Veneti (Was Re: Belgs)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 3:54:11 AM on Thursday, October 16, 2008, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> >>>> - a huge number of unemployed people who were later on
> >>>> employed in new industrial activities, that prior to
> >>>> that could not happen because there were nobody to work
> >>>> on that.
>
> >>> That makes no sense. Labor-saving devices are deployed
> >>> because of a shortage of working hands, not because of a
> >>> surplus.
>
> >> The industrial revolution was not really about
> >> labor-saving devices.
>
> > The first application of steam was to pump out water from
> > mines, which was formerly done less efficiently by horse
> > or human power.
>
> One should not confuse the first application of steam with
> the phenomenon known as the industrial revolution, which had
> more to do with greatly increased production capacity than
> with the introduction of labor-saving devices.

That's right, the introduction of labor-saving devices greatly
increased production capacity. Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

> >>>> This first happened in England.
>
> >>> Communis opinio is that it didn't happen in Rome because
> >>> they had plenty of slaves, so why bother?
>
> >> I doubt that it's communis opinio amongst historians.
> >> The technological prerequisites for an industrial
> >> revolution were unavailable.
>
> > Circular, as usual.
>
> Not in the least.

Okay, the conditions upon which an industrial revolution are
conditioned weren't there.

> In this case it isn't even apparent why you would think so.

Your vacuous precondition contains no description of anything
substantial (apart from a vague reference to 'technology'), it is
conceptually derivative to 'industrial revolution' and nothing else.
But it pleases me to learn that you have realized the circularity of
your reasoning in the previous cases.

> >> I also suspect that the Romans lacked the economic
> >> resources to industrialize.
>
> > Surprise: you don't need that. The economic resources at
> > the disposal of James Watts were limited.
>
> The industrial revolution was a societal phenomenon,
> dependent on societal resources;

Aha. I understand you have thought deeply on the matter. How many
sesterces do you feel the Romans would have needed to industrialize?
And could you point to the date of the debate in the Senate in which
it was decided to cancel industrialization because of insufficient funds?

And BTW, didn't you just write it was dependent on 'technological
prerequisites'? Now I'm confused.

> the personal resources of individuals are relatively unimportant.

If the personal resources of James Watt had been smaller than they
were you would be using a horse and buggy to get to work. Which you
still might be doing in the future.

> I'm not going to pursue the matter any further, since it's
> now way off-topic. I will just say that you've a very
> simplistic approach to history that strongly suggests that
> you've never read any serious historical writing; if you
> have, it hasn't made much of an impression.
>

I am not going pursue the subject either; if you want to know where I
get my economic ideas, it's mainly von Thünen and Friedrich List
(meaning I tend to agree with them), Fernand Braudel applied their
methods to history. And your sloppy thinking on what drives societal
processes, so similar to the one offered by the various popular sofa
table tomes on the subject I leaf though in bookstores, suggests you
never had one original thought on the subject.

Nyah-nyah-nyah, I got the last word.


Torsten