Great read (and next time you have a summit or meet up in Ireland, I'd love to attend).
FWIW, the last bit about the potato diet was intriguing not because of Smith's comment, but in reflection to your earlier points about him discussing things that were later reflected on through other research/disciplines.
You might find the detailed collective n=1 study undertaken by the Slime Mold, Time Mold gang (and their readership) to be of interest.
> "Second, Smith says that the company’s abuses stem from their mercantilist attitudes. "
Typically I would associate mercantilist attitudes with a country rather than with a company. To the degree a company with a monopoly is mercantilist I would say that is a reflection of the country (Great Britain in this case)'s policy.
Are you perhaps saying that the company believed in mercantilism, and they had strong influence on parliament, which led to a mercantilist approach to British policy?
Further, is the argument that Britain was mercantilist (i.e. keep exports from the UK high and imports low), or is the argument that mercantilism was promoted as a policy for British colonies (i.e. India should export more and import little)?
Hey! I think the idea is that the management and regulation of the Company was based on mercantilist ideas, i.e. ceteris paribus they were trying to minimise exports from Britain and maximise imports from India, especially of precious metals. There are other models of private colonialism you could imagine that wouldn't have this specific feature. But I would recommend clicking through to Shruti's draft paper about this -- I don't think she necessarily subscribes to every part of my summary of our conversation
Great read (and next time you have a summit or meet up in Ireland, I'd love to attend).
FWIW, the last bit about the potato diet was intriguing not because of Smith's comment, but in reflection to your earlier points about him discussing things that were later reflected on through other research/disciplines.
You might find the detailed collective n=1 study undertaken by the Slime Mold, Time Mold gang (and their readership) to be of interest.
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in-four-weeks-with-this-one-weird-trick-discovered-by-local-slime-hive-mind-doctors-grudgingly-respect-them-hope-to-become-friends/
Ha, yes, that post was fun, and may have even be the first place I learned about the Smith passage!
Thanks Sam, can you expand on this:
> "Second, Smith says that the company’s abuses stem from their mercantilist attitudes. "
Typically I would associate mercantilist attitudes with a country rather than with a company. To the degree a company with a monopoly is mercantilist I would say that is a reflection of the country (Great Britain in this case)'s policy.
Are you perhaps saying that the company believed in mercantilism, and they had strong influence on parliament, which led to a mercantilist approach to British policy?
Further, is the argument that Britain was mercantilist (i.e. keep exports from the UK high and imports low), or is the argument that mercantilism was promoted as a policy for British colonies (i.e. India should export more and import little)?
Hey! I think the idea is that the management and regulation of the Company was based on mercantilist ideas, i.e. ceteris paribus they were trying to minimise exports from Britain and maximise imports from India, especially of precious metals. There are other models of private colonialism you could imagine that wouldn't have this specific feature. But I would recommend clicking through to Shruti's draft paper about this -- I don't think she necessarily subscribes to every part of my summary of our conversation