5 ms·

I found this to be an enlightening and fun article. The one negative I would flag is that it is US-centric and - while nails did not change much during that per

I found this to be an enlightening and fun article. The one negative I would flag is that it is US-centric and - while nails did not change much during that period - the US was created as a collection of states while being settled by colonizers. That was a very disruptive geographic phase. It would probably be more useful to have run a similar study against Europe during this period. While the formation of nation states and the industrial revolution would be substantial socio-economic activities, the relative change was less.

taneliv 5y ago
I'm no historian, but your view appears almost ignorant of European history. There were a number of very disruptive wars in Europe during the last three centuries, not to mention emergence and disappearance of whole nations, whether defined by language or state borders or armies. The numerous famines and genocides had a very real socio-economic impact. Socialist and communist governments in the last hundred years with their market planning ideology in something like half of Europe would also throw a wrench in natural price formation. This is not the only socio-economic challenge: the diversity of languages, currencies and forms of government would not help make sweeping studies like this accurate. The colonizers of the US were largely immigrants from Europe, who were fleeing war, oppression, famine or other calamity. There has never been any comparable immigration from the US to Europe (or indeed to anywhere). To me this indicates very strongly which region has been stable or not. In comparison, the very disruptive geographic phase that you refer to seems very stable growth to me. I'm a bit puzzled how the relative change has been less in Europe, in my view it's quite the opposite!
- watwut 5y ago
  I think you ignore quite a lot of US history when you call period from 1695 up stable. US was expanding - that implies a lot of war and conflict, both internally and externally. There were also multiple notable population migrations within US. Either to new territories, or disposal of people from them, or what they call "the great migration" of african americans in the twenty century.
  - taneliv 5y ago
    I hope I'm not ignoring, but it is possible. I don't know how to capture the instability in either region by some sort of a metric to make them comparable. However, the examples you give seem almost insignificant in comparison to events at the same time in Europe. For example, in 1900s Soviet Union alone forcefully displaced more than 20 million people. In the 1700s and 1800s Europe saw several wars, which claimed millions of casualties each and were largely fought in areas where people in peaceful times would be producing and consuming nails. I think the US westward expansion and conflicts (with the exception of the Civil War) happened largely in the new areas and possibly had relatively little effect on the more established regions in the East. I could go on with more examples, but that would not increase my understanding. How could I better understand the instability in the US? As a hopefully illuminating example on the other side, some of the European instability is implicitly captured by the Wikipedia list of conflicts[1], keeping in mind that casualties are hundreds of thousands or even over a million deaths in many cases even though not listed. Are there similar (or more in-depth) resources that would indicate my ignorance and help me learn more about how the US expansion, conflicts and migration caused instability? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#18th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#18...
    - watwut 5y ago
      I reacted to this "The colonizers of the US were largely immigrants from Europe, who were fleeing war, oppression, famine or other calamity. There has never been any comparable immigration from the US to Europe (or indeed to anywhere). To me this indicates very strongly which region has been stable or not." In terms of wars and moving away, US had a lot of action going on. US history is actually interesting. * 1695 - 1865 is period of slavery and thus massive forced movement of huge amounts of people. Especially by the last decades, there was a lot of movement of slaves within united states. By a lot, I mean really huge amounts due to business moving. * The whole native-american population was displaced or killed from majority of the continent in that span. Those areas did not magically appeared out of nowhere empty. * The war between north and south was actually major conflict. The leadup to it was bloody. The aftermath of it completely transformed economy and culture in the South. * South consequently went through short but real period of democratization and then closing up the politics to groups. * Approximately six million Black people moved from the American South to Northern by the beginning of 20 century. ------------ And before you say they did not produced nails, neither did peasants in Soviet Union all that much. That region was hugely rural, hugely behind the times in terms of industry or literacy.
hef19898 5y ago
Considering that the US basically became the leading edge of manufacturing technology at that time, it makes sense.

taneliv 5y ago

I'm no historian, but your view appears almost ignorant of European history. There were a number of very disruptive wars in Europe during the last three centuries, not to mention emergence and disappearance of whole nations, whether defined by language or state borders or armies. The numerous famines and genocides had a very real socio-economic impact. Socialist and communist governments in the last hundred years with their market planning ideology in something like half of Europe would also throw a wrench in natural price formation. This is not the only socio-economic challenge: the diversity of languages, currencies and forms of government would not help make sweeping studies like this accurate. The colonizers of the US were largely immigrants from Europe, who were fleeing war, oppression, famine or other calamity. There has never been any comparable immigration from the US to Europe (or indeed to anywhere). To me this indicates very strongly which region has been stable or not. In comparison, the very disruptive geographic phase that you refer to seems very stable growth to me. I'm a bit puzzled how the relative change has been less in Europe, in my view it's quite the opposite!

watwut 5y ago
I think you ignore quite a lot of US history when you call period from 1695 up stable. US was expanding - that implies a lot of war and conflict, both internally and externally. There were also multiple notable population migrations within US. Either to new territories, or disposal of people from them, or what they call "the great migration" of african americans in the twenty century.
- taneliv 5y ago
  I hope I'm not ignoring, but it is possible. I don't know how to capture the instability in either region by some sort of a metric to make them comparable. However, the examples you give seem almost insignificant in comparison to events at the same time in Europe. For example, in 1900s Soviet Union alone forcefully displaced more than 20 million people. In the 1700s and 1800s Europe saw several wars, which claimed millions of casualties each and were largely fought in areas where people in peaceful times would be producing and consuming nails. I think the US westward expansion and conflicts (with the exception of the Civil War) happened largely in the new areas and possibly had relatively little effect on the more established regions in the East. I could go on with more examples, but that would not increase my understanding. How could I better understand the instability in the US? As a hopefully illuminating example on the other side, some of the European instability is implicitly captured by the Wikipedia list of conflicts[1], keeping in mind that casualties are hundreds of thousands or even over a million deaths in many cases even though not listed. Are there similar (or more in-depth) resources that would indicate my ignorance and help me learn more about how the US expansion, conflicts and migration caused instability? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#18th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#18...
  - watwut 5y ago
    I reacted to this "The colonizers of the US were largely immigrants from Europe, who were fleeing war, oppression, famine or other calamity. There has never been any comparable immigration from the US to Europe (or indeed to anywhere). To me this indicates very strongly which region has been stable or not." In terms of wars and moving away, US had a lot of action going on. US history is actually interesting. * 1695 - 1865 is period of slavery and thus massive forced movement of huge amounts of people. Especially by the last decades, there was a lot of movement of slaves within united states. By a lot, I mean really huge amounts due to business moving. * The whole native-american population was displaced or killed from majority of the continent in that span. Those areas did not magically appeared out of nowhere empty. * The war between north and south was actually major conflict. The leadup to it was bloody. The aftermath of it completely transformed economy and culture in the South. * South consequently went through short but real period of democratization and then closing up the politics to groups. * Approximately six million Black people moved from the American South to Northern by the beginning of 20 century. ------------ And before you say they did not produced nails, neither did peasants in Soviet Union all that much. That region was hugely rural, hugely behind the times in terms of industry or literacy.

hef19898 5y ago

Considering that the US basically became the leading edge of manufacturing technology at that time, it makes sense.