Yes Jim B. you are right. It was uncalled for and completely ungrammatical. But at the same time, Ricardo has not been pushing a Weberian line on this list (I don't know what he does on others). As far as Weber is concerned, he did say at one time that you misunderstood Weber. Whether that is correct or not I have no way of knowing. And you do seem to reduce all criticism to a question of Europe having a superior mentality, when those who disagree with you have said repeatedly that is not what they are arguing. Michael, I vote for continuing the debate. I am still learning. On the agricultural revolution. There has been a move in recent years to downplay the significance of both the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution. The argument usually are of the nature that the growth started earlier and advanced more slowly than previous writers had thought. My opinion is that if it took fifty years or two hundred, it still qualifies to be called a revolution. Both these periods are quite short in the course of human history. And things sure have changed in both spheres since 1500. Extreme position are usually wrong, but they do focus the debate, and if Yoshi will allow me to be Hegelian for a minute. The dialectic of the thesis and antithesis will result in a new synthesis that will be closer to the truth. But we must be careful not to attempt a compromise before it is time. Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
