pull down to refresh

Hashtag rational Adam Smith optimist:

A quarter of a millennium ago, the world was changed by two men from Glasgow. In the spring of 1776, Adam Smith, a former professor of philosophy at Glasgow University, published “The Wealth of Nations,” his extraordinary book about how prosperity is mostly a spontaneous phenomenon deriving from the human habit of exchange and specialisation.

obvs Glasgow changed the world (#847595). There's even a book on this. Scotland ftw: https://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997

The very same week, James Watt, who had worked as an instrument maker in a workshop at Glasgow University, unveiled his first commercially successful steam engine, a machine that revolutionised the application of steam power by its use of a separate condenser.

economic ideas of free(-ish) markets and the commercial use of fossil fuel/prime mover.

Why Glasgow? Something special was happening there in the 1700s, despite Scotland being a backward country still reeling from the ruination of the Darien fiasco in 1700, the devastation of the Jacobite rebellion in 1745 and the humiliation of the English pacification that followed.

Yeah, I think so too. Russ Roberts ruminated (#1465214) about going back there, and shows like Outlander obvs make me want to as well.

by mid-century Glasgow had become Europe’s fastest-growing city, a free port through which tobacco poured in from the Americas, enriching merchants and spilling money into culture, art and learning. Even to the point of the university hiring a technician from Greenock called James Watt.

some free banking mentions in there, too, to warm my cold heart.

"The central theme was spontaneous order: that morality, prosperity, language and social behaviour can emerge spontaneously from within human nature and human society without necessarily being commanded by the state, the sovereign or the priest.""The central theme was spontaneous order: that morality, prosperity, language and social behaviour can emerge spontaneously from within human nature and human society without necessarily being commanded by the state, the sovereign or the priest."

  • Hume
  • Hutcheson
  • Ferguson

Would quibble about his energy+Smithian growth observation for the Industrial Revo, but close enough.

here's a MASSIVE contrast to the modern world (leftiest/hate-the-rich people should pay attention):

A typical medieval farm harvested just three or four grains of wheat or oats for every seed sown, less in a bad year. Most of the population therefore had to work on generating the small surplus of energy that enabled a few barons and bishops to live in luxury and build castles and cathedrals. To put it another way, the only way to be rich was to have lots of poor people working for you.

"Nations that ignore the lesson of Adam Smith and try to control the economy from above stagnate: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.""Nations that ignore the lesson of Adam Smith and try to control the economy from above stagnate: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea."

oh-lalala

"Nations that ignore the lesson of James Watt and refuse to lower the cost of energy also stagnate: Britain, Germany, Spain.""Nations that ignore the lesson of James Watt and refuse to lower the cost of energy also stagnate: Britain, Germany, Spain."

Hashtag, DO BETTER you bifs (BGSs??) #1471607

A system is not moral just because it produced wealth, especially when that same system could price, trade, and exploit human beings as property.

reply

hm... I haven't posted stuff from Beckert today (#1434507), what in the world are you talking about??

also, economists in particular (and Adam Smith definitely) were foundational in doing something no civilization had ever done before: get rid of human beings as property (and then the Brits used their navy to hunt down the trade and stop it globally...). So, em, wth are you smoking, bro?

reply

If your post is about what created American wealth, then let’s not play games: slavery was part of that wealth creation story. Not just the invisible hand.

reply

no it wasn't, idiot. (this is a common, leftist myth... start learning by reading my follow-along review of Beckert -- one of said myth propagators -- book: #1416318).

also, to your substantive question: no, my post is about the industrial revolution. Which happened in BRITAIN, and to which the U.S. is just an uninteresting second/third act.

reply

You’re acting like slavery was irrelevant to industrialization. It wasn’t.

Slave labor produced ~12–13% of U.S. GDP at its peak, which is equivalent to $3.5–4T/year today.

And ~75% of global cotton, which was the core input of British industry, came from U.S. slave plantations.

That’s not a side note. That’s the supply chain.

reply

It was irrelevant to industrialization, and in no way correspondent to that sort of modern figures #1422896

The only thing interesting about slavery is its abolishing

reply

If slavery was irrelevant, why did British industry depend so heavily on slave-grown cotton?

Are you saying CPI is flawed, or that slavery didn’t matter? Those are different claims.

If cotton was the main input for British textiles, and slaves produced the cotton, where does “irrelevant” come from?

reply

It didn't... It was immaterial. Take away slavery, and British industrial revolution would have happened just as well.

And no, you're the one invoking some modern-day equivalent number. Don't do that

It's kind of annoying how old these lessons are that still haven't been widely learned

reply