Wrigley 7

There has been much debate by historians about whether the industrial revolution was a dramatic change
Wrigley believes that it was not dramatic, that substantial economic growth and change had happened before 1750
but if that is the case, why did the industrial revolution start when it did, not earlier

The industrial revolution was at first a relatively small part of the economy--what can we learn from statistics that other kinds of history miss?
cotton textiles and iron were growing dynamically in the late 18th century, not the rest of the economy
note mass produced pottery pipes for draining farm fields and for sanitation in cities

But what was going on underneath was the end of the limits on an organic economy

Malthus says the population is always going to grow faster than the economy (this helped lead Darwin the the idea of natural selection--that only the best adapted individuals survive and reproduce)
England escaped that, but the poor didn't see much improvement in their lives (p. 209)

Mid 18th century:

1800:

mid 19th century:
Second phase of the industrial revolution--larger scale investment in more industries