I believed that at the time when England was exporting raw wool, it was
fairly backward economcally; that the European city states were ahead.
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 12:41:14AM +0100, Mark Jones wrote:
> Michael Perelman:
> >
> >
> > I agree with much of Mark's note, except for the way he dismisses
> > Brenner and
> > Wood out of hand.
>
> I don't dismiss Brenner at all. He's interesting for several reasons. He's
> original. Wood is, well, wooden and not original at all, that I can see. But
> I haven't read everything of hers, no doubt.
>
> > England became the de facto source of wool for several reasons. It was a
> > relatively backward country that had an appropriate ecological
> > situation and
> > landowners had the capacity to displace rural workers.
>
> When was this? Arguably, England was not backward in terms of political
> development, from before the Norman Conquest. No European state was as
> mature as Edward the Confessor's. And when was the following? Arguably,
> there were always labour shortages in England, except for brief periods in
> the 14th and 18th centuries.
>
> >The
> > conquest of Ireland
> > allowed England an outlet for surplus workers, but more important, the
> > displacement of rural workers allowed England to develop a
> > different system of
> > labor relations. In short, the external and internal conditions
> > reacted upon
> > each other.
>
>
> Mark Jones
> >
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
