[PEN-L:11304] Re: Early economists and the origin of capitalism

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Rod Hay" <rodhay@xxxxxxxxxxx> 09/19/99 05:31PM >>>
Many of the so-called early economists were in fact merchants, writing
phamplets in order to influence government policy in their favour. This is a
bias in the records that remain. Quotes on trade from the mercantilists can
easily be matched by quotes from the likes of Petty and other emphasising
the importance of agriculture.

(((((((((((((((

Charles: This raises questions about the reliability and bias of the data which is the basis for your claim that these merchants did not make a substantial portion of the original accumulation of capital from labor of non-Europeans.

(((((((((((((((

Rod Hay:
Gold is not wealth, in the 16th century it could have played only three
roles. 1. As money, 2. As means of foreign payments, 3. As decoration.

-clip-

As decoration, it would only stimulate work for the goldsmiths and their
supplies. Hardly enough to base a new economic system upon.

The growth of capitalism was based upon the agricultural revolution. Nothing
else comes close to its significance.

The tail does not wag the dog even if they move at the same time.

((((((((((

Charles: Except that Richardo has been arguing that the unique development in European capitalism was in industry.

On the gold and silver, why did the Europeans expend so much effort to go all  the way to the Americas gathering metals to make unprofitable trinkets ? They seemed to think it was very valuable treasure. Did they not understand the way they were accumulating wealth in their own system ? Why didn't they employ the Indian slave labor in agriculture instead of mining if the latter was not the source of enormous profit ? It is almost as if you think they couldn't count and didn't realize they were not accumulating any capital based on the gold and silver enterprises. It's as if they were fooled by the "dog-tail" illusion that you posit.

Charles Brown