From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:08:57 GMT

harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood) writes:
>Could you substantiate this. I say it didn't, and you say it did.
>We are in a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type of 
>argument.

OK, we're talking about historical facts here.  We have to resort to
references.  I don't like "Go read this book" kind of argument, but
there doesn't seem to be another way.  Most people just assume that
the history they were taught at school is the only one.  I'm not
saying you must read all the books below before saying anythign
more.  I'd just like to make everyone aware that historians are by no
means unanimous in their condemnation of the rise of industrial
capitalism as disastrous for the poor.  Just off the top of my head,
some references are:

_The Long Debate on Poverty_, edited by Hartwell.  This is a collection
of essays on conditions during the Industrial Revolution.

_Capitalism and the Historians_, edited by Hayek.  This is another
collection of essays regarding the treatment of capitalism at the
hands of historians.

There is another book called _The New Economic History_, can't
remember who it is by.

For the case of America, I have heard there is a book out called
_Myth of the Robber Barons_ (a retort to Josephson's _The Robber
Barons_).  I haven't been able to get my hands on this one yet.

A very, very good popular book on economics in general, including
economic history of the Industrial Revolution, is _Tomorrow,
Capitalism_ by Henri Lepage.  It was originally published in French,
but there's an English translation.

>So, the poor changed from being rural poor to urban poor. 
>They were not changed from being poor. Becomming earners of a wage
>did not change their level of poverty.

It gradually alleviated them of their poverty.  Before capitalism,
when they were the "rural poor," they were entirely dependent upon
others for survival but did not contribute to production, since there
was no place for them in the precapitalist system.  When they became
wage earners, their work contributed to production, saving and
capital accumulation.  As the amount of capital invested per worker
increased, wage rates went up.  The trend of real wages throughout
the industrail revolution was upwards.

>Oh come on, substantiate this "no other way" statement!
>Of course there are other ways! The most effective "other way" that we
>can look at is the way that we have been employing since the last time
>that we had large numbers of poor people. That is, the system of social
>welfare and taxation and economic intervention and stimulation that have 
>brought conditions back from the way that they were in the 1930's. 

This is precisely what I dispute.  The system of intervention did not
improve conditions; it made them worse.  The depression of the 1930's
was caused mostly by a policy of reckless credit expansion on the
part of governments keen to keep interest rates below their market
values.  The result was a boom followed by a depression.  Tariffs
didn't help things either.  But it was not laissez-faire that led to
the depression and it was not interventionism that pulled the world
out of it.  Again what is in dispute is a historical situation.  As
you said it's basically you saying "Yes, it did" and me saying "No,
it didn't".  At least I hope to point out that your viewpoint is not
the divinely ordained truth and that a lot of historians and
economists have said "No, it didn't."

>I have seen nobody in this debate argue that productivity is a bad thing.
>Productivity does generate wealth.
>However, the debate is about the control and distribution of the wealth. 

Production and distribution are not separate.  There is not a phase
of production followed by a phase of distribution.  All products are
already owned by somebody when it is produced.  The whole concept of
distribution is misleading, since it implies that there is a more or
less fixed amount of wealth to be distributed, and one group can get
more only at the expense of the rest of the people.  This is the
so-called zero sum fallacy.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.