The Industrial Revolution

[Lucid]

Yeah, Hobbes' whole thing was that any government, even a corrupt, oppressive and cruel government was better than anarchy. Hobbes viewed his own times as comfortable and civilized and attributed this state to the existence of and intervention by government.

Lastly to state we have no conception of horrible living conditions is probably the most absurd statement on earth, human conditions havent improved the world over. Famine pestilence war genocide hatred hell name the horrible unconcievable atrocity ever commited on earth Ill show you its example in headlines in developed nations.

Yes, this is quite true. There are places now that experience much worse conditions than people in Hobbes' society. Many countries in Africa are good examples.

[maxpot46]

Now he was in no way refering as you claimed to life in his times on the contrary he was talking about man in his normal state ie; without goverment oversight.Yes, his normal state in pre-industrial times. Hobbes had no ability to comment on man's normal state in industrial times (as he pre-dated them), which is not particularly brutal or short.
The book was written during the English Civil war and quite honestly was pro goverment to control the poor natures of the average person.Yes, which is why I'm not a fan of Hobbes. His famous quote can be useful in describing pre-industrial life, though, as it's more of an empirical observation as opposed to a policy prescription.
Next onto your next quote life expantancy and Infancy death rates are not correct and have fluctuated wildly rather than get into source links and whatnot I will simply state, if your assertation were correct the human species would have died out in the first couple thousand years your numbers just dont add up very well.They are accurate numbers (my source is Robert LeFevre (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). Perhaps you misunderstand how the 20 year life expectancy is calculated -- if you made it to age 9, you were likely to live a normal life (of, say, 60 years), but since about 3/4 of kids died before they made it that far, it brings down the mathematical average to 20 years. It should also be noted that my numbers are for 1750 England -- they may well fluctuate some (but not largely) in other pre-industrial countries.
Dietary examples and the rest just dont work well either since we are talking world wide and not single landmasses, I cant even begin to take this comment seriously indigeouse tribes live today well past 20, eat well and have less overall health and IMR's than most developing nations of today.Indigenous tribes are primarily hunter/gatherers, and yes hunter/gatherers are very healthy and eat very well. But the masses of pre-industrial times were not hunter/gatherers (nor could they be, since they did not own any of the land, and were forcibly excluded from them by the aristocracy).
Dickens famouse fictions were all set during the IR, also the IR led to families smaller sizes and your concept of throwing an 8 year old out, farmers needed their children as workers.I respect that you follow the links I provide -- you would be well-served by listening to the Robert LeFevre lecture which I linked to above.
Lastly to state we have no conception of horrible living conditions is probably the most absurd statement on earth, human conditions havent improved the world over. Famine pestilence war genocide hatred hell name the horrible unconcievable atrocity ever commited on earth Ill show you its example in headlines in developed nations.By "we" I meant those of us living in modern developed economies. You are correct that there are many people on earth who currently live in pre-industrial conditions. It's precisely because of this that I'm so devoted to spreading the system which allows prosperity to replace poverty -- capitalism.

[Lucid]

Yes, his normal state in pre-industrial times. Hobbes had no ability to comment on man's normal state in industrial times (as he pre-dated them), which is not particularly brutal or short.
Yes, which is why I'm not a fan of Hobbes. His famous quote can be useful in describing pre-industrial life, though, as it's more of an empirical observation as opposed to a policy prescription.

No. Hobbes is speaking of man in his "natural state" to mean man without government. That's all.

[maxpot46]

I don't think we really need to look very far for examples of living beyond the age of "20" for the non-industrialized people of the world.I thought I made clear that I was contrasting modern developed economies to pre-industrial ones. I agree there are many people living in horrible conditions even today.
It was the IR itself that brought down the living conditions of many poor; children were forced to work in many filthy and dangerous factories by impoverished families, and the coal dust that spewed from early factory smokestacks brought a host of dire health conditions. There is a wealth of historical data to support the fact that early industries were, in actuality, quite a bit more dangerous than "life on the farm".

It could be argued the IR created more problems, in terms of pollution and overcrowding, than it ever solved.I disagree with all of these allegations, and in fact find that last statement dangerously misleading. Source?


maxpot46 added to this post, 3 minutes and 47 seconds later...

No. Hobbes is speaking of man in his "natural state" to mean man without government. That's all.The point is that pre-industrial life was much more horrible than life in a modern economy (even Detroit). You can use statistics if you find Hobbes quote unsatisfactory.

[Lucid]

The point is that pre-industrial life was horrible. You can use statistics if you find Hobbes quote unsatisfactory.

It's that Hobbes' quote has nothing to do with industrialization. And the quote in question was not about his own time. It was about man pre-civilization. Or pre-agricultural revolution. You may believe that the IR improved conditions in large part, and that's certainly debatable; but you're misusing and misunderstanding the tools you're trying to craft your argument with. So I find it difficult to move forward with the argument one way or another while it's in it's current state.

[maxpot46]

It's that Hobbes' quote has nothing to do with industrialization. And the quote in question was not about his own time. It was about man pre-civilization. Or pre-agricultural revolution. You may believe that the IR improved conditions in large part, and that's certainly debatable; but you're misusing and misunderstanding the tools you're trying to craft your argument with. So I find it difficult to move forward with the argument one way or another while it's in it's current state.The Hobbes quote was simply to illustrate pre-industrial conditions. If you don't think the quote applies accurately, you can just use the statistics that I also provided. It doesn't change or invalidate my argument in any way.

[Lucid]

The Hobbes quote was simply to illustrate pre-industrial conditions. If you don't think the quote applies accurately, you can just use the statistics that I also provided. It doesn't change or invalidate my argument in any way.

Well if you're using things that don't apply I think it calls your whole argument into question. But it doesn't matter. You have this weird dichotomy going on where you seem to think that people who disagree with you in any sense are wholly against you.

Conditions pre-industrial revolution are not as you describe, and as someone else pointed out, we don't have to look far to find numerous examples of people living past 20 in pre-industrial revolution times. It may be that your statistic is an average and that the average is skewed by the high rate of infant mortality. Honestly, there are more forces at work than the industrial revolution.

The IR brought some good with it and in many ways our quality of life now is probably better, but it also brought with it some problems and there were definitely some abuses and horrible conditions around the turn of the last century. Those abuses don't invalidate the whole thing though. Really, we have just managed to replace some problems with others and some advantages with different ones.

[Holiman]

It's precisely because of this that I'm so devoted to spreading the system which allows prosperity to replace poverty -- capitalism.


Yes, Im sure the american indian nations would love to thank those whom brought forth the IR, or the Aboriginees' in Australia, Ghandi loved the British influence on his nation too I would surmise??

To the subject at hand I have another question what would people like our dollar to be based upon since there is alot of thought of references to " real world value". The dollar of today is extremely complex our entire society is debt based, which maynot be best but most larger companies today couldnt exhist without credit.

[Profit]

They are accurate numbers (my source is Robert LeFevre (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). Perhaps you misunderstand how the 20 year life expectancy is calculated -- if you made it to age 9, you were likely to live a normal life (of, say, 60 years), but since about 3/4 of kids died before they made it that far, it brings down the mathematical average to 20 years. It should also be noted that my numbers are for 1750 England -- they may well fluctuate some (but not largely) in other pre-industrial countries.

Are you serious? You are basing part of your argument on historical statistics from Robert LeFerve an American libertarian businessman and radio personality whose crowning achievement seems to be the establishment of the non accredited Rampart College in 1957 that actually went out of business in 1967 – apparently LeFerve was not much of a businessman or scholar. If you want to continue your argument concerning the plight of the lower classes prior to and throughout the industrial revolution bring some legitimate historical data. This is ridiculous. May I ask what research you have read concerning the industrial revolution that was not written by a libertarian or someone connected with the Austrian school?

And again as someone else already pointed out the decrease in infant mortality in Britain throughout the IR had little to do with increased production/consumption and everything to do with the changing roles of (lower class) women in society and the decision of individuals to postpone marriage and simply have fewer children. Having fewer children increased the likelihood that those children that were born would survive childhood along with increasing the health and life expectancy of the mother.

[magyarMaiden]

I thought I made clear that I was contrasting modern developed economies to pre-industrial ones. I agree there are many people living in horrible conditions even today.

I disagree with all of these allegations, and in fact find that last statement dangerously misleading. Source?


[

You thought you made it clear? Please. You are cherry picking in order to support your own ideas. Your assertion is that the IR made life "liveable" for the masses. My assertion is that life can be, and has been, pleasant, healthy and productive without industrialization.
You can disagree with me all you choose, but what I have stated are not "allegations" but facts. "Dangerously" misleading? To whom? Do you find thoughts that are in opposition to yours "dangerous"?
I will work on choosing from the abundant sources that exist to support my factual statements. I'll be back.....

[maxpot46]

May I ask what research you have read concerning the industrial revolution that was not written by a libertarian or someone connected with the Austrian school?And what research have you read that was not written by a statist or an interventionist, or does not ultimately derive from the discredited Sadler Report of 1832? What if I were to demand that you provide a libertarian source that supported your own non-libertarian point of view -- reasonable or unreasonable?

A legitimate response would be "my own source X claims that statistics in 1750 were actually Y, so I have to take issue with your initial claims." Then I could respond by challenging your own source/statistics as well as providing additional sources for my own views. As it stands, your current response seems to call for my resume, which I don't see as relevant.

[maxpot46]

"Dangerously" misleading? To whom?
To the poor and working class, because such a storyline champions their oppressor (the government, central planning) and marginalizes their best hope for a better life (freedom, the market).Do you find thoughts that are in opposition to yours "dangerous"?Politically, yes, because IMO only freedom and voluntary exchange (aka the market) will raise the living standards of the poor and working class, while more government involvement and coercion will only lead to greater crises and suffering. Though I suppose, if we're being technical, that it's actually actions in accordance with those interventionist thoughts that I find dangerous -- obviously thinking without action never hurt anybody.
I will work on choosing from the abundant sources that exist to support my factual statements. I'll be back.....I'll be here. I suspect that your sources will reference the Sadler Report, so let me pre-emptively provide a source that discredits it -- the noted anti-capitalist Frederick Engels, who in his book The Condition of the Working Class in England wrote:This [Sadler Report] is a very partisan document, which was drawn up entirely by enemies of the factory system for purely political purposes. Sadler was led astray by his passionate sympathies into making assertions of a most misleading and erroneous kind. He asked witnesses questions in such a way as to elicit answers which, although correct, nevertheless were stated in such a form as to give a wholly false impression.King William IV, who had commissioned the Sadler Report, agreed, as he discarded Sadler's report as being hopelessly biased, and commissioned a new report which, several years later, rebutted the majority of Sadler's claims.

[Holiman]

I found this really neat link that might give some insight into the present argument

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.,M1

[Profit]

And what research have you read that was not written by a statist or an interventionist, or does not ultimately derive from the discredited Sadler Report of 1832? What if I were to demand that you provide a libertarian source that supported your own non-libertarian point of view -- reasonable or unreasonable?

A legitimate response would be "my own source X claims that statistics in 1750 were actually Y, so I have to take issue with your initial claims." Then I could respond by challenging your own source/statistics as well as providing additional sources for my own views. As it stands, your current response seems to call for my resume, which I don't see as relevant.

According to E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield in ‘The population History of England 1541-1871’ expectancy at birth rose from thirty-five years to forty years, a 15 percent increase. Pat Hudson’s ‘The Industrial Revolution’ shows the for all of England and Wales life expectancy at birth rose from 38 to 41 years between 1811 and 1861. I encourage you to read page 149.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also you may want to take a look at the following books/journal articles.


Time and Work in England 1750 – 1830 by Hanns-Joachim Voth

Hard Times Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution
by E Royston Pike

The Labouring Classes in Early Industrial England, 1750-1850
by John Rule

Hard At Work In Factories And Mines: The Economics Of Child Labor During The British Industrial Revolution
by Carolyn Tuttle

”A Revival of the Pessimist View: Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution,” by Carolyn Tuttle published in the journal Research in Economic History

The Making of the English Working Class
by E. P. Thompson

‘Time and Work in 18th Century London’ by HJ Voth - JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, 1998

My concern with your data and views is that they seem to be based on the work/opinions of libertarian writers/ideologies and those trying to lend support to Austrian economics and not the work of historians who have come to their conclusions through historical research.

[maxpot46]

According to E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield in ‘The population History of England 1541-1871’ expectancy at birth rose from thirty-five years to forty years, a 15 percent increase. Pat Hudson’s ‘The Industrial Revolution’ shows the for all of England and Wales life expectancy at birth rose from 38 to 41 years between 1811 and 1861. I encourage you to read page 149.All right then, my source stated that the life expectancy in England in 1750 was around 21 years. Your source says that the life expectancy in England and Wales in 1811 was 38 years, in London and other large towns it was 30 years, and in smaller towns it was 32 years. It also explains on page 150 that "better nutrition and diet resulting from more efficient production, distribution, and marketing of foodstuffs, fuel and other necessaries, particularly in urban areas, rather than medical care or public health measures may be a better focus in examining declining mortality. Research suggests that the causes of death that were linked to diet led the decline in mortality in the 19th century and that they were particularly important in reducing infant mortality."

So firstly, I fail to see how your statistics are significantly different from my own given the 60 year difference in time and the upward trend in mortality rates during that time. Secondly, your source clearly points to the effects of the IR as the basis for improving mortality (as the parts I emphasized in bold should make clear).
My concern with your data and views is that they seem to be based on the work/opinions of libertarian writers/ideologies and those trying to lend support to Austrian economics and not the work of historians who have come to their conclusions through historical research.Then it is fortunate that your own source supports my contentions.


maxpot46 added to this post, 17 minutes and 1 seconds later...

To the subject at hand I have another question what would people like our dollar to be based upon since there is a lot of thought of references to " real world value". The dollar of today is extremely complex our entire society is debt based, which may not be best but most larger companies today couldnt exhist without credit.If those companies can't exist with credit at the natural rate of interest, then they don't deserve to stay in business.

In any case, IMO the dollar should be based on gold. It's been chosen as the monetary standard of most every country (silver was chosen in some, notably China) for a reason -- several reasons actually (it is indestructable leading to a very stable value as all gold ever mined still exists; it has intrinsic value as it's beautiful to the human eye (and never tarnishes); it is found all across the world; it is fungible; it can be broken into smaller pieces very easily; smaller pieces can be rejoined very easily; it compacts a lot of value into a small amount of material; it is easily portable; it is easily testable for purity).

However, I advocate a free banking system where any commodity could be chosen as money, letting competition decide. The main thing is to tie its value to something real so the government can't just counterfeit money whenever they want to spend it.

[Profit]

Secondly, your source clearly points to the effects of the IR as the basis for improving mortality (as the parts I emphasized in bold should make clear).
Then it is fortunate that your own source supports my contentions.


As I explained before…..The dramatic increase in food supplies in Great Britain was due to the adoption, from the Low Countries, of crop rotation not industrialization. This helped to maintain nutrient levels in the soil and allowed farmers to utilize more land each year or grow several crops on the same plot in one year rather than being forced to allow fields to rest. This in turn lead to increased fodder supplies to support more livestock leading to more manure to improve nutrient levels in the form of fertilizer leading to higher crop yields. All of this took place before the industrial revolution. In fact without the expansion of the food supply population levels could not have increased to the point were there was enough landless laborers to be transformed into wage laborers that could migrate to emerging urban manufacturing centers in search of employment. Industrialization did not begin to have an impact on food production until the late 1800’s. Railroads definitely helped to transport food more efficiently but not until the mid 1800’s do they begin to have a serious impact on the availability of food supplies.

The increase in population and slow increase in life expectancy began before the IR took off in Great Britain and was a result of the introduction of crop rotation, the building of roads and canals (reducing the likelihood of local/regional food shortages), the introduction of new crops from the Americas (mainly the potato), and changes in the social behavior of individuals (cottage industry allowed peasants to marry earlier and support a family without having to own or have access to farmland).

[maxpot46]

I'm sure that is mostly true and had an impact (though I'm skeptical of claims such as "industrialization did not begin to have an impact on food production until the late 1800's"), but I don't think it invalidates the impact of the IR. Specifically, even if more food was produced for non-IR reasons, it was the IR that allowed the masses to have the funds to purchase that food (instead of it going to the aristocracy, the traditional beneficiaries of material excess).

[Profit]

“According to E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield in ‘The population History of England 1541-1871’ expectancy at birth rose from thirty-five years to forty years, a 15 percent increase. Pat Hudson’s ‘The Industrial Revolution’ shows the for all of England and Wales life expectancy at birth rose from 38 to 41 years between 1811 and 1861.”

All right then, my source stated that the life expectancy in England in 1750 was around 21 years. Your source says that the life expectancy in England and Wales in 1811 was 38 years, in London and other large towns it was 30 years, and in smaller towns it was 32 years. It also explains on page 150 that

So firstly, I fail to see how your statistics are significantly different from my own given the 60 year difference in time and the upward trend in mortality rates during that time.

I love how you totally ignored the first set of figures I gave you for life expectancy in England that showed a slow increase in life expectancy throughout the period from 35 to 40 years. Meaning it started at an average of 35 in the 16th century and ended at 40 in 1871. You go on to dismiss this by saying that our stats are really not that far a part…..a difference of 14 years on average seems to be fairly significant to me. Furthermore the research of E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield…..

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.,M1

points to 27.8 years as being the low end of life expectancy for any one year throughout the entire period. Again, not an insignificant number of years when compared to your average of 21.

[maxpot46]

I love how you totally ignored the first set of figures I gave you for life expectancy in England that showed a slow increase in life expectancy throughout the period from 35 to 40 years.So which is it, a low of 35 years as in your first source, or a low of 30 years as in your second source? I find it mind-boggling that you are not satisfied with my use of statistics that you yourself provided, but in any case, you are quibbling about details. My original assertion was simply that life pre-IR was not comparable to modern life in Detroit, which is obviously correct and supported by both of our sources.


maxpot46 added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

All in all Im not sure that our present course is correct but I feel its better than this option.I hope you still feel that way over the next couple of years (or more).

[Profit]

So which is it, a low of 35 years as in your first source, or a low of 30 years as in your second source? I find it mind-boggling that you are not satisfied with my use of statistics that you yourself provided, but in any case, you are quibbling about details. My original assertion was simply that life pre-IR was not comparable to modern life in Detroit, which is obviously correct and supported by both of our sources.


35 is the lower average for the entire English population, 30 is the average life expectancy in 1811 for London only. 27.8 is the lowest average for any one year between 1541 and 1871. All are considerably higher than your 21. I find it mind boggling that you throw out bogus stats attributed to a radio personality and when offered historical research showing different numbers you fail to back your original numbers with actual research and instead blow off the difference in the two as being unimportant to your initial argument that the IR alone led to a substantial increase in the life expectancy of the British.

[maxpot46]

your initial argument that the IR alone led to a substantial increase in the life expectancy of the British.My initial argument is that the IR is the primary cause of the great increase in the standard of living, one of the measures of which is life expectancy. And yes, I do think the differences in the statistics are trivial, in terms of the main points. Stats for that period are pretty inexact and a lot of estimation is involved, so as long as they're in the same ballpark, I'm satisfied enough with them. I don't think the big picture changes too much regardless of which statistics you prefer.

[Lucid]

My initial argument is that the IR is the primary cause of the great increase in the standard of living, one of the measures of which is life expectancy. And yes, I do think the differences in the statistics are trivial, in terms of the main points. Stats for that period are pretty inexact and a lot of estimation is involved, so as long as they're in the same ballpark, I'm satisfied enough with them. I don't think the big picture changes too much regardless of which statistics you prefer.

So then why did you get all huffy about a difference between 30 and 35?
This is genuinely entertaining.

[maxpot46]

So then why did you get all huffy about a difference between 30 and 35?
This is genuinely entertaining.Huffy? :suspicious: The amateur psychologist strikes again with another valuable addition to the thread.

[Lucid]

Huffy? :suspicious: The amateur psychologist strikes again with another valuable addition to the thread.

Way to dodge the question though. And add something valuable yourself. Also, since when were you the end all be all of deciding which posts and which questions were valuable and on-topic? Just because you don't want to answer, doesn't mean it's not a valid question.

So which is it, a low of 35 years as in your first source, or a low of 30 years as in your second source?

Stats for that period are pretty inexact and a lot of estimation is involved, so as long as they're in the same ballpark, I'm satisfied enough with them.

I mean, if I'm misinterpreting this... and it's entirely possible that I am, just say so. Just explain your position. Either you're contradicting yourself or you're not. If you are, then you're cherry picking and your argument is weak. If you're not, then set me straight so I'll have a better understanding of your argument.
Why is it that whenever someone asks you a question like that one or calls you on an error, inconsistency or contradiction in your argument you dismiss it as "off-topic?" It's not off topic. It's responding directly to your post. Or you call it a personal attack. It's not a personal attack.

[maxpot46]

Why is it that whenever someone asks you a question like that one or calls you on an error, inconsistency or contradiction in your argument you dismiss it as "off-topic?"Because your comment was none of those things. It was an psychological assessment of my response, followed by a personal statement of value. You attribute to me a negative reaction (incorrectly) as an interpretation of those comments, which I frankly don't understand at all because my two comments aren't inconsistent -- the first was intended to imply that the statistics were inexact, by pointing out that two of his own sources were in conflict. Profit chose not to take the hint, forcing me to state matters directly the second time around. I'm not sure why this isn't clear from the text -- it's quite a stretch to attribute a negative emotional reaction and a lack of consistency to those passages.

[Lucid]

Because your comment was none of those things. It was an psychological assessment of my response, followed by a personal statement of value. You attribute to me a negative reaction (incorrectly) as an interpretation of those comments, which I frankly don't understand at all because my two comments aren't inconsistent -- the first was intended to imply that the statistics were inexact, by pointing out that two of his own sources were in conflict. Profit chose not to take the hint, forcing me to state matters directly the second time around. I'm not sure why this isn't clear from the text -- it's quite a stretch to attribute a negative emotional reaction and a lack of consistency to those passages.

It's quite a narrow definition of the term 'huffy' to see it only as emotional. I'll restate: Why did you appear to see the 30/35 discrepency in the first post as a flaw or invalid point and then, in the second post, state that statistics from the time period are hazy and mostly estimations after Profit explained to you the reason for the discrepency.

From someone who uses a priori in an ideosyncratic way to mean axiomatic it seems strange to me that you suddenly hold language to such strict rules.

If you were trying to point out that the statistics are inexact, why do you use them yourself and advise others to use them?

You can use statistics if you find Hobbes quote unsatisfactory.

Consider that the life expectancy in 1750 (just prior to the IR, which began in 1760) was only 20.3 years, and the death rate of children under nine was around 75%.

[maxpot46]

Why did you appear to have a problem with the 30/35 discrepency in the first post and then, in the second post, state that statistics from the time period are hazy and mostly estimations after Profit explained to you the reason for the discrepency.I "appeared to have a problem" because you (incredibly) choose to interpret my comments as reflecting a negative emotional state. Read as they were intended (and by, I suspect, most readers), the words I used show no inconsistency. As I explained in the previous post that you apparently didn't read.


maxpot46 added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

If you were trying to point out that the statistics are inexact, why do you use them yourself and advise others to use them?Because they are useful for showing general trends, if one is able to avoid having to argue about trivial details.

[Lucid]

I "appeared to have a problem" because you (incredibly) choose to interpret my comments as reflecting a negative emotional state. Read as they were intended (and by, I suspect, most readers), the words I used show no inconsistency. As I explained in the previous post that you apparently didn't read.

Apparently you didn't read the post to which you are now responding.

It's quite a narrow definition of the term 'huffy' to see it only as emotional. I'll restate: Why did you appear to see the 30/35 discrepency in the first post as a flaw or invalid point and then, in the second post, state that statistics from the time period are hazy and mostly estimations after Profit explained to you the reason for the discrepency.

Because they are useful for showing general trends, if one is able to avoid having to argue about trivial details.

So some relevant and accurate statistics are ok to use and some relevant and accurate statistics are not ok to use? I doubt that Profit thought those details were trivial. Are details also trivial when they support your points, or only points with which you disagree?

[maxpot46]

Are details also trivial when they support your points, or only points with which you disagree?Details are trivial when they support the main point regardless of which are chosen.


maxpot46 added to this post, 6 minutes and 38 seconds later...

It's quite a narrow definition of the term 'huffy' to see it only as emotional.Is it really?Dictionary:
Huffy (hŭf'ē)
adj., -i·er, -i·est.

1. Easily offended; touchy.
2. Irritated or annoyed; indignant.
3. Arrogant; haughty.

[Profit]

Max the trend that my stats and my posts are trying to show is that life expectancy was rising slowly from the 16th century onward and that this was due mostly to the increase in the food supply cause by the introduction of new agricultural techniques and improvement in roads and the British canal system. Thus not only was life expectancy higher than your figure of 20.3, that you have yet to back up using an academic source or actual research, to begin with but that it had been improving long before the IR really took off in the 1800’s.

[Lucid]

Details are trivial when they support the main point regardless of which are chosen.

I think that's a rather subjective statement. Profit explains their own post, but often the details are extremely important to an argument.

Is it really?

Ah, perhaps my use of the term 'idiosyncratic' escaped your notice. See, by pointing out that you said you used the term 'a priori' in an idiosyncratic way my intention was to illustrate that I was using the term 'huffy' in an idiosyncratic way. However, if you misunderstood my post because of unclear wording on my part I apologize. Unfortunately, that can be an unintended side effect idiosyncratic word usage. However, it seems that after my explanation you now understand what the intended meaning was. Is your argument that we should not use words idiosyncraticly?

[maxpot46]

Max the trend that my stats and my posts are trying to show is that life expectancy was rising slowly from the 16th century onward and that this was due mostly to the increase in the food supply cause by the introduction of new agricultural techniques and improvement in roads and the British canal system. Thus not only was life expectancy higher than your figure of 20.3, that you have yet to back up using an academic source or actual research, to begin with but that it had been improving long before the IR really took off in the 1800’s.I'm perfectly happy to use your sources because they support what I was trying to say, which was that standards of living improved markedly during the IR. We seem to disagree on the cause, but not the statistical trend.

If I understand your view correctly, it's that since the upward trend began prior to the IR, there is no reason to attribute the continued upward trend during the IR years to the IR itself. To support this you assert that "industrialization did not begin to have an impact on food production until the late 1800’s".

That doesn't seem to be the case, however. According to Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
The invention of machinery played a big part in driving forward the British Agricultural Revolution. Agricultural improvement began in the centuries before the Industrial revolution got going and it may have played a part in freeing up labour from the land to work in the new industrial mills of the eighteenth century. As the revolution in industry progressed a succession of machines became available which increased food production with ever fewer labourers.

Jethro Tull's seed drill invented in 1731 was a mechanical seeder which distributed seeds efficiently across a plot of land. Joseph Foljambe's Rotherham plough of 1730, was the first commercially successful iron plough. Andrew Meikle's threshing machine of 1784 was the final straw for many farm labourers, and led to the 1830 agricultural rebellion of the Swing Riots.So I don't see how the two factors we are respectively championing are mutually exclusive. If anything, they reinforce each other.

Also, your view doesn't account for any improvement in the distribution of resources (which admittedly I only touched upon briefly, getting so bogged down in arguments over details and emotions). Increased production is wonderful, but traditionally the distribution of resources has always heavily favored the aristocracy. If the upward trend did in fact begin in the early 16th century, it certainly hadn't taken off for most by the mid-18th century, as evidenced by the still deplorable conditions and unimpressive statistics (regardless of their exact number). It was the IR that allowed the masses to become productive enough to actually start commanding some purchasing power, finally beginning a trend of increasing their percentage of the resources.

[Profit]

Details are trivial when they support the main point regardless of which are chosen.



That is just it my 'details' do not support your narrow and quite frankly superficial view and understanding of the industrial revolution. You threw out a number to describe how horrible life was before the IR and how the IR changed all of that. I showed you using academic sources that your number was wrong and how the rise in life expectancy that you credit the IR with was actually due to other factors.

[maxpot46]

perhaps my use of the term 'idiosyncratic' escaped your notice. See, by pointing out that you said you used the term 'a priori' in an idiosyncratic way my intention was to illustrate that I was using the term 'huffy' in an idiosyncratic way. However, if you misunderstood my post because of unclear wording on my part I apologize. Unfortunately, that can be an unintended side effect idiosyncratic word usage. However, it seems that after my explanation you now understand what the intended meaning was. Is your argument that we should not use words idiosyncratically?No, but it would be nice if, when you do, you point out that you are using the word idiosyncratically (as I did with "a priori"). Otherwise, I'll generally assume words mean what they are defined as in the dictionary, and these sorts of miscommunications will occur.

[Lucid]

No, but it would be nice if, when you do, you point out that you are using the word idiosyncratically (as I did with "a priori"). Otherwise, I'll generally assume words mean what they are defined as in the dictionary, and these sorts of miscommunications will occur.

I did point it out. Just as you did with a priori.

[maxpot46]

I did point it out. Just as you did with a priori.You characterized my response as "huffy" in post #101. Your use of the word "ideosyncratic" was in post #105, where you say "It's quite a narrow definition of the term 'huffy' to see it only as emotional... From someone who uses a priori in an ideosyncratic way to mean axiomatic it seems strange to me that you suddenly hold language to such strict rules." So you did not point it out until after I'd naturally assumed you meant it as defined in the dictionary. IIRC I explained how Mises used the term "a priori" the same post I used it (and strived to use "axiomatic" after that) so I'd appreciate it if you'd return the courtesy. Especially since it was in a different thread and a couple of weeks ago, so there's no reason for me to draw any inferences from it into the current discussion.

[Lucid]

You characterized my response as "huffy" in post #101. Your use of the word "ideosyncratic" was in post #105, where you say "It's quite a narrow definition of the term 'huffy' to see it only as emotional... From someone who uses a priori in an ideosyncratic way to mean axiomatic it seems strange to me that you suddenly hold language to such strict rules." So you did not point it out until after I'd naturally assumed you meant it as defined in the dictionary. IIRC I explained how Mises used the term "a priori" the same post I used it (and strived to use "axiomatic" after that) so I'd appreciate it if you'd return the courtesy. Especially since it was in a different thread and a couple of weeks ago, so there's no reason for me to draw any inferences from it into the current discussion.

Right... after using the term a priori idiosyncraticly for most of the Austrian Economics thread, only clarifying it later in PM that you were using it to mean axiomatic. I'm not criticizing your idiosyncratic use or your eventually clarifying that. But you certainly didn't point out your idiosyncratic use when you first made said idiosyncratic use.

[maxpot46]

Right... after using the term a priori idiosyncraticly for most of the Austrian Economics thread, only clarifying it later in PM that you were using it to mean axiomatic. I'm not criticizing your idiosyncratic use or your eventually clarifying that. But you certainly didn't point out your idiosyncratic use when you first made said idiosyncratic use.My first use of a priori in that thread was as follows (bold added):From the Austrian view, economics IS a priori. The things I am saying are not conclusions based on evidence or "experiences". Rather, Austrian economics is built up from certain "axioms" and postulates that we consider to be self-evident, specifically -- that humans act (i.e. that they are teleological); that humans own themselves; that leisure is preferred to labor; and that there exists a wide variety of goods and services. From these "axioms" (in quotes because I'm aware that I'm using the word in an idiosyncratic sense) we derive the entirety of economics, e.g. the law of supply/demand or the law of marginal utility.I see now that I miscommunicated and put the parenthetical explanation after the wrong word, though I did take the time to explain what I meant in more detail. Perhaps that is the transgression which leads you to now upbraid me in a different thread 3 weeks later. Please accept my utmost apologies and, in the interest of preventing future miscommunications, it would be great if you could also try to identify your idiosyncratic use of terms in the same post, as I (unsuccessfully) attempted to do (I assure you I intended to communicate precisely).

[Lucid]

My first use of a priori in that thread was as follows (bold added):I see now that I miscommunicated and put the parenthetical explanation after the wrong word, though I did take the time to explain what I meant in more detail. Perhaps that is the transgression which leads you to now upbraid me in a different thread 3 weeks later. Please accept my utmost apologies and, in the interest of preventing future miscommunications, it would be great if you could also try to identify your idiosyncratic use of terms in the same post, as I (unsuccessfully) attempted to do (I assure you I intended to communicate precisely).

Sounds good! You interpret things how you like, I'll clarify them when you're wrong and try to be clear in my use of language.
Although I certainly apologize if it seemed that I was upbraiding you. It seemed to me that I was just responding to your criticism of my use of the term 'huffy.' You seem to equate being told that you appear emotional or unduely offended with some kind of insult. This is not the reality.

[Holiman]

Now that that is cleared up, regardless of how you skew exactly how great the IR was or wasnt or how bad society was before we learned how to mass produce etc.. I still see no corrolation to that and capatilism or so say it simply

Industrial Revolution =/= Capatilism


since most nations are now well past the IR and very few would consider themselves capatilists. I go back to my earlier comments that the true fault in todays world falls firmly into greed, waste, and wealth accumulation.

A qoute I read on Wiki and also seen on Larry King recently I think fits this situation exactly, (loosely paraphrase from original Marriner S. Eccles qoute)we were all at a poker table and to stay in the game we had to borrow the chips now all the chips are gone and theyre calling our debts, and the one person left is wondering why he is all alone at the table now.

People like Warren Buffet shoulder most of the blame imho they took companies such as Fruit of the Loom and outsourced them almost completely to south american companies. Im sure he made himself and his shareholders another billion or so until we cant buy his product because the jobs dried up.

The super rich in an obsessed drive for greater wealth with no reason have left such a wealth divide between the rich and poor, to illustrate in 1970 the USA had 30 billionaires today we have over 1000.

This is why Austrian Economics cant work because their model would simply encourage more of this while what we have is bad, as Hobbes said even a bad corrupt system is better than anarchy.(paraphrased but I think correct nonetheless)

[maxpot46]

You seem to equate being told that you appear emotional or unduely offended with some kind of insult. This is not the reality.I equate such things with being off-topic, which is certainly reality. I also hold them to be manipulative as they force me to deny your claims and sends the thread down a different (and less useful and enjoyable) path, which is more an opinion but I'll stand by it.

[Undead Bonzi]

And again as someone else already pointed out the decrease in infant mortality in Britain throughout the IR had little to do with increased production/consumption and everything to do with the changing roles of (lower class) women in society and the decision of individuals to postpone marriage and simply have fewer children. Having fewer children increased the likelihood that those children that were born would survive childhood along with increasing the health and life expectancy of the mother.

I would ask if you have numbers showing birth rates declining before the Industrial Revolution because one more often hears that the birth rates do not decline untill well after an IR. Having fewer babies is only more effective with modern medicine practices which were only just in development preIR. Before and durring the IR it was still more common and more advantageous to have large families as infant mortality was still high, effective birth controll was still only in the realm of absitnence, and children could work in factories, mines, and farms along side their parent.



As to the bennefits of the Industrial Revolution, it was a two edged sword. It was neither good nor bad, it simply was.

#1. Mass production of goods and increased employment along with the decline of skilled labor and craftsmen.
#2. Transition from rural to urban living driving advances in agriculture/medicine/infastructure along with the overcrowding, pollution and diseases that made the life span of those in the cities shorter than their rural counterparts.
#3. Trading one type of poverty for another. Where perviously poor families might spend their life scratching and existence from land they didn't own, poor famlies could instead scratch and existence in factories and mines they didn't own.

[Profit]

I go back to my earlier comments that the true fault in todays world falls firmly into greed, waste, and wealth accumulation.


This is why Austrian Economics cant work because their model would simply encourage more of this while what we have is bad, as Hobbes said even a bad corrupt system is better than anarchy.(paraphrased but I think correct nonetheless)

Holiman here is an article on how Adam Smith actually wrote/believed that unbridled greed actually destroys free markets. I think it is right in line with what you are saying.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[maxpot46]

#1. Mass production of goods and increased employment along with the decline of skilled labor and craftsmen.Are you certain there was a decline in skilled labor and craftsmen? My understanding was that such workers were only about 8% of the population when they served only the ~2% of the population that was the aristocracy (stats should be taken as ballpark figures only). With 90% of the population gaining in purchasing power but still lacking artisan skills, it would seem to me that the demand for skilled craftsmen would rise as well.

Here is a quote from Hazlitt's Conquest of Poverty (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):Before the Industrial Revolution the prevailing trades catered almost exclusively to the wants of the well-to-do. But mass production could succeed only by catering to the needs of the masses. And this could be done only by success in dramatically reducing the costs and prices of goods to bring them within the buying power of the masses. So modern capitalism benefited the masses in a double way—both by greatly increasing the wages of the masses of workers and greatly reducing the real prices they had to pay for what was produced.
#2. Transition from rural to urban living driving advances in agriculture/medicine/infastructure along with the overcrowding, pollution and diseases that made the life span of those in the cities shorter than their rural counterparts.I feel I should point out that the migration to the cities was by free will, indicating that opportunities to acquire resources were even more meager in the country than in the city.#3. Trading one type of poverty for another. Where previously poor families might spend their life scratching and existence from land they didn't own, poor families could instead scratch and existence in factories and mines they didn't own.This is true even today, where entrepreneurs are few and most are satisfied working for the man (and many making a lot of money -- I personally make 6 figures working for someone else). Most of those workers are quite satisfied with their lot (not me, I am compelled to add), and choose to spend their production on consumption instead of investment in a business. I see nothing wrong with that, as it is a free choice, and would not characterize it as poverty. So I don't think the fact you note is inconsistent with the idea that the IR was a positive development in terms of standard of living.

[Arminius]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the purpose of this thread is? The OP is kind of vague. Are we talking about the industrial revolution or anarchism?

[maxpot46]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the purpose of this thread is? The OP is kind of vague. Are we talking about the industrial revolution or anarchism?Whichever you like :) I view both subjects as of the same tradition, that of increasing individual freedom at the expense of centralized control, with the result of a higher standard of living for all.

[Profit]

I would ask if you have numbers showing birth rates declining before the Industrial Revolution because one more often hears that the birth rates do not decline untill well after an IR.

If you read my post I specifically say throughout the IR…..as in not before but during.

[Undead Bonzi]

Are you certain there was a decline in skilled labor and craftsmen? My understanding was that such workers were only about 8% of the population when they served only the ~2% of the population that was the aristocracy (stats should be taken as ballpark figures only). With 90% of the population gaining in purchasing power but still lacking artisan skills, it would seem to me that the demand for skilled craftsmen would rise as well.

The skilled labor I was talking about would be those who were replaced by the IR. Speaking of cobblers, weavers, ect ect. Remember that many of the early products of the IR were not new inventions, they were mass productions of older products originally the works of skilled labor. Where previously you would have a family and a number of apprentices learning and practicing extensively in their craft (multiple small local businesses), after the IR such people were replaced with droves of the unskilled who only knew to press the button (single monolithic producers). The downside was the loss of quality, art and knowledge while the upside was more widely available goods and increases in the number of employed. Other master craftsmen such as carpenters and masons survived for quite some time after the IR...and indeed were in greater demand to an extent. It was not untill the 50's and 60's that we managed to rub those groups down to almost nothing.

This is true even today, where entrepreneurs are few and most are satisfied working for the man (and many making a lot of money -- I personally make 6 figures working for someone else). Most of those workers are quite satisfied with their lot (not me, I am compelled to add), and choose to spend their production on consumption instead of investment in a business. I see nothing wrong with that, as it is a free choice, and would not characterize it as poverty. So I don't think the fact you note is inconsistent with the idea that the IR was a positive development in terms of standard of living.

I would point out that I doubt you make 6 figures as unskilled labor and that your current position and opportunities are a product of the chances offered to you because of the reforms that came after the conditions of the IR.

To the subject at hand...such a class of worker (unskilled labor) is on the decline. Do not compare the work done even in factories today with the conditions of the IR. Unskilled labor in the IR was simply a new version of the pesant. They got paid almost nothing and fared no better than the dirt farmers they had originated from...in fact the life span of an urban factory worker was actually shorter than their rural counterpart. Take note of factory towns where people worked in a factory...then paid the factory for their food and homes and at the end of the day had nothing left to show for it...slaves in everything but name brought to you by the IR. The standard of living today is actually a result of the backlash against the conditions of the IR worker. Employment laws and standards were enacted to protect workers from the horrors that were spawned in the IR.


My point through all of this is that no one cause is responsible for improvements in the standard of living. Also I would like to note that there are few things in life that do not come with a negative cost or downside. Take the example of our first cities where hunter/gatherer tribes settled into cities. When this happened human health actually declined. From cities we gained craftsmen/scholars/artisans/ect, but our diet and health declined for a time. It has not been untill thousands of years later that we have the technology and ability to make city living as healthy as rural in all respects....and of course the irony is that we no longer live in cities, we live in our next nightmare of an invention, suburbia. The same can be said for the IR as was said for early cities...it was both good and bad.

[maxpot46]

The skilled labor I was talking about would be those who were replaced by the IR."Replaced by" or "supplemented by"? The quality of mass-produced items was not as high as that of skilled artisans, making them cheap and suitable for the masses but beneath the aristocracy.The downside was the loss of quality, art and knowledge The skill level of high-level artisans did not decrease so I can't agree that there was a "loss of quality". There was a phenomenon that mass-produced goods were of a lower quality, but also much cheaper, an improvement over the "nothing" the masses had available at affordable prices previously.I would point out that I doubt you make 6 figures as unskilled laborYes, but you characterized poverty as being related to not owning the farms, land, factories or mines. I am pointing out that they are not related, as evidenced by our current system where property-less workers do not live in poverty.
your current position and opportunities are a product of the chances offered to you because of the reforms that came after the conditions of the IR. We agree that working conditions have improved. You credit "reforms" (presumably led by government). I credit competition of the market (particularly in my own field of waiting tables, where the government has done little except work very hard to efficiently tax our tips).
To the subject at hand...such a class of worker (unskilled labor) is on the decline.Why is that? IMO it's because capitalism creates skilled workers, by allowing unskilled workers opportunities to learn and prove themselves. Do you credit reforms for that as well?They got paid almost nothing and fared no better than the dirt farmers they had originated from...in fact the life span of an urban factory worker was actually shorter than their rural counterpart.Then why would people choose to move to cities and work in factories, if they were no better off? Take note of factory towns where people worked in a factory...then paid the factory for their food and homes and at the end of the day had nothing left to show for it...slaves in everything but name brought to you by the IR."Slaves" are coerced. Factory workers chose their lot. To me that makes a big difference. Even though conditions do not seem much better to modern eyes, they certainly led to different standards of living.
My point through all of this is that no one cause is responsible for improvements in the standard of living.My problem with this view (which I agree with in the main) is that it fails to exclude government intervention amongst the "improvements", with the result that in modern times we do not understand what raises standards of living and thusly do not behave in such a way that maximizes such increases. Poor people are stuck in horrible situations throughout the world (e.g. North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe) precisely because folks champion centrally-planned "reforms" and demonize capitalism, which is nothing more than free people making voluntary exchanges of their own private property. Even in our own modern economies, government interference causes no end of trouble (e.g. the current crisis, which via inflation will transfer much wealth from the poor to the rich).

Few claim that capitalism was perfect, especially in its earliest incarnation. But it is always better than central planning and "public" (aristocracy or dictator-owned) property.

[Lucid]

I also hold them to be manipulative as they force me to deny your claims and sends the thread down a different (and less useful and enjoyable) path, which is more an opinion but I'll stand by it.

I thought you had free will and that you owned yourself?

[MaleVolentworld]

What is the argument here? I have no idea.

[Lucid]

What is the argument here? I have no idea.

As far as I can tell, side A argues that the industrial revolution was a mostly positive force, but that it caused some social and environmental issues and that some abuses of workers took and (possibly) still take place. That before the Industrial Revolution, people could live to old age and we had capitalism and a certain degree of creature comforts, although not as much as after. Side B seems to argue that the Industrail Revolution is what made it possible for most people to live past the age of 20, that no abuses of workers took place, and that without the creature comforts the Industrial Revolution brought, life was very brutal and harsh. And, seemingly, that we did not have capitalism before the Industrial Revolution.
It should be noted that this thread was split off from the Agree/Disagree thread, which was about economics and our current economic issues. That thread evolved in to a several days long discussion about the Industrial Revolution, so I split it off into its own thread.

[MaleVolentworld]

A good book that I read a long time ago that is available for free online is very interesting.

Laissez Faire in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Fact or Myth? Paul, Ellen Frankel

In all likelihood, Britain in the earlier part of the nineteenth century did not embrace a version of laissez faire that would warm the heart of a purist. Perhaps W. T. Hutchison came closest to the mark when he wrote that a "new interventionism" arose in midcentury before the "old interventionism" had been fully expunged.*55 Yet it is undeniable that liberalism and the spirit of governmental quiescence enjoyed greater respectability than at any time before or since. Journals, newspapers, popular novels, and the earlier economists labored to secure respectability for the ideal of limited government. While the defense promulgated by the political economists was flawed, they, nevertheless, succeeded in erecting the principle of laissez faire as a bulwark against state intervention in the market. Admittedly, it was a crumbling bulwark, increasingly so as the century progressed. But what distinguishes that earlier epoch from our own is that the interventionists rather than the free-marketers were the ones constantly on the defensive. For each proposed act of governmental regulation a case had to be made—the general presumption against the meddlesome state was at least that strong. Today the contest would be limited to competing schemes all exhibiting the same interventionist feature of governmental solutions to social problems. It is this influence, more than anything else, that would earn Victorian England her designation as an "age of laissez faire."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[maxpot46]

What is the argument here? I have no idea.It began when Holiman asserted that capitalism has "served its purpose" but that we must "move past private accumulation of wealth" or else in "200 years I [Holiman] personally find it hard if not impossible to think the world wont be working on hunger, pollution, poverty, and disease".

I replied that "it was the private accumulation of wealth that characterized the Industrial Revolution, which was mankind's greatest attack on hunger, pollution, poverty and disease," and that "were it not for capitalism and the profit motive (enabled by freedom and private property), it's highly likely we would still live as did the masses in all of the preceding human history -- in poverty and squalor".

So the former is the view that I am attacking; the latter is the view I'm defending. The main views that have surfaced thus far: Holiman champions the view that the state is doing the right thing and that Austrian economics is poppycock; Profit believes that the IR was not responsible for improved life expectancy during the IR years; Magyarmaiden asserts that life in modern Detroit is comparable to life pre-IR and that the IR was rife with horrors and abuse; Lucid has explained her views in her post above ("side A") and her (distorted) view of mine ("side B").

You should now be up to speed. BTW, the original thread was Agree/Disagree (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), so you can start there if you're really that interested.

[Profit]

I had a problem with the unsupported statistics that Max was putting forward to describe life expectancy in Britain prior to the IR. I was arguing that life expectancy had been slowly increasing in the centuries before the IR really took off in the 1800’s.

Also broadly speaking I am with Holiman on the whole Austrian economics = poppycock. As long as we agree that poppycock = empty talk that is.

[MaleVolentworld]

A great book I have titled "The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire" by Andrew Bernstein has lots of statistics before and during the Industrial Revolution.

I don't know what stats Max put forth but here's two:

- "According to the best figures available at the time, the London death rate was 1 in 25 in 1700, 1 in 20 or 21 in 1750, 1 in 35 between 1797 and 1801, 1 in 38 from 1801 to 1811 and 1 in 40 in 1821."

He cites M. Dorothy George, London Life in the Eighteenth Century, op, cit., pp.42-45

- 1541 English life expectancy was 33.75 years, this rose and fell within a limited range. In 1761 on the eve of the Industrial Revolution it was 34.23 years. "It had increased on average less than .5 of one year in greater than two centuries". By contrast, in 1811, it was 37.59, in 1851 it was 39.54 and in 1871 it was 41.31. During the Industrial Revolution, the average expectancy of life increased by greater than seven years in the course of just over a century." Page 120

[Profit]

Max gave an average life expectancy of 20.3 in 1750. The figures I put up match yours for the most part, one of my main arguments was that life expectancy began to increase mainly as a result of the increase in food supples and reduction in regional/local famines. I believe this was due more to the agricultural revolution than the IR. I think the large upswing in overall population numbers beginning in the mid 1700's supports this view.

[MaleVolentworld]

Hmm. I suppose you could post the beginning and end date of the Agricultural Revolution and include all the population, death rate, life expectancy stats that you have?

From what I've read, the Industrial Revolution was between 1760 and 1830. According to Ludwig Von Mises in Economic Policy, the population of Britain doubled between this period.

[maxpot46]

Max gave an average life expectancy of 20.3 in 1750. The figures I put up match yours for the most part, one of my main arguments was that life expectancy began to increase mainly as a result of the increase in food supples and reduction in regional/local famines. I believe this was due more to the agricultural revolution than the IR. I think the large upswing in overall population numbers beginning in the mid 1700's supports this view.If the upswing begins when the IR does, how does it support your view? I said I was perfectly happy to use your numbers instead of those provided by LeFevre because it was the trend that supported my point.

[MaleVolentworld]

Ok I was just looking for AR dates and it is closely linked with the IR. While looking I also found this:

These estimates show that the growing population of
Industrial Revolution England was fed mainly through food imports and through
switching agricultural output towards food, not through an agricultural revolution

The Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution: England 1500 - 1912 (1500????????? 1912????????????), Gregory Clark, June 2002, University of California.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Profit]

The origins of the IR are in 1760 but it doesn't really take of until the 1800's. Read back over the thread for my stats on life expectancy. In terms of overall population growth according to E.A. Wrigley in Population and History the English population stood at a little over 5 million in 1750 and had reached a little under 9 million by 1800. The agriculture revolution is dated between 1650 - 1850 although there is disagreement on those years. According to McKay, Hill, and Buckler in A History of Western Society since 1300 "English farmers in particular were second only to the Dutch in productivity in 1700, and they were continually adopting new methods of farming as the century went on. The result, especially before 1760 was a period of bountiful crops and low food prices. The ordinary English family did not have to spend almost everything it earned just to buy bread. It could begin to spend more on...manufactured goods".





Profit added to this post, 14 minutes and 4 seconds later...

First of all go look up the British Corn Laws, second the large importation of food does not become possible until the mid 1800's with the development of railroads. According to Mulhall's Dictionary of Statistics, throughout the 1830's the British farmer supplied 98% of the grain for the British population.

[Holiman]

Yes I agree with Profit in that Austrian Economics is mostly talk not reasonable or sustainable.

I am willing to admit the IR was, along with many factors responsible for moving the entire world out of famine cycles and bettering the lives of everyone. Where we part ways is that Maxpot seem's to continually link the IR to capatilism and wealth accumulation, which just isnt true.

I am really glad everyone restated their points it really cleaned this thread up IMHO but I still dont see where were explaining how wealth accumulation is so much better then Aristocracy also in the book I was reading that was linked earlier it makes a strong case that population increases exponentially until famine and death cuts population back and until the 1800's this was the constant cycle of life. We got larger and larger populations with each new advancement, leading today to a population of over 5 billion so arguably are we just reaching our newest limit?

[Profit]

Max and Male you both seem to assume that because the beginning of the IR is usually dated at 1760 that this date corresponds to a major change in the English economy and society. This is just not true, for most individuals the last decades of the 18th and the first of the 19th were largely unchanged as a result of what we today refer to as the IR. Most economic historians pick 1780 as the point where England’s economy reaches a take off point when economic growth and development becomes self-sustaining. Even this however does not mean that by 1780 the socio economic structure of England has been radically transformed or that the economy as a whole can be considered ‘industrialized’. For several decades after the 1780’s the revolution was rather limited and basically revolved around the cotton industry. Even by 1830 cotton was the only industry that produced a majority of its goods in actual factories and the numerous Factory Acts enacted up until the 1860’s were all aimed, nearly exclusively, at textile factories. The development of factories in other industries was extremely limited until after 1840. Most other production was done under the same conditions as it had for the last century. Not until the second round of the IR, that takes place in the mid 1800’s, do we see a real transformation of society. 1850 is the first year that we see a majority (51%) of the English population living in urban areas.





Profit added to this post, 134 minutes and 0 seconds later...

From The Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution: England 1500 - 1912 Gregory Clark, June 2002, University of California.

"Further the observed gains in labor productivity between 1500 and 1860 may themselves be explained mainly as a consequence of yield growth. As Clark (1991a) explores, a rise in grain yields will itself lead to some increase in labor productivity. Indeed based on the estimates presented there the yield gains from 1500 to 1860 would easily explain any labor productivity gains. Even if these hypothetic calculations are incorrect it is clear that much of the observed gain in labor productivity between 1500 and 1860 would have to be attributed to yield gains, rather than to factors such as farm size, enclosure, or the creation of a landless rural proletariat."

One achieves higher yields through the introduction of advanced agricultural techniques (I explained these earlier in the thread). Also, Mr. Clark's data shows that not until the 1860's do the British begin importing large quantities of food.

[MaleVolentworld]

Industrialisation doesn't happen over night, it takes a long time, so the progress is of course gradual. But in comparison to previous centuries, the progress was rapid in terms of the change in economy and society during the IR. Not in the sense that, in comes 1760 and BANG we have trains, cars, planes and everything.

Laissez-faire has never existed but it came close during the early parts of the IR, the closest it has ever been. This is what allowed the IR to flourish, and the source of laissez-faire was a flurry of free market theorists beginning in the 1690s with John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, who, as far as I know, was the first to recognise the concept of man's rights to life, liberty and property.

Of course a change in agricultural methods played its part in increasing the living standards, but by itself could not have increased living standards to what they are today. If you take a look at the CIA World Factbook which allows you to see all countries with their % of labour in each sector, you find that the countries that are mostly agricultural than services are not as wealthy and have lower living standards.

What we have today throughout the world is a mixture of freedom and controls in a mixed economy, also known as interventionism. When countries have increased controls to a large degree it becomes Fascism as the government directs all spheres of production, and where countries become dominated by government ownership of the means of production you see Communism.

If you replace the closest we have come to laissez-faire during the IR, with Communism or Fascism, then the IR would not have happened. If men are not free to think, to invent and be rightful owners of the product of their thinking, then they won't invent.

[Undead Bonzi]

If you replace the closest we have come to laissez-faire during the IR, with Communism or Fascism, then the IR would not have happened. If men are not free to think, to invent and be rightful owners of the product of their thinking, then they won't invent.

Your statement is too absolutist to be true. It would be better to say that men are more likely to show creativity and initiative if they are free to think and own property but also implying that some degree of innovation is possible under ANY system. Saying it is not possible under other systems can be disproved by a simple study of history.

Examples:

-China's recent economic growth and rapid modernization/industrialization under Communism would seem to offer a counter argument to your statement.

-As would Japan and Germany's rapid changes/expansions under Fascism.

-Socialist France is a recognized leader in innovation and research on high energy physics, particularly nuclear energy.

-Ancient Egypt was a theocracy/monarchy yet they made drastic advances in architecture and agriculture. Ancient Aztec culture was the same and they had advances in astronomy that exceeded most other countries in existence at the time even though they were more primitive over all.

-The Roman Empire made huge strides in engineering and city planning while under a fascist dictatorship.

-Feudal Japan had perfected the art and theory of warfare while 90% of the population were landless peasants.

Indeed a study of history shows us that most of recorded human history occurred under systems of governance other than 'capitalism'...yet advances still happened.

[Holiman]

I have been thinking about this topic alot as of late and I feel I have come to a bit of an epiphany, you see I have been completely wrong....


I had thought the 'free market' and 'Laissez-faire ' were simple impossible theories, or simply not truely feasable in the real world. I was entirely wrong after alot of thought I have found several examples of both in every nation that have exhisted and still do today.

Mob, Mafia, Yakuza and organized crime.

Internet Pornography etc.

Prostitution

Slave Markets

Drug Markets

Black Markets


These are what I have come up with so far, and you might think I am just attempting to shock or disgust people with my anology but in all actuality I came to this conclusion based upon the discussion in regards to how they fit not what they provide.

Why do I think these are correct first they have NO goverment oversight, sure most goverments actively attempt to shut them down but they dont monitor to interfere often they just gather information for charges. As for Laissez-faire can it be any more in effect they definately control themselves even within the organizations to the largest extent possible. I dont think its possible to find a better examples of the concepts put forth by Austrian Economics possible.

Now onto mine and others criticism first it creates monopolies, wow yes ... in every example I have indeed monopolies are evidenced and actually grow into power. So far that some have actually grown into powers that compete with goverments ( mexico russia to name a couple ). Second is that it will actually reduce compitition, well true again... sure drug dealer , might move into a's territory and sell better drugs then him History shows that violence is the normal answer to this and I think there is so much evidence to suport this that it scares me. Prices dont go down across the board, actually quality seem's to suffer the most. A good example of this is prostitution is legal in one US state and compare the average prostitute in Nevada to say one on Sunset strip and I can tell you quality goes down much faster then the price imho.

I think I could continue on this vein forever I now beleive that we can point to some very real world examples of the concepts that Maxpott has put forth, indeed simple supplier to consumer markets without oversight and regulation has given the consumer exactly what they want. An examples of this is internet pornography which has grown to the extent of beasiality and child pornography while these might be illegal in most countries I dont feel very good about opening the floodgates of our economy to those types of Laissez-faire.

Yes I was right in my conclusion as I see it Austrian Economics is a really bad concept and one that I personally am not willing to place mine and my childrens future with.

[Profit]

I would like to say wow, well done Holiman. I would like to add to the list of unregulated 'markets' the international sex trade with a specific emphasis on underage girls. I understand that in a truly free market prostitution would be legal but what about underage prostitution? As disgusting and wrong as it is there would (is) a market for this type of thing. In a truly Laissez-faire economic system who would crack down on child prostitution?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[maxpot46]

Your assumptions that "no government oversight" equal "no oversight" are incorrect.

[Holiman]

I dont think I hinted at that at all I even think I gave examples of oversight within each one. Drug dealer a, has a corner and drug dealer b, moves in competition leads to violence this is a form of oversight. Unmentioned Drug dealer a, probably belongs to some mob, gang or other overseer entitiy they likely do the violence its why every movie shows mob enforcers theyre not just hanging out for look's. Each market has their own forms of oversight but when profit and bottom line meets the consumer with no goverment oversight ANYTHING becomes possible.....


hence anrachy which you seem to be so fond of even though results in as hobb's quoute

'the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'

[MaleVolentworld]

Ok I went away and missed this.

Very bizarre in equating laissez-faire free market with anarchy. I advocate a free market not because it brings the most wealth, but because it is the result of a government's role of defending individual rights. Men must be free to act so long as they don't infringe on the freedom of others, the government recognises this right and protects it.

So obviously slavery, crime and anything else that involves the violation of individual rights is not acceptable.

There is no such thing as the right to violate individual rights, since it's an obvious contradiction.

[Undead Bonzi]

There is no such thing as the right to violate individual rights, since it's an obvious contradiction.

I would put a different spin on that statement. I would point out that if a right can be violated....perhaps it is not as inalienable of a right as you seem think. The only inalienable right we are granted in this world is death; anything else can be taken from you by either governments or other individuals.

I know this is a bit off topic but I get irritated when people start taking about what 'rights' (I always here entitlements when people say that word) they are due automatically without any effort or responsibility.


Aside from my hair splitting, I agree with what you said.

[MaleVolentworld]

You are due an automatic right without any effort or responsibility of having your freedom not violated...so long as you don't violate the freedom of anyone else. Freedom is violated when you are forced against your will to do something.

So I'm not talking about crap like economic rights such as right to a house, min wage etc

[Undead Bonzi]

You are due an automatic right without any effort or responsibility of having your freedom not violated...so long as you don't violate the freedom of anyone else. Freedom is violated when you are forced against your will to do something.

So I'm not talking about crap like economic rights such as right to a house, min wage etc

I know you were not talking about any of those things. My point was that in reality this world owes you nothing and you are automatically entitled to nothing, not even freedom. The only right you truely have is death because it is the one thing that can never be denied to you indefinetly. Everything else comes as a responsibility of civilization and society, once it is a right it is taken for granted and soon taken away.

[eternaltriangle]

The notion of what a market is is being misapplied by some here. Firstly, laissez-faire is not anarchy. It is free commerce within a polity that imposes law and order. I am drawing a bit from Polanyi's The Great Transformation here, but real markets are actually a fairly recent development. The Romans traded with others, but their trade - mostly of elite luxury goods - was more about etiquette and alliance-building (and tribute), than it was about profit and division of labour. The modern state did not really exist either - so even insofar as commerce might take place it required passing through many different kingdoms. Moreover, there really was no such thing as capital. Most people, prior to the industrial revolution, were subsistence farmers. What little wealth was accumulated was largely gained through plunder and taxation. The few that had wealth sought it not for its own worth, but to buy the maintained security of their social position (the few that did not do so were strongly sanctioned by the Catholic church, which is probably why most of the first capitalists were Protestants). There was nothing to be gained by simply being rich - which is why those that were happily traded much wealth for honours (eg. Venetians buying off cardinals, people buying nobility).

The agricultural revolution, black death, and reformation changed that by creating some limited wealth accumulation outside of the nobility, by increasing per capita stocks of wealth, and by creating a large group of people (larger than Europe's Jewish population) that were immune to demonization by the pope. You also needed the emergence of states, in the modern sense, willing to provide law and order over long distances (feudal feifdoms often WERE the law and order problem for traders), so as to facilitate the division of labour beyond the local level. Only then could you have conditions where markets could emerge, where merchants could eventually supplant the nobility, and where the profit motive could drive the majority of commerce (noting that commerce and trade are not always market oriented - the USSR could order 10 tonnes of steel to Poland, that is trade, but obviously not market-driven).





eternaltriangle added to this post, 5 minutes and 35 seconds later...

I would like to say wow, well done Holiman. I would like to add to the list of unregulated 'markets' the international sex trade with a specific emphasis on underage girls. I understand that in a truly free market prostitution would be legal but what about underage prostitution? As disgusting and wrong as it is there would (is) a market for this type of thing. In a truly Laissez-faire economic system who would crack down on child prostitution?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. The basic minarchist notion of rights is that no individual has a right to have their rights infringed upon. I agree that the social contract story is a crock, but that is irrelevant - minarchist laissez-faire folks have a belief in a certain set of rights.

2. Underaged prostitution infringes on the rights of the prostitute if it is unwilling. Even if it is not, most reasonable societies only grant individuals rights at a certain age. Indeed, some people, such as the mentally handicapped, never receive the full menu of rights.

I am not a minarchist, but you are misrepresenting their position. Even Ayn Rand argued that their should be a judicial system, funded by user fees.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 81 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Now, back to the industrial revolution. There is a lot of muddied thinking here as well.

1. Dislocations versus long-term effects
Any economic change, whether driven by policy or not, will cause dislocations. If you change one price, you change all prices, because we mostly care about relative prices. The industrial revolution certainly caused short-term dislocations - a decline in agricultural prices was necessary to push such massive movement of people from the countryside to industrial jobs in the city. Not all of them made it, and there were substantial social costs. However, those costs were short-term, relative to the benefits of increased productivity growth, which we still enjoy to this day. The UK made a choice to trade short-term pain for the implementation of an economic system where accumulation of wealth was possible by a means other than plunder.

Those dislocations were necessary if one was to gain those benefits, and every country that has gone through the industrial revolution has incurred such costs. The USSR in the 1930's went through a crash course in industrialization. In order to accumulate the necessary base of capital, Stalin essentially induced forced saving (in practice that required the starvation of millions of kulaks). Nonetheless, it did drive the workers into the cities, and provided the funds to build factories. Soviet industrialization was immensely costly despite their being able to copy and import foreign technology (an option not available to Britain).

The British model resulted in some difficulties. However, Britain industrialized much faster than any other nation, even though it was at the technology frontier, meaning that any productivity-improving innovations had to be innovated at home. Moreover, the British path to industrialization made Britain the world's unquestioned ruler of the seas for another century, aiding in global free commerce and relative peace (the 19th century was the most peaceful of the centuries since Westphalia). The minimal role of the state allowed the emergence of a large group of "new men" who made their fortunes by innovation. They began to supplant the nobility in government, and so began the development of democracy in Britain (and today in many of her former colonies). A different path would have empowered a small elite and hindered the development of either liberty or democracy. In the United States the industrialization spurred on by a similar model is also inseparable from any explanation of the end of slavery.

France and Germany had the advantage of being late innovators, and could copy advances from the British. Nonetheless they too experienced severe dislocations as a result of their own industrialization programmes. The slowness of their development, however, meant that the dislocations dragged on, while the benefits of the industrial revolution were delayed. They developed much more slowly than Britain, and their governments remained in the hands of a narrow elite that ruled by virtue of blood. Their more statist development path also meant that they had strong governments capable of turning the prosperity of the industrial revolution into weapons of war, which they did. Twice.

Lets compare per capita GDP (data from Angus Maddison's website) throughout the process of industrialization (data in 1990 dollars):

1700
UK: 1250
Germany: 910
France: 910
Russia: 610
USA: 527

1820
UK: 1706
Germany: 1077
France: 1135
Russia: 688
USA: 1257

1850
UK: 2330
Germany: 1428
France: 1597
Russia: no data
USA: 1806

1880

UK: 3477
Germany: 1991
France: 2120
Russia: ~1000
USA: 3184

The average worker in the most industrialized country was three times wealthier in 1880 than in 1700. That is unambiguous evidence to me that the industrial revolution was worth it. Even if some social problems were worsened temporarily, society had a vastly larger amount of industrial capacity with which to address those problems (as they began to do in the late 19th century - which I imagine is where maxpot and I part company).

There is a second implicit argument of whether the laissez-faire model worked or whether it was the best way to industrialize. The evidence here suggests that clearly it was - the two least interventionist states (US and UK) grew the fastest. Both grew faster in the later period where they became less interventionist as well (remember the key reforms that brought in what one could call laissez-faire in Britain were the abolition of the corn laws and the reform act of 1830, they didn't happen in the 1750's).

The utter penury and social problems of agricultural backwardness (even Marx lauded capitalists from rescuing the working class from that) - along with absolutist governments - certainly persisted longer in statist Russia, Germany and France (of those, France, the least statist, performed best). Obviously some other factors played a role too, but the evidence is pretty strong, and will take herculean post hoc theorizing to justify.

So the only argument left for the doubters is that the short-term costs of industrialization in Britain were too great to justify laissez-faire. Now, I reject this argument theoretically first. I have already shown that Britain was wealthier, and its policies a likely cause. Because wealth can be spent any which way, it is a much better marker of well-being than say, life expectancy. If I am wealthy I could buy a greater life expectancy by moving to the country, or hiring better doctors. An imposed solution to say, health problems, would not only have made Britain poorer by distorting the market, it also would have replaced the choice of individuals with that of the state, which surely has less of a sense of the metrics of individual welfare than those individuals themselves.

Does the data even support that France and Germany's slow model of industrialization brought fewer dislocations than Britain (and the US') rapid one? Lets focus on health and crime.

One measure of health, especially relevant in the 19th century, is height.

Baten and Murray (2000) have data on height in Germany.

From 1810-1865 male German height declined from 168 cm to 166 cm. By 1885 (once German industrialization began on a more rapid course... and once new industries had emerged more suited to the German statist model, like chemical dye) Germany had recovered to 168 cm. For women the trend was roughly similar (their increase started in the 1850's).

Mehlum et al (2004) look at crime in Bavaria, where the best statistics were available. Violent crime was fairly steady at 50 incidents per 100,000 people, which doubled after the 1850's.

In France Tilly and Lodhi (1973) have data on crime from 1831-1861. They find that crime declined steadily through that period from 14 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,0000 incidents. Of course this is partly related to lower incidence of social unrest.

So, industrialization was costly in Germany, in spite of a more gradual model, that certainly delayed the economic benefits of industrialization. How does that stack up against Britain or the US?

In the US male height dropped 4 cm through the 19th century, bottoming out in 1890. So there is some evidence that American workers were less healthy.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
However, Americans then started to grow - a full 6 cm on average by 1930 (and they grew more after that too).

Crime in the UK went up pretty dramatically (~300%) till the 1860's but decreased as greater wealth enabled Britain to afford better police.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In other words, while on a few indicators, the British and Americans lagged for a short period of time, they eventually caught up with and surpassed the laggards on those measures because their greater wealth afforded them such latitude.

I do not think laissez-faire is appropriate today, but it was the ideal economic system for the incubation of early industrial technologies, and the data strongly support that notion.