Ireland was "11th richest country in the world"

SirHenryGrattan

Kevin Myers in the Irish Independent................

"In the 40 years after independence, mostly under Fianna Fail, Ireland went from being the 11th richest country in the world to being about the 90th."

Just how true is this statement? There is not much in the way of collaborating evidence.



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/were-now-back-in-that--familiar-place-fiasco-where--fianna-fail-one-way-or-another-always-leads-us-1624843.html

dubtom

Maybe it's a typo,and should read,in the 90 years after independance we were the 11th richest,and now the 40th.
I would be surprised,given that the 50's/60's saw a mass exodus of Irish workers,well,looking for work abroad,hardly do that if we were rolling in cash.

On the other hand,Europe and most of the world were skint after WW2, which wouldn't really make for a fair comparison, but I suppose Myers will use any comparison to get his point across.Aparently.

cherrypicker555

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Kevin Myers in the Irish Independent................

"In the 40 years after independence, mostly under Fianna Fail, Ireland went from being the 11th richest country in the world to being about the 90th."

Just how true is this statement? There is not much in the way of collaborating evidence.



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/were-now-back-in-that--familiar-place-fiasco-where--fianna-fail-one-way-or-another-always-leads-us-1624843.html

He means in terms of average wealth per individual, rather then being the country ranked 11th in GDP.

Its a misleading statement.

In reality the celtic tiger was all smoke and mirrors based upon finance, tax breaks for multi nationals,an artifical property bubble etc and nothing of substance.

Fratton Fred

If you consider richest to bd a measure if gdp then mayne. But take a look at microsoft uising irish IP tax loopholes to see why.

Shutuplaura

About this 90th richest in the world thing, I'd wonder about a few aspects of it. Was this on an all ireland basis or is this solely the 26 counties that became independant? If it is only the 26 southern counties I'd wonder how he got his information. The 6 nothern counties were amung the most industrialised areas of the world, the biggest shipyard for instance, capable of cutting edge designs like the Titanic.

Secondly, was his figures for this taken from exactly 90 years ago - 1918-1919? If so again its hardly surprising. Irish argriculture did very well selling its goods to wartime britain (less well at quality control but thats another issue). The industrial north did well supplying war material to the government so basically you are taking figures from the top of a boom period and comparing them to the bottom of a trough. So on the face of things I'd say that its quite possible he's correct but just as possible he is being misleading in his use of the facts.

I dislike this article, some of what he says is true no doubt but he pushes things too far - how were FF in any way responsible for the voilence of the war. It also ignores some FF achievements - the 60's economic boom. It conveniently ignores opposition failures from the Mother and Child Scheme to the breakdown in Gardai discipline in the 1970's that led to the heavy gangs in the border divisions. He also implies that emigration was only an issue post independance when it was a problem govenments in London had been failing to tackle since the 1840's.

There is nothing wrong with a re-evaulation of Irelands history since independance and god knows I dislike FF but Myers goes about this while looking for maximum attention through the generation of controversy. Sad really.

Húrin

Ireland was part of the UK back then. I would be surprised if the UK was as low as #11 in the rich tables in the early C20.

Hookey

Húrin wrote: »

Ireland was part of the UK back then. I would be surprised if the UK was as low as #11 in the rich tables in the early C20.

The article specifically says in the 40 years after independence, Ireland went from 11th to 90th. UK was 3rd at the start of WWI (behind US and Germany), because they weren't as productive as Germany and they'd already reached the point where the cost of empire already exceeded the profit; they just didn't actually realise that.

I can believe Ireland was 11th. It was shortly after WWI at a time when there were fewer independent nations, and those that were, were either new (former Hapsburg states for example) or skint because of the war (e.g. Italy). Of course Ireland would have dropped in the rankings anyway as those nations grew/recovered, but the gist of the article is fair.

Shutuplaura

Hookey wrote: »

The article specifically says in the 40 years after independence, Ireland went from 11th to 90th. UK was 3rd at the start of WWI (behind US and Germany), because they weren't as productive as Germany and they'd already reached the point where the cost of empire already exceeded the profit; they just didn't actually realise that.

I can believe Ireland was 11th. It was shortly after WWI at a time when there were fewer independent nations, and those that were, were either new (former Hapsburg states for example) or skint because of the war (e.g. Italy). Of course Ireland would have dropped in the rankings anyway as those nations grew/recovered, but the gist of the article is fair.

And we don't know if he includes the highly industrialised north east around belfast - and 90 years ago is durnig the booming wars years. The gist of the article would be fairer if we knew these things.

SirHenryGrattan

Shutuplaura wrote: »

And we don't know if he includes the highly industrialised north east around belfast - and 90 years ago is durnig the booming wars years. The gist of the article would be fairer if we knew these things.

The article is complete bunkum; just another pidgin history from the bigoted Mr. Meyers. Even those with only a remedial knowledge of Irish history can see the deep flaws in his arguments. 1911 happened to be the year that Harland and Wolf pushed out the Titanic and it's leviathan sister ships the Olympic and Gigantic. This alone, if one Unionist economist is to be believed was enough to push Ireland into world GDP leadership. But then of course Partition came along, Northern Ireland took all the industry and the South was left with 2 pigs, three sheep and a brewery.



In fact very few outside Ireland believed that the Free State would survive independence. However the Cosgrave Government did an excellent job building up the agricultural industry. They were ably assisted by Britain's booming market for foodstuffs which sucked in Irish food imports. The only flaw in this mono economic policy was that while the Country was financially sound it was completely dependent on one industry, agriculture and there was a failure to build up any sort of labour intensive industry that might reduce Ireland’s emigrant exodus.

The Great Depression brought the Cosgrave era to an end. Demand for Irish food in Britain plummeted and more importantly demand for Ireland’s other great export, people evaporated. In fact emigration to the USA was reversed. Between 1931 and 1938, emigrants to the USA numbered 8,480 while immigrants from the USA numbered 15,859. Unemployment rocketed. Cosgrave failed to respond with any sort of coherent economic strategy and the electorate turned to Fianna Fail which at least promised some sort of industrial policy that would provide employment for non famers. That policy was based on protectionism which seems incongruous now but at the time was an easy sell to the electorate as protectionism was the new lingua franca of international economics. It was every country for itself.

Remarkably the policy had some success with industrial output increasing by 46% and the numbers of people at work actually increasing over the period of the Great Depression. The “Economic War” was less successful. Britain imposed tariffs on Irish food in retaliation for non payment of the land annuities. Cattle prices plunged. The farming community were hit hard but the townspeople loved the cheap meat. Irish Agricultural output only dropped by 2.8% between 1932 and 1938 so the “war” was not a disaster for the Irish. The conflict ended in 1938 when DeVelera paid £10 million up front rather then £15 million in annuities over sixty years.

Economists believe the overall effect on the Irish economy was neutral but the “war” was unnecessary and was one of those occasions when an unyielding De Valera was blinded by principle; not that this did him much harm. The Irish electorate kept him in power for the next ten years.

Shutuplaura

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The article is complete bunkum; just another pidgin history from the bigoted Mr. Meyers. Even those with only a remedial knowledge of Irish history can see the deep flaws in his arguments. 1911 happened to be the year that Harland and Wolf pushed out the Titanic and it's leviathan sister ships the Olympic and Gigantic. This alone, if one Unionist economist is to be believed was enough to push Ireland into world GDP leadership. But then of course Partition came along, Northern Ireland took all the industry and the South was left with 2 pigs, three sheep and a brewery.



In fact very few outside Ireland believed that the Free State would survive independence. However the Cosgrave Government did an excellent job building up the agricultural industry. They were ably assisted by Britain's booming market for foodstuffs which sucked in Irish food imports. The only flaw in this mono economic policy was that while the Country was financially sound it was completely dependent on one industry, agriculture and there was a failure to build up any sort of labour intensive industry that might reduce Ireland’s emigrant exodus.

The Great Depression brought the Cosgrave era to an end. Demand for Irish food in Britain plummeted and more importantly demand for Ireland’s other great export, people evaporated. In fact emigration to the USA was reversed. Between 1931 and 1938, emigrants to the USA numbered 8,480 while immigrants from the USA numbered 15,859. Unemployment rocketed. Cosgrave failed to respond with any sort of coherent economic strategy and the electorate turned to Fianna Fail which at least promised some sort of industrial policy that would provide employment for non famers. That policy was based on protectionism which seems incongruous now but at the time was an easy sell to the electorate as protectionism was the new lingua franca of international economics. It was every country for itself.

Remarkably the policy had some success with industrial output increasing by 46% and the numbers of people at work actually increasing over the period of the Great Depression. The “Economic War” was less successful. Britain imposed tariffs on Irish food in retaliation for non payment of the land annuities. Cattle prices plunged. The farming community were hit hard but the townspeople loved the cheap meat. Irish Agricultural output only dropped by 2.8% between 1932 and 1938 so the “war” was not a disaster for the Irish. The conflict ended in 1938 when DeVelera paid £10 million up front rather then £15 million in annuities over sixty years.

Economists believe the overall effect on the Irish economy was neutral but the “war” was unnecessary and was one of those occasions when an unyielding De Valera was blinded by principle; not that this did him much harm. The Irish electorate kept him in power for the next ten years.

He also mentions emigration like it first became an issue in 1922/23. Irelands population had been decreasing since the 1840's due to immigration. Successive Irish governments might have failed to tackle the matter until the 1960's but the fact it that British governments were likewise unable to solve the issue.

mountainyman

The other problem which confronted the new free state was capital flight. Most Irish protestants behaved disgracefully and took their money out of the country.

I think the 11th may in fact refer to teh 26 counties. Joe Lee addresses this at the beginning of his magnificent tome.

Hookey

mountainyman wrote: »

The other problem which confronted the new free state was capital flight. Most Irish protestants behaved disgracefully and took their money out of the country.

I think the 11th may in fact refer to teh 26 counties. Joe Lee addresses this at the beginning of his magnificent tome.

I don't think you can really describe their behaviour as "disgraceful". "Prudent" was probably a better term given the prevailing political-religious climate.

mountainyman

Maybe disgraceful is the wrong word. Ireland was quite unsuccessful in constructing a blended identity for southern protestants. However without blaming the victim southern Protestants were ineffective in advancing a blended identity.

T runner

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

Kevin Myers in the Irish Independent................

"In the 40 years after independence, mostly under Fianna Fail, Ireland went from being the 11th richest country in the world to being about the 90th."

Just how true is this statement? There is not much in the way of collaborating evidence.



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/were-now-back-in-that--familiar-place-fiasco-where--fianna-fail-one-way-or-another-always-leads-us-1624843.html

He means the UK was the 11th richest country in the world.
Ireland being 90th in forty years was probably an improvement on British rule.

60 years previous to independence 2 million people were dead or displaced through famine in Ireland. Yet Ireland (UK) may have been regarded as the richest country in the world.

He seems to blame Fianna Fail for the famine also! And for 1798!

Another Ireland-bad England-good article by Myers.

LordSutch

T runner wrote: »

He means the UK was the 11th richest country in the world.
Ireland being 90th in forty years was probably an improvement on British rule.

60 years previous to independence 2 million people were dead or displaced through famine in Ireland. Yet Ireland (UK) may have been regarded as the richest country in the world.

Actually, there is a lot of truth in what Myers says!

Dublin & Ireland were indeed thriving Pre-Indepencence, with Dublin being the second City to London, with a growing Tram network, with an 'Underground' Tube network on the drawing boards for Dublin. with Guinness exporting all over the World ~ Ireland may indeed have been the 11th wealthiest country on the planet (in its own right) Pre-independence ~ But then it went down the tubes rapidly for decades until the late 90s when it became one of the Wealthiest Countries on the Planet (Per Capita) not literally ............. . .

Yes of course there were terrible slums etc, but even today some of the wealthiest countries have disgraceful divides between the Have's & the Have nots.

Múinteoir

'Kevin Myers' and 'historical accuracy' should not be in the same sentence.

ckristo2

Indeed Ireland was a wealthy productive part of the British Empire about a hundred years ago. A lot of Irish people had a very ambivalent attitude to Independence and the most people wantedwas a kind of Commonwealth status. then came the Great war and the growth of nationalism, the rise of Sinn Fein and he overkill by the British army 1919-21 and independence and we were cut adrift seling all our produce to Britain on their conditions and then the disasterous attempt under Dev to be self sufficient and the commercial wealth of the turn of the century was but a memory. though to be fair the economic state of Britain in the 20's and 30's was a bit peekish as well.
It was not until the 1960's that Fianna Fail "Got into bed" with big business and this process accellorated in the 90's and the rest as they say is history till now when the whole house of cards has crashed to the floor and Fianna Fail finds itself estranged from it's traditional power base of the working class. Interesting times..watch this space.

dvpower

What's Kevin Myer's point? That our economic position deteriorated after independence? Fair enough.

But the latest figures have us back above 11th place
(e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita).

ckristo2

Hi there,
I'm not sure what Kevin Meyers point is. Indeed I am not entirely sure what the point of Kevin Meyers is in the first place but the British had an organised and mercantile set up and whether it was India, Canada or little old us they made money and commerce, the worse example for us was of course the Famine of 1845-50 a huge landless population who only worked half the year were not productive so they had to go. The Victorian God in his providence sent the potato blight and did it for them. the remaining population became more productive, lesson learned. After independence we lost the run of ourselves and cut off from our mercantile masters we resorted to music, literature and drink but saved by globalisation we became rich but now Sadly our wise leaders hope that the Neo-liberal God will do what the Victorian God did a hundred and sixty years ago and make us more productive again by ridding us of such nonesence as free education, health social welfare and public servants.

SirHenryGrattan

Camelot wrote: »

Actually, there is a lot of truth in what Myers says!

Dublin & Ireland were indeed thriving Pre-Indepencence, with Dublin being the second City to London

Truth or fiction! Liverpool was second city to London in the early part of the 20th Century and Glasgow before that. Even Belfast trailed behind some of the cities in the Midlands industrial conurbation.

Dublin was regarded by some as the second city of the Empire in the latter part of the 18th century. However Dublin went into steep decline after 1800 when the centre of government moved to London. I have yet to find a "thriving" country that suffers from massive emigration and immense poverty. I suppose all those economic refugees queuing up at Calais to get into Britain don't know what they are missing at home.

The article itself a fine example of empty sloganeering unsupported by facts and the opinions expressed are strongly suggestive of the assumption beloved by Southern Unionists that Ireland would have been immeasurably better off under British Rule. What Unionists really mean is that they would have been better off.

T runner

Camelot wrote: »

Actually, there is a lot of truth in what Myers says!

Dublin & Ireland were indeed thriving Pre-Indepencence, with Dublin being the second City to London, with a growing Tram network, with an 'Underground' Tube network on the drawing boards for Dublin. with Guinness exporting all over the World ~ Ireland may indeed have been the 11th wealthiest country on the planet (in its own right) Pre-independence ~ But then it went down the tubes rapidly for decades until the late 90s when it became one of the Wealthiest Countries on the Planet (Per Capita) not literally ............. . .

Yes of course there were terrible slums etc, but even today some of the wealthiest countries have disgraceful divides between the Have's & the Have nots.

We are talking about Ireland not Dublin. There is no truth in what Myers says. He firstly tries to mislead people by using "Ireland" when he means the UK.

Ireland was a complete backwater compared to Britain, except for some areas of Dublin and some industrialisaton in the North East.

Britain taken on its own would have had to been in the top 5. The fact that a small country like Ireland dragged it down to 11th says a lot.

Myers is basically very pro British. To say that Ireland went from 11th to 90th suits him even if its untrue.

Ireland has performed exceptionally since independence for such a poor unresourced state since independence. There is no doubt about that and many historians and commentators would agree. To test the validity of Myers comments look at NI. A statelet berrowing Billions from England to stay afloat completely dependant on England for support and welfare.

If All Ireland were still part of Britain we would cost them 100 Billion plus a year (estimated from the fact that the NE was the wealthiest part of Ireland pre seperation). This would make Ireland a very poor place indeed (and the UK also).

Myers chooses to name the ending point of his analysis as the low point in a global recession. Time goes on the country will go back up. Why freeze his analysis at this point in time? (He didnt dwell on the successes of the Celtic Tiger too much as it didnt suit his argument.)


Myers does what he always does starts off with his ingrained position (doesnt like Irish things, females, female groups, homosexuals, immigrants, asylum sekers, very Pro British etc.). He then cherry picks and twists available evidence to "prove" on of his ingrained prejudices.

It may be attractive for people of a pro British persuasion but it isnt the truth.

Fratton Fred

I don't see how what you have just posted is any different to what myers wrote tbh. He gives a reason why Ireland should not have become independant, you give one supporting why independance is a good thing.

I'm sure both sides of the arguement have equal amounts of spin.

Hookey

T runner wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland not Dublin. There is no truth in what Myers says. He firstly tries to mislead people by using "Ireland" when he means the UK.

No he doesn't. He very specifically says "after independence". He's not talking about colonial Ireland. Whether the 11th largest thing is true or not is another matter, but he's not making claims based on "British" Ireland.

T runner wrote: »

Ireland was a complete backwater compared to Britain, except for some areas of Dublin and some industrialisaton in the North East.

You can make the same call for large parts of the UK at the time. Hell, you can make that claim now. The vast majority of UK wealth comes from the South-East of England.

T runner wrote: »

Britain taken on its own would have had to been in the top 5. The fact that a small country like Ireland dragged it down to 11th says a lot.

Myers is basically very pro British. To say that Ireland went from 11th to 90th suits him even if its untrue.

Britain was the third largest economy in the World for the whole of the first half of the twentieth century, ignoring WWII itself (when it went back up to second for a short while). This is both before and after Irish independence. Ireland itself was a net contributor to Britain between 1900 and 1916, unlike India which was already costing the Brits more than they got out of it.

I've no idea if Ireland went from 11th to 90th, and to be honest its a dodgy metric anyway; the simple fact that there were far more countries in the world by the end of the century than at the time of independence means a rankings slide is inevitable.

T runner wrote: »

Ireland has performed exceptionally since independence for such a poor unresourced state since independence. There is no doubt about that and many historians and commentators would agree. To test the validity of Myers comments look at NI. A statelet berrowing Billions from England to stay afloat completely dependant on England for support and welfare.

I think this is a questionable statement. I'd agree based on the last 20 years, but the last 80? That just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And ditto for NI. NI had a very strong postwar economy but suffered the twin blows of the troubles and de-industrialisation at the same time, which meant no inward investment of replacement (e.g. service) industries into NI because no one from outside wanted to invest or work there. Ireland only became a success once it began to leverage the EU. Before that Ireland was a basket case and everyone with half their family living in the UK or US and sending money home knew it.

T runner wrote: »

If All Ireland were still part of Britain we would cost them 100 Billion plus a year (estimated from the fact that the NE was the wealthiest part of Ireland pre seperation). This would make Ireland a very poor place indeed (and the UK also).

See above, dodgy data. NB. I don't think you're entirely wrong; Scotland still gets inward investment from England, but that doesn't make Scotland "a very poor place indeed". The economics of an alternate-reality still-part-of-the-UK Ireland are unknowable and using NI doesn't work as a case study because of the unique problems it has had over the last 40 years. Not that it matters because Myers makes no suggestion that remaining part of the UK would have been a better outcome.

T runner wrote: »

Myers chooses to name the ending point of his analysis as the low point in a global recession. Time goes on the country will go back up. Why freeze his analysis at this point in time? (He didnt dwell on the successes of the Celtic Tiger too much as it didnt suit his argument.)

Myers does what he always does starts off with his ingrained position (doesnt like Irish things, females, female groups, homosexuals, immigrants, asylum sekers, very Pro British etc.). He then cherry picks and twists available evidence to "prove" on of his ingrained prejudices.

It may be attractive for people of a pro British persuasion but it isnt the truth.

In his defence, he can only make an argument out the historic failures of Fianna Fáil, he can't say what they'll do in the future, so his thesis has to end now!

Personally I didn't read it as pro-British. I read it as very much anti-Fianna Fáil, which is the thrust of most of his writing. As someone recently returned to Ireland, I have to say the behaviour of this government (and actually the whole political spectrum) is pretty depressing. Not, turning-into-a-police-state-patronising-scum like in the UK, but incompetent-corrupt-arse-covering-nonenties. I don't know which is worse.

ckristo2

Hi everyone.
I guess I'm old enough to be astonished at the change in attitude in Irish people where being the richest (or 11th richest) country in the world matters more than identity or nationality (or pretty much anything) If only we had been part of the Roman empire and had baths roads and ruins...well we're part of the Pax Americana Imperia but when the centre of any Empre is sick the limbs start to die so let's hope that the American economy picks up soon or we will return to being the 90th worse economy in the world. Take care all and perhaps in thes chasened times it might be no harm to look for one's values outside the world of money.

LordSutch

Just to clarify something that seems to go over a lot of peoples heads.

"Ireland was only the 11th wealthiest country on the Planet when measured in (Per Capita terms only) ~ Now this might seem quite obvious to some posters here, but many Irish people actually went around thinking that Ireland was wealthier 'in literal terms' than the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Sweden & France

I know this is obvious, but some people ................

anladmór

Camelot wrote: »

Just to clarify something that seems to go over a lot of peoples heads.

"Ireland was only the 11th wealthiest country on the Planet when measured in (Per Capita terms only) ~ Now this might seem quite obvious to some posters here, but many Irish people actually went around thinking that Ireland was wealthier 'in literal terms' than the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Sweden & France

I know this is obvious, but some people ................

when?....who?......what?...... years ago people thought that?

LordSutch

Six or eight months ago you couldnt turn on an Irish Radio or TV discussion without at least one of the contributors remarking about Ireland being one of the wealthiest countries in the World, or Ireland actually being 'The Wealthiest country' in Europe bla bla bla ..... :cool:

'Per Capita' was never mentioned.

Remember now?

mountainyman

Hookey wrote: »

You can make the same call for large parts of the UK at the time. Hell, you can make that claim now. The vast majority of UK wealth comes from the South-East of England.

My God how ahistorical. Where are the large parts of the UK comparable to Ireland? The highlands of Scotland perhaps. If the majority of the UK's wealth currently is generated in the south east of England that does not mean it was ever so.

The south east of England has always had the City but in the early 20th century it was above all the place where the profits of empire were spent.

Fratton Fred

mountainyman wrote: »

My God how ahistorical. Where are the large parts of the UK comparable to Ireland? The highlands of Scotland perhaps. If the majority of the UK's wealth currently is generated in the south east of England that does not mean it was ever so.

The south east of England has always had the City but in the early 20th century it was above all the place where the profits of empire were spent.

Scottish highlands if you want peasants, or Wales, or yorkshire, even a significant part of the west country. Large parts of London, Glasgow and Leeds if you want slums. Victorian poverty in the UK is seen as part of history, in Ireland it is seen as an example of the brutal British empire.

Nearly all the profits from the empire came back to London because that was where the empire was based. Britain has been London centric for generations.

mountainyman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Scottish highlands if you want peasants, or Wales, or yorkshire, even a significant part of the west country. Large parts of London, Glasgow and Leeds if you want slums. Victorian poverty in the UK is seen as part of history, in Ireland it is seen as an example of the brutal British empire.

Nearly all the profits from the empire came back to London because that was where the empire was based. Britain has been London centric for generations.

Wales, Yorkshire, the Gorbals were massively productive places. It may or may not be true that much of the wealth was being sucked out of those areas but they were all highly industrialised and integrated into the British economy in a way that Ireland simply wasn't. No one emigrated from Glasgow to the west of Ireland.

MM

cherrypicker555

Camelot wrote: »

Just to clarify something that seems to go over a lot of peoples heads.

"Ireland was only the 11th wealthiest country on the Planet when measured in (Per Capita terms only) ~ Now this might seem quite obvious to some posters here, but many Irish people actually went around thinking that Ireland was wealthier 'in literal terms' than the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Sweden & France

I know this is obvious, but some people ................

I know I came across a few.