So why didn't large cities form around sources of hydropower? Or, why
didn't the existing cities, which (depending on the time period) were
mainly large, mercantile ports, build canals and mill ponds to generate
water power locally?
The demographics of urbanization hardly make a compelling case that
cities had large concentrations of workers prior to the industrial
revolution. Greater London had about 1,000,000 people in 1800, but
Manchester had less than 100,000
<http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ITmanchester.htm>. In 1800, New
York had 60,515, Boston had 24,937, and Providence had 7,614
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States_by_population_by_decade>.
Chicago's population was under 30,000 in 1850
<http://www.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/imagebase/chimaps/mcclendon.html> but
grew to 1.7M by 1900. Greater Los Angeles
<http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po25.htm> had under 20,000 people
in 1880 but grew to about 130,000 by 1900 and to almost 18M by 2010
<http://www.newgeography.com/content/002372-the-evolving-urban-form-los-angeles>.
So, rather than seeing mobile power as enabling capital to move to large
cities which already had large reserves of labor, it seems large cities
formed as a result of the mobility of capital. This is not to say,
capital mobility was the only reasons large cities formed. It also still
leaves unexplained why mill towns did not become the centers of the
industrial revolution (e.g., why not Pawtucket -- where Slater built his
mill -- instead of Providence as the major urban center in the area?)
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 01:45:37 -0800
From: Gar Lipow <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The shift to coal in the UK
To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<CAFtrwhgG8RyP6EcLapkKrJC=kfqd1ogttt4x0itjydknsn_...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
No actually citing Andre Malm's recent piece on the the replacement of
hydropower by coal in textile mills in the 18th century. I can't speak for
Cockshott but suspect he was thinking of the same piece. Why did coal
replace water power in England, Scotland and Wales? For running textile
mills, hydro gave you better better production per hour of labor with no
more operating skill required. Further capital and operating costs other
than labor were lower. And right through 1870 was enough unused prime hydro
potential to run every textile mill England, Scotland and Wales, and as
late as 1870 trade literature and parliamentary enquiries show that hydor
was cheaper and more productive. So why coal
Very simple: Hydro was mostly in rural communities - close enough to
marketsw and with good accessible transport, but far from labor centers.
Labor had to be imported and coaxed with either high wages or various types
of non-wage compentsation.. Whearas steam plants could be located in big
cities and towns in the midst of large labor pools. By 1830, probably
sooner that ability to tap cheap labor was a decisive advantage. As labor
militancy in the textile industry grew there was a second advantage. When
workers when on strike, they could be replaced immediately in the steam
plants. Whereas in the water mills where workers had to be imported,
strikebreaking was more difficult and more expensive. In the mills that
was only advantage coal had over hydro - ability to tap into cheap labor
pools, both to lower initial labor costs and break strikes. No reduction
in quantity of labor compared to hydro. No ability to use less trained
labor.. The only advantage in coal over hydro in mills up about 1870 was
redistribution of income and power from labor to capital.
Of course this only applied to mills. Obviously, coal was the superior to
wood in smelting, and superior to animals for running railroads and
steamships. Still I think an interesting and indicative point: social
technological choices not always driven by true technical advantage. Not
unknown, but I think it gets overlooked in some of these discussion.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote:
Cockshott's point on a related thread remains valid. Coal replace hydro
mainly as a means of strikebreaking. booksandjournals.brillonline.com
\content\journals\10.1163\1569206x-12341279
And yes electricity can replace much oil transport - Specifically when it
comes to ground transport. Trains are a mature technology though replace
most car traffic of them would require a reversal of sprawl in many
nations. Given replacement of fossil fuels with renewable electricity,
many unsurvivable practices could be replaced by survivialbe ones. Water
efficiency and desalinzation, capture and composting of organic waste to
close to repair the food->waste->fertilizer loop that was broken with the
dawn of industrialization.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Perelman, Michael <[email protected]>wrote:
The Corn Laws raised the price of grain relative to people. Suddenly the
railroad gained an advantage over horse drawn transportation, leading to
improvements in steam engines ...
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael dot perelman at gmail.com
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--
Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow
Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com
Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/
Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
End of pen-l Digest, Vol 2193, Issue 1
**************************************
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
