Ending Individual Liberty

[Camp]

That's the market revolution that was a precurser of the industrial revolution. Before the IR, businesses and farms were smaller and the bosses were close to their workers and there wasn't the huge gap in pay that the giant industries and monopolies produced, and only trust busting TR started to reform. There's no mention of a burgeoning middle class in your link, dingbat. That happened 100 years later. Read the "Good Old Days- They Were Terrible". You have the Reagan dementia of the Pub dupe.

Again Franco hater dupe, you clearly have no knowledge of history at all. Let's just say that I'm skeptical that you have an associates, much less a masters, in anything. You sound like a blue collar union worker from the 70's trying to impress people with your frequent malapropisms.

You don't even grasp the terms in use. Gaps in pay, moron? Prior to the market revolution there was no pay. Tenement farmers toiled for sustenance, hoping to scratch out enough not to starve to death. Big government owned everything and granted use to overseers. It was purely and only due to the uniquely American concept of individual liberty that allowed small farms to keep what they produced and specialize. The industrial revolution was the first wide scale use of wages.

Perhaps you could brush up on colonial history. Lots of folks worked for wages and the government never owned everything. Private companies paid for colonizing north America and many colonial immigrants worked for wages. Small businessmen such as gunsmith's, millers and ship builders all hired skilled, semi skilled and unskilled labor for wages.

www.landofthebrave.info/colonial-trades.htm

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you think the posts PC makes are true? LUUK OUT, LIBIRULS ARE COMMIES AND WUNT TO GAY MARRY.

Oh look, an assclown.

The assclown avie is your assurance that the poster displaying it has an IQ well under 40.

 

[David_42]

And you think the posts PC makes are true? LUUK OUT, LIBIRULS ARE COMMIES AND WUNT TO GAY MARRY.

Oh look, an assclown.

The assclown avie is your assurance that the poster displaying it has an IQ well under 40.

SOROS SOROS SOROS LIBURULS ARE GONNA TAKE MY GUNS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps you could brush up on colonial history. Lots of folks worked for wages and the government never owned everything. Private companies paid for colonizing north America and many colonial immigrants worked for wages. Small businessmen such as gunsmith's, millers and ship builders all hired skilled, semi skilled and unskilled labor for wages.

www.landofthebrave.info/colonial-trades.htm

Perhaps reading comprehension would help you. America provided fertile ground for the market revolution precisely because the feudal structures of the old world were dispelled. The concept of an hourly wage was slowly emerging but not really present until the IR. Pay in colonial times was generally for a task or project, the craftsman or tradesman selling his wares or service directly. The concept of going to work, prior to the market revolution simply did not exist. Merchants may have occasionally taken on an apprentice, but these were not paid wages. The structure of a working class employed by others for a paycheck to do the same job every day did not exist.

It's amusing that your own link essentially refutes you, noting that tradesmen sold their services. You DO know what "wages" means, right?

You cannot rescue Franco hater dupe, he is an ignorant sot with zero knowledge of history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

SOROS SOROS SOROS LIBURULS ARE GONNA TAKE MY GUNS.

We get it, you're stupid.

No need to shout it, the assclown avie already alerted us.

 

[Camp]

Perhaps you could brush up on colonial history. Lots of folks worked for wages and the government never owned everything. Private companies paid for colonizing north America and many colonial immigrants worked for wages. Small businessmen such as gunsmith's, millers and ship builders all hired skilled, semi skilled and unskilled labor for wages.

www.landofthebrave.info/colonial-trades.htm

Perhaps reading comprehension would help you. America provided fertile ground for the market revolution precisely because the feudal structures of the old world were dispelled. The concept of an hourly wage was slowly emerging but not really present until the IR. Pay in colonial times was generally for a task or project, the craftsman or tradesman selling his wares or service directly. The concept of going to work, prior to the market revolution simply did not exist. Merchants may have occasionally taken on an apprentice, but these were not paid wages. The structure of a working class employed by others for a paycheck to do the same job every day did not exist.

It's amusing that your own link essentially refutes you, noting that tradesmen sold their services. You DO know what "wages" means, right?

You cannot rescue Franco hater dupe, he is an ignorant sot with zero knowledge of history.

Nope, you are the one distorting the article to fit your agenda, which is to substantiate your claim about labor and wages in the colonial period. You see the word "tradesmen" and ignore the references to "occupations" and "workers" as well as the references to industries and businesses that required common semi and unskilled workers. How do you suppose the warehouse workers were paid? Do you think the tanning factories only had skilled craftsman and did not require semi skilled laborers to do the tedious work required in tanning?
I have provided a link that lends credence and support to my claim that colonial workers received wages for work performed and contradicts your claim that wages did not exist and everything was controlled by big government and the concept of wages did not exist. My link shows the many privately owned businesses and refers to various kinds of workers being employed to operate those businesses.
It is now your turn to provide some kind of evidence such as a link to back up your claim. You need something besides comments expressing your opinions and speculations to counter the factual data I have provide to the discussion.

 

[David_42]

SOROS SOROS SOROS LIBURULS ARE GONNA TAKE MY GUNS.

We get it, you're stupid.

No need to shout it, the assclown avie already alerted us.

I'm just copying your posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope, you are the one distorting the article to fit your agenda, which is to substantiate your claim about labor and wages in the colonial period.

First off, my statement is that the concept of wage labor arose with the market revolution. In your zeal to rescue your fellow leftist, floundering in his ignorance, you trotted out "colonial era." Even so, you are off kilter. Work provided in that time was essentially equivalent to what we would call "private contractors."

You see the word "tradesmen" and ignore the references to "occupations" and "workers" as well as the references to industries and businesses that required common semi and unskilled workers. How do you suppose the warehouse workers were paid? Do you think the tanning factories only had skilled craftsman and did not require semi skilled laborers to do the tedious work required in tanning?

Labor as a mass commodity was emerging in the colonies AS PART OF THE MARKET REVOLUTION (recall what I said of reading comprehension.) However, the method of hiring labor still involved the offer of room, board, and fee for services. The use of wages slowly developed as the market evolved.

What I was trying to impart to Franco hater dupe, is what ANYONE with even a smidgen of historical knowledge already understands, the rise of wages came about in conjunction to the market. It was precisely the ability to produce in excess of consumption that provided the opportunity to expand into mass production and the need for continuous labor.

I have provided a link that lends credence and support to my claim that colonial workers received wages for work performed and contradicts your claim that wages did not exist and everything was controlled by big government and the concept of wages did not exist. My link shows the many privately owned businesses and refers to various kinds of workers being employed to operate those businesses.
It is now you turn to provide some kind of evidence such as a link to back up your claim. You need something besides comments expressing your opinions and speculations to counter the factual data I have provide to the discussion.

I have nothing against your link, a bit elementary but from that aspect accurate enough. I merely pointed out that your link fails to support your contention. Oh, and "big government" you do understand was the crown, of the feudal lords. You DO grasp that under the monarchy, all belonged to the crown and those who worked and managed lands did so only at the pleasure of the crown, yes?

Feudalism

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm just copying your posts.

I don't post on DailyKOS, sploogy.

You're out of your league; even Franco hater dupe appears an intellectual compared to you.

If you want to join in threads like this, finish high school first, try to grasp the topic of discussion, and offer facts.

 

[Camp]

Nope, you are the one distorting the article to fit your agenda, which is to substantiate your claim about labor and wages in the colonial period.

First off, my statement is that the concept of wage labor arose with the market revolution. In your zeal to rescue your fellow leftist, floundering in his ignorance, you trotted out "colonial era." Even so, you are off kilter. Work provided in that time was essentially equivalent to what we would call "private contractors."

You see the word "tradesmen" and ignore the references to "occupations" and "workers" as well as the references to industries and businesses that required common semi and unskilled workers. How do you suppose the warehouse workers were paid? Do you think the tanning factories only had skilled craftsman and did not require semi skilled laborers to do the tedious work required in tanning?

Labor as a mass commodity was emerging in the colonies AS PART OF THE MARKET REVOLUTION (recall what I said of reading comprehension.) However, the method of hiring labor still involved the offer of room, board, and fee for services. The use of wages slowly developed as the market evolved.

What I was trying to impart to Franco hater dupe, is what ANYONE with even a smidgen of historical knowledge already understands, the rise of wages came about in conjunction to the market. It was precisely the ability to produce in excess of consumption that provided the opportunity to expand into mass production and the need for continuous labor.

I have provided a link that lends credence and support to my claim that colonial workers received wages for work performed and contradicts your claim that wages did not exist and everything was controlled by big government and the concept of wages did not exist. My link shows the many privately owned businesses and refers to various kinds of workers being employed to operate those businesses.
It is now you turn to provide some kind of evidence such as a link to back up your claim. You need something besides comments expressing your opinions and speculations to counter the factual data I have provide to the discussion.

I have nothing against your link, a bit elementary but from that aspect accurate enough. I merely pointed out that your link fails to support your contention. Oh, and "big government" you do understand was the crown, of the feudal lords. You DO grasp that under the monarchy, all belonged to the crown and those who worked and managed lands did so only at the pleasure of the crown, yes?

Feudalism

You could have just answered with a "no, I can not back up my agenda driven speculation and claims".

Here is link less elementary dealing with the post colonial period. It gives very specific data about the wages you claim didn't exist.

nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

You could have just answered with a "no, I can not back up my agenda driven speculation and claims".

Here is link less elementary dealing with the post colonial period. It gives very specific data about the wages you claim didn't exist.

nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

Surrendering so quickly?

Pity.

 

[Camp]

You could have just answered with a "no, I can not back up my agenda driven speculation and claims".

Here is link less elementary dealing with the post colonial period. It gives very specific data about the wages you claim didn't exist.

nber.org/chapters/c2486.pdf

Surrendering so quickly?

Pity.

How does providing an additional academic link to bolster my point and debunk your nonsense equal a surrender? I am charging ahead to validate my claim and you are supplying dopey responses to deflect away from the fact that you can not provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How does providing an additional academic link to bolster my point and debunk your nonsense equal a surrender? I am charging ahead to validate my claim and you are supplying dopey responses to deflect away from the fact that you can not provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

ROFL

The problem is Camp, you're simply wrong. Further, I think you know it but are so set on proving an enemy of the party wrong that you are grasping at straws.

Your link is a random publication wholly unrelated to the subject at hand.

Try something relevant, like this;

{
PREINDUSTRIAL WAYS OF WORKING
The family of Thomas and Elizabeth Springer of
Mill Creek, Delaware represents the yeomen existence of farm families in the Mid-Atlantic
states. They sold dairy products, wool, and livestock in nearby Wilmington and raised crops for
family use and commercial sale. They participated in a local network of barter and mutual
obligation. The traditional labor system put the entire family to work. The relative absence of
cash meant that goods and services originating in the home were bartered for other goods and
services. In New England, many farm families engaged in outside work, often developing a skill
such as shoemaking.
Urban craftsmen traditionally learned their trades through the European apprenticeship
system. Young men worked as artisans until they had perfected their skills and could become
journeymen and (they hoped) master craftsmen. Though women did skilled work too, no
apprenticeship system existed for them. Work for the urban craftsman was a family affair,
organized along patriarchal lines, and generally specializing in one area. The father was head of
the family and boss of the enterprise. Legally, the father owned all family property and was
considered its representative in the larger society. Women had their own significant
responsibilities as managers of the household and informal assistants.
Preindustrial society fixed the place of people in the social order. Most artisans did not
challenge the traditional authority of the wealthy. But in the early 19th century, the market
revolution undermined the traditional social order}


http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/171/175855/IM_Chapter12.pdf

 

[Camp]

How does providing an additional academic link to bolster my point and debunk your nonsense equal a surrender? I am charging ahead to validate my claim and you are supplying dopey responses to deflect away from the fact that you can not provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

ROFL

The problem is Camp, you're simply wrong. Further, I think you know it but are so set on proving an enemy of the party wrong that you are grasping at straws.

Your link is a random publication wholly unrelated to the subject at hand.

Try something relevant, like this;

{
PREINDUSTRIAL WAYS OF WORKING
The family of Thomas and Elizabeth Springer of
Mill Creek, Delaware represents the yeomen existence of farm families in the Mid-Atlantic
states. They sold dairy products, wool, and livestock in nearby Wilmington and raised crops for
family use and commercial sale. They participated in a local network of barter and mutual
obligation. The traditional labor system put the entire family to work. The relative absence of
cash meant that goods and services originating in the home were bartered for other goods and
services. In New England, many farm families engaged in outside work, often developing a skill
such as shoemaking.
Urban craftsmen traditionally learned their trades through the European apprenticeship
system. Young men worked as artisans until they had perfected their skills and could become
journeymen and (they hoped) master craftsmen. Though women did skilled work too, no
apprenticeship system existed for them. Work for the urban craftsman was a family affair,
organized along patriarchal lines, and generally specializing in one area. The father was head of
the family and boss of the enterprise. Legally, the father owned all family property and was
considered its representative in the larger society. Women had their own significant
responsibilities as managers of the household and informal assistants.
Preindustrial society fixed the place of people in the social order. Most artisans did not
challenge the traditional authority of the wealthy. But in the early 19th century, the market
revolution undermined the traditional social order}


http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/171/175855/IM_Chapter12.pdf

Your link appears to be a school text book. Did you notice that the first sentence deals with the salary of a factory worker in Lowell Massachusetts. Do we need to go back to your original post and your claims about workers not working for wages, everyone being indentured servants or slaves, everything being owned by the government, etc. Your single link is showing this to be false. You found an example of some farmers using the barter system, but the same link disproves your conclusions. Obviously in the earliest days barter was the chief source of trade. As time went on it transformed into a cash economy. By the early 1800's most people were being paid cash for work. Your example in the link is a bad example to make your point. I can still barter for milk and milk products with our two local dairy farmers. I suspect in many decades into the future farmers will still be open to barter.

 

[francoHFW]

Pure ignorance>>Stupid insults...clever. ANSWER THE QUESTION lol. So what caused the Great Depression, the S+L Crisis/recession, and the 2008 Booosh world meltdown in dumbass Pub dupe World, dingbat? Pure coincidence? lol

What caused the great depression? Manipulative monetary policies put in place by central planners who believed they were competent to drive an economy rather then allowing the invisible hand to guide.

Why do you ask?

Oh, and who was (and is) in charge of monetary policy?

What year was that? Under those central planners Harding and Coolidge?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What year was that? Under those central planners Harding and Coolidge?

You think the great depression started under Harding or Coolidge?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your link appears to be a school text book.

University of Chicago, as the link states. Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Did you notice that the first sentence deals with the salary of a factory worker in Lowell Massachusetts. Do we need to go back to your original post and your claims about workers not working for wages, everyone being indentured servants or slaves, everything being owned by the government, etc. Your single link is showing this to be false. You found an example of some farmers using the barter system, but the same link disproves your conclusions. Obviously in the earliest days barter was the chief source of trade. As time went on it transformed into a cash economy. By the early 1800's most people were being paid cash for work. Your example in the link is a bad example to make your point. I can still barter for milk and milk products with our two local dairy farmers. I suspect in many decades into the future farmers will still be open to barter.

But no, you refuse to learn...

 

[Camp]

Your link appears to be a school text book.

University of Chicago, as the link states. Here is an opportunity for you to learn something.

Did you notice that the first sentence deals with the salary of a factory worker in Lowell Massachusetts. Do we need to go back to your original post and your claims about workers not working for wages, everyone being indentured servants or slaves, everything being owned by the government, etc. Your single link is showing this to be false. You found an example of some farmers using the barter system, but the same link disproves your conclusions. Obviously in the earliest days barter was the chief source of trade. As time went on it transformed into a cash economy. By the early 1800's most people were being paid cash for work. Your example in the link is a bad example to make your point. I can still barter for milk and milk products with our two local dairy farmers. I suspect in many decades into the future farmers will still be open to barter.

But no, you refuse to learn...

I did not see the mention of the University of Chicago. The link to prenhall.com goes to a private education company called Pearson Higher Education. Perhaps they are connected to the University of Chicago in some way? In any case, I don't have a problem with the source. I disagree with your interpretation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I did not see the mention of the University of Chicago. The link to prenhall.com goes to a private education company called Pearson Higher Education. Perhaps they are connected to the University of Chicago in some way? In any case, I don't have a problem with the source. I disagree with your interpretation.

Prentice Hall is extremely well known in educational circles. This is a publishing house.