tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post5331722724752059158..comments2024-03-22T15:55:34.030-04:00Comments on Evo and Proud: From markets to market economyPeter Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04303172060029254340noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-31643620205764597472011-03-10T12:40:51.086-05:002011-03-10T12:40:51.086-05:00I have been exploring some of the concepts you des...I have been exploring some of the concepts you describe here, but from the angle of the development of rationalism. A few of my own observations:<br /><br />Markets and city-states evolved in unison. We have plenty of evidence from Mesopotamia that commercial contracts were common and they were enforced by magistrates. Moreover, the problem of trust outside the city limits was quickly addressed by the establishment of local agents in distant cities. We have plenty of correspondence from that period in which the boss merchant provides instructions to his local agent. That local agent, in turn developed trusting relationships with other local merchants. This "spoke and hub" system worked quite well and was in fact the primary basis for capitalist systems right up until, say, the Industrial Revolution. It is still in force today, but the massive expansion of trade as a percentage of GDP during the Industrial Revolution required expansion of the system to include less trusted sellers, which in turn required more detailed legal structures. This was especially the case with capital accumulation required to finance ever-larger enterprises -- joint stock companies and the like.<br /><br />So I see the history of capitalism as a matter of narrow spoke and hub systems broadening, adding ever more spokes and hubs, and coalescing. <br /><br />Their contribution to the evolution of human thought arises from the degree to which they controlled social mobility. For me, the prime example is the development of classical Greek society, which was at its core a mercantile society. The Phoenicians did a lot of trading, but they weren't mercantile because power was still limited to royalty. In Greece, power ultimately flowed from money, and so mercantilism dominated the Greek economy. I have been digging up indicators of the degree of literacy in pre-classical Greece, and there are no good numbers, but there's enough to indicate that literacy in Greece was much higher than in any other society at the time. <br /><br />This, IMO, is what led to the cognitive explosion that we sometimes call "The Glory that was Greece". <br /><br />My thesis is still incomplete but you can find a sketchy explanation of it <a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/page78/page175/History%20of%20Thinking/HistoryThinking.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>Chris Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14926445098765433310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-82813189833501191722011-03-10T12:33:57.939-05:002011-03-10T12:33:57.939-05:00"England became a high-trust society, people ..."England became a high-trust society, people no longer had to depend as much on their kin relations".<br /><br />Hmmm, in many parts of the world kin are in fact far more related that they are in England. Cousins in the east are often very much more related than in England, being the result of umpteen generations of consanguineous marriage.(I'm not sure how polygyny affects this).<br /><br />Trusting your cousin in England is a very different thing to trusting your cousin in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore in the East your cousin might also be your brother in law.<br /><br />It was the the Church which forbade consanguineous marriage, (2nd cousin marriage was banned in the 6th century,by the 11th century there was a ban on 6th cousins marrying).This also promoted non- arranged marriages.Todnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-9616555344134974202011-03-09T20:08:27.838-05:002011-03-09T20:08:27.838-05:00On YouTube there's a couple of hour-long talks...On YouTube there's a couple of hour-long talks by Fukuyama on the subject of his book on political development. He makes no mention whatever of humans evolving in the past 10000 yrs. (But what he says is nonetheless interesting.)<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc_EZWUHBkg<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCfj0-HB49A&feature=relmfuHarmonious Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-88344248643698273822011-03-09T16:49:13.427-05:002011-03-09T16:49:13.427-05:00Tod,
I would argue that the English nuclear famil...Tod,<br /><br />I would argue that the English nuclear family is more an effect than a cause. As England became a high-trust society, people no longer had to depend as much on their kin relations. The extended family (and increasingly the nuclear family) has withered away because people feel that these institutions are no longer necessary.<br /><br />Harmonious Jim,<br /><br />Thanks! I'll explain more in the next post. <br /><br />Generic Viagra,<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Eugene,<br /><br />Yes, I've heard about Fukuyama's forthcoming book. From what I've read, he seems to have come to many of the same conclusions that I have come to.Peter Frostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-32386674706834271402011-03-08T15:44:28.392-05:002011-03-08T15:44:28.392-05:00I'm not sure if Peter would be interested in t...I'm not sure if Peter would be interested in this or not, but there's an article in today's NYTimes which is tangentially related to this.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/08fukuyama.html?pagewanted=1<br /><br />Apparently, there's a new book out that explains the evolution of social institutions and structures in different parts of the world. The field is called "sociobiology," and it's the idea that societies evolve differently according to various biological imperatives. Maybe something that can be addressed in future posts.Eugenenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-61236013004808570492011-03-06T00:31:04.562-05:002011-03-06T00:31:04.562-05:00Agreed that trust is crucial. Looking forward to y...Agreed that trust is crucial. Looking forward to your theory of why it arose, or rather spread beyond kin in some places.Harmonious Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3734925856292601239.post-57164755765181734862011-03-05T05:48:51.148-05:002011-03-05T05:48:51.148-05:00Holland was maybe the first modern economy but bei...Holland was maybe the first modern economy but being too commercially orientated it lacked the military power to defend itself from England. England existed as a rogue state in the early days.<br /> <br />"Keynes points out in one of his books that the treasure which Sir Francis Drake stole from Spanish men-of-war, invested in the East India Company which was the welspring of the British treasury" <br /><br />Steve Sailor on 'The pinch' <br />"To Willetts, the key to Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism is the nuclear family structure. “When it comes to families, England was the first nuclear power,” Willetts quips.<br /><br />[...] Willetts explains the “deep features” that have distinguished England, and its overseas offshoots, from the rest of the world.<br /><br />England has been “not just different from Papua New Guinea or Pakistan; it is also quite different from France and Italy and most of Continental Europe,” except for Holland and Denmark.<br /><br />And this difference dates to at least 1250—and perhaps back to (or beyond) the Dark Age days of King Canute."Todnoreply@blogger.com