things generally happened anyway post independence 2) labour / resource costs aren’t that important for long run economic growth.

[temporarely]

Sorry, but personal views? This is a matter of history. These companies made obscene profits for their owners. India and China were looted.

[spacebanana7]

It’s possible to loot and burn a country without creating much net economic value.

William Jardine’s subjugation of China made him a lot of personal profit, but it’s dubious his enterprise ever paid enough tax to cover the cost of the opium war. Sending navies across the world is expensive.

[throw0101d]

> It’s possible to loot and burn a country without creating much net economic value.

And remember: pillage before you burn…

[tim333]

Aside from wealth transfer capitalism is good for raising money for new ventures. Some of that kicked off around then eg.

>The Muscovy Company was the first major chartered joint stock English trading company. It was established in 1555

and profitable ventures eg. by Sir Francis Drake

>Drake returned to England in 1580 and became a hero; his circumnavigation raised an enormous amount of money for England's coffers, and investors received a return of some 5,000 per cent.

which may be increased enthusiasm for ventures.

That maybe incentivized people to get rich starting steam engine companies, somewhat like how SV works today, but not like that in ancient Rome?

Guessing a bit here. I'm not a historian. Quotes from Wikipedia.

I did to a visit to Lincolnshire a while back to research some family history of relatives who were there in the 1800s and while the place is a backwater now, it was very SV like back in 1850 with people getting rich quick and building huge houses based on the then tech boom with was railway engines.

[alkyon]

What you mean is 18th century Britain (1700s)