Відмінності між версіями «Фортрей Самуїл»
Матеріал з Історія економічної теорії
Admin (обговорення • внесок) |
Admin (обговорення • внесок) |
||
| Рядок 15: | Рядок 15: | ||
</spoiler> | </spoiler> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | <spoiler text="Відомі вчені та авторитетні джерела про "><div align="justify"><h3><center>Робер Аллен (нар. 1947 р.) – американський вчений, дослідник економічної історії, професор</center></h3>«The political economists who pursued this question developed a two sector-model, in which the economy was conceptually divided into agricultural and commercial sectors, to explain the growth of trade and manufactures. In 1663 Fortrey applied this model to enclosures. He admitted that they destroyed villages and led to the conversion to pasture – “one hundred acres of which, will scarce maintain a shepherd and his dog, which now maintains many families, employed in tillage”. But he denied that the displaced farmers remained unemployed: “Nor surely do any imagine that the people which lived in those towns they call depopulated, were all destroyed, because they lived no longer there”. Instead, “they were only removed to other places … and employed in the manufacture of the wool1 that may arise out of one hundred acres of pasture”. Thus enclosure led to the growth of industry. “The manufactures and other profitable employments of this nation are increased, by adding there to such numbers of people, who formerly served only to waste, not to increase the store of the nation”. Enclosure led to weaving – not stealing! | + | <spoiler text="Відомі вчені та авторитетні джерела про Самуїла Фортрея"><div align="justify"><h3><center>Робер Аллен (нар. 1947 р.) – американський вчений, дослідник економічної історії, професор</center></h3>«The political economists who pursued this question developed a two sector-model, in which the economy was conceptually divided into agricultural and commercial sectors, to explain the growth of trade and manufactures. In 1663 Fortrey applied this model to enclosures. He admitted that they destroyed villages and led to the conversion to pasture – “one hundred acres of which, will scarce maintain a shepherd and his dog, which now maintains many families, employed in tillage”. But he denied that the displaced farmers remained unemployed: “Nor surely do any imagine that the people which lived in those towns they call depopulated, were all destroyed, because they lived no longer there”. Instead, “they were only removed to other places … and employed in the manufacture of the wool1 that may arise out of one hundred acres of pasture”. Thus enclosure led to the growth of industry. “The manufactures and other profitable employments of this nation are increased, by adding there to such numbers of people, who formerly served only to waste, not to increase the store of the nation”. Enclosure led to weaving – not stealing! |
Fortrey's argument, with its assumption that enclosure reduced farm employment, fits comfortably with the Marxist theory of technical change in agriculture, and, indeed, Fortrey's argument was accepted without revision by Marx». | Fortrey's argument, with its assumption that enclosure reduced farm employment, fits comfortably with the Marxist theory of technical change in agriculture, and, indeed, Fortrey's argument was accepted without revision by Marx». | ||
Версія за 11:21, 31 травня 2016
Фортрей (Фортрі) Самуїл (Семюел)
Fortrey Samuel
(1622 – 1681) –
англійський економіст XVII ст.,
представник пізнього меркантилізму.
Fortrey Samuel
(1622 – 1681) –
англійський економіст XVII ст.,
представник пізнього меркантилізму.
