[lbo-talk] Graber on consensus

[Wojtek S]

So there was no growth between, say, ca. 2000 BC and the middle ages?
They pace of growth might have accelerated with the industrial
revolution, but there was certainly some growth before, even if slow.
Medieval Europe certainly enjoyed material and technological advantage
over the "barbarian" tribes during the Roman times.

Besides, I do not want to quibble over the issue of growth, which is
pretty academic.  My main point is against the left-wing millenarism
that the end is near because capitalism cannot sustain itself.  It has
been doing all right for the past 200+ years as far as I know, and
there do not seem to be any serious threats on its horizon either.

Wojtek

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, there has been a continuous growth humanity and its
>> material possessions for the last 5 thousand or so years, so
>> capitalism, whatever that is, does not have a monopoly for growth.
>
> Most definitely not true. Growth is almost entirely a product of capitalism. Among many other sources, here's Robert Gordon:
>
> http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight63.pdf
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- 
Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."