Where does greed sit in all this do you think? Is there a disconnect when it comes to the nature of wealth generation(ie growth through innovation/industrialisation vs growth through investment return - or are they inextricably and necessarily linked?)
Whether there is a meaningful difference between ‘finance capital’ and ‘industrial capital’ in political terms is an interesting question. In this case, Cain and Hopkins certainly think there is the “disconnect” you mention! But it is debated. If you read my next review, you’ll see arguments this may not be so simple (more inextricably and necessarily linked to put it your way).
Really appreciated this synthesis. The ‘two capital markets’ idea—one industrial, one gentlemanly—is such a sharp frame for understanding British policy contradictions.
Thank you! It might be too sharp, however... in the next few weeks, I will be looking at the criticism of this idea -- there are many who argue that, especially in politics, this was not nearly so clear a distinction as Cain and Hopkins make out.
On the divide between 'services' and 'industry' - transport and related services (insurance, finance) were heavily influenced by Britain's possession of the world's largest merchant fleet, in turn built in British yards from British steel etc and fueled by British coal and informed by British control of the international cable network. Also one of the more advanced industrial sectors of the time with regard to fabrication and precision and one where Britain maintained a distinct lead in the relevant technologies.
Yes, it is very valid to argue C+H are overly dismissive of how integrated industry and finance were! (I will be looking at David Edgerton afterwards who argues exactly that). Their point, however, can still stand - based, as it were, on in whose interest the Empire was ran, and the privileging of debt repayments over British producer interests, rather than on an assessment of raw economic power.
Before 1815 the Empire consisted of a string of key maritime way-points (Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape, Penang ...) plus India and the sugar islands. Clearly oriented to control of trade and garnering the resulting cash-flow, in good mercantilist fashion. Finance, yes, but finance in support of military competition with France (Pitt: 'As modern wars are contentions of purse .."). It's hard to fit the piecemeal acquisitions afterwards in any single frame.
Thank you for this review! A bit disappointing to hear that the focus is so much on the 19th C and that it's weak on how services and manufacturing aligned, since I would like to find the missing information needed to synthesize some loose threads on that alignment in the 18th C from Brewer's The Sinews of Power, Jones's Industrial Enlightenment, and Sharman's Empires of the Weak. I'll probably have to look elsewhere.
None are! I'm still convinced to read it, I just won't read it with a false hope that it'll answer certain questions. It could still clarify them or even provide the right sources in its bibliography.
Where does greed sit in all this do you think? Is there a disconnect when it comes to the nature of wealth generation(ie growth through innovation/industrialisation vs growth through investment return - or are they inextricably and necessarily linked?)
Whether there is a meaningful difference between ‘finance capital’ and ‘industrial capital’ in political terms is an interesting question. In this case, Cain and Hopkins certainly think there is the “disconnect” you mention! But it is debated. If you read my next review, you’ll see arguments this may not be so simple (more inextricably and necessarily linked to put it your way).
Really appreciated this synthesis. The ‘two capital markets’ idea—one industrial, one gentlemanly—is such a sharp frame for understanding British policy contradictions.
Thank you! It might be too sharp, however... in the next few weeks, I will be looking at the criticism of this idea -- there are many who argue that, especially in politics, this was not nearly so clear a distinction as Cain and Hopkins make out.
On the divide between 'services' and 'industry' - transport and related services (insurance, finance) were heavily influenced by Britain's possession of the world's largest merchant fleet, in turn built in British yards from British steel etc and fueled by British coal and informed by British control of the international cable network. Also one of the more advanced industrial sectors of the time with regard to fabrication and precision and one where Britain maintained a distinct lead in the relevant technologies.
Yes, it is very valid to argue C+H are overly dismissive of how integrated industry and finance were! (I will be looking at David Edgerton afterwards who argues exactly that). Their point, however, can still stand - based, as it were, on in whose interest the Empire was ran, and the privileging of debt repayments over British producer interests, rather than on an assessment of raw economic power.
Before 1815 the Empire consisted of a string of key maritime way-points (Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape, Penang ...) plus India and the sugar islands. Clearly oriented to control of trade and garnering the resulting cash-flow, in good mercantilist fashion. Finance, yes, but finance in support of military competition with France (Pitt: 'As modern wars are contentions of purse .."). It's hard to fit the piecemeal acquisitions afterwards in any single frame.
Thank you for this review! A bit disappointing to hear that the focus is so much on the 19th C and that it's weak on how services and manufacturing aligned, since I would like to find the missing information needed to synthesize some loose threads on that alignment in the 18th C from Brewer's The Sinews of Power, Jones's Industrial Enlightenment, and Sharman's Empires of the Weak. I'll probably have to look elsewhere.
Thank you! It’s still a wonderful book, just not a flawless one…
None are! I'm still convinced to read it, I just won't read it with a false hope that it'll answer certain questions. It could still clarify them or even provide the right sources in its bibliography.