UK Muslims targeted for speaking out about terror

[Walsingham]

Well, I don't think that's true. Running the Empire cost a certain amount, and you can tell what it was, because there was a bureaucracy tracking it. Equally, raw materials were acquired, goods sold, presumably at a discount or extra profit. This too would be indicated in the customs and excise records. Assign a fixed value for strutting about wearing fancy hats and feeling superior, and BAZAM! Profit or loss.

[Gorgon]

Case in point the Americas cost so much you had to levy taxes which made them rebel. In the end analysis not worth the effort for any other reason than to deny it to the other powers.

[Walsingham]

Case in point the Americas cost so much you had to levy taxes which made them rebel. In the end analysis not worth the effort for any other reason than to deny it to the other powers.

 

Indeed. Th ebiggest benefit the Americas gave the UK was in the Royal Navy. Hearts and oak! <sic>

[kgambit]

 

Case in point the Americas cost so much you had to levy taxes which made them rebel. In the end analysis not worth the effort for any other reason than to deny it to the other powers.

 

Indeed. Th ebiggest benefit the Americas gave the UK was in the Royal Navy. Hearts and oak! <sic>

 

 

Starting in 1730, Britain maintained a trade surplus from dealing with the American colonies.  Approximately 50% of the British navy was involved in the trade and 25% of British goods were sold in the Americas, making America one of England's largest trade partners.  By 1750, England had a £500,000 trade surplus with the colonies which increased to £1,850,000 by 1760.   

 

The Seven Years War changed the economics primarily not because of increased administration costs but because Britain ran up a massive war debt in defeating the French.  The British Government had borrowed heavily from British and Dutch bankers to finance the war, and as a consequence the national debt almost doubled from £75 million in 1754 to £133 million in 1763 (equal to £15,000,000,000 today - yes 15 billion).  To finance that debt, British officials turned to larger import duties on enumerated goods like sugar and tobacco, along with a series of high excise (sales) taxes on goods such as salt, beer, and spirits. By the mid-1760s, the custom service collected more than £30,000 a year in duties - not very large considering that total trade between the two partners was ~ £3,000,000. 

 

Even by 1770 the British still maintained a trade surplus in excess of £910,000, but by 1774 boycotts of English good had turned the English trade surplus into a £1,370,000 deficit.

 

In particular, the English claimed that duties on sugar and molasses were necessary to maintain dominance of English sugar plantations in the Indies over their French rivals.  The tax measures were part of a larger effort to block colonial trade with the French Sugar Islands, since many colonists were undeterred by the war and continued their lucrative trade with French possessions.

 

Effective rates of taxation in England were many times higher than tax rates in the colonies, the English believed it was appropriate to raise revenues via a series of new taxes on the colonies and reformed colonial administrative practices to better enforce new and existing taxes.  The colonists disagreed.  It wasn't paying taxes or the amount they had to pay, which was relatively low, that seems to have angered the colonists most; instead, it was having no say in how much and in what way they would be taxed. Having a say was a right they felt entitled to as Englishmen.

 

In order to cover about £60,000 of the £200,000 required to station troops in the colonies, George Grenville persuaded Parliament to pass a Stamp Act similar to one enacted and successfully administered in England in 1694.  Passed by Parliament on March 22, 1765 with an effective date of November 1, 1765  it was subsequently repealed on March 18, 1766.

 

Colonial policies as manifested by English Mercantilism were the real issue. 

Edited December 22, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Case in point the Americas cost so much you had to levy taxes which made them rebel. In the end analysis not worth the effort for any other reason than to deny it to the other powers.

Don't know if anyone has a decent source for profitability of colonies, it seems to be one of the more difficult things to find decent analyses of. The colonies were nearly all loss makers post WW2- except those with extraordinary resources like oil- due to the US insisting on the disbanding of the preferential trade system but prior to that the only one I know of that made a definitive loss was India of all places. And that changed when they hit on the great idea of selling opium to China, and switched to being very profitable.

 

Main thing is that colonies being drains is not borne out by the evidence- Britain and France were very wealthy throughout the colonial period up until at least WW1 and arguably WW2. Spain, despite having been bankrupt (ironically due to their colonies being too profitable) at one point and practically moribund for two centuries still had a huge empire/ colonies at the start of the 19th century, as did little old Portugal.

[Gorgon]

It's equally about political stability. Where is the profit if it is being eaten away fighting rebels. The point has been made that the chief need for colonies was getting in and establishing a presence before your rivals. Initially it was commonly left to private initiative, charter companies from the small ones founding the first colonies in Massachusetts to the V.O.C. which had a larger army than most countries.  

[kgambit]

 

Main thing is that colonies being drains is not borne out by the evidence.

 

 

Absolutely true.  India for example was hugely profitable for the British. 

 

British net foreign investments as a percentage of her net domestic capital formation in fixed assets was as high as 86 between 1880 and 1889 and had peaked at 114 between 1905 and 1914.30 Her balance of payments was under stress also because British exports to the newly industrialising countries of Europe and the US were beginning to decline. In this situation, Britain used its export surplus with India and India’s tribute to adjust her balance of payment deficit with the rest of the world. British claims on India or the tribute was now realised by appropriating India’s export surplus with a number of other countries to the extent of the tribute claims. India’s tribute alone was estimated to have financed more than two-fifths or 40% of Britain’s balance of payment deficit in this period.

 

It has been calculated that between 1871 and 1916 the surpluses transferred from India, calculated after applying a compound rate of interest of 4%, amounted to a conservative estimate of about £3.2 billion. If one compares this figure with an estimate of about £4 billion as what constituted total British foreign investments abroad in 1913 (including reinvestment of interests and dividends) it becomes clear what a preponderant role India played in British capital transfers abroad which made it the “economic hub of the world between 1870 and 1913”.

 

 

 

http://www.centrosraffa.org/public/affd9dd2-9aa6-4572-848a-3ae1644492c7.pdf

Edited December 22, 2013 by kgambit

[Walsingham]

Firstly, Britain being wealthy doesn't necessarily arise from trade with the colonies.

 

Secondly, and I'm on much stronger ground here, Britain's greatest problem throughout history has been financing her army and (still more so) her navy. Without the necessity of defending India and the Far East Britain could have cut commitments by an enormous amount. I'd estimate by at least half.

 

Colonial possessions may have benefited certain trading houses. But I still don't see any evidence that the country was doing more than indirectly subsidising them.