Charles, When time allows I will deal with your questions below. But please do not send truncated passages of mine to Frank, or even full postings, as I am writing to pen-l at this point. THe passage you send him of mine is extremely misleading for someone who has not followed the argument; I mean it looks like I am the one making the claim that E's high wages was the other factor giving E a chance to overcome it s marginal position in the world economy. What can Frank say to this except "read the book"! - expeciallly when you send your own criticisms while acknowledging you have not read the book. Don't take me wrong, your undeveloped criticisms are on the right track, but as you will see later, Frank does deal with them, but inadequately as I hope to show. ricardo > Here's a response from Andre Gunder Frank to Ricardo's comments. > > Charles Brown > > ___________ > > thanks for the forward > AGF 'answer' for re-forward/ing: > maybe you are missing something since > the index of the book says > > "income: per capita/distribution, 173-74,266,304-9,312-13,315,317. > See also wages" > > I may not be fazed at all by the appatrent low income/high wage > contradiction, but it is specificaly discussed and i hope resolved in the > book.it helpt to read and know what one is talking about before doing so. > > respecfully submitted > agf > > On Sat, > 13 Feb 1999, Charles Brown wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:55:14 -0500 > > From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Forward > > > > Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > > > > The supply of cheap capital from the colonial trade was not the only > > > crucial factor giving Europe (E) a chance to overcome its marginal > > > position in the world economy. Another one was E's high wages relative to > > > Asia's low wages. E's comparative wage-costs were such > > > that they could not compete in the world economy (as Asia was "much > > > more productive with much lower wage costs"), so E was motivated > > > to introduce labor-reducing machinery. A decision which Europeans > > > did not make because they were more "rational" or advanced but > > > because they had different relative factor (capital/labor) prices. > > > That is, for Frank, the "real explanation" for E's industrialization > > > does not lie in any "internal" superiority but in E's differential > > > comparative costs *within* the world economy. > > > > > > > I have found the postings on Frank's book fascinating. I > > haven't myself yet had time to do more than browse a bit of Frank's > > book and check a reference or two, but the I am saving the various > > comments on Frank's book for later restudy. Meanwhile, I would like > > to raise one point. > > > > It would seem that Frank's logic ignores the obvious question: > > why, if Asia really was wealthier per capita than Europe, were the > > wages so much lower in Asia? I was checking into the 1700 figures > > cited by Frank, and his reference to Braudel. These figures, if I > > recall right, claim that per capita England was a bit less wealthy > > than France, which in turn was somewhat under India. However, in > > checking the reference for these figures to Braudel given by Frank, > > it turns out that Braudel also claims that, around 1700, wages in > > France, although they were substantially less than those in England, > > were *six times* higher than those in India at this time. Frank > > recognizes lower wages in India, and apparently cites the same > > reference for this as used by Braudel, but doesn't seem to cite *how > > much* lower they were (maybe I missed it), and tries -- rather > > feebly, it seems to me -- to explain away most of the significance of > > this. > > > > So what's the significance of all this? Frank's argument at > > base seems to treat the wage difference as not an internal > > factor, but simply a question of "comparative cost" in the world > > market. But the more obvious issue is: if the wages are so much lower > > in a country that is supposedly just as wealthy, if not more so, as > > the country with higher wages, then doesn't this strongly suggest > > that there may be internal differences in the class relations in > > these countries? > > > > It seems, in their struggle against "stage-ism", "Eurocentrism", > > etc. , various theorists have given up any serious consideration of > > of the internal factors. Instead there is recourse in Frank's book > > to the crudest factor of all--just compare societies by wealth per > > capita. (By the way, wouldn't these be very speculative figures > > with respect to these economies of centuries ago? How does one get > > such a figure? I really am curious about this. My guess is that > > various calculations must depend on first making assumptions about > > the economy of the country, and then extrapolating very, very partial > > data to the whole country.) The fact that the wealthier society may > > have incredibly lower wages doesn't seem to faze these theorists at > > all. > > > > --Joseph Green > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ANDRE GUNDER FRANK > 250 Kensington Ave - Apt 608 Tel: 1-514-933 2539 > Westmount/Montreal PQ/QC Fax: 1-514-933 6445 or 1478 > Canada H3Z 2G8 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > My Home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/gunder.html > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >
