Letters to the Editor
-
New World Resources?
Kenneth Pommeranz, who in "The Great Divergence" ascribes European ascendancy over Asia to the acquisition of material resources in the New World which enabled the Industrial Revolution.
Huh?!? What "New World" resources enabled the Industrial Revolution? Seems to me Europe had all the resources it needed.
Europe invented science - the Greeks to be specific - and I suspect this has a lot more to do with European ascendancy than any New World resources. Competition between European states probably didn't hurt either, and while it's true China went thru periods of instability, they were nothing like what went on in Europe pretty much from the fall of the Roman Empire thru WWII.
-
What's the matter with the US?
sunspot - I agree there was nothing required from the New World to enable the technological aspects of the Industrial Revolution but it did supply both the large quantities of raw goods that made mass production seem like a good idea as well as captive market for the large quantities of finished goods. The American Revolution was fueled in part by resentment over British policy in this area. The Colonies were forced to export their raw goods, relatively inexpensive commodities cotton and wood, and then import the much more expensive finished the value added finished goods, such as cloth and furniture from Britain. The Colonies were actual forbidden to industrialize and reap the benefits associated with producing finished goods. It is, of course, deeply ironic that a nation that went to war, in part, for her freedom to manufacture goods from her own natural resources now finds itself manufacturing virtually nothing, with our largest exports once again being raw materials. We have willing enslaved ourselves to China.
-
Good work!
The link of the Industrial Revolution to the colonization of the New World is very interesting. I like it; HTWW should research further.
One thing: HTWW says "Asians did not seek direct trade routes to Europe because there was nothing in Europe that any Asian governments deemed were worth mounting voyages of exploration for"
...says something about how poorly the government managed their economy, doesn't it? Hmm... If only the government didn't get in the way...
-
Capitalism? Capitalism?
What is this thing you speak of? Free Markets? Where are these things you mention?
China is a one trick pony, no culture, no freedom, just lots of money for the leaders in Bejing. A more interesting question is how did China go from Communist dictatorship, to Capitalist dictatorship, (really inquiring minds want to know, REALLY, inquiring Wall Street Republican minds want to know how you lock the door on terrorism, dissent, and human rights, and, make the stock market go up indefinitely)
and the worker bees never complain.
sweet....
-
The Industrial Revolution- but how did the new world drive it?
Does anyone know how much coal or metal was exported from the Americas to Europe during the early 18th century?
This is an important question, because the Industrial Revolution was fueled by coals and built on a foundation of metal. As far as I can tell, the early imports from America were chiefly gold, new types of plants that were transplanted but not shipped en mass, and furs. Textiles and crops came later, after transport methods were refined as a consequence of the ongoing industrial; revolution. (It's kind of like the chicken and the egg).
I still think there is something to Jared Diamond's idea. Altough China has had periods in which the state fragmented, it appears to be on a much smaller scale than in comparison with Europe- especially during the period of the Industrial Revolution.
And, of course, there is no reason why China's comparative lack of competition and lack of access to the New World cannot both be contributing factors.
-
Greek Science, New World Resources and The Chinese Government
Greek Science as an explanation does not fit the facts very well because the people who produced the technological innovations that enabled the industrial revolution in Europe were not scientists. They, like the Chinese, were simply trying to solve practical problems with practical solutions. They were inventors and businessmen, not scientists, and they often had little or no understanding of the scientific method. In addition, Greek Science was created almost two thousand years before the Industrial Revolution. While it was lost to the West and re-discovered during the renaissance, its failure to spark any significant industrialization anywhere it existed and survived for two thousand years suggests that it was not the crucial factor. The Romans in particular had wealth and access to the totality of Greek Science, even what was later lost, and did not industrialize at all.
There were significant and crucial New World resources. Spain moved quickly from a fractured newly liberated Christian state to the most powerful nation in Europe, based primarily on plundering New World gold. And, don't forget tobacco, corn, potatoes, and peppers. How many people can one feed with one acre of potatoes rather than turnips? Tobacco and peppers make for a very lucrative resources to trade for Asian spices, and tobacco has the added advantage, like opium, of addiction. Perhaps, Europe did not need coal and iron from the New World, but Europe did need the capital boost it got from the New World to be able to reach the levels of prosperity that made the Industrial Revolution possible.
Finally, the Chinese did not refrain from trading with the West because their government prevented such trade. There was literally nothing worth trading for because China was so far ahead and so much wealthier. The British had to forcibly introduce Opium to create demand to enable trade because they desperately wanted to be able to buy Chinese tea and porcelain at a good price. Under these circumstances, a Chinese entrepreneur could not possibly hope to trade with Europe and make a profit, so why bother.
Still, something about Europe was different and it made the difference. One significant difference was the Chinese use of manpower. Precisely because of China's wealth, China had access to a large pool of manpower and could use that manpower to produce what it needed and much, much more. In this sense, China lacked any economic incentive to industrialize with machines as a cost saving measure. China was like Imperial Rome which had the benefits of Greek thought but a slave based economy that produced great wealth but provided no incentive to the elite to try to industrialize. In contrast to China, Europe saw a massive depopulation due to the Black Death beginning in the 1300s and lingering into the 18th century. Europe, thus, lacked manpower and had a great incentive to industrialize at roughly the same time that it came into a lot of money with the discovery of the New World. This combination of wealth and diminished manpower was unique and could explain why the balance of factors tipped towards industrialization in Europe, and Britain, in particular, for the first time in history.