----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Responding to Michael Perelman and Mat Forstater: Taxes payable in money have indeed been an important way of forcing otherwise self-sufficient peasants into the money economy. But that is not relevant to C18 or C19 England, where rents and taxes had been paid in money for centuries and where wage labour was well established. What is at issue is the game laws and the classical economists' attitude to them. My primary objection is to Michael's claim that the classical economists were aware of significant damage to agriculture as a result of the game laws, but that they kept silent about it for political reasons. This (still) seems implausible to me. It would be hard to claim that Ricardo, say, sided directly with the hunting landlords, so (as I understand it - am I right, Michael?) the claim is that (a) there was an indirect benefit to capitalists which (b) the classical economists recognized but (c) never mentioned, because it served capitalist interests better to keep quiet. I have no inherent problem with (c), given (a) and (b) - it is similar to Hicks's claim that classical and post-classical economists kept quiet about the short-run gains from a growing money supply in order to avoid offering temptation to short-termist politicians. The classicals were politically aware and politically motivated. On the other hand, though (c) is not ruled out, it does require pretty strong circumstantial evidence, given the absence of direct textual evidence. I don't see that evidence. In any case, (c) rests on (a) and (b); (a) seems false to me and (b) is I think certainly false. Damage caused by the game laws cannot have benefited capitalism in the countryside in any way that I can see. Hence my comment that Michael seemed to see capitalism as an urban phenomenon. But a crippled agriculture would have been bad for urban capitalists as well, by limiting food supplies - the case is similar to the corn laws. The classical economists (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo etc.) thought that agriculture was particularly important to overall economic growth, and could not logically have supported a reduction in agricultural productivity. The basic point is very simple - a reduction in agricultural productivity would not increase the supply of wage labour by forcing people out of agriculture but reduce it by reducing output and marketed surplus and hence the ability to support the workforce. Tony Brewer ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]