-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The original idea for the Bank of England came from a Scottish banker called William Patterson in 1691. I'm not sure if its the first ever central bank but its the one that every other country has modelled on since the 1690s. The bank as well helped secure the union between Scotland and England. Scotland itself has had an interesting history concerning banks, we also printed the first bank notes to be used as currency in 1695 with the opening of the Bank of Scotland. All of that economic innovation only to go bankrupt not long after
it's just typical Scotland.
The original idea for the Bank of England came from a Scottish banker called William Patterson in 1691. I'm not sure if its the first ever central bank but its the one that every other country has modelled on since the 1690s. The bank as well helped secure the union between Scotland and England. Scotland itself has had an interesting history concerning banks, we also printed the first bank notes to be used as currency in 1695 with the opening of the Bank of Scotland. All of that economic innovation only to go bankrupt not long after
It was not. The swedish central bank predates it by 20 years. (though there was an earlier, semi-private version that operate a few years before that)
Ah yes you're right, I had forgot about Sweden as I said though I couldn't remember who did it first. But the Bank of England is one which everyone else modelled their banks on.
Just to add to the centrality of weaving to the industrial revolution; we fail to appreciate the amount of labour required to hand make cloth. To give a single example cloth in Northern Germany in the 16th century cost around 1-2 days wages for an unskilled worker per linear yard, with a with of around 60cm. To buy the cloth make a single garment could require around a weeks wages. A premiere product such as English red dyed wool could cost several weeks wages per linear metre.
Industrial production dropped the price of production by several times growing to an order of magnitude. This made industrial production profitable even when the capital demands were extremely high. Very few other industries had this potential, although steel making (due to improved quality) and arms manufacture (due to factors other than profit driving the investment) could also be potential industrial starters.
The requirements for industrialisation to begin are:
1. cheap abundant energy (coal in the 19th century)
2. large amounts of underemployed labour (subsistence farmers are fully occupied growing food for themselves)
3. relatively expensive labour (labour voluntary and paid in cash)
4. a financial system that can support large loans
5. high levels of literacy
6. available raw materials
Britain and the Low Countries fit these requirements best although some regions of Northern France, Northern Italy, Southern Germany and North Eastern United States all have the potential.
Industrial production dropped the price of production by several times growing to an order of magnitude. This made industrial production profitable even when the capital demands were extremely high. Very few other industries had this potential, although steel making (due to improved quality) and arms manufacture (due to factors other than profit driving the investment) could also be potential industrial starters.
The requirements for industrialisation to begin are:
1. cheap abundant energy (coal in the 19th century)
2. large amounts of underemployed labour (subsistence farmers are fully occupied growing food for themselves)
3. relatively expensive labour (labour voluntary and paid in cash)
4. a financial system that can support large loans
5. high levels of literacy
6. available raw materials
Britain and the Low Countries fit these requirements best although some regions of Northern France, Northern Italy, Southern Germany and North Eastern United States all have the potential.
I'm wondering, aren't those two contradictory? Either labor is underemployed, then it is likely cheap. Or it is expensive but that sort of implies it is fully employed?
Not really... weaving required skilled labor, but what you had is a large pool of unskilled labor.
Feudal style labour is cheap - it is often either an unpaid obligation or paid in kind. Whilst this had died out in Western Europe by this time it remained common in much of the rest of the world. Labour paid in cash, when that is the only significant source of labour within the economy, is expensive. At some point of low payment you will be better off begging or stealing than working for cash, which sets an effective minimum payment. Some jobs were so bad that there were chronic shortages of labour, even in times of dire poverty (e.g. soldier).