In 1000 AD, nobody would have predicted that Europe would lead the Great Divergence. China had cities of hundreds of thousands when Paris was a few thousand thatch-roofed huts. In 1500 AD it would have seemed pretty unlikely. Mogul India was fabulously wealthy. By 1800 AD it was pretty much all over but the shouting.
The reason for this quite unlikely turn of fate is relevant to our upcoming election. Forms of government are important and while the old Chinese and Indian governmental structures excelled at distributing wealth (as do today's socialists), none of them were very good at fostering wealth creation. Then, politics interfered with economic growth. If Elizabeth Warren gets her way she'll bring this to our shores.
This is an important topic and there's a lot here. I highly recommend the Tides of History podcast on setting the stage for this: 1492: A Guided Tour of Europe on the Brink.
(Originally posted October 13, 2008)
Obligatory Imperialist Post
Because it's Columbus Power-Mad Dead White Dude Day. Insty posted about Admiral of the Ocean Sea (great book) which gives you a great Columbus overview, but entirely misses the Power-Mad Dead White Dude thing.
As a public service, here's something that you should read if you really want to make a liberal's head explode like the fembots in Austin Powers. Or understand why the world's economy is the way it is. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, by David Landes. The title is intentionally taken from Adam Smith, but Landes focuses less on describing economics per se, and more on the constraints that a society puts on their economy.
It traces the history of economic development over the last 1000 years, and asks some very politically incorrect questions:
The quote for this [2008] election season, if we're smart enough to listen, is about the post-Cold War economies:shizzle flippity floppity floop.
Contradiction between pretension and performance: nice phrase, that. For an example, see Patrick, Deval. For extra credit, compare and contrast Obama, Barack.
Dang, I think I must have just got my Hate Speech on, right there.
As a public service, here's something that you should read if you really want to make a liberal's head explode like the fembots in Austin Powers. Or understand why the world's economy is the way it is. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, by David Landes. The title is intentionally taken from Adam Smith, but Landes focuses less on describing economics per se, and more on the constraints that a society puts on their economy.It traces the history of economic development over the last 1000 years, and asks some very politically incorrect questions:
- Why did China, the world's richest and most powerful country in 1000 AD not only lose her lead, but lose it so badly that it was dismembered by the European (and later resurgent Japanese) powers?
- Why did India, fabulously wealthy and populous, not conquor the west, rather than vice-versa?
- Why did England, an undeveloped backwater as late as 1500 AD, ultimately lead the Industrial Revolution and become the world's most powerful country?
- What explains the vast differences in economic development between the USA and Canada, and other New World countries? After all, in 1700, Mexico's GDP per capita was $450, not far short of the colonies' $490 (1985 dollars). In 1989, Mexico's GDP per capita was $3,500, vs. $18,300 for the USA.
The quote for this [2008] election season, if we're smart enough to listen, is about the post-Cold War economies:
Among the heaviest losers in this period of record-breaking economic growth and technological advance were the countries of the Communist Socialist bloc: the Soviet Union at the bottom of the barrel, Romania and North Korea almost as bad, and a range of satellite victims and emulators struggling to rise above the mess. Best off were probably Czechoslovkia and Hungary, with East Germany (the DDR) and Poland trailing behind. The striking feature of these command economies was the contradiction between system and pretensions on the one hand, performance on the other. The logic was impeccable: experts would plan, zealots would compete in zeal, technology would tame nature, labor would make free, the benefits would accrue to all. From each according to their ability; to each according to his deserts; and eventually, to each according to his needs.You'll hate this if you think that economics a la John Kerry and Barack Obama is the
The dream appealed to the victims and critics of capitalism, admittedly a most imperfect system - but as it turned out, far better than the alternatives. Hence the Marxist economies long enjoyed a willful credulous favor among radicals, liberals, and progressives in the advanced industrial nations;
Contradiction between pretension and performance: nice phrase, that. For an example, see Patrick, Deval. For extra credit, compare and contrast Obama, Barack.
Dang, I think I must have just got my Hate Speech on, right there.
4 comments:
Why? Because maybe God really does favor Christians.
Or, well, alternately, it's the crappy environment of Western Europe and England, bad winters, limited resources, really differentiating terrain, that forced the western European mind to have to work harder, better, stronger, faster than the bloated empires of China and India and the Ottomans.
In 1000, the Norman Renaissance was just starting. Normans busted out of Normandy much like their ancestors and went to Italy, Sicily, Acre, England, up and down the French coastline, and started connecting the dots of broken past civilizations.
The same thing happened in the 1300s as the pullback from the Crusades occurred.
Then the Black Plague forced people to work smarter, not harder, due to less labor available. We see the nascent power machine industry (waterwheels, windmills) get attached to all sorts of things like triphammers and power blowers and pre-industrial revolution set up the industrial revolution.
What is amazing to me is that the Ottomans or China or India didn't evolve. Until you realize that all three were class-driven and class-restricted societies that punished smart people from the wrong classes for thinking outside their class.
Europe, and following in Europe's footsteps, America, had the ability for smart people to move out of their 'class' and 'station'. Generally when a European society started enforcing class and station hard, it collapsed into something that celebrated classlessness and stationlessness. France pre and post Revolution is an excellent example of this. Lots of scientific advances after the Revolution. Before? Not so much. Same with Russia pre and post Revolution. England has had several quiet revolutions every time they started stiltifying, whether it's fighting the French in the 1700's, or fighting the French in the Napoleonic era, or the Industrial Revolution, or WWI or...
Weird to think, so few (Europe) surpassed so many so quickly. Europe's societies changed and grew and morphed and evolved, while the big three just stopped. Stopped advancing, stopped learning, stopped growing.
Fortunately for all of us, and for the world. In my humble opinion.
"The striking feature of these command economies was the contradiction between system and pretensions on the one hand, performance on the other."
That would explain (Red) China's growing list of billionaires. Capitalism may not be the best system, it just happens to be better than all the rest.
Landes' book is a great read, thank you for the introduction yo it years ago.
You look way back and wonder what would have happened if Alexander the Great made it home. Egypt stalled for over 5000 years and blighted the lands around it while some of the Greeks were positioned to really take off but evidently the West would require another thousand years to be ready for the industrial revolution.
Landes makes fascinating reading.
Well done!
Post a Comment