5 ms·

I don't understand? Romania and the rest of Eastern was almost all serfs 200 years ago. are you saying because people had clothes (as opposed to I guess indigen

I don't understand? Romania and the rest of Eastern was almost all serfs 200 years ago. are you saying because people had clothes (as opposed to I guess indigenous peoples in Africa or something) Romania wasn't poor (and therefore Sweden was actually wealthy?

oblio 9y ago
I'm not sure how exactly my comment is not clear, but I'll clarify anyway :) (Edit: found it - the last phrase in my comment should say "at that time", unfortunately I can't edit my comment) Let's pick some moments in time, say 1500, 1800, 2000 and some countries, say Sweden, Romania and Asgard® (I'm going to use a fictitious country name to avoid offending anyone from a poorer country :) ). My statement was that in 1500, 1800 and 2000, the wealth levels for these countries were like this: Sweden > Romania > Asgard. for all 3 moments in time (or any other, more or less) The description in the article doesn't make sense, he's appealing to our modern sensibilities. Of course Sweden in 2000 is richer than Sweden in 1800. But it doesn't make any sense to compare things like that. If you want to get a true measure, you need to compare things at that point in time: Sweden in 1800 with Romania in 1800 and with Asgard® in 1800. So, for your comment: > are you saying [...] Romania wasn't poor and therefore Sweden was actually wealthy? 1. Romania in 1800 was comparatively poorer than Sweden in 1800, but richer than Asgard® in 1800. So, Romania was still poor, but not as poor as other places. 2. Sweden, as a result, "was actually wealthy" for that time, compared to many other countries in the world, at that time.
- db48x 9y ago
  > Of course Sweden in 2000 is richer than Sweden in 1800. But it doesn't make any sense to compare things like that. It's definitely possible to get poorer as time progresses, rather than richer. Venezuela is a recent example.
  - oblio 9y ago
    Yes, of course, there can be major fluctuations in any direction. But the data that we do have (see the Maddison Project) points out to many countries being in roughly the same quartiles across centuries. Sweden or Romania would be some of those. China would be an example of an undeperformer from 1800 to 1990 and Saudi Arabia an overperformer from 1960 (I think). But these scenarios are not the common case, there’s a reason they are called economic disasters or miracles. Oh, and the present day has way more noise than the past, cause of industrialization. Now a country can truly be 10-100 more productive per capita than another. But before the Industrial Age it was waaaay harder to stand out, you needed some exquisite social systems to do it, it happened extremely slowly and rarely.
- mlevental 9y ago
  >Romania in 1800 was comparatively poorer than Sweden in 1800, but richer than Asgard® in 1800. So, Romania was still poor, but not as poor as other places. this is exactly /my/ point: which countries were poorer than romania. if there were any then you're talking about basically indigenous peoples that still lived pre-agriculture another commenter makes the point that serfdom had been eliminated by 200 years ago. fine. peasants. most of eastern europe were peasants (hence of course peasants revolts of the 19th century culminating in the bolshevik revolution). i think it very hard to get much poorer than pre-industrial revolution peasant farmers.
  - oblio 9y ago
    Quoting myself, from the original comment: > You don’t have to believe me, check the Maddison Project. But hey, let me Google that for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#1%E2%80%932008_(Maddison) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... (Romania is lumped up in Eastern Europe, just sort to find the regions considered poorer) There are a million shades of "poverty". To paraphrase Tolstoi: rich people are rich in mostly the same way, poor people are each poor in their own way.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
credit_guy 9y ago
Serfdom was abolished 270 years ago in the parts of Romania then in the Ottoman empire [1] and 240 years ago in the parts then in the Habsburg empire [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Wallachia_and_Moldavia#Ending https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Wallachia_and_Mol... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_Patent_(1781) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_Patent_(1781)

oblio 9y ago

I'm not sure how exactly my comment is not clear, but I'll clarify anyway :) (Edit: found it - the last phrase in my comment should say "at that time", unfortunately I can't edit my comment) Let's pick some moments in time, say 1500, 1800, 2000 and some countries, say Sweden, Romania and Asgard® (I'm going to use a fictitious country name to avoid offending anyone from a poorer country :) ). My statement was that in 1500, 1800 and 2000, the wealth levels for these countries were like this: Sweden > Romania > Asgard. for all 3 moments in time (or any other, more or less) The description in the article doesn't make sense, he's appealing to our modern sensibilities. Of course Sweden in 2000 is richer than Sweden in 1800. But it doesn't make any sense to compare things like that. If you want to get a true measure, you need to compare things at that point in time: Sweden in 1800 with Romania in 1800 and with Asgard® in 1800. So, for your comment: > are you saying [...] Romania wasn't poor and therefore Sweden was actually wealthy? 1. Romania in 1800 was comparatively poorer than Sweden in 1800, but richer than Asgard® in 1800. So, Romania was still poor, but not as poor as other places. 2. Sweden, as a result, "was actually wealthy" for that time, compared to many other countries in the world, at that time.

db48x 9y ago
> Of course Sweden in 2000 is richer than Sweden in 1800. But it doesn't make any sense to compare things like that. It's definitely possible to get poorer as time progresses, rather than richer. Venezuela is a recent example.
- oblio 9y ago
  Yes, of course, there can be major fluctuations in any direction. But the data that we do have (see the Maddison Project) points out to many countries being in roughly the same quartiles across centuries. Sweden or Romania would be some of those. China would be an example of an undeperformer from 1800 to 1990 and Saudi Arabia an overperformer from 1960 (I think). But these scenarios are not the common case, there’s a reason they are called economic disasters or miracles. Oh, and the present day has way more noise than the past, cause of industrialization. Now a country can truly be 10-100 more productive per capita than another. But before the Industrial Age it was waaaay harder to stand out, you needed some exquisite social systems to do it, it happened extremely slowly and rarely.
mlevental 9y ago
>Romania in 1800 was comparatively poorer than Sweden in 1800, but richer than Asgard® in 1800. So, Romania was still poor, but not as poor as other places. this is exactly /my/ point: which countries were poorer than romania. if there were any then you're talking about basically indigenous peoples that still lived pre-agriculture another commenter makes the point that serfdom had been eliminated by 200 years ago. fine. peasants. most of eastern europe were peasants (hence of course peasants revolts of the 19th century culminating in the bolshevik revolution). i think it very hard to get much poorer than pre-industrial revolution peasant farmers.
- oblio 9y ago
  Quoting myself, from the original comment: > You don’t have to believe me, check the Maddison Project. But hey, let me Google that for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#1%E2%80%932008_(Maddison) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... (Romania is lumped up in Eastern Europe, just sort to find the regions considered poorer) There are a million shades of "poverty". To paraphrase Tolstoi: rich people are rich in mostly the same way, poor people are each poor in their own way.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

credit_guy 9y ago

Serfdom was abolished 270 years ago in the parts of Romania then in the Ottoman empire [1] and 240 years ago in the parts then in the Habsburg empire [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Wallachia_and_Moldavia#Ending https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Wallachia_and_Mol... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_Patent_(1781) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_Patent_(1781)