Of course, Smith and the physiocrats lumped laborers and working cattle together. So cattle, can be on the side of capital or on the side of labor. Sort of like the populists.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 05:38:28PM -0500, Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> some authors used the term "stock" (another 'cattle' related term) prior
> to Turgot, to indicate the same thing. formalist anthropologists such
> as Schneider argue that pastoral societies are 'closer' to capitalist
> than agricultural ones, implying an easier 'transition' to capitalism,
> if not capitalist already (notions of 'pastoral capitalism' and 'modern
> capitalism' are put forward, both associated with 'egalitarianism and
> freedom'). unbelievable (and nauseating) confusions result in all this,
> as cattle are variously 'goods', 'factors of production', and even 'hard
> currency' (which leads to analyses of 'inflationary conditions' etc)!
> capitalism is not a specific historical mode of production, capital is
> not a social relation, the historical becomes universal (the 'end of
> history'?). 'saving and investment', 'accumulation' 'credit and debt'
> the whole lexicon of bourgeois economics is applied, with supply and
> demand diagrams...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:rosserjb at jmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:35 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Capitalism's rate of decay ( Communication)
>
>
> Ian,
> Depends on what you mean by its "modern
> economic sense." Schumpeter identifies Cantillon
> as having having used it in a somewhat "modern"
> way prior to Turgot. Turgot's key innovation was to
> argue that capital arose from voluntary saving, something
> picked up and spread shortly thereafter by Adam Smith
> (Turgot wrote in 1769).
> BTW, the Romans used the term in the sense of the
> principal of a loan, which is certainly one of its modern
> economic senses, as well as using the term to describe
> cattle. And, of course, if one wishes to increase a herd
> of cattle, one must not kill them for consumption (at least
> not right away), but must feed them. Hmmm.
> Barkley Rosser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at home.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Capitalism's rate of decay ( Communication)
>
>
> >
> > > > ============
> > > > Who was the first to use the term 'capital'?
> > > >
> > > > No googling.....:-)
> > > >
> > > > Ian
> >
> > The word "capital" is Latin for a head of cattle.
> > A single ox was a "pecus," which also has interesting
> > etymological implications.
> > BTW, I have no idea which Latin speaker or writer
> > first used the term "capital," but it has been around awhile.
> > Barkley Rosser
> >
> > =======
> > Shoulda' been clearer :-(
> >
> > I meant capital in it's 'modern' economic sense....
> >
> > And the answer is.....Anne Robert Jacques Turgot
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu