As we might have known, Marxist generally love to point the horrors of capitalism by pointing to slums in England(mostly London) for the families were poor, in a state of squalor, and did not have much money. They were all working class families who moved into the city to work in the new factories. Point to this point in history, Marxists and social democrats later make their arguments for higher wages for the worker, heavy regulation, etc.
My main question is how did these slums form and why were they bad? Any suggested reading material would be excellent.
I never did get around to finishing it, but Spencer's The Man versus The State has some interesting observations about how the British government created incentives for building shoddy housing through a series of poorly thought-out laws. A passage which I particularly liked:
H. Spencer: See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices of bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses; and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities. To check the consequent production of wretched dwellings, it established regulations which, in medieval fashion, dictated the quality of the commodity produced: there being no perception that by insisting on a higher quality and therefore higher price, it would limit the demand and eventually diminish the supply. By additional local burdens, legislation has of late still further hindered the building of small houses. Finally, having, by successive measures, produced first bad houses and then a deficiency of better ones, it has at length provided for the artificially-increased overflow of poor people by diminishing the house-capacity which already could not contain them! Where then lies the blame for the miseries of the East-end? Against whom should be raised "the bitter cry of outcast London?"
See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices of bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses; and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities. To check the consequent production of wretched dwellings, it established regulations which, in medieval fashion, dictated the quality of the commodity produced: there being no perception that by insisting on a higher quality and therefore higher price, it would limit the demand and eventually diminish the supply. By additional local burdens, legislation has of late still further hindered the building of small houses. Finally, having, by successive measures, produced first bad houses and then a deficiency of better ones, it has at length provided for the artificially-increased overflow of poor people by diminishing the house-capacity which already could not contain them!
Where then lies the blame for the miseries of the East-end? Against whom should be raised "the bitter cry of outcast London?"
Spencer in general is good for this topic, as he is probably the most important English laissez-fairist thinker who lived during that era.
Not much familiar with the specific subject of 19th century London slums, but I'll say one thing:
Nirvana Fallacy.
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
See the LeFerve lectures.
I've been meaning to look into this period of history, having the industrial revolution thrown in my face a couple of times. I'll have a look through the LeFerve lectures (I assume you're talking about the ones on this page http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=27)
My gut reaction is to question why these people would choose to move into the cities and work under seemingly terrible conditions. I think the people who bring this up, similarly to sweatshops in poor countries, tend to underestimate the comparative poverty and hardship involved in their alternatives (ie. subsitence farming). Not to glorify sweatshops or the industrial revolution, but you have to examine the alternatives.
Danneracci: I've been meaning to look into this period of history, having the industrial revolution thrown in my face a couple of times. I'll have a look through the LeFerve lectures (I assume you're talking about the ones on this page http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=27) My gut reaction is to question why these people would choose to move into the cities and work under seemingly terrible conditions. I think the people who bring this up, similarly to sweatshops in poor countries, tend to underestimate the comparative poverty and hardship involved in their alternatives (ie. subsitence farming). Not to glorify sweatshops or the industrial revolution, but you have to examine the alternatives.
I've been wondering about this too. I don't even think it's between sweat shops and subsistence farming. Subsistence farming is very rewarding. The State's agenda must be underlying motivations here somewhere. For instance, WWTwo was coming near in Italy. My family were farmers. Had a really good life with fields of crops and lots of animals. Their village had plenty of good people. They didn't even have the need for police. The nearest cop was somebody that traveled from Rome to their town that was over two hours away in the mountains. He would travel there every month just to check on how things were. My grandfather told me the cop would come and they would all drink lots of wine in some common building (I guess it was like a bar or pub) asking the cop what the news of Rome was. So his monthly visit was actually a big party to hear the news of events outside their town.
Yet with Mussolini looking for youth eventually dangers in the country arose. My great grandfather was in World War One, fought in Africa, and came back home and toward the family you never want to go to war. It is terrible. Ever since then, even to me, our decisions have been based on avoiding war for instance my grandfather would have taken my father to Canada if he was drafted for Vietnam. They were planning it all out. So basically we listened to the experience of our great grandfather about his experience in the supposed war to end all wars. To make a long story short, my great grandfather came to the U.S. to find a job, and then brought his sons over. At a hot dog stand in New York City one of the sons after biting into the hot dog wondered why they couldn't go back home to where there was good food (their farm fields and animals). My great grandfather simply smiled. World War Two was to break out not too many years later.
As all roads tend to lead back to the State messin' everything up, I would hesitate to point the finger at subsistence farming. Knowing China, I'm sure they have programs and promises heavily injected into the population. I was in contact with somebody that was from the Netherlands but at the time he was in China teaching in a rural school. He said their farming life was very wonderful. The people were very nice and happy. Cared for each other and took the time to help each other out. They worked hard, no doubt, but their caring for each other was at a very high level he said. It was far away from explicit State intervention. Yet he mentioned the youth discussed the promises and dreams that the urban areas along the east coast of China were promising and many youth wanted to go there. Could it be merely the grass is greener on the other side mentality going on? I'm not sure of the whole story, but I'd gamble the State mainly has something to do with poor working conditions and thus a poorer quality of life. Not saying that a society incorporating a growing urban life is bad. Actually it could be a quality way of living. It is merely a different way to live life. Yet urban areas usually are very heavily influenced by the State so there is a trade-off. Depending on the State involved the trade-off can be less freedoms for a "hope" of some glorious socialist dream.
If we're going to follow this line of reasoning, the government of Mexico should ban being a cop, afterall, look at how dangerous it is to be cop. In the USA, we could ban all dangerous jobs. Thus, anyone working with explosives or unsanitary conditions (such as toilet cleaner), installing roofs, firemen, working with sharp objects. I mean, we shouldn't have let gold miners in the 1840's mine for gold without the use of today's hardhats and modern other safety gear. We should outlaw being a taxi driver, ice-road truck drivers, alaska king-crab fisherman, building the Hoover Dam (sorry, that was a government project, nevermind), being a soldier, being a Southerner during the civil war, being black before the civil war, being black during segregation, being a rapper, being a professional skier. Also, being a high school teacher at a public school, a cook, or a crash dummy. We should outlaw living near state-owned parks that catch on fire every year, driving on state-owned double-decker expressways that collapse during an earthquake, living in a country that the US government might invade, living on remote islands on the pacific that might get nuked, being Mary Curie, or being a magician in the Prestige.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
England was really the origin of the state-capitalist economy. The British Crown was tired of fighting with Parliament over taxes, because the Crown usually lost. (King John III was forced to sign the Magna Carta; Charles I was executed.)
Anyway, the Crown decided it needed other ways to obtain its much-needed blood money. So, it adopted two new strategies; foreign expansion, and selling monopolies to businesses. Both involve forcibly coercing the competition. No tactic was too barbaric if it would put money in the King's coffers. Even bioterrorism was used to exterminate the Native American tribes.
My point is, England was not exactly an example of laissez-faire. It was an example of mercantilist tyranny.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
TheOrlonater:As we might have known, Marxist generally love to point the horrors of capitalism by pointing to slums in England(mostly London) for the families were poor, in a state of squalor, and did not have much money.
Point out how England is today under socialism, the whole country is one big slum.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
TheOrlonater: As we might have known, Marxist generally love to point the horrors of capitalism by pointing to slums in England(mostly London) for the families were poor, in a state of squalor, and did not have much money. They were all working class families who moved into the city to work in the new factories. Point to this point in history, Marxists and social democrats later make their arguments for higher wages for the worker, heavy regulation, etc. My main question is how did these slums form and why were they bad? Any suggested reading material would be excellent.
In short::
1. People preferred the slums over their alternatives
2. Corporatism made that slums did not cater well to the demands of their habitants
3. Don't know what time frame you are talking about but know that 2% (4%) real growth results in a 2 (4) times better standard of living from one generation to the next (35 years generations, rule of 70/72, magic of compound interest)
Thank for the replies so far. Are there any good books on this matter?
Yeah, read Hayek's Capitalism and the Historians.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
TheOrlonater: Thank for the replies so far. Are there any good books on this matter?
Carson probably covers it nicely.
good post Nick, this is tangential but related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Nick Ricci: I never did get around to finishing it, but Spencer's The Man versus The State has some interesting observations about how the British government created incentives for building shoddy housing through a series of poorly thought-out laws. A passage which I particularly liked:
H. Spencer: See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices of bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses; and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities...
See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices of bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses; and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities...
Excellent post. Good showing of how the State has this "libido for the ugly", in other words, lowers the quality of life.