>MUH PELTS How lucrative was the North American fur trade

Britain exported £263,000 worth of beaver pelts in 1750.

This is now equivalent to £54 million per year.

Considering the Hudson Bay Company spanned a third of the globe, it was lucrative to say the absolute least.

File: muh pelts.jpg (105KB, 556x626px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 556x626px

>>2275586

You always here about pelts but what about the illegal timber trade?

Why is it that I don't buy the idea that North America's successes were based on people wanting fur hats and coats. ...

>>2275778
Because you don't understand the fashion industry?

>>2275778

But the entire colonies successes being based on the fashion industry? I'm more inclined to believe timber is what was of true value up in Canada rather than fur.

>>2275837
I won't argue timber wasnt valuable to England, who hasn't had decent trees for like 1000 yrs, but lots of SE Asia's economy today is based of making Nikes and Levis.