[PEN-L:3378] Re: Foreign Trade-Industrial Revolution

["Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxx>]

You see how confusion builds once isolated passages are bounced
around: I was Green, not Brown, who made the criticisms which I
called, in my last posting cited below, undeveloped but on
the right track!





> Charles, When time allows I will deal with your questions below.
> But please do not send truncated passages of mine to Frank, or even
> full
> postings, as I am writing to pen-l at this point. THe passage you
> send him of mine is extremely misleading for someone who has not
> followed the argument; I mean it looks like I am the one making
> the claim that E's high wages was the other factor giving E a chance
> to overcome it s marginal position in the world economy. What can
> Frank say to this except "read the book"! - expeciallly when you send
> your own criticisms while acknowledging you have not read the book.
> Don't take me wrong, your undeveloped criticisms are on the right
> track, but as you will see later, Frank does deal with them,
> but inadequately as I hope to show.
>
> ricardo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's a response from Andre Gunder Frank to Ricardo's comments.
> >
> > Charles Brown
> >
> > ___________
> >
> > thanks for the forward
> > AGF 'answer' for re-forward/ing:
> > maybe you are missing something since
> > the index of the book says
> >
> > "income: per capita/distribution, 173-74,266,304-9,312-13,315,317.
> > See also wages"
> >
> > I may not be fazed at all by the appatrent low income/high wage
> > contradiction, but it is specificaly discussed and i hope resolved in the
> > book.it helpt to read and know what one is talking about before doing so.
> >
> > respecfully submitted
> > agf
> >
> >  On Sat,
> > 13 Feb 1999, Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:55:14 -0500
> > > From: Charles Brown <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: agfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Forward
> > >
> > > Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> > >
> > > > The supply of cheap capital from the colonial trade was not the only
> > > > crucial  factor giving Europe (E) a chance to overcome its marginal
> > > > position in the world economy. Another one was E's high wages relative to
> > > > Asia's low wages. E's comparative wage-costs were such
> > > > that they could not compete in the world economy (as Asia was "much
> > > > more productive with much lower wage costs"), so E was motivated
> > > > to introduce labor-reducing machinery. A decision which Europeans
> > > > did not make because they were more "rational" or advanced but
> > > > because they had different relative factor (capital/labor) prices.
> > > > That is, for Frank, the "real explanation" for E's industrialization
> > > > does not lie in any "internal" superiority but in E's differential
> > > > comparative costs *within* the world economy.
> > > >
> > >
> > >     I   have found the postings on Frank's book fascinating. I
> > > haven't myself yet had time to do more than browse a bit of Frank's
> > > book and check  a reference or two, but the I am saving the various
> > > comments on Frank's book for later restudy. Meanwhile, I would like
> > > to raise one point.
> > >
> > >      It would seem  that Frank's logic ignores the obvious question:
> > > why, if Asia really was  wealthier per capita than Europe, were the
> > > wages so much lower in Asia? I was checking into the 1700 figures
> > > cited by Frank, and his reference to Braudel. These figures, if I
> > > recall right,  claim that per capita England was a bit less wealthy
> > > than France, which in turn was somewhat under India. However, in
> > > checking the reference for these figures to Braudel given by Frank,
> > > it turns out that Braudel also claims that, around 1700,  wages in
> > > France, although they were substantially less than those in England,
> > > were *six times* higher than those in India at this time. Frank
> > > recognizes lower wages in India, and apparently cites the same
> > > reference for this as used by Braudel, but doesn't seem to cite *how
> > > much* lower they were (maybe I missed it), and tries --  rather
> > > feebly, it seems to me -- to explain away most of the significance of
> > > this.
> > >
> > >       So what's the significance of all this? Frank's argument at
> > > base seems to treat the wage difference as not an internal
> > > factor, but simply a question of "comparative cost" in the world
> > > market. But the more obvious issue is: if the wages are so much lower
> > > in a country that is supposedly just as wealthy, if not more so, as
> > > the country with higher wages, then doesn't this strongly suggest
> > > that there may be internal differences in the class relations in
> > > these countries?
> > >
> > >   It seems, in their struggle against "stage-ism", "Eurocentrism",
> > > etc. , various theorists have given up any serious consideration of
> > >  of the internal factors.  Instead there is recourse in Frank's book
> > > to the crudest factor of all--just compare  societies by wealth per
> > > capita. (By the way, wouldn't these be very speculative figures
> > > with respect to these economies of centuries ago? How does one get
> > > such a figure? I really am curious about this. My guess is that
> > > various calculations must depend on first making assumptions about
> > > the economy of the country, and then extrapolating very, very partial
> > > data to the whole country.) The fact that  the wealthier society may
> > > have incredibly lower  wages doesn't seem to faze these theorists at
> > > all.
> > >
> > > --Joseph Green
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >                    ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
> > 250 Kensington Ave - Apt 608     Tel: 1-514-933 2539
> > Westmount/Montreal PQ/QC         Fax: 1-514-933 6445 or 1478
> > Canada H3Z 2G8              e-mail:agfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > My Home Page is at:       http://www.whc.neu.edu/gunder.html
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
>
>