Perhaps it would be simpler to say that the physiocrats represented land owners, and the "utilitarians" -- businessmen and entrepreneurs, therefore, they believed the increase the cost at a time when natural products become or moved; that they were things the busy economy market, where the law has been needs and desires. On the contrary, physiocrats believed exclusively in agriculture and demanded for him the biggest costs being the owners, they attributed land rent natural basis, and demanding political power, they wanted to be the only taxpayers hence, carriers of the respective rights. And of course, using traction interests, it would be possible to detect significant differences in the economic views of both. But if belonging to a social group can always explain those that so-and-so or this would choose rather one system of thought, than the other, then the condition of myclimate this system never based on the existence of this group. You need to carefully to distinguish the two forms and two levels of studies. One study it would be a synthesis of views that enables to know who in the eighteenth century was fisiocrem and who was antiresonator; whose interests are reflected this controversy; what were the issues and arguments; as was a struggle for power. Another study, not taking into account any specific figures, nor their history is to determine conditions on the basis of which was made possible to think in a coherent and synchronous forms "physiocrates" and "utilitarian" system of knowledge. The first study treated in the field of doxologia. Archaeology recognizes and accepts only second.
Perhaps it would be simpler to say that the physiocrats represented
ReplyDeleteland owners, and the "utilitarians" -- businessmen and
entrepreneurs, therefore, they believed the increase
the cost at a time when natural products become
or moved; that they were things the busy economy
market, where the law has been needs and desires. On the contrary,
physiocrats believed exclusively in agriculture and demanded for him
the biggest costs being the owners, they attributed
land rent natural basis, and demanding political
power, they wanted to be the only taxpayers
hence, carriers of the respective rights. And of course,
using traction interests, it would be possible to detect significant
differences in the economic views of both. But if
belonging to a social group can always explain those
that so-and-so or this would choose rather one system of thought,
than the other, then the condition of myclimate this system never
based on the existence of this group. You need to carefully
to distinguish the two forms and two levels of studies. One study
it would be a synthesis of views that enables to know who in the eighteenth century
was fisiocrem and who was antiresonator; whose interests are reflected
this controversy; what were the issues and arguments; as
was a struggle for power. Another study, not
taking into account any specific figures, nor their history
is to determine conditions on the basis of which was made possible
to think in a coherent and synchronous forms "physiocrates" and
"utilitarian" system of knowledge. The first study treated
in the field of doxologia. Archaeology recognizes and accepts only
second.