A fascinating and enjoyable discussion. I'm entirely persuaded that Henry VIII's policies were highly destructive. As Sam or Ben pointed out, creating inflation, insecure property rights, and wage and price controls are a deadly combination guaranteed to suppress economic activity. However, I too am still fuzzy on how England steered its way out. Bringing in smart people to improve various industries, including shipping and navigation, would certainly help, but you still need a policy environment to encourage entrepreneurship, industry, and risk taking. Granting monopolies won't do it. I'm skeptical that trade or patent monopolies by themselves raised wealth. Maybe they helped by eliminating uncertainty over whether the returns to the merchants and traders would be appropriated by the crown. Trade restrictions don't raise wealth either. On the other hand, it is much more plausible that allowing for the creation of joint stock corporations, which both spread risk and limit liability, could have played an important role. Perhaps what was going on is that property rights for merchants were more secure than for land "owners", and that's what stimulated trade above all. Were the wage and price controls, especially on tradable goods, relaxed? What happened to the price level throughout this period? Anton implies that prices came back down. Or was it that inflation came to an end and the price level stabilized? A more stable price level and flexible prices and wages could account for much of the economic improvement.
Anton ....I enjoyed your discourse but I think there are so many other factors involved that your choice is but one of many possible choices !
If anything has remained a constant , it is human nature ! There seems to be a common thread that runs through each and every culture of the emergence of a talented group of like-minded individuals who introduce ideas and changes that were previously inconceivable .
And greed and lust ; seeking riches , admiration and achievement are consistent driving forces throughout history. It seems to me that 'poor old 'enery ! ' received a shellacking from you that wasn't entirely deserved. He had enormous expectations thrust upon him , most of which were dealt with , perhaps not well by today's standards , but he still achieved a lot ! He carried marital disappointment [ regarding off-spring] injury and illness for most of his life but carried out his "duties" with dignity and the necessary authority . His changes to religion and their hold on people's minds and wealth certainly sparked interest in others and forever changed the "English" view of things !
As for the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION........the COHESION and the SOCIAL CHANGES were NOT unique to England but , the individuals , innovators and inventors , were ! Others followed suit very quickly after England had set the example though , and the 'warring states of Europe' just took a lot longer to organise themselves ! Napoleo is said to have disparaged the English as a nation of shop-keepers.........because they had their TRADE and MERCHANDISING well established.....while he concentrated on MILITARY MATTERS......but , in the long run , the 'shopkeepers' could AFFORD their wars and Napoleon could not ! [ His troops were ill equipped to tackle the Russians and failed terribly ! ].
Anyway , thanks for the thought-provoking article / pod-cast / video !
Was not Roman Catholic Church protectionist in terms of production, lack of innovation, morals, and control? Releasing the population from their grasp was important, also stealing silver from the Spanish a good way of increasing wealth?
Not actually clear to me yet if the power of the church is reduced, per se. Certainly the clergy is subjugated by the Crown, but its influence relative to the rest of society still strikes me as very strong in the Elizabethan age.
Very interesting. Is this partly a story of a commercial revolution before an Industrial Revolution. Rather than clever English learning how to shift away from a land economy, how much did they learn from Antwerp and elsewhere? Land owners were pushed to find new ways to get income be a use rents were deflated. Who provided the ideas and where did they come from?
I don’t think it’s a matter of commercial revolution. I’ve not noticed any major shift in English commercial attitudes. Its merchants seem to have been just as commercially-minded in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and landlords responded to inflation much like they had in the mid-fourteenth century, and would revert back to the tactics of the fifteenth-century stagnationary period when the inflation ended in the late 17thC. So to my mind people’s profit-maximising strategies don’t see any innovation really, but are just activated by the changing economic environment.
Excellent podcast. It's always a joy to learn from Anton.
A fascinating and enjoyable discussion. I'm entirely persuaded that Henry VIII's policies were highly destructive. As Sam or Ben pointed out, creating inflation, insecure property rights, and wage and price controls are a deadly combination guaranteed to suppress economic activity. However, I too am still fuzzy on how England steered its way out. Bringing in smart people to improve various industries, including shipping and navigation, would certainly help, but you still need a policy environment to encourage entrepreneurship, industry, and risk taking. Granting monopolies won't do it. I'm skeptical that trade or patent monopolies by themselves raised wealth. Maybe they helped by eliminating uncertainty over whether the returns to the merchants and traders would be appropriated by the crown. Trade restrictions don't raise wealth either. On the other hand, it is much more plausible that allowing for the creation of joint stock corporations, which both spread risk and limit liability, could have played an important role. Perhaps what was going on is that property rights for merchants were more secure than for land "owners", and that's what stimulated trade above all. Were the wage and price controls, especially on tradable goods, relaxed? What happened to the price level throughout this period? Anton implies that prices came back down. Or was it that inflation came to an end and the price level stabilized? A more stable price level and flexible prices and wages could account for much of the economic improvement.
Anton ....I enjoyed your discourse but I think there are so many other factors involved that your choice is but one of many possible choices !
If anything has remained a constant , it is human nature ! There seems to be a common thread that runs through each and every culture of the emergence of a talented group of like-minded individuals who introduce ideas and changes that were previously inconceivable .
And greed and lust ; seeking riches , admiration and achievement are consistent driving forces throughout history. It seems to me that 'poor old 'enery ! ' received a shellacking from you that wasn't entirely deserved. He had enormous expectations thrust upon him , most of which were dealt with , perhaps not well by today's standards , but he still achieved a lot ! He carried marital disappointment [ regarding off-spring] injury and illness for most of his life but carried out his "duties" with dignity and the necessary authority . His changes to religion and their hold on people's minds and wealth certainly sparked interest in others and forever changed the "English" view of things !
As for the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION........the COHESION and the SOCIAL CHANGES were NOT unique to England but , the individuals , innovators and inventors , were ! Others followed suit very quickly after England had set the example though , and the 'warring states of Europe' just took a lot longer to organise themselves ! Napoleo is said to have disparaged the English as a nation of shop-keepers.........because they had their TRADE and MERCHANDISING well established.....while he concentrated on MILITARY MATTERS......but , in the long run , the 'shopkeepers' could AFFORD their wars and Napoleon could not ! [ His troops were ill equipped to tackle the Russians and failed terribly ! ].
Anyway , thanks for the thought-provoking article / pod-cast / video !
Regards , Trevor.
At the end Anton says it's all down to human agency and a few capable people. Can you name names?
Anton certainly could. I can't! I feel as though we need another podcast to hash it all out!
Was not Roman Catholic Church protectionist in terms of production, lack of innovation, morals, and control? Releasing the population from their grasp was important, also stealing silver from the Spanish a good way of increasing wealth?
-reducing the power of the church I reckon, was the real catalyst.
Not actually clear to me yet if the power of the church is reduced, per se. Certainly the clergy is subjugated by the Crown, but its influence relative to the rest of society still strikes me as very strong in the Elizabethan age.
Very interesting. Is this partly a story of a commercial revolution before an Industrial Revolution. Rather than clever English learning how to shift away from a land economy, how much did they learn from Antwerp and elsewhere? Land owners were pushed to find new ways to get income be a use rents were deflated. Who provided the ideas and where did they come from?
I don’t think it’s a matter of commercial revolution. I’ve not noticed any major shift in English commercial attitudes. Its merchants seem to have been just as commercially-minded in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and landlords responded to inflation much like they had in the mid-fourteenth century, and would revert back to the tactics of the fifteenth-century stagnationary period when the inflation ended in the late 17thC. So to my mind people’s profit-maximising strategies don’t see any innovation really, but are just activated by the changing economic environment.