Pseudoerasmus
@pseudoerasmus.bsky.social
I bleat about the history of global economic development
https://pseudoerasmus.substack.com/
https://pseudoerasmus.com
https://medium.com/@pseudoerasmus
https://pseudoerasmus.substack.com/
https://pseudoerasmus.com
https://medium.com/@pseudoerasmus
it's a pity because historians would learn so much from Mokyr using the clearest, most accessible prose ever. bsky.app/profile/pseu...
Many people are sceptical of Mokyr's idealist take on the Industrial Revolution, but even if you are suspicious, The Enlightened Economy is still a tremendous book. I think this review in JEL gives the correct flavour. It says the comprehensiveness is a curse, but the 'curse' teaches you a lot !!!
October 13, 2025 at 3:45 PM
it's a pity because historians would learn so much from Mokyr using the clearest, most accessible prose ever. bsky.app/profile/pseu...
re 'hard to measure and test'. Well, the institutions literature contains many big fundamental claims which are 'hard to measure and test' and they mostly did (as far as I'm concerned) empirical tests which settled nothing, or did tests so localised that their external validity is unknown.
October 13, 2025 at 3:32 PM
re 'hard to measure and test'. Well, the institutions literature contains many big fundamental claims which are 'hard to measure and test' and they mostly did (as far as I'm concerned) empirical tests which settled nothing, or did tests so localised that their external validity is unknown.
his views about the scientific revolution, the role of the enlightenment, are heavily sneered at by some historians. also more recently, he has delved into culture and cultural economics, which is more controversial. so these are the things I was referring to
October 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
his views about the scientific revolution, the role of the enlightenment, are heavily sneered at by some historians. also more recently, he has delved into culture and cultural economics, which is more controversial. so these are the things I was referring to
( Note bene: I mean, the sneers from non-economists. The quarter from which they normally hail at this time of the year. )
October 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
( Note bene: I mean, the sneers from non-economists. The quarter from which they normally hail at this time of the year. )
from non-economists. all the sneers at Nobel econ time are from non-economists
October 13, 2025 at 3:25 PM
from non-economists. all the sneers at Nobel econ time are from non-economists
Not from economists! From historians! We're at Bluesky remember? ;-)
October 13, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Not from economists! From historians! We're at Bluesky remember? ;-)
Four items by Mokyr: the first is a topic already recognised by the Nobel, but the other three are less well known areas of Mokyr: his study of the Irish famine, his explanation of why the Dutch Republic was not the first, and his artisan theory of the Industrial Revolution.
October 13, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Indeed, against intellectual fashion, he asserted the very existence of the Scientific Revolution!
This militates against the bias of almost everyone (including economists and historians) to highlight the non-scientific origins of the modern world.
This militates against the bias of almost everyone (including economists and historians) to highlight the non-scientific origins of the modern world.
October 13, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Indeed, against intellectual fashion, he asserted the very existence of the Scientific Revolution!
This militates against the bias of almost everyone (including economists and historians) to highlight the non-scientific origins of the modern world.
This militates against the bias of almost everyone (including economists and historians) to highlight the non-scientific origins of the modern world.
So Mokyr's win in a way exemplifies @alvarolaparra.bsky.social's dictum:
The old Economic Historian's Dilemma: too economist to be a historian, too historian to be an economist ;-)
The old Economic Historian's Dilemma: too economist to be a historian, too historian to be an economist ;-)
October 13, 2025 at 1:56 PM
So Mokyr's win in a way exemplifies @alvarolaparra.bsky.social's dictum:
The old Economic Historian's Dilemma: too economist to be a historian, too historian to be an economist ;-)
The old Economic Historian's Dilemma: too economist to be a historian, too historian to be an economist ;-)
anyway if Britain indirectly benefited from fighting all those wars (financial development, boost to arms industry, etc.) these benefits accrued because very few wars were actually fought on British soil !
September 23, 2025 at 2:59 PM
anyway if Britain indirectly benefited from fighting all those wars (financial development, boost to arms industry, etc.) these benefits accrued because very few wars were actually fought on British soil !
The vast majority of wars that Britain participated in (mostly through subsidies to other states) were a big waste of time & treasure because their aims went well beyond those narrow interests. And European wars were not good for British trade with Europe, period.
September 23, 2025 at 2:58 PM
The vast majority of wars that Britain participated in (mostly through subsidies to other states) were a big waste of time & treasure because their aims went well beyond those narrow interests. And European wars were not good for British trade with Europe, period.
the trade that mattered for Britain before the Industrial Revolution was the trade with America and with Western Europe. Protecting the trade with America required defending the American colonies prior to independence plus Jamaica/Barbados.
September 23, 2025 at 2:57 PM
the trade that mattered for Britain before the Industrial Revolution was the trade with America and with Western Europe. Protecting the trade with America required defending the American colonies prior to independence plus Jamaica/Barbados.
precisely! though check out my clarification (a separate thread)
September 23, 2025 at 2:26 PM
precisely! though check out my clarification (a separate thread)
IMO an important, but near totally neglected, reason that England was 'first' to undergo an industrial revolution, but continental industrialisation was delayed -- was precisely that so many wars were fought in 1500-1800 by European states on European soil.
September 23, 2025 at 2:24 PM
IMO an important, but near totally neglected, reason that England was 'first' to undergo an industrial revolution, but continental industrialisation was delayed -- was precisely that so many wars were fought in 1500-1800 by European states on European soil.