This is great on why the U.S. mining industry developed so much faster than other regions in the 19th century:
https://twitter.com/dkedrosky/status/1463542745738272768
One thing I wonder about:
Is the U.S. vs. the British Empire a fair comparison?
The dominant factor of production in India, then as now, is labour, not land.
Does it look different if you compare c19th America to other land-rich colonies like Australia and Canada?
Is the U.S. vs. the British Empire a fair comparison?
The dominant factor of production in India, then as now, is labour, not land.
Does it look different if you compare c19th America to other land-rich colonies like Australia and Canada?
The water pipeline to Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, built soon after gold was discovered, seems a good example of "American know-how" ambitious development capital. A young Herbert Hoover worked as an engineer in the WA goldfields!
Also, I'm interested by the detail on law of capture but I'm wondering if it's more significant that landowners in America, almost uniquely in the English-speaking world, own the mineral rights below their property.
Mineral leases work in a quasi-ownership way, but I don't know when those codes of practise developed. It might have been less certain in the 19th century. Even now it potentially makes exploration higher-risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
