3 ms·

> his book, in the end, plumps for intellectual property as the biggest single spur "A Farewell to Alms" goes into great detail that very few people involved i

> his book, in the end, plumps for intellectual property as the biggest single spur "A Farewell to Alms" goes into great detail that very few people involved in the industrial revolution got wealthy. It's a story of inventors and industrialists coming away with extremely modest financial gains, despite huge accomplishment, over and over. Greater fortunes were made in completely low tech and un-revolutionized businesses like pottery. The idea that the industrial revolution was a matter of legal frameworks and financial motivations is not particular plausible in light of the financial facts. The people who drove the industrial revolution never much profited. "A Farewell to Alms" argues the industrial revolution happened in Britain because to a degree unique to Britain, the most productive and responsible people had the most children for several generations. It is documented in great detail how this was the true. Through eugenic forces, the British worker and the British engineer had become driven enough to create the industrial revolution.

gaius 16y ago
The pottery might not have been hi-tech, but mass producing it meant a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced. It's like we say Dell is (or was) an innovative company. How, when they just made generic PCs? Well, their innovation was not in the technology, but in the techniques they used to manage their supply chain and inventory.
- rubashov 16y ago
  > a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced No, it was made the same way.
  - gaius 16y ago
    That's just not true. You can read about it here: http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-pottery-museum/information-sheets/the-industrial-revolution-and-the-pottery-industry.en;jsessionid=at3RWdnlrmke http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-po... The innovation was not about something other than clay fired in a kiln; it was making the process scale from "a potter" to a factory.
eru 16y ago
Also the British imported early capitalism and improvements in agriculture from the Dutch. Without the improvements in agriculture, around 80% of the population had to work the fields, just to feed everyone.
mblakele 16y ago
Perhaps the spur was a carrot that could never be reached, rather than actual gains?

gaius 16y ago

The pottery might not have been hi-tech, but mass producing it meant a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced. It's like we say Dell is (or was) an innovative company. How, when they just made generic PCs? Well, their innovation was not in the technology, but in the techniques they used to manage their supply chain and inventory.

rubashov 16y ago
> a radical change in the way it had hitherto been produced No, it was made the same way.
- gaius 16y ago
  That's just not true. You can read about it here: http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-pottery-museum/information-sheets/the-industrial-revolution-and-the-pottery-industry.en;jsessionid=at3RWdnlrmke http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/museums/museum/2006/gladstone-po... The innovation was not about something other than clay fired in a kiln; it was making the process scale from "a potter" to a factory.

eru 16y ago

Also the British imported early capitalism and improvements in agriculture from the Dutch. Without the improvements in agriculture, around 80% of the population had to work the fields, just to feed everyone.

mblakele 16y ago

Perhaps the spur was a carrot that could never be reached, rather than actual gains?