Michael:
If you want to read a novel about the role of monopoly in the17th
century Dutch economy, try David Liss' The Coffee Traders.
See http://www.amazon.com/Coffee-Trader-Novel-David-Liss/dp/0375508546.
It's a nice change of pace.
Joel Blau
Carl Dassbach wrote:
Michael... Of course the Dutch had a market society - I am not disputing
that. Moreover, it was probably the first. As such, it was new and
emergent and, as a result, not fully understood by either the actors or the
embedded observers. As you said "the country produced virtually no economic
thinking of importance at the time. A few Dutch writers -- Bernard
Mandeville, Jacob Vanderlint, and Matthew Decker -- did make interesting
contributions, but only after they left Holland" (we call this the
estrangement effect in sociology, you can only see what is "happening" in a
society from the perspective of a stranger either because you have come from
another culture/society or you have left your society and are viewing it
from another society). While a market economy was developing in the
Netherlands, the previous hegemon, the Spanish, were still mired in the
constraints of nobility and the Church and would be so for another 4
centuries while the success of the next hegemon, England, rests to a large
extent on building upon what they "learned" from the Dutch.
Although you may be discussing the Dutch, the context is really the
transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. There were several aspects to this
transition such as is the development of a market economy, the supersession
of one dominant class, the nobility by another dominant class, the
merchants, the decline of the Church and the rise of science, the rise of
bourgeoisie state and a rational legal political order characterized by
formal equality, the pursuit of wealth as a distinct, special activity
disconnected from its social and ceremonial function, and the emergence of a
consciousness of economics. These were not discrete developments, they were
parallel and they happened in different places and at different times but
they were all part of the same process. None however happened overnight. My
point in mentioning Smith is only to illustrate that by the 18th c.
economics and the pursuit of wealth had become so apparent
("institutionalized") that it was possible to "see" and "discuss" it. Prior
to that, men may have acted economically rational but neither fully
understood what they were doing nor why they were doing it. (No mind can
outrun its time) This, by the way, is Weber's point in the Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism, namely, that the rational pursuit of profit
has its origins in an irrational concern with salvation. Over time, the
rational pursuit of profit becomes detached from it origins and becomes an
objective in itself but the rational pursuit of profit or wealth is not an
eternal and natural/genetic form of behavior. It develops in time, it is
social and acquired.
CHAD
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Perelman, Michael
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 7:31 PM
To: Progressive Economics
Subject: RE: [Pen-l] Excellent article on Jared Diamond and the New Yorker
Carl, The book deals with economists prior to Adam Smith. In fact, what
seems to be going on in Holland was that the Dutch did have a market
society.
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA
95929
530 898 5321
fax 530 898 5901
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
