Comments on: Class analysis gets classy

By: eric pb

eric pb — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:56:20 +0000

Ah….the sweet, smell of perfume! Today’s market is flooded with hundreds and hundreds of different fragrances ranging

from floral to woodsy. Most women love the smell of perfume, wearing it even when going to the grocery store. The problem

is that perfume allergy for some women, is anything but nice.

By: eric wp

eric wp — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:19:33 +0000

The history of perfume goes back to Egypt, although it was prevalent in East Asia as well. Early perfumes were based on incense, not chemicals, so aromas were passed around through fumes. The Roman and Islamic cultures further refined the harvesting and manufacturing of perfumery processes to include other aromatic ingredients.

Thus, the ancient Islamic culture marked the history of modern perfumery with the introduction of spices and herbs. Fragrances and other exotic substances, such as Jasmine and Citruses, were adapted to be harvested in climates outside of their indigenous Asia.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:23:37 +0000

Mark and Wendy-Thanks for the insightful comments. I am very influenced by Schumpeter. Great quote too. Schumpeter of course amended Marx by saying that innovation and entrepreneurship are what give rise to the great “gales of creative destruction” which recast markets and economic and social relationships and setting in motion new growth. And you are absolutely right about the dynamic and “revolutionary” nature of industrial capitalism, which as both Marx and Schumpeter pointed out, overturned all manner of ossified social relationships. But as Schumpeter also later noted in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that system did hit it limits. Nathan Rosenberg by the way has a great essay comparing Schumpeter and Marx. My work, as I tried to point out in the post, takes those theories as a point of departure and tries to answer the question: What comes after industrial capitalism? My answer is of course the new system of “creative capitalism” which is just now emerging and which has the potential to not only recast the ossified social relationships and structure of industrial capitalism but to link future economic growth to the further development of human capabilities in new and very powerful ways.

By: nineteensixteen.

nineteensixteen. — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:48:09 +0000

what a load of wank mate.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:54:54 +0000

Thanks Richard for writing this brief intellectual history of the idea of the creative class. As a “recovering academic” it was an enjoyable and stimulating read.

Also, Mark’s point is a good one and also relates to your warning about bureaucracy absorbing too much creative energy. That’s how creative people during the heyday of the Spanish empire made money– finding ways to earn a fee (or take a share) from anything connected to government. Meanwhile, the creative people in England figured out how to get Spain’s silver-based wealth without fighting for it on the high seas — sell them finished products…

By: mark safranski

mark safranski — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:07:31 +0000

Where does Schumpeter fit into your analysis ?

“And this in turn leads to an even greater contradiction. The full flourishing of creativity comes smack up against the old and tired institutions of industrial capitalism”

Don’t be too hard on industrial capitalism as it’s market effects dissolved the very uncreative socioeconomic structures of traditional societies, permitting a higher degree of creative expression and innovation than had been possible previously. The feedback loop provided by market mechanisms also made the emerging capitalist order more adaptive than its etatist rivals.

There’s reasons England and the Netherlands eventually eclipsed the Spain of Charles V and Philip II.