LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
An interesting historical/social/economical expirement.
How are the two similar- how different?
I think in time people will look at these two events as both cataclysmic events- that shaped Ireland for centuries to come.
Some similarities-
1. Both came about at the end of a boom time. Prior to the great famine, the Irish population, economy and towns/cities exploded on the back of European events (in this case the Napoleonic wars, which guaranteed high agricultural prices.) In Ireland, the expansion of the euro currency/fall of Iron curtain flooded our small country with hordes of cash, that led to a boom in asset values and avergae income. If the potato was the boom crop of the pre-famine years- property was the boom crop of our own times.
2. The end of the European wars led to a slow/gradual change in Irish food prices- but no corresponding decline in population growth. the potatoe allowed people to keep expanding family size/and sub-dividing land. The end of the export led Irish economic boom was replaced with artifical economic activity (like the potatoe) after 2001. There was a mini economic crisis in the late 1820s/ early 1830s which signaled how precarious the situation had become. This was ignored. In Ireland no lessons were learned from the slow down of 2001. The credit card became our potato from 2001 on. Allowing unsustainable existence. Sub-dividing land of the 19th century was echoed by parents providing guarnatee on their childrens mortgage applications in the 2000s.
3. A dominant economic ideology played a role in both epochs. Social darwinisim and lasseiz-faire economics meant that no state intervention took place on a large scale once the crisis became apparent (that applies to both then and now). If people were starving- well they shouldnt have gotten that way in the first place (that was the unspoken attitude). Similarily- now people who bought into the idea of owning a property are being blamed for their own current predicaments. The economic beliefs of govt offer plenty of blame on the victims- but no solutons.
4. Unequal distribution of land/wealth. Crises like famines/property booms/busts have consistently showing to take place in societies with massive inequality. Ireland in the 1840's was dominated by the landlord/tenant system. Ireland of late was dominated by a system where everyone wanted to be a landlord, and only fools are tenants.
Some differences-
1. Emmigration- not available as an option now. Obviously, widely accepted by historians now, the famine allowed for huge increases in productivity into the 1900s.
2. Social welfare. For all the people who lose sleep about welfare fraud etc- imagine a situation where zero govt assistance existed- The numbers of people starving on the streets would lead to huge social upheaval, suffering and loss of life. 200 euro per week would have saved millions of lives in the 1840s. It is to be applauded that although it means taxes and all the other inefficiences of raising a tax, social welfare prevents societal collapse. A widley held myth about the famine is that people starved because of the failure of the potatoe- meaning that was their sole source of food. In fact, there was plenty of food available- as survival rates in urban areas atest. The problem was the means to purchase it. Subsistence farming generates no extra income. Social welfare obviously does.
Anyone else see similarites/differences.
4.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by shmuck
