Resistance to change has always been a common theme throughout the ages. This theme held true in the development and introduction of new ideas in Economics. Outsiders to Ricardo and his followers felt that they, Ricardo and his followers, pushed off and paid little heed to the importance of verifying their results. They felt that annoying facts and inconvenient realities were simply ignored. This even became known as the Ricardian Vice. Despite the opposition Ricardo continued to grow in both wealth and influence and entered the political scene in 1819 as “the representative of the science.”
I may have read the paragraph out of context but as it talked about Ricardo’s chapter on machinery it seemed he believed that machinery was only a “quick-fix” and in the end would have no real affect, shown by his statement, “…(t)hat the opinion entertained by the laboring classes, that the employment of machinery is detrimental to their interests, is not founded upon prejudice or error, but is conformable to the correct principles of political economy….”
A for Elgin. I liked this post a lot ... don't be afraid to speculate, or seek clarity, just make it clear that this is what you're doing.
ReplyDeleteSo, Elgin's right in the second paragraph. Both Ricardo and Malthus see the world as doomed by diminishing returns. Therefore, all capital and technology do is exhaust the breathing room of prosperity we're in before it all comes crashing down. These are the forerunners of Marx a few decades later, and of the environmental movement that followed over a century later.
A comment on the "fierce joy of internal cohesion" from pg. 57. This is common in a lot of hard sciences, or softer ones that strive to be hard. It becomes very important for researchers to connect the existing dots together, rather than to find new ones. You've probably experienced this in microeconomics: it's supposed to be all about business, but it really doesn't seem like it applies very well to any business you've ever seen.