Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 152 posts

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#91

Post by JanneVee »

Thermosetty wrote: post #64

Chattel slavery not only fueled the industrial revolution but laid the foundation for our modern world. Capital accumulation, investment of capital, private ownership of the means of production (people), high levels of wage (free) labor and efficient (non-paid) use of the factors of production (people) - are all mechanisms of capitalism that reach their maximum potential under the conditions of chattel slavery.

Chattel slavery still exists around the world, why aren't they the richer than the places where chattel slavery is outlawed? Where ever machines replaced human labor slavery has been outlawed and is richer than the places where labor is done manually and still allows slavery.

The whole point of industrialization was to replace human labor with machines and obviate the capitalist need to own slaves!

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#92

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

sdenton4 wrote: post #63
BirAdam wrote: post #12

As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. As shafts got deeper there was a need to pump in water and air, and then to lift product out. These steam engines at the site could run on low quality coal allowing all of the good stuff to be sold. The Industrial Revolution really started with these mines in the UK. As regards slavery and other factors, once the steam engines were invented and beg…

I think the causality on slavery is backwards, and the article agrees... Shortages of low-skilled labor encourage automation, because then the (very expensive) automation process becomes cheap relative to labor. The article argues that labor shortages coinciding with excess capital paved the way for automation, which in turn reduced dependence on slavery in the long term. In this sense, cheap labor is cheap, but also…

It also does not reward backpropagation from material sciences.

My favourite example here is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrara_marble cause its something both fancied by romans and modern world alike and it was originally sourced by slaves with cludgels as stone masons.

But now its done with industrial tooling, by free man (well free to do whatever the market demands).

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#93

Post by college_physics »

People focus maybe too much on the supply side of things. Resources, means of production, capital etc

A puzzle that seems to floating above all this is the role of demand, what people want.

An instance where it seems a key factor is the US consumer revolution. But maybe it was instrumental before.

Also today, you get a distinct feeling that many parts of the world do not stay underdeveloped (using conventional GDP etc) because they cant do otherwise, but because they dont want.

Developing a knack for wanting more goods or services does not seem to be trivial or uniform.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#94

Post by pjc50 »

rayiner wrote: post #40

Understanding the development of Western Europe is one of the most important things historians could be doing right now. Because those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development. Unfortunately too much of academia is fixated on faulting the west for past injustices, which leads to an unproductive Eurocentric mindset. (Britain will never, and cannot, pay back India what…

> those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development

Not necessarily: firstly, some of those factors were "have the right geology" (coal/iron/later oil), which you can't replicate even if you want to, and secondly we're already in a developed world. That changes the environment and cost/benefit analysis greatly.

The first person to develop a steam engine and the 1,000th person to do so are working in a very different way.

To develop the third world, it might be more informative to look at the postwar trajectories of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and of course China.

> faulting the west for past injustices

Many of which are linked directly to present, ongoing injustices, but you'll never read that because you have no interest in engaging with the research itself, only a caricature. Besides, isn't it better history to find out what actually happened rather than just regurgitate the propaganda of the past?

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#95

Post by LatteLazy »

college_physics wrote: post #93

People focus maybe too much on the supply side of things. Resources, means of production, capital etc A puzzle that seems to floating above all this is the role of demand, what people want. An instance where it seems a key factor is the US consumer revolution. But maybe it was instrumental before. Also today, you get a distinct feeling that many parts of the world do not stay underdeveloped (using conventional GDP et…

Surely demand is the easy piece: people with one set of cloths and one piece of furniture, want more stuff.

When you have a lot of stuff already, then people demand things like leisure time, freedom, justice, etc which conflicts with production of goods. But when you are basically a subsistence farmer you just want more stuff first and foremost. I find the idea that some places have not developed because the people there don't want things quite alien to be honest. Who is cold and doesn't want an extra blanket?

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#96

Post by LatteLazy »

People think you can find a "cause" for social processes like this in the same way you can find a cause for a materials tensile strength. But you can't. They are complex events, lasting decades, with technological, social, political, economic, and other factors. That means (1) there is NO single cause and (2) nothing can be quantified, so everyone just picks the cause that suits their world view and gives it oversized importance.

This is why subjects like history differ from physics. We should not try to apply ideas from the latter (simple cause-effect chains, reproducibility, fixed true answers) to the former.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#97

Post by college_physics »

LatteLazy wrote: post #95
college_physics wrote: post #93

People focus maybe too much on the supply side of things. Resources, means of production, capital etc A puzzle that seems to floating above all this is the role of demand, what people want. An instance where it seems a key factor is the US consumer revolution. But maybe it was instrumental before. Also today, you get a distinct feeling that many parts of the world do not stay underdeveloped (using conventional GDP et…

Surely demand is the easy piece: people with one set of cloths and one piece of furniture, want more stuff. When you have a lot of stuff already, then people demand things like leisure time, freedom, justice, etc which conflicts with production of goods. But when you are basically a subsistence farmer you just want more stuff first and foremost. I find the idea that some places have not developed because the people t…

You are thinking about very basic needs. Most of the world is (thankfully) beyond that stage. You need to explain why while industrial capacities are available for centuries now, there is a very varied picture in terms of development.

Its precisely this assumption that "demand is given" that questioned. Demand seems to be a more complex beast.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#98

Post by rayiner »

pjc50 wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #40

Understanding the development of Western Europe is one of the most important things historians could be doing right now. Because those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development. Unfortunately too much of academia is fixated on faulting the west for past injustices, which leads to an unproductive Eurocentric mindset. (Britain will never, and cannot, pay back India what…

> those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development Not necessarily: firstly, some of those factors were "have the right geology" (coal/iron/later oil), which you can't replicate even if you want to, and secondly we're already in a developed world. That changes the environment and cost/benefit analysis greatly. The first person to develop a steam engine and the 1,000th…

> Many of which are linked directly to present, ongoing injustices, but you'll never read that because you have no interest in engaging with the research itself, only a caricature. Besides, isn't it better history to find out what actually happened rather than just regurgitate the propaganda of the past?

Whether its true or not makes no difference. Studying history with an eye to past injustices puts people into a mindset of dependency, waiting for their former overlords to help them. But Europeans are never going to pay meaningful reparations for colonialism. Ever. The only thing worth learning from history is how Europe got to the point where it could take over Asia and Africa in the first place.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#99

Post by [deleted] »

fsckboy wrote: post #73
Merrill wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slaves/serfs make economic sense primarily on a plantation/manor where they can be given use of a small plot where they construct a shelter and raise their own food. They receive little or no subsidies from the planter/lord. The difference is that serfs are attached to the manor instead of being owned by the planter. Thus, serfs are not sold, but change lords by inheritance, marriage, or other changes in land rights.…

> The difference is that serfs are attached to the manor instead of being owned by the planter just want to point out (though I'm not an expert) attaching serfs to the land was a step forward in serf rights. I think (particularly in eastern europe), serfs didn't necessarily have the right to stay on the land.

[deleted]

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#100

Post by notahacker »

whatshisface wrote: post #53
julianeon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. I don't think that's correct. If you are looking for a one-sentence "how did the Industrial Revolution start" summary, I wouldn't use this. My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy. EDIT: The book describing this is called Behemoth: The…

> My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy. That goes back to 3BC where the ancient greeks invented it, so I don't think that's a good candidate for the beginning of the industrial revolution. I get the association though, because it is a mechanical system harnessing non-animal power to do useful work. https…

Mechanised mills existed in Roman times, but they didn't use them to mass produce textiles, they used them to grind flour for the local people. Similarly coal mining was around in Roman times (and they did transport that internationally) but Roman coal mines weren't deep pits pumped by steam engines. (The invention of the Newcomen engine is a good candidate for an early start date to the Industrial Revolution)

On a similar note, the Romans built quite a few canals, but "Canal Mania" in the UK involving a lot of capitalist ventures building extended transit networks across the UK is an arguable starting point for the Industrial Revolution

Post reply on HN