Two Recent Short Podcasts of Note: Selgin and Mokyr

~ Frederic Sautet ~

Listen to George Selgin talk about the Fed's dismal record (courtesy of the Mises Institute). George is simply one of the best economists on the subject of money and monetary systems. He is clear and concise. If I had to put four scholars together in the same faculty to teach the best graduate monetary theory courses possible, it would have to be George Selgin, Larry White, Steve Horwitz, and Roger W. Garrison.

 The other podcast is an interview of Joel Mokyr over at Vox. Mokyr talks about his latest book: The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700-1850. Mokyr gives his take on the complex question of the British take off in the late 18th century. Mokyr’s past work on the role of innovation and technology has always been very enlightening and I expect this book to be fascinating. (Read Tyler Cowen’s take on MR.) I have to say that I still have a soft spot for the late Sudha Shenoy’s theory of the Industrial Revolution. She offers a fascinating account of the period, although one that is not widely shared amongst economic historians.

Finally, I should add that an early draft of The Enlightened Economy was discussed at the Social Change Project Manuscript Workshop Series in June of 2008, which was organized by the Mercatus Center and Social Change Project director Claire Morgan. I have been a participant in two of these manuscript workshops and really enjoyed it.

Comments

[MichaelM]

Just to comment on Sudha Shenoy's theory, I would like to disagree. While I don't have all the data available to me, I think of the British Industrial Revolution as one part shift in power sources, one part shift in demographics. It [i]was[/i] something significantly different than what had come before because now steam was being used as a power source instead of water, which had predictable effects on output. Similarly, the demographic transition was something brand new. Every time human civilizations had hit a certain limit of population density in the past, war, plague, and famine had come around to push us back from the brink. This time, however, the British hit the brink and drove right off.

There was a significant continuity between the economic growth Britain experienced prior to the industrial revolution and that which it experienced during, but I think there might have been an inflection point that the British economy passed at some point in the late 18th century. Plus, it's not like there was no continuity with the two revolutions discussed in the 2006 post with their own pasts. The anti-Tsarist unrest in the 1800's and 1905 was extremely continuous with that experienced in 1917.

As to the two podcasts, I'll agree that George Selgin is one of the leading money and banking economists of today. I always look forward to hearing him talk or reading one of his papers. George, Lawrence White, and Kevin Dowd have given me a deep-seated conviction that a free banking industry would solve many of the economic and social problems we face today.

[Current]

The thing about steam power is that it came quite late. Steam engines were being used for pumping water from tin mines in Cornwall in the late 18th century, but that was a niche. They spread into fixed power applications later and then into transport. But, by that time the "industrial revolution" was already in full swing. Certainly steam power helped it further. But had it not come along at that time it's difficult to imagine industrialisation coming to a halt.

[Barkley Rosser]

Current,

The Newcomen steam engine began pumping water out of coal mines in 1701. However, the Watt steam engine of 1776 did involve a significant increase in power available.

[George Selgin]

"Rotative" steam engines, which could turn machinery, first appeared in the early 1780s, and took off like wildfire. It is true, on the one hand, that they could at first do little that a decent water mill wasn't capable of doing. However, they could do it where no water mill could be located, and do it no matter the temperature or rainfall. As many of England's potential water mill sites had already been developed by the 1780s, this meant a substantial relaxation of constraints to using non-human powered machinery, and as such made a substantial contribution to British industrialization. After 1800 the development of high-pressure steam engines would take things much further still. But the contribution of rotary-motion Boulton & Watt engines before then was substantial nonetheless.

[Current]

Yes, I know, and a significant advance in efficiency. Even in the late 18th century though the steam engine was used almost exclusively for pumping out mines.

My point though is that although steam power helped it is only one part of the overall picture. Factories had already been built before steam power. The advances in the spinning of cotton had occurred. Richard Arkwright's later factories used steam power, but his first used water power.

The same is true in many other areas. Animal and human power prevailed well into the 19th century. Steam engines were a niche device used in mines and pumping water until ~1830-1840.

[George Selgin]

Well, Current, no quite: as I said, they were being increasingly used to power machines, in textile mills and elsewhere, before the 1830s. That was my point in referring to rotative engines: these were _not_ the pumping engines used in mines and elsewhere. It was only prior to the invention of rotative engines that steam engines were confined to pumping applications, and especially (as you said) to draining the tin and copper mines of Cornwall.

Of course, in pointing this out, I by no means mean to defend a reductionist view of the IR, that would suggest that the steam engine was somehow crucial to it all. For one thing (and as Smith realized), as technological innovations went division of labor deserved pride of place, because it uniquely supplied a a means by which to escape the Malthusian trap.

[MichaelM]

I am by no means trying to be reductionist. I actually agree that the Industrial Revolution was really part of a wider trend in the British economy that stretched back centuries. However, if we DO want to talk about the Industrial Revolution as a distinct thing, the increasing use of steam in powering machinery has to be part of it.

However, as I said above, my own view of the Industrial Revolution puts a lot more emphasis on demographic effects. Britain was one of the first countries to undergo the demographic transition and her economy responded to the sudden labor surplus by industrializing. The steam engine was part of that.

[Current]

I see. I'm not familar with the details my main point was only that the Steam Engine was not as essential at the beginning as many people think.

George, your first post hadn't come up for me when I wrote my second post. I was addressing the earlier posts by Barkley Rosser and MichaelM.

[Jerry O'Driscoll]

I agree with Sudha that "Industrial Revolution" is hyperbole. If it is not, then there have been an embarassingly large number of "revolutions." Start with the 12th century in both agriculture and industry.

If demography is your thing, then again, go back centuries to the Middle Ages and the 12th century. Global warming helped to extend agriculture and permit a great increase in population.

[topills.com review]

The experience of wartime communism during the Great War inspired much that came later.