Historical paradigms/and/or hypothesis?

[Femmebott]

I haven't done enough research to give a concrete answer, so I'm here to ask you all for a jump start. I'm basically supposed to pose a question, an analytical question, or rather a paradigm about some event that occurred in history. I chose the subject area of the Industrial Revolution, because I am interested in the dynamics of capitalism and economics. I need to get the juices flowing and Im not really coming up with anything. The prompt itself is rather vague, but an example of what I'm asking for would be a question like, "Was slavery the natural result of capitalism? Or not?"
I know the question sucked and it is not so much a paradigm as it is a hypothesis, as you can see I really need help. No stupid nit picking; contribute something useful to me please and thank you.

[Angel1]

1. Was the industrial revolution a cyclical culmination of the human need to overcome natural carrying capacities of the environment and the ongoing battle among European (including descendant nations) powers for supremacy?

Another idea derived from the above one would be:
2. Was the industrial revolution a cyclical culmination of the human need to overcome natural carrying capacities of the environment and ongoing fights amongst competing groups of people for resources?


In any case, they would sound better stated as a declarative sentence:
1. The industrial revolution was a cyclical culmination of the human need to overcome natural carrying capacities of the environment and the ongoing battle among European (including descendant nations) powers for supremacy.

2. The industrial revolution was a cyclical culmination of the human need to overcome natural carrying capacities of the environment and ongoing fights amongst competing groups of people for resources.

[Mader]

I'm sorry, if my ideas are helpful you will have to completely rephrase things.

The industrial revolution, was this seen as a logical progression in the Christian faith (Genesis, dominion over the earth) as opposed to today

At the time of the industrial revolution it was perceived by the owners and managers as universally positive - it brought money to the poor, jobs for the poor, goods to the poor, etc. Today we look back at the poor working conditions, the destruction of rural life, the changes in family structure that was caused by working in a factory, etc.

[Causa Mortis]

I haven't done enough research to give a concrete answer, so I'm here to ask you all for a jump start. I'm basically supposed to pose a question, an analytical question, or rather a paradigm about some event that occurred in history. I chose the subject area of the Industrial Revolution, because I am interested in the dynamics of capitalism and economics. I need to get the juices flowing and Im not really coming up with anything. The prompt itself is rather vague, but an example of what I'm asking for would be a question like, "Was slavery the natural result of capitalism? Or not?"
I know the question sucked and it is not so much a paradigm as it is a hypothesis, as you can see I really need help. No stupid nit picking; contribute something useful to me please and thank you.

Well, there are 2 really provocative voices in economics, politics, and history generally:

1. Milton Friedman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). A first rate intellect in every respect - exceptionally creative, rigorous, and insightfully analytical.
2. Noam Chomsky (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Again an exceptional intellect. His arguments are watertight.

...and they tell you exactly the opposite story despite minor disagreements on the facts. I guarantee that one of these will light a spark on the topic. I'd also watch this video (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .html) because it deals directly with evidence as opposed to just logic, which in the area of economics will always involve over-simplification of actuality and thus is prone to leading you astray.

If they don't, tell me why and I'll recommend something else, but I'm 99% sure you'll have a strong reaction for or against one of them. They are both vicious on paternalistic state capitalism (ie the US from 2001-2009), which is an intellectually and morally indefensible system, but on every other implication they'd disagree.