Published By
Created On
24 Aug 2020 20:36:13 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
Early Modern London, Wages, and the Industrial Revolution with Judy Stephenson
This podcast episode was originally posted on December 23rd, 2016.
Petersen: You’re listening to Economics Detective Radio. My guest today is Judy Stephenson of Oxford University’s Wadham college. Judy, welcome to Economics Detective Radio.
Stephenson: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be here.
Petersen: So, our topic for today is economic history. Specifically we’ll be looking at some interesting research Judy has done on wage rates in the early modern period in London. This period is particularly interesting because it’s the start of the Industrial Revolution which leads to a dramatic increase in the growth living standards and of technology and that trend of course is what has shaped our modern world and made it different from the world of the past. So, it’s very important of course to understand this period if we want to understand the world as it is now. So Judy, start by giving us historical background. What was the world like in the period you study?
Stephenson: Well, I work mostly on researching London, so urban environments. And London is very developed in this period between about 1600 and 1800. And London becomes the biggest city in the world during this period and as the biggest city in the world it’s hugely vibrant, some of the largest merchant houses in the world are there, banking is advanced and developing. Most of the occupations of London are tertiary or service sector, even at this early date.
The river is a huge source of both transportation and work, the port is where much of the capital, both physical and financial, from around the world comes through the city, and the professions and bureaucracy are well established in London in this period. It’s growing at all levels of society, from the very poorest to the very richest exponentially. So, if you look at the population growth overall in the U.K. in the late 17th century from 1500-1600 to 1700, that actually is pretty much stable or slightly declining. But the population of London grows by a third or something in that period.
London is this hugely vibrant commercial social and cultural center and it’s pretty much overtaken Amsterdam, which has come to the end of its golden age in the mid 17th century, right at this period. So, although the world more generally and in a wider sense can be typified by pre-industrial or agrarian values, London is very commercial in this period.
Petersen: Okay, so, if I were to get in a time machine and go back in time, maybe London would be more familiar to me, would seem, feel more modern than almost any other place.
Stephenson: I think it would be very familiar to you the way of getting around would be a sedan chair or a carriage. You can hire them on the street, in fact you send your boy out to get one. It looks very li
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp23ZWwPDHI
Petersen: You’re listening to Economics Detective Radio. My guest today is Judy Stephenson of Oxford University’s Wadham college. Judy, welcome to Economics Detective Radio.
Stephenson: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be here.
Petersen: So, our topic for today is economic history. Specifically we’ll be looking at some interesting research Judy has done on wage rates in the early modern period in London. This period is particularly interesting because it’s the start of the Industrial Revolution which leads to a dramatic increase in the growth living standards and of technology and that trend of course is what has shaped our modern world and made it different from the world of the past. So, it’s very important of course to understand this period if we want to understand the world as it is now. So Judy, start by giving us historical background. What was the world like in the period you study?
Stephenson: Well, I work mostly on researching London, so urban environments. And London is very developed in this period between about 1600 and 1800. And London becomes the biggest city in the world during this period and as the biggest city in the world it’s hugely vibrant, some of the largest merchant houses in the world are there, banking is advanced and developing. Most of the occupations of London are tertiary or service sector, even at this early date.
The river is a huge source of both transportation and work, the port is where much of the capital, both physical and financial, from around the world comes through the city, and the professions and bureaucracy are well established in London in this period. It’s growing at all levels of society, from the very poorest to the very richest exponentially. So, if you look at the population growth overall in the U.K. in the late 17th century from 1500-1600 to 1700, that actually is pretty much stable or slightly declining. But the population of London grows by a third or something in that period.
London is this hugely vibrant commercial social and cultural center and it’s pretty much overtaken Amsterdam, which has come to the end of its golden age in the mid 17th century, right at this period. So, although the world more generally and in a wider sense can be typified by pre-industrial or agrarian values, London is very commercial in this period.
Petersen: Okay, so, if I were to get in a time machine and go back in time, maybe London would be more familiar to me, would seem, feel more modern than almost any other place.
Stephenson: I think it would be very familiar to you the way of getting around would be a sedan chair or a carriage. You can hire them on the street, in fact you send your boy out to get one. It looks very li
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp23ZWwPDHI
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
Unspecified
More from the publisher
Controlling
VIDEO
CIVIL
civil-asset-forfeiture-with-don
This podcast episode was originally posted on March 20, 2015.
Don Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Café Hayek. I invited him to discuss civil asset forfeiture on the podcast because of a conversation we had about it at a recent Mercatus Center colloquium.
Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of the state taking someone’s property on suspicion that the property has been used for wrongdoing, without having to charge the owner with a crime.
Civil asset forfeiture had its origins in British maritime law. The British had difficulties with pirates along the Barbary Coast. When the pirates were apprehended and their ships brought back to London, British courts had difficulty deciding what to do with these ships. The ships’ owners were outside the jurisdiction of British law, so the courts couldn’t try and convict them, but they couldn’t send the ships back to them either only to have them return to the seas with a fresh pirate crew! Parliament thus passed a law allowing the courts to charge the property itself with the crime if and only if the property’s owner was outside the jurisdiction of British law.
Civil asset forfeiture, in this very limited form, was part of American law from the beginning. In the late 19th century, when alcohol was prohibited in some states, law enforcers started using civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the property of those suspected of producing, trafficking, and selling alcohol. This allowed them to circumvent due process, as American law only guarantees due process rights (such as the right to a trial by jury, the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, etc.) to human beings, and an alcohol still is not a human.
The US Supreme Court ruled on civil asset forfeiture in the case of Bennis v. Michigan (which Don wrote about in a 1996 article coauthored with A. C. Pritchard). John Bennis was caught with a prostitute in the 1977 Pontiac he co-owned with his wife, Tina Bennis. As a result, the state confiscated the car. Tina Bennis, however, had no knowledge of her husband’s wrongdoing and argued that she should at least be entitled to her half of the proceeds from the sale of the car. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where then-Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in favour of the State of Michigan. Rehnquist argued that civil asset forfeiture was constitutional since it had been a part of British law when the Constitution was adopted. Rehnquist neglected the fact that the civil asset forfeiture law at that time had only applied when the property owner was outside the legal jurisdiction of the court. John and Tina Bennis were both within the legal jurisdiction of Wayne County, Michigan where the car was seized.
Police usual
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i22dEXJLBj0
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
RENT
rent-control-and-the-housing-debate-with
Originally released on December 22, 2018.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNnDKhxcvQQ
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
CORRU
corruption-and-spatial-econometrics-with
Originally released on October 13th, 2017.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NIGVubAg-w
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
HIVE
hive-mind-iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations
This podcast episode was originally published on December 11th, 2015.
Garett Jones is Associate Professor of Economics and BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center, George Mason University. His book, Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters so Much More than Your Own is the subject of this episode.
Hive Mind CoverThe book deals with an empirical puzzle: IQ is a weak predictor for earnings. We all know high-IQ people who live paycheque to paycheque, and lower IQ people who succeed brilliantly. And yet, when we look at the relationship between nations’ average IQ scores and their incomes, the relationship is strong. Nations with the highest average IQ scores are eight times wealthier than nations with the lowest IQ scores. How can we resolve this apparent contradiction?
Garett documents five main channels for the spillover effects of IQ:
1. Smarter people are more patient, they save more and build up more capital.
When economists test people’s patience, high-IQ people tend to be more willing to wait for a larger amount of money in the future rather than taking a smaller sum now. This is important at the national level because savings tend to stay within a country* and fund investments within that country. That means living in a higher IQ nation generally means having more capital available to compliment your labour.
2. Smarter groups are more cooperative.
Economists use the iterated prisoner’s dilemma as an idealized scenario where cooperation is at odds with people’s individual, short-term incentives. Jones looked at the many times economists have studied this in experiments and correlated the cooperation rate in these experiments with the SAT scores of the schools the study participants were drawn from. He found that higher SAT schools produced more cooperation in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma.
In later research, Al-Ubaydli, Jones, and Weel (2014) found that higher IQ groups were more cooperative, but higher IQ individuals were not. A high-IQ person in a low-IQ group would not foolishly cooperate when everyone else was defecting, but high-IQ groups could coordinate on a cooperative solution despite not knowing that they were in a high-IQ group.
3. Smarter people are more informed voters and are more likely to support market-oriented policies.
Caplan and Miller (2010) document the tendency for high-IQ people to think like economists.
4. Smarter groups make more productive team members.
Jones uses “O-ring” technologies (drawing on an idea from Kremer (1993)), in reference to the fatal part that caused the Challenger disaster, to show how high-IQ workers can be indispensable in many sectors of a modern economy. While many economic models assume substitutability between high- and low-skilled labour (e
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYXV4eX6oYM
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
CLIMA
climate-change-carbon-taxes-and-geo
Originally released on November 9, 2018.
Today’s guest is Bob Murphy of Texas Tech University. We discuss his work on climate change and the social cost of carbon.
Bob started working on issues related to climate change when he began working with the Institute for Energy Research. We discuss the implications of the Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) used to evaluate the impact of climate change, the pivotal role played by discount rates in evaluating any kind of climate policy, the pitfalls of carbon taxation, and the opportunities presented by geo-engineering technologies.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETeejH3mTI0
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
THE B
the-bubble-films-with-jimmy-morrison
This podcast episode was originally posted on February 6th, 2015.
Jimmy Morrison is an independent filmmaker who is currently directing two films: The Housing Bubble and The Bigger Bubble. The Housing Bubble deals with the history of business cycles in America, spanning from the First World War to the 2008 crash. The Bigger Bubble deals with the aftermath of the 2008 crash. These films began as a single project, but Jimmy chose to split it into two films in order to tell the full story.
The films’ website provides a synopsis:
"The Bubble is coming out at a crucial time in American history. Numerous films have blamed the free market for the economic woes of the country. Uniquely, Tom Woods has teamed up with experts such as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber and Doug Casey to explain the economic problems America is facing and what is needed to restore prosperity.
You can’t watch the news today without hearing more calls for regulation. Deregulation is consistently the boogey man when it comes to sound bite explanations of this economic crisis. The public currently believes the government saved us during the Great Depression and that it will save us again today. America needs a simple economics lesson on this recession and Tom Woods has done just that in his book Meltdown. The Bubble successfully adapts Meltdown into a feature-length documentary.
The Bubble features interviews with numerous economists and financial analysts who actually predicted the housing crisis and recession. The people we are trusting to solve this problem claim no one saw it coming. The fact is Austrian economists predicted this recession years ago, and they are the only ones with the insight necessary to bring us out of this economic slide. This film asks them why this crisis happened, how we recover, and what America is facing."
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NstLzPyDfg
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
VIRGI
virginia-political-economy-and
This podcast episode was originally posted on September 5th, 2014.
In this episode, Diana Thomas discusses the relationship between the Virginia School of Political Economy and the Austrian School of Economics. Diana is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Heider College of Business at Creighton University.
The Virginia School is a branch of public choice, the application of the tools and techniques of economics to the study of political actors. The Virginia School’s founders, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, were the first to systematically apply a rational choice framework to the study of politics in The Calculus of Consent.
Two assumptions commonly made by neoclassical economists are the “benevolence assumption” and the “omniscience assumption.” The benevolence assumption is implicit in normative analysis of what governments “ought” to do, as this assumes that political actors are motivated to maximize the common good rather than pursuing their self-interest. This assumption is challenged by public choice economists. The omniscience assumption is at play in economic models that depict the economy as being in equilibrium, whereby nobody is misinformed of or surprised by economic reality. This assumption is challenged by Austrian economists.
The omniscience assumption implies that the economy should be possible to rationally plan, an idea that Mises and Hayek debunked in the socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 30s.
As Diana states in her paper, Entrepreneurship: Catallactic and Constitutional Perspectives, “both Buchanan and Tullock reference Mises’ Human Action as the central reference for their understanding of methodological individualism.” The Virginia and Austrian schools also share common understandings of rationality and of self-interest.
Diana draws a parallel between Israel Kirzner’s distinction between calculative and entrepreneurial action and Buchanan’s distinction between reactive and creative action. While calculative or reactive action consists in simply responding to known incentives and constraints, entrepreneurial or creative action consists in envisioning a future that is different from the present and in acting on that expectation. Kirzner applies the concept of entrepreneurship to businessmen seizing anticipated arbitrage opportunities in the market. Buchanan applies the concept of creative action to political actors attempting to reform constitutional rules.
Buchanan conceives of constitutional rules as being made behind a “veil of uncertainty” since it is beyond political actors’ ability to predict in precisely what situations the rule will be applied, and whether their own self-interest will be served or hurt in those situations.
Diana believes that political action is m
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7aOPRCI-OM
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
THE R
the-revolt-of-the-public-with-martin
Originally released on January 5, 2019.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHnbsiL11g
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
Controlling
VIDEO
AGENT
agents-and-utility
http://economicsdetective.com/
A typical economic model is inhabited by one or more "agents". These are idealized decision-making units whose behaviour is determined by some mathematical rule. Typically, agents represent individuals, households, or firms.
Firms are seen as profit-maximizing, while individuals and households are seen as utility-maximizing. For now, let's focus on utility.
Utility is a generalized measure of satisfaction. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Wait! You can't measure satisfaction! Satisfaction has no units!" That's right, you can't, so that's why utility is an ordinal measure of satisfaction, rather than a cardinal one.
If I say that going to the park will give me a utility of 5, and having a nap will give me a utility of 15, all I've said is that I prefer napping to the park. All that matters is that one number is bigger, smaller, or the same size as another, because that establishes the order of preferences.
Say we have an agent, let's call him Karl. Karl can consume steaks and surgeries, and his utility is determined by what combination of those two commodities he consumes. In mathematical terms, his utility is a function of two variables, steaks and surgeries.
Now, if you've done some math, you might realise that Karl's utility function is going to be difficult to draw. We've got two independent variables, the amount of steaks and surgeries consumed, and one dependent variable, Karl's utility. That means that to draw this function, we'd need to draw it in 3D.
To avoid this, we're going to take a level set of Karl's utility function and draw that. This level set is called an "indifference curve". Karl is indifferent between every bundle on this curve, since everywhere on the curve gives the same utility value.
A standard assumption to make about economic agents is that they're insatiable. That means that Karl always likes more things at least as much as he likes less things. What this means for his utility function is that it is monotonic-increasing. Everything to the right of an indifference curve is higher than it, and everything to the left of an indifference curve is lower than it, and that's true for any indifference curve you could draw.
Let's look at an example. Suppose Karl is offered a choice between two bundles, A and B, and each bundle has some number of surgeries and steaks for Karl to consume. If A is on a higher indifference curve than B, A is preferred to B, if A is on the same indifference curve as B, A and B are valued equally, and if A is on a lower indifference curve than B, B is preferred to A.
Since Karl is a rational, utility-maximizing agent, he always does what will get him the highest utility given his constraints. So there we have it. We have a mathematical
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3IeaYqVkU
Transaction
Created
1 month ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4