Not really. A lot of the aristocratic landowners lived in the city and paid little attention to their land. They may have been capitalistic, but they were inattentive capitalists. What happened might be comparable to what would be expected if Cerberus does take over Chrysler.
One more thing. I did not mean that tea was the key to capitalist development; only that a partial link was there. On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:17:29AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > > How is buying land revolutionary? don't capitalist-type property > relations have to be in place before land can be bought? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
