tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post7239780741182089593..comments2024-03-21T12:52:08.166+11:00Comments on Freedom and Flourishing: Was the industrial revolution mainly about the growth of manufacturing industry?Winton Bateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-57973530543826269232018-05-26T21:14:55.657+10:002018-05-26T21:14:55.657+10:00Its very use full site for learn more informationI...Its very use full site for learn more information<a href="https://www.excelr.com/industrial-revolution-4-0/" rel="nofollow">Industrial Revolution 4.0 training</a><br />Industrial Revolution 4.0 traininghttps://www.excelr.com/industrial-revolution-4-0/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-68852802729894814462011-01-07T10:00:52.973+11:002011-01-07T10:00:52.973+11:00There are a few factors to consider. First, proble...There are a few factors to consider. First, problems with housing were due to artificial shortages because of building codes of the day (T.S. Ashton in Capitalism and the Historians). Secondly, realize that conditions in the factory are not sufficient to prove whether or not living conditions improved. These people were coming from the country and had previously been subsistence farmers. Lastly, we have to accept the issue of enclosure. The British Parliament basically kicked people off of land and forced them into working for factories. For these people, it's hard to say conclusively that their standard of living increased. But the others? I don't think there would have been such a large movement unless they knew that they were leaving for a higher standard of living.<br /><br />As for this paper from Clark, Huberman, and Lindert, I find it seriously flawed. Their conclusions are based on the idea that meat supplies should be proportional to income. However, standard of living can increase even if meat consumption falls. If people spend more on housing, they have less for food, but could still have a greater standard of living. I think in this case, many economists of the period ignore the serious benefits of living in the city as compared to living in the country, and because of this their analyses are flawed.TonyFernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07577417779317914721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-84257275986749009742011-01-07T08:19:25.814+11:002011-01-07T08:19:25.814+11:00Hi Tony. I agree about the desirablity of loking a...Hi Tony. I agree about the desirablity of loking at things other than per capita income. <br />However, the collection of factors discussed by Joel Mokyr - which looks fairly comprehensive - doesn't seem to support the contention that living standards improved right from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Regarding meat in particular he cites Clark, Huberman and Lindert (Econ Hist Rev, 1995, p 223) as suggesting that 'meat consumption per capita certainly did not increase'. At that point the discussion seems to relate to the period 1750 to 1850. Is there better information available?<br /><br />The fact that a lot of people moved to the industrial centres suggests to me that these centres probably offered the potential for higher living standards. But it is possible that overall living standards would otherwise have declined as a result of population pressure.Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-88554988754597413222011-01-07T07:11:02.720+11:002011-01-07T07:11:02.720+11:00Per capita income is not a good enough measure. So...Per capita income is not a good enough measure. Some more interesting results can be gleaned from looking at things like meat consumption, caloric intake, and things like that. When those records are taken into effect, then there is no way to deny that even the beginning of the industrial revolution was a time of previously unmatched growth and prosperity.TonyFernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07577417779317914721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1089082204850170942.post-36399334946818224542011-01-05T11:06:45.245+11:002011-01-05T11:06:45.245+11:00Dears,
Joel puts it just right. What was astound...Dears,<br /><br />Joel puts it just right. What was astounding was the continuation. Income per head in Britain had doubled in the eighty years down to 1860. Good. Glad to have it. But then it doubled and doubled and double again, even if one measures real income in a way that does not take account of the quality of goods. As Joel says in his book, and as I say in Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World, and as Jack Goldstone and Eric Jones have said, what amazes is that it didn't wilt like other "efflorescences" (Jack's word). The debate about growth in Europe before the Industrial Revolution seems to us strange. that British and Dutch incomes were twice that of Italy is, again, swell, but is not the main event, which is the Great Fact of 2000% growth in the real condition of poor people, 1800 to now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05638820963402539684noreply@blogger.com