You see how confusion builds once isolated passages are bounced around: I was Green, not Brown, who made the criticisms which I called, in my last posting cited below, undeveloped but on the right track! > Charles, When time allows I will deal with your questions below. > But please do not send truncated passages of mine to Frank, or even > full > postings, as I am writing to pen-l at this point. THe passage you > send him of mine is extremely misleading for someone who has not > followed the argument; I mean it looks like I am the one making > the claim that E's high wages was the other factor giving E a chance > to overcome it s marginal position in the world economy. What can > Frank say to this except "read the book"! - expeciallly when you send > your own criticisms while acknowledging you have not read the book. > Don't take me wrong, your undeveloped criticisms are on the right > track, but as you will see later, Frank does deal with them, > but inadequately as I hope to show. > > ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a response from Andre Gunder Frank to Ricardo's comments. > > > > Charles Brown > > > > ___________ > > > > thanks for the forward > > AGF 'answer' for re-forward/ing: > > maybe you are missing something since > > the index of the book says > > > > "income: per capita/distribution, 173-74,266,304-9,312-13,315,317. > > See also wages" > > > > I may not be fazed at all by the appatrent low income/high wage > > contradiction, but it is specificaly discussed and i hope resolved in the > > book.it helpt to read and know what one is talking about before doing so. > > > > respecfully submitted > > agf > > > > On Sat, > > 13 Feb 1999, Charles Brown wrote: > > > > > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:55:14 -0500 > > > From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Forward > > > > > > Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > > > > > > The supply of cheap capital from the colonial trade was not the only > > > > crucial factor giving Europe (E) a chance to overcome its marginal > > > > position in the world economy. Another one was E's high wages relative to > > > > Asia's low wages. E's comparative wage-costs were such > > > > that they could not compete in the world economy (as Asia was "much > > > > more productive with much lower wage costs"), so E was motivated > > > > to introduce labor-reducing machinery. A decision which Europeans > > > > did not make because they were more "rational" or advanced but > > > > because they had different relative factor (capital/labor) prices. > > > > That is, for Frank, the "real explanation" for E's industrialization > > > > does not lie in any "internal" superiority but in E's differential > > > > comparative costs *within* the world economy. > > > > > > > > > > I have found the postings on Frank's book fascinating. I > > > haven't myself yet had time to do more than browse a bit of Frank's > > > book and check a reference or two, but the I am saving the various > > > comments on Frank's book for later restudy. Meanwhile, I would like > > > to raise one point. > > > > > > It would seem that Frank's logic ignores the obvious question: > > > why, if Asia really was wealthier per capita than Europe, were the > > > wages so much lower in Asia? I was checking into the 1700 figures > > > cited by Frank, and his reference to Braudel. These figures, if I > > > recall right, claim that per capita England was a bit less wealthy > > > than France, which in turn was somewhat under India. However, in > > > checking the reference for these figures to Braudel given by Frank, > > > it turns out that Braudel also claims that, around 1700, wages in > > > France, although they were substantially less than those in England, > > > were *six times* higher than those in India at this time. Frank > > > recognizes lower wages in India, and apparently cites the same > > > reference for this as used by Braudel, but doesn't seem to cite *how > > > much* lower they were (maybe I missed it), and tries -- rather > > > feebly, it seems to me -- to explain away most of the significance of > > > this. > > > > > > So what's the significance of all this? Frank's argument at > > > base seems to treat the wage difference as not an internal > > > factor, but simply a question of "comparative cost" in the world > > > market. But the more obvious issue is: if the wages are so much lower > > > in a country that is supposedly just as wealthy, if not more so, as > > > the country with higher wages, then doesn't this strongly suggest > > > that there may be internal differences in the class relations in > > > these countries? > > > > > > It seems, in their struggle against "stage-ism", "Eurocentrism", > > > etc. , various theorists have given up any serious consideration of > > > of the internal factors. Instead there is recourse in Frank's book > > > to the crudest factor of all--just compare societies by wealth per > > > capita. (By the way, wouldn't these be very speculative figures > > > with respect to these economies of centuries ago? How does one get > > > such a figure? I really am curious about this. My guess is that > > > various calculations must depend on first making assumptions about > > > the economy of the country, and then extrapolating very, very partial > > > data to the whole country.) The fact that the wealthier society may > > > have incredibly lower wages doesn't seem to faze these theorists at > > > all. > > > > > > --Joseph Green > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ANDRE GUNDER FRANK > > 250 Kensington Ave - Apt 608 Tel: 1-514-933 2539 > > Westmount/Montreal PQ/QC Fax: 1-514-933 6445 or 1478 > > Canada H3Z 2G8 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > My Home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/gunder.html > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > >
