12 ms·
>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. th
by 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 agoQuoting 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]