Brexit Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

No.

Not correct, not even a little bit.

Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism.

That's why in English today when you get a loan the bank is lending you capital - because Thomas Aquinas determined that whilst loans were usury (a mortal sin) lending capital was not.

[Montmorency]

Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.

[Montmorency]

Rome, at least, ran on Capitalism.

If you say that, then this is the time to specify and clarify.

[edyzmedieval]

It grew by more than expected because of the sudden drop in the pound post-Brexit that really helped.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It grew by more than expected because of the sudden drop in the pound post-Brexit that really helped.

That's partially true,but it's also true that the feared sudden flight of investment failed to materialise.

what's more, it illustrates the upside to a devalued currency, especially when that currency is as overvalued as the Pound was

[Papewaio]

I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.

[Sarmatian]

I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.

If they move out of London, Frankfurt is a safer bet.

[rory_20_uk]

I doubt the internationals will move HQs until the details of the Brexit are decided. It is what happens after the details are sorted that will be interesting. London will no longer be an EU city and if the rules require an EU HQ it will see capital moved around... maybe Dublin will be the new financial powerhouse.

In the Pharmaceutical industry, a articular role has to be in Europe. Yet many have their HQ in Switzerland. They just have this role in a different office.

So, regarding the HQ, they could easily just designate a different branch the EU HQ and that's that. It is what trade has to be physically undertaken in the EU HQ and not routed there from somewhere else that will be interesting - VPN from London.

[Brenus]

"You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I."
It might surprise you, but the best books about 100 years war are French.
But to answer your smart remark, I was showing a cause relevant to the debate... Can't really see the importance of the death all the heirs of the French King as relevant...
For English, I recommend:
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hy...tm#preliminary summary
Or for TV show, if you prefer:
https://youtu.be/mQbdN-JCMbk
The 1973 version was much better with the superb interpretation of Robert d'Artois by Jean Piat.

"I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire." Well, I think he was. He could take back any title and any lands attached to the title.

"Your statement is not accurate." Don't care. The purpose was to prove that it was not capitalism. Partially accurate is enough for the purpose.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mir-Russian-community
Apparently, Encyclopedia Britanica disagree with you...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mercantilism isn't equivalent to capitalism.

I labeled it "markets/capitalism" precisely for a reason. I wanted it to be understood that I was referring to the divers forms of market exchange (capitalism, mercantilism, barter, etc.) that rely on negotiation (implicit or explicit) and the individual protecting their own value in the exchange. I was not trying to quibble over which form was in ascendance at which point in history. I was contrasting it with efforts at directed or controlled economies.

There are always points of time where some expert or cadre of experts believes that they can direct/control things better than the controlled chaos of the marketplace in order to promote the greater good. Such efforts have always fallen short, even if they enjoyed short term success, and we revert back to some form of markets/capitalist exchange.

[Brenus]

"Greece and Rome basically ran on Capitalism and the entire medieval period was a debate over capitalism." So Greece, Rome and England are the world...
Joke apart, you should read a little bit more about Middle Ages (Guilds), and about the how titles were distributed. And of course, later, why the new bourgeoisie wanted titles as well...
And then, you can explain the 3 orders following St Augustin.
Capitalism: Wealth creating more wealth, according the definition from the "genius of Humanity" aka Google. or "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets." from the same.
Private property in Medieval Ages: Not really. The 100 years war started because a king confiscated the land of his vassal. In the Tsarist Russia, the Emperor (Autocrat) owned all the lands and lands were redistributed in the Mir System/Obshchina until the Revolution. Even in UK today, (but I might be mistaken) the land still belongs to the Queen who rents it to you for building your house or cultivate it (The Crown is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly): all other owners hold an estate in land).
A NO is not enough, you have to give your definition of it. Market did exist before capitalism, whatever your exchange system was, cocoa (Inca), rice (Japan), sea-shells (Kingdom of Kongo). And we can debate if the Empire of China was capitalist: the government was bureaucratic and absolutist, order and subordination, so was India and the Caste system.
And as a probable player of Shogun, you are aware of what was the economical system, warriors (and honor) at the top, and merchants at the very low level. Far from Capitalism indeed.
I think you mix-up market economy and capitalism.

[Gilrandir]

The 100 years war started because a king confiscated the land of his vassal.

You should read a little bit more on the causes of the said war. I recommend Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years war". Four volumes have been published, but the causes are dwelt upon in Volume I.

In the Tsarist Russia, the Emperor (Autocrat) owned all the lands and lands were redistributed in the Mir System/Obshchina until the Revolution.

Your statement is not accurate.
1. It totally omits landowners (pomeshchiki) who owned most of arable land.
2. The Mir system is about distributing lands OWNED ONLY BY PEASANTS whose lands were significantly smaller (than the pomeshchikis' ones) and of worse quality.
3. The Mir system started to deteriorate by 1905 and was demolished not in 1917 but by Stolypin's reforms prior to WWI.
4. I'm not sure that the Emperor was the owner of ALL lands of the Empire. It was not true of medieval countries (and Russia was one until at least 1861, and perhaps even until 1917) where the monarch was just one of the landowners.