john9001: a premise > proposition > a plan or scheme In fact, a premise is:
A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
or
(Logic) One of the propositions in a deductive argument. which in turn is:
(Logic) A statement that affirms or denies somethingSynonyms
"apriorism, assertion, assumption, basis, evidence, ground, posit, postulate, presumption" In this particular use, the definition of a logical syllogisn the term "premise" is synonimous to "proposition" but not to "a plan or scheme".
Here are logical syllogisms:
the major premise: all prime numbers are odd
the minor premise: number 13 is a prime number
logical conclusion: thereforenumber 13 is odd.
the major premise: all humans are mortal
the minor premise: I am a human
logical conclusion: therefore, I am mortal Go ahead, tell me it is not a valid reasoning because I am "basing a conclusion on a plan or scheme not on fact."
You may dispute my premise that
"Population growth was limited by the supply of food in medieval times" - and you are welcome to try, but arguing that deductive method is invalid in general because you do not know how to use words correctly is plain nonsense.
vorticon: what i MEANT was that documented history is more trustworthy that economic theory... Why would that be? Documented contemporary reality is not trustworthy at all - and that is despite the fact that both sides are alive to tell the story. History is written by the winner, so you get a mostly false and one-sided story to start with.
What can you rely on to make sense of such information but solid theory?
And which economic theory is it that you do not believe trustworthy? Wny would you rely on such theory anyway, why don't you use sound theory? Otherwise you are in position of a person denying all science just because astrology or alchemy or homeopathy are false.
Speaking of documented history - I got my hands on the five letters of Cortes sent to Spanish King. Facinating read.
If you think that documented history is not full of contraditions, only resolved by logic and theory (not just economics, but physics, geology, etc), you probably know of "documented history" by hearsay.
Thrawn: Allocation of scarce resources, supply/demand etc. all happen in the real world. In a real socialist world it is not obvious to many - at least for a while.
Dinger: When land is expensive and labor cheap, you see agriculture. When land is cheap and labor costly, you see animal husbandry. It just works that way. And the island of Britain had always been a preferred supplier of wool for the manufacturing towns of flanders. Great write-up Dinger. A couple of corrections.
Animal "husbandry" was purely incidental. It could have been any other activity resultinmg in industrial production.
The shift in value did not happen from land to labor - but from land to labor and industrial capital.
Capital replaces expensive labor with machinery and multiplies existing labor. The value "migrated" mostly from land to factories, mills, etc.
It's crass economics. When land is expensive and labor cheap, you see agriculture. I am not sure that labor got expensive or that it mattered positively rather than negatively.
The drop in population surely affected the social order and advanced liberties when lords competer for tenantsm but the population could grow fast in those times and good land did decrease in area due to climate change. So the demographically the sitiation was probably not much different after it stabilised than before plagues.
What changed is that increase power of cities and merchants over lords and disarray in guilds provided for more options in accumulating productive capital.
Division of labor, trade and economic monetary calculation was known since antiquity. Capitalism differs from other systems mostly in marketing and investing - it produces for the masses, not for elite and it allows even the poorest people venue for savings/investmentvia banking.
The capitalists - artisans with savings or merchants - opened shops with their savings and hired exess workers from countryside.
In those times, the second brothers and exess sisters could not marry and have children because the father's plots coudl not be subdivided any more. So they were forced to back-breaking work on their brother's farm for food, treated as extra mouths to feed. Such were eager to trade desperate existance without future for a job on factory - indoors, guaranteed income, chance to have family.
Labor had to be cheap because new capitalists had to sell to peasants - which were poor.
Of course factory workers become more politically active than disposessed country peasants - they develop expertise, they cogregate in great numbers, they live in cities where they are exposed to protaganda, etc. They are certainly seen more by historians than peasants.
So they ***** more and are heard more. That's why it may seem that workers that came to work on the factory voluntarily live on worse conditions than they did before they came to town.
Which defies common sense - why would they choose to trade lavish country life for factory "expoloitation".
And they were not disposessed by sheep - the factories appeared first and created demand for wool, only then did the sheep replaced farming. That is also common sense.
so, yes, ironically, miko2d and karl marx are both right here:...
...and Karl's right that lords will always screw over those beneath them to the extent that they can get away with it socially... No. That is where you and Karl Marx are hugely mistaken.
The change of social order is not the result of class struggle of elite and underclass. It is the result of struggle of old elite and
new elite.
Land-owning noble gentry declined in power in favor or merchants and industrialists - mostly former peasants, traders and artisans.
Tuomio: no thread or subject at AHBB can last more than half page before transforming to talk about modern economic models... What in this thread is "modern economic model"? The claim that more people eat more food? Could you name an actual modern economic model?
Maybe you think 2x2=4 is modern advanced math?
Tuomio: If historical documents claim, that peasants started to suffer initially because of the industrialization and Mikos economic studies show.. Exactly - claim! But based on which ways do they claim that peasants "started to suffer"? I mean, there is no obvious observable "suffering" condition - like pain, thirst, hunger, illness, malnutrition, etc.
It is the historian's conclusion that peasants "started to suffer" based on some real-life observation. That's just a
subjective claim - not a fact.
The fact is that peasants starting raising more children to maturity.
The fact is that peasants started buying a lot of clothes produced from millions of sheep.
What are your facts to justify the claim of suffering?
miko
