Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 464371" data-attributes="member: 4937">Turjan: I'm sketical of both your readings and your conclusions (though not necessarily your evidence).&nbsp; There is a large number of books on economics which you must have an extra critical mind when reading, and ask yourself 'Is there some explanation the author is not considering?'&nbsp; 'Does the writer have some motivation that has caused him to make a sampling error, wittingly or unwittingly.'&nbsp; I don't have what you are reading before me, so I can only encourage you to do this yourself.&nbsp; One example would be the writings of certain protocommunist economists in the 19th century.&nbsp; They did alot of analysis on the real wages of middle class laborers with respect to the time they had to commit to earn that wage.&nbsp; Most notably the were interested in tradesmen of various types - blacksmiths, carpenters, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; They concluded that the reinassance represented the very best that humanity had ever achieved.&nbsp; The average real wage for a tradesman had never been higher before or since.&nbsp; They went on to use this conclusion to attack the developing capitalistic industrialist economy and rally the common man to the cause of communism.&nbsp; Keep in mind that this is thier goal.&nbsp; Their numbers are buy and large true, however, thier conclusion was highly flawed on two counts.&nbsp; First, that they were comparing the same things.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, they were comparing say tinsmiths to tinsmiths.&nbsp; The problem was that the master tradesman of the reinassance was not a middle class laborer, even if the same position _was_ in the 19th century.&nbsp; The economy had shifted, and demand for and numbers of trademan had rapidly increased with respect to say the number of farmers.&nbsp; The result was that the job had fallen from being one of high prestige, high demand, short supply, to being one of normal prestige demand and supply.&nbsp;&nbsp; The result of course was that real wages fell, though I daresay since then the increase in capital goods and social programs has more than made up the difference.The economist were comparing the then equivalent to doctors, engineers, and other upper class highly skilled positions to common laborers.&nbsp;&nbsp; Moreover, while noting the monopoly of the guild system in cursory, they neglected the fact the the guild monopolies were bankrupting the poor farmers - while all the while bemoaning the fact that the poor farmers had joined with the nobility in attacking the middle class.So, I'm just saying you should be careful who you trust.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some of the things you are saying sound very suspect to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 464371, member: 4937"] Turjan: I'm sketical of both your readings and your conclusions (though not necessarily your evidence). There is a large number of books on economics which you must have an extra critical mind when reading, and ask yourself 'Is there some explanation the author is not considering?' 'Does the writer have some motivation that has caused him to make a sampling error, wittingly or unwittingly.' I don't have what you are reading before me, so I can only encourage you to do this yourself. One example would be the writings of certain protocommunist economists in the 19th century. They did alot of analysis on the real wages of middle class laborers with respect to the time they had to commit to earn that wage. Most notably the were interested in tradesmen of various types - blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. They concluded that the reinassance represented the very best that humanity had ever achieved. The average real wage for a tradesman had never been higher before or since. They went on to use this conclusion to attack the developing capitalistic industrialist economy and rally the common man to the cause of communism. Keep in mind that this is thier goal. Their numbers are buy and large true, however, thier conclusion was highly flawed on two counts. First, that they were comparing the same things. Yes, they were comparing say tinsmiths to tinsmiths. The problem was that the master tradesman of the reinassance was not a middle class laborer, even if the same position _was_ in the 19th century. The economy had shifted, and demand for and numbers of trademan had rapidly increased with respect to say the number of farmers. The result was that the job had fallen from being one of high prestige, high demand, short supply, to being one of normal prestige demand and supply. The result of course was that real wages fell, though I daresay since then the increase in capital goods and social programs has more than made up the difference. The economist were comparing the then equivalent to doctors, engineers, and other upper class highly skilled positions to common laborers. Moreover, while noting the monopoly of the guild system in cursory, they neglected the fact the the guild monopolies were bankrupting the poor farmers - while all the while bemoaning the fact that the poor farmers had joined with the nobility in attacking the middle class. So, I'm just saying you should be careful who you trust. Some of the things you are saying sound very suspect to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification