@ericstait @jenns_acct @JewishAlgebra @ExtremeArturo Try reading at least some of the work of economic historians that have spent decades researching these topics, I implore you. https://t.co/VwcAwxhmEq
@EliteDwash9090 @teslafan210 @StephenStorey Also you cash see here that the Industrial Revolution already began in British prior to the cotton from slavery helping them in anyway. The slavery had nothing to do with what made the west economically prosperou
2. Cotton production was responsible for US GDP growth in the 19th century. This is simply wrong. Slavery was a tiny share of the US economy at the time. https://t.co/jUQTRjfR5B https://t.co/acI8ifTSmf
@BigDyslexicNRG @marija24 @spongeworthy2 @PhilWMagness @gay_lumberjack Cotton makes up less than candles and soap as a matter of total British income until decades after the Industrial Revolution. Cotton’s rise in Britain comes long after Britain industria
RT @RafFaithfull: @xspotsdamark American cotton doesn't arrive on British docks until decades after the industrial revolution began. Sour…
@LukeDaly1979 @WanjiruNjoya @clairlemon As to cotton, your chronology is wrong.
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
@Keter28182475 @Callous_Boomer @UsingLyft @xspotsdamark @AlwaSeeki @MaMo_ And then read Olmstead’s review of Beckert’s book https://t.co/ypmgWe31SP
RT @RafFaithfull: @xspotsdamark American cotton doesn't arrive on British docks until decades after the industrial revolution began. Sour…
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
RT @RafFaithfull: @xspotsdamark American cotton doesn't arrive on British docks until decades after the industrial revolution began. Sour…
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
RT @UsingLyft: Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton wa…
Lmao first this guy thinks wheels weren’t useful until after the Industrial Revolution and then he thinks American cotton was profitable in Britain before it even got there. No surprise someone who doesn’t see the value in wheels can’t get his chronology c
@xspotsdamark American cotton doesn't arrive on British docks until decades after the industrial revolution began. Source: https://t.co/ypmgWe31SP https://t.co/T7lwoi6939
@HajjiADavis @AttorneyCrump https://t.co/O3yhncVq4z Slavery was not "economically essential for the Industrial Revolution,... The new literature makes spectacular but unsupported claims, relies on faulty reasoning, and introduces many factual inaccuracies.
Economic historians therefore found it easy to refute the New History of Capitalism. https://t.co/XXcXyToKoh
RT @phl43: "Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signal…
RT @phl43: "Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signal…
RT @phl43: "Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signal…
RT @phl43: "Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signal…
RT @phl43: "Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signal…
RT @phl43: "Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signal…
"Historians, myself included, often make leaps of intuition from limited evidence. But speculation ought to be explicitly signalled as such, rather than presented as certainty." This reminds me of Olmstead and Rhode’s demolition of Baptist's book: https:/
Get Olmstead and Rhodes pilled. https://t.co/Zyg5a7q8yP https://t.co/1CZlx4F5SD
Slaves were much more expensive than labour elsewhere in the world. https://t.co/jUQTRjfR5B https://t.co/FPsl9L5pEc
Great essay on this by Olmstead and Rhodes. https://t.co/jUQTRjfR5B
@Jason_L_Newton Baptist is misrepresenting the causal evidence here, and doing so in indefensible ways. https://t.co/XPkXLbkDH6
@nymoen_ole @BachmannRudi @lenitiv @faznet @joachim_voth Eine gute Zusammenfassung der Debatte kann man hier lesen: https://t.co/2y71LiUWlf
RT @grounded_in: @Theprophetcome1 @EverythingDoubt @shitheadinchief @K85214227 @CoreyJMahler No, it's a very fringe view amongst actual eco…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
RT @omni_american: @nytimes 2f/ Again, it's not that there are no good essays in the #1619Project. But there's also stuff like Matthew Des…
@tcruiseINNOCENT @UsingLyft It isn’t. That book has been torn to shreds by economic historians. https://t.co/vy0zh9gQzM
@Theprophetcome1 @EverythingDoubt @shitheadinchief @K85214227 @CoreyJMahler No, it's a very fringe view amongst actual economists, particularly economic historians. The book you cited is riddled with factual errors and makes tons of bad economic argument
RT @PhilWMagness: At 16 minute mark, NHJ summarizes the "whipping machine" thesis of slave production as if it's a matter of fact. The pro…
RT @PhilWMagness: At 16 minute mark, NHJ summarizes the "whipping machine" thesis of slave production as if it's a matter of fact. The pro…
RT @PhilWMagness: At 16 minute mark, NHJ summarizes the "whipping machine" thesis of slave production as if it's a matter of fact. The pro…
RT @PhilWMagness: At 16 minute mark, NHJ summarizes the "whipping machine" thesis of slave production as if it's a matter of fact. The pro…
RT @PhilWMagness: At 16 minute mark, NHJ summarizes the "whipping machine" thesis of slave production as if it's a matter of fact. The pro…
At 16 minute mark, NHJ summarizes the "whipping machine" thesis of slave production as if it's a matter of fact. The problem: this thesis, which comes from NHC historian Ed Baptist, is a thoroughly debunked falsification of empirical evidence. See here: h
RT @FreeBlckThought: @LibertyEthics @AnthonyHegler @RealNikM Yes, the New History of Capitalism, on which 1619 Project relies, is a disaste…
@LibertyEthics @AnthonyHegler @RealNikM Yes, the New History of Capitalism, on which 1619 Project relies, is a disaster. These scholars take it apart: https://t.co/y5MEBBIV5G
@RizNJ @Princeton 3. We alluded in our initial response to you to Matthew Desmond’s piece on capitalism and slavery, which is based on the "New History of Capitalism," a framework discredited by economic historians like Alan L. Olmstead & Paul W. Rhod
@cawmsworx @chaos_sonata The best work on the "New History of Capitalism" and its distortions is by Olmstead & Rhode: https://t.co/y5MEBBIV5G and https://t.co/B0hZBVZe4l
@decmusicology @M_C_Klein @sdonnan Baptist is just wrong: https://t.co/Vr8Z92gWtU
@FADCLDN @briankturner101 well, that's only one point out of many criticisms that I've included. Have you read this piece? https://t.co/62MEdgGSwc You may wish to take this up with pseudoerasmus (if you can handle his aggressive behavior) or @arielronid
@AnthonyHegler Where do you get the "over half of all export earnings" figure? This sounds like New History of Capitalism. It's been discredited. See screenshots from linked article and listen to this podcast: https://t.co/hbC4ganFwe https://t.co/uTUrLgl
@AnthonyHegler P.S.: See https://t.co/uTUrLglWCd and listen to James Oakes—one of the great living American historians—discuss these matters here: https://t.co/FGwQPSyG7q
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
RT @Historian_Steve: 12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day…
12. The two pieces are helpful in explaining why there was a fourfold increase in cotton production per slave per day that took place between 1800 and 1860. https://t.co/62MEdgGSwc https://t.co/Q1QQp07mp9
RT @PhilWMagness: Far from being a "useful corrective" to Olmstead and Rhode, Baptist's book simply cribs their statistics on scientific ad…
RT @PhilWMagness: Far from being a "useful corrective" to Olmstead and Rhode, Baptist's book simply cribs their statistics on scientific ad…
Far from being a "useful corrective" to Olmstead and Rhode, Baptist's book simply cribs their statistics on scientific advances in cotton and changes the explanation to a false and unsupported claim about "calibrated torture." See here: https://t.co/XDCmGz
RT @PhilWMagness: @jakesilverstein @nhannahjones @MasterClass Baptist's "calibrated torture" thesis is provocative, but it's also empirical…
RT @PhilWMagness: @jakesilverstein @nhannahjones @MasterClass Baptist's "calibrated torture" thesis is provocative, but it's also empirical…
@jakesilverstein @nhannahjones @MasterClass Baptist's "calibrated torture" thesis is provocative, but it's also empirically false. This was shown by Alan Olmstead & Paul Rhode in their analysis of cotton seed improvements before the Civil War. https:/
@AmnaUncensored It'd be interesting to introduce the New Economic Historians—say, Edward Baptist’s The Half Has Never Been Told—who've made a big splash (even in the 1619 Project!), and also read the literature critical of their method, such as Olmstead &a
@JSimonNathan My all-time favorite book review https://t.co/YxqUAGBNyc
RT @Noahpinion: Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his n…
RT @Noahpinion: Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his n…
Something seems wrong about a headline accusing someone of shoddy research and then hiding argument behind a paywall.
RT @Noahpinion: Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his n…
RT @Noahpinion: If you want to read an academic rebuttal to Baptist's research, here is one: https://t.co/1nau2K9BBC
If you want to read an academic rebuttal to Baptist's research, here is one: https://t.co/1nau2K9BBC
@Facunda_Duran @bartis_audrey @OlufemiOTaiwo @KeeangaYamahtta réfutent les thèses de Williams et sont très très anti Beckert. Ils ont par ex écrit ça : "Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism" https://t.co/LFXaLAzTSN
@AntiNewDems @jestation3 @wil_da_beast630 There is a great paper on this: The authors’ work was used prominently in Baptist’ The Half Has Never Been Told, and they disagree strongly with his interpretation. https://t.co/uuuKcBnAll
@MsJasmineMN @gmfunk this article is behind a paywall, but I have access and can hook anyone up with a PDF https://t.co/Do9t0AjVVA
@JohnHValjean @fab_escalona @Melusine_2 @bruno_amable @StefPalomba livre que franchement je pense que c'est de la fraude scientifique. Si ça vous intéresse, je vous recommande l'article d'Olmstead et Rhode sur le sujet, c'est vraiment choquant. https://t.c
RT @DanialLashkari: @nunopgpalma Thanks for sharing the draft! On the US counterpart of this "idea," e.g., pushed among others by a book li…
@mccormick_ted Address the academic literature, Ted, and stop gaslighting the folks on Twitter who are unaware of what academics have done to the literature you are taking about -- they have burnt it to the ground.
RT @ferarteaga: @DiegoCastaneda Lleva más que un año, pero notablemente me parece la discusión sobre contribuciones de la "Nueva Historia d…
RT @ferarteaga: @DiegoCastaneda Lleva más que un año, pero notablemente me parece la discusión sobre contribuciones de la "Nueva Historia d…
@DiegoCastaneda Lleva más que un año, pero notablemente me parece la discusión sobre contribuciones de la "Nueva Historia del Capitalismo" y desencuentro entre economistas e historiadores. Y la devastadora crítica de Olmstead-Rhode -> https://t.co/osNKa
@TheLibertonian @ShaCast_A @HRC__04 @ScottMGreer The New History of Capitalism, of which 1619 is no more than a far less sophisticated replica, has already been rebuked many times https://t.co/4ro0ihc6zu
@adamnoregon @praisehonk @RyanGirdusky Just 2 examples are that industrial capitalism was grown out of slavery and that they openly misrepresented and ignored a fact-checker on the cause of the American Revolution. https://t.co/8aEa82gdbg https://t.co/a7s
@Je193N @Ed_Baptist Those claims are the subject of numerous criticisms, https://t.co/Ya5STggdzk and https://t.co/6XAoIE5F3r for example.
@susanbordson A different point of view: https://t.co/ABBYOxExNB https://t.co/799VHdvVml
@Fykomfei Empire of cotton eller noen av de andre verkene innenfor denne litteraturen (New history) er ikke på min liste over spesielt god økonomisk historie. https://t.co/kON2gtAvqI https://t.co/iZNbtF7Vab
@Spydermelon @reason The fundamental part of the economy claim is precisely what is disputed by top economic historians: https://t.co/Pvuwm6F1BZ