@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
@Spydermelon @reason The new history of capitalism literature tries to throw the sins of slavery (which existed under every system) at the feet of capitalism, but has been widely discredited: https://t.co/Pvuwm6WD0z & https://t.co/U2MvATk80f
"leading" is doing a lot of work here.
שתי ביקורות קודמות על ספרו של בקרט: https://t.co/QmWyfZKwrr https://t.co/gB1iywUmYB
@DrClarkM1 Again, not endorsing this view, just sharing it. https://t.co/uPf99tCvdS
RT @phl43: This is great. You should also read their paper: https://t.co/cnwXOmpQW2. And I wrote a blog post with more references if you're…
This is great. You should also read their paper: https://t.co/cnwXOmpQW2. And I wrote a blog post with more references if you're interested in this debate: https://t.co/BfpYXM3UkY.
RT @jmhorp: @PhilWMagness @KevinGutzman @nytimes And it was published here: https://t.co/wW9nePdM8l
Regarding 1619 Project-adjacent stuff, does anyone know of response to this article? It's cited a lot by people in my crowds and I'm wondering if my differently-minded followers have come across a cogent refutation. https://t.co/0mvUMKxuqC
@WilliamHogeland So when Edward Baptist counted intermediate goods to conclude that cotton made up 50% of GEP of the economy, and was subsequently savaged by economic historians, was that compelling? https://t.co/9Fq2XT1Fz7
Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism - ScienceDirect https://t.co/d2wvkxIxUl
RT @jmhorp: If you think Baptist's biggest error is bungling GDP, read Olmstead and Rhode's discussion of slave narratives (pp. 25-27 of WP…
RT @jmhorp: If you think Baptist's biggest error is bungling GDP, read Olmstead and Rhode's discussion of slave narratives (pp. 25-27 of WP…
If you think Baptist's biggest error is bungling GDP, read Olmstead and Rhode's discussion of slave narratives (pp. 25-27 of WP) If your thesis is slaves were more productive because they were beaten, it's a problem if you add "and beat you" to a slave's
@m_landkammer @normative New History of Capitalism. Here is one of the critiques of this literature: https://t.co/wSl58m2n3O
RT @jmhorp: "...slavery, the workings of plantations, the importance of cotton and slavery in the broader economy, and the sources of the I…
@PhilWMagness For example, Olmstead and Rhode, "Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism." https://t.co/ABBYOxExNB
RT @FriedrichHayek: "Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism" by Alan Olmstead & Paul Rhode https://t.co/NIYija8Oax
RT @FriedrichHayek: "Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism" by Alan Olmstead & Paul Rhode https://t.co/NIYija8Oax
"Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism" by Alan Olmstead & Paul Rhode https://t.co/NIYija8Oax
RT @jmhorp: @PhilWMagness @KevinGutzman @nytimes And it was published here: https://t.co/wW9nePdM8l
@PhilWMagness @KevinGutzman @nytimes And it was published here: https://t.co/wW9nePdM8l
@NYTmag @nytimes Ed Baptist's research is very dubious, no? https://t.co/hq2E6cwwKk
@jim_gruman @JohnNCoupland Interesting piece, but beware that some of the underlying scholarship has been challenged by Olmstead and Rhode, "Cotton, Slavery and the New History of Capitalism", https://t.co/7KzHFFpM4z
RT @jmhorp: "...slavery, the workings of plantations, the importance of cotton and slavery in the broader economy, and the sources of the I…
Sorry, that was in Explorations in EH, not the JEH. Here is the article: https://t.co/cz7jFpPirL
@RuneStahl @Sven_Beckert I really like - and am in my own work inspired by - Beckert's approach, but there are also some important criticisms to be made: https://t.co/G4PuN1eDzR https://t.co/f8l5Cu5IPD
Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism - ScienceDirect https://t.co/4YVQv4NBLQ
@NiceGuyEddie14 @new_engine Nah it would be much ahead, we all know how much good the residual consequences have brought, and slavery was developmentally detrimental even back then: https://t.co/20jhxloANK
RT @Noahpinion: Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his n…
Twitter is dope and learning is dope. An expert just sent me this other, more critical, review of the Beckert, Johnson, and Baptist books, which I'm now gonna read. https://t.co/VUPStvqK9z https://t.co/KSKAYfjsOB
RT @robmickey: This is an excellent critique. I know it's not popular among many historians, but the critique by Olmstead and Rhode of much…
@adam_tooze Question for the room: what do scholars make of Olmstead and Rhode's critique? I'd place myself as a historian of 20th cent. capitalism so my own response is limited to the agricultural and environmental side of the debate. https://t.co/QIuBz
This is an excellent critique. I know it's not popular among many historians, but the critique by Olmstead and Rhode of much of this literature overlaps with Oakes': https://t.co/iYZcLzmlaA
Interesting essay on the new histories of capitalism and slavery. I mostly agree with those who argue that Southern slavery was not capitalist and that it generally inhibited economic growth. See for example Olmstead's critical review of the literature: ht
RT @Patrick_Wyman: After posting this, several economic historians sent me links to critiques of Baptist's book, on everything from its han…
RT @Patrick_Wyman: After posting this, several economic historians sent me links to critiques of Baptist's book, on everything from its han…
After posting this, several economic historians sent me links to critiques of Baptist's book, on everything from its handling of GDP estimates to the reasons for the productivity of enslaved labor. Here's one particularly strong one: https://t.co/C39uIVDWp
"...slavery, the workings of plantations, the importance of cotton and slavery in the broader economy, and the sources of the Industrial Revolution and world development." https://t.co/9z67GjAfqr
@identichu @SoylentMerchant Worse than that, it was straight up detrimental to economic development https://t.co/20jhxloANK
RT @VeryVeriViral: @APompliano All over the place. Prefer cognitive sciences though. https://t.co/oZBzdkGdyz https://t.co/Gi2StxBSDw htt…
@JeffJMason Also Olmstead and Rhode: https://t.co/NakTVVjbNk
@adragonlover5 @Crow29Darkness @Slate All of them, slavery was a detriment to development. https://t.co/NakTVVjbNk "The riches of slave owners were not essential for national development, and the policies that this elite imposed on local, state, and nati
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…
RT @Noahpinion: Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his n…
This is the most salient assessment of slavery’s *essentialness* to the Industrial Revolution that I’ve read. https://t.co/BRBU7LXrO9
Another shot fired in the battle between economists and historians over the new history of capitalism. I want to agree with the historians, but my training puts me in the economists' camp, especially regarding Edward Baptist's book https://t.co/RrHYo5XU0u
RT @Noahpinion: Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his n…
Some economic historians who study slavery accused Ed Baptist of shoddy or even dishonest research practices, and say his narrative is essentially fabricated: https://t.co/XNSuFpQfya!
Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism; by Olmstead and Rhode (Explorations in Econ History). Rigurous discussion of recent scholarship and several punchlines. Let me highlight 4: https://t.co/5mMp5uQU7D
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
RT @SRCHicks: "Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism" -- important j. article by Olmstead and Rhode. https://t.co/Aa8tnZRTjb
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
Algodão, sempre ele!
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
How bad use of evidence can produce bad interpretations.
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
RT @whyvert: Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.c…
Olmstead and Rhode's review and critique of the "new history of capitalism" is open access and well worth reading https://t.co/gfZa4c5SIy but the tl;dr is ... https://t.co/R5nsyrDmkl
"Cotton, slavery, and the new history of capitalism" -- important j. article by Olmstead and Rhode. https://t.co/Aa8tnZRTjb
RT @WU_econhist: For those who like academic controversies, this one (although a few month old) is another piece to read (on cotton, slaver…
For those who like academic controversies, this one (although a few month old) is another piece to read (on cotton, slavery and the birth of capitalism): https://t.co/6nJovAydGU
RT @NickSacco55: I don't profess to be an expert in economic history, but yikes, Olmstead and Rhode throw a huge bucket of ice cold water o…
RT @NickSacco55: I don't profess to be an expert in economic history, but yikes, Olmstead and Rhode throw a huge bucket of ice cold water o…
More on #slavery and #capitalism. Thanks for sharing it. #EconHist https://t.co/2pogWZE0tE
I don't profess to be an expert in economic history, but yikes, Olmstead and Rhode throw a huge bucket of ice cold water on the New History of Capitalism in this journal article. https://t.co/X6nJFacQsu
RT @BAllanHansen: @mattyglesias the paper is published now https://t.co/gYaPKySefN
@KarlssonMax nu igen. Här finns den andra sidan: https://t.co/7XkqGoJnGV
@mattyglesias I know this paper and there is a newer, peer-reviewed version https://t.co/g6CREdLVUq
RT @pseudoerasmus: which is related to his apparently believing that labour elsewhere was somehow more expensive https://t.co/TqmhCJr4mp
RT @pseudoerasmus: which is related to his apparently believing that labour elsewhere was somehow more expensive https://t.co/TqmhCJr4mp
RT @RCAFDM: @jasonhickel @Sven_Beckert Amongst other crucial flaws in this thesis, the fact that slaves were unremunerated does *not* imply…
@jasonhickel @Sven_Beckert Amongst other crucial flaws in this thesis, the fact that slaves were unremunerated does *not* imply that their labor was actually cheap. https://t.co/n2ajeirgb0 https://t.co/jEOVCFUSxI
RT @rauchway: “The new literature makes spectacular but unsupported claims, relies on faulty reasoning, and introduces many factual inaccur…
A must read if you study slavery in North America... and a compelling example of how scholars -- historians in this case-- are ill served by disciplinary insularity and innumeracy. https://t.co/D6JG9tqDSN
RT @rauchway: “The new literature makes spectacular but unsupported claims, relies on faulty reasoning, and introduces many factual inaccur…
RT @rauchway: “The new literature makes spectacular but unsupported claims, relies on faulty reasoning, and introduces many factual inaccur…
RT @rauchway: “The new literature makes spectacular but unsupported claims, relies on faulty reasoning, and introduces many factual inaccur…
RT @pseudoerasmus: Published vers of Olmstead & Rhode's critique of history of capitalism is tamer than I remember from WP https://t.co/jdt…
RT @pseudoerasmus: Published vers of Olmstead & Rhode's critique of history of capitalism is tamer than I remember from WP https://t.co/jdt…
RT @pseudoerasmus: Published vers of Olmstead & Rhode's critique of history of capitalism is tamer than I remember from WP https://t.co/jdt…
RT @pseudoerasmus: Published vers of Olmstead & Rhode's critique of history of capitalism is tamer than I remember from WP https://t.co/jdt…
RT @MarkKoyama: The Olmstead and Rhode review piece on the New History of Capitalism and its views on Slavery and Cotton is now forthcoming…