Bizarre Paradox of the 20th Century

[Rorschach]

People move away from cities too.

[boxy]

I was just going to say...

They're moving in their droves... anyone who can afford to, is looking to buy grandfathers farm, for their own little hobby farm, or rural residential block, to get away from the crush of humanity that is suburbia

[freediver]

No, trade/commerce freed people from the grind of survival and gave them the chance to develop beyond the basics.

Not exactly. It was the plague that did that.

A bacterium did what?

It freed them from the grind of survival. If you are living on the Malthusian edge, killing off half the population makes everyone twice as rich - the difference between having nothing at all to spare after feeding yourself and having a huge surplus.

Trade has always existed in some form or another. It was not suddenly invented and then it spawned freedom.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

No, trade/commerce freed people from the grind of survival and gave them the chance to develop beyond the basics.

I think you will find that it was the Industrial Revolution that had more of an impact on the growth of the middle classes, necessary for the consumption of excess production. They in turn gave rise to labour movements, which enfranchised the working class enabling further consumption of excess production.

The Industrial Revolution also had the effect of increasing, in certain classes at least, leisure time that could be used for invention and ingenuity. It is not surprising then that there came from the Industrial Revolution a whole plethora of ingenious inventions that have found their way into the world of consumables.

Another interesting aspect of the Industrial Revolution was the profound changes to society that it effected. Ties with extended families were to be severed as principle family units became mobile, moving to where the Industrial Work was. Previously, we were extended families living in the lands of our forefathers. During the industrialisation process, people moved away from their ancestral lands, with many never returning. It is rare now to find a community of peoples who share the same DNA, where as it was common prior to the Industrial Revolution.

It should also be noted that taking the people off the land and into hubs of industry, changes those peoples attitudes to time... so that, for the first time in history, many peoples were no longer working to natures time, but to an artificial construct of time... a time construct formulated by Industry, for Industry... and that is still with us now.

It freed them from the grind of survival. If you are living on the Malthusian edge, killing off half the population makes everyone twice as rich - the difference between having nothing at all to spare after feeding yourself and having a huge surplus.

Did you read the opening article and specifically that part which spoke of the one eyed opinions that do not bend to reality? Obviously not, because what you do above Freediver is a perfect example of exactly that kind of one eyed stupidity which is your response to AiA.

Thomas Malthus had an interesting population model which did not take into effect the many variables which surround catastrophic disaster... such as the plague. So that, whilst theoretically, it well could be the case that the loss of half a population could result in increased wealth for the remaining population. In reality, that did not happen because there is always more than one trigger in operation. For those of the middle ages, those triggers included inflation and climate.

I am inclined to think that the economic success now, in the West, has much, but not everything, to do with the shift in Catholic attitudes towards profit, which was once considered usury by Christians and because of this old belief saw the business of banking become a Jewish enterprise. That shift in attitude occurs in the middle ages... not because of the plague, but because of the cost of war to Monarchist and Tyrants.

[freediver]

Did you read the opening article and specifically that part which spoke of the one eyed opinions that do not bend to reality? Obviously not, because what you do above Freediver is a perfect example of exactly that kind of one eyed stupidity which is your response to AiA.

Thomas Malthus had an interesting population model which did not take into effect the many variables which surround catastrophic disaster... such as the plague. So that, whilst theoretically, it well could be the case that the loss of half a population could result in increased wealth for the remaining population. In reality, that did not happen because there is always more than one trigger in operation. For those of the middle ages, those triggers included inflation and climate.

Inflation does not influence whether there is too much or too little food. One of my economics lecturers went through a few examples. After a major plague or war that killed off lots of people, the survivors were better off and many economists credit these short periods of surplus with triggering the changes that lead to the industrial revolution etc. None of this relies on accepting Malthus' theories in their entirety.

I am inclined to think that the economic success now, in the West, has much, but not everything, to do with the shift in Catholic attitudes towards profit, which was once considered usury by Christians and because of this old belief saw the business of banking become a Jewish enterprise.

Banks were fairly incidental to the process. Without them, the people making excess profit from real work would still invest their money somewhere. They would just be a direct owner in whatever enterprise or property the money went into rather than a 'silent' money lender. It is not actually that different from modern banking. The bank still has to make sure you will be able to pay it back and they still make money out of it. You can arrange the accounting so that it is effectively identical to a fixed interest loan, without the guilt trip of usury. Prior to institutionalised banking the idea of a variable rate loan would have been ludicrous.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Thomas Malthus had an interesting population model which did not take into effect the many variables which surround catastrophic disaster... such as the plague. So that, whilst theoretically, it well could be the case that the loss of half a population could result in increased wealth for the remaining population. In reality, that did not happen because there is always more than one trigger in operation. For those of the middle ages, those triggers included inflation and climate.

Inflation does not influence whether there is too much or too little food. One of my economics lecturers went through a few examples. After a major plague or war that killed off lots of people, the survivors were better off and many economists credit these short periods of surplus with triggering the changes that lead to the industrial revolution etc. None of this relies on accepting Malthus' theories in their entirety.

Oh good grief... an economics student who has most likely half listened to his lecturer, if his half reading of my post is anything to go by, wants to present this nameless lecturer as source material. Really Freediver...

Inflation does not influence whether there is too much or too little food eh? Lol... that's like saying that the costs of production do not affect how much or little production there is. Irrespective of that, you missed the word 'climate' and it's context as a trigger which prevented Malthus' population model from actualising in reality.

By the way... love the way you relied on Malthus in your initial claims, and now abandon him. WTF is that about?

[AiA in Atlanta]

Back to the paradox:

Social conservatives complain not only about the demise of traditional marriage but also the rise of same-sex marriage but don't seem to realize that changes in marriage are the result of changes in the economic system, changes they have helped to bring about.

[Rorschach]

What are you trying to say?
That economics drive sexuality?
Wow all those homos that think they were born that way are in for a big disappointment.

[AiA in Atlanta]

What are you trying to say?
That economics drive sexuality?
Wow all those homos that think they were born that way are in for a big disappointment.

I will explain: for most of the history of marriage, marriage was a necessity, not a romantic luxury. But economics has allowed both men and women to live comfortably alone. In fact, more and more people in large cities around the world prefer to be single. Social conservatives decry the decay of marriage as an institution but applaud the economic changes that made it possible.

[Rorschach]

What prove have you that "Social Conservatives" decry the decay of marriage as an institution?
What do you mean by decay?
Is it only an American thing?
Marriages in Australia are increasing in number.
Are you now counting singles and gays in the same group?