4 ms·
> What this means is that whatever today’s rich countries did to get rich, they weren’t doing it in 1820. Imperialism is very old — the Romans, the Persians, th
by behnamoh 3y ago
> What this means is that whatever today’s rich countries did to get rich, they weren’t doing it in 1820. Imperialism is very old — the Romans, the Persians, the Mongols, and many other empires all pillaged and plundered plenty of wealth. But despite all of that plunder, no country in the world was getting particularly rich, by modern standards, until the latter half of the 20th century.
I don't agree with this statement. The author is using today's metric for wealth (GDP per capita) to compare post-renaissance world to ancient empires, concluding that they were not rich enough.
In ancient times, the idea of GDP/capita was unheard of. What mattered was whether you could create an army (and pay them a decent amount) to attack other nations, plundering them so you could have even more money to raise an even bigger army. The examples the author mentions (Romans, Persians, Mongols) had this initial money to begin with.
- j7ake 3y agoYeah it’s a statement deliberately crafted to obfuscate and misrepresent in order to carry a false narrative. If no country was particularly rich compared to today’s standard, then it is not convincing to conclude that plundering did not help. Because then you could conclude any other activity (eg trading, innovating, discovering) also was not helping. A proper analysis needs to compare different countries within the same period, and ask whether countries that plundered are ranked higher than those that did not.
- helij 3y agoThe usual trap when people apply today's way and thinking to history. Thanks for pointing it out. Historians fight this every day.
- DonsDiscountGas 3y agoIt's not a trap in this context. Somebody who dies from malaria in 1500 is just as dead as somebody who dies from malaria today. Their friends and family are likely to react differently due to different culture, and they will assign different causality, but dead is dead. The whole point of this article is to compare material conditions today to the past. Which isn't the only thing that matters, but it absolutely does matter, and comparisons can be made.
- Remnant44 3y agoThe evidence produced is definitely addressing a different argument than the one he actually starts with. Comparing ancient empires to modern living standards is nonsensical for the purposes of determining if plunder was the basis for empire. And indeed, we know plenty of cases where plunder made wealthy and then ravished entire nations such as the Spanish conquest of Middle America. His fundamental point is accurate though - there is not a fixed pot of wealth in the world, and the increased wealth of our modern age is due to technology and efficiency, not simply taking things from others.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThe data is relevant to the other central point. If you compared the standard of living between 1AD Rome and 2024 US, the difference isn't because the US is better at plundering. It is hands down technological innovation.
- Wolfbeta 3y agoThen why is it constantly starting wars over oil?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoBig shocker, but oil was useless before technology for use and extraction was developed.
- Wolfbeta 3y agoAll technology did in this case was unlock it as a resource worth plundering.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoWhat a sad and cynical worldview. The idea that all technology, medicine, an innovation adds nothing to the betterment of The Human Condition. The idea that the only way Society can or has ever been improved is by stealing from others is laughable. I've never met anyone else that thought feeling and exploitation was a net positive for Global Society, so at least it's an interesting idea, even if I venementally disagree If that's the case then plundering is a net positive, and the cause of every Improvement in the world. It should be in celebrated and encouraged
- AtlasBarfed 3y agoYeah um, the British Empire? Anybody? A small island off the coast of Europe got VERY RICH off of imperialism.
- inglor_cz 3y agoA small societal elite of that small island got very rich off imperialism, much like in Spain or Portugal. The broader enrichment of the British people was kicked off by something different, namely the industrial revolution. Spain and Portugal didn't have those and the average person there remained bitterly poor until deep into the 20th century.
- the_only_law 3y ago> Spain and Portugal didn't have those and the average person there remained bitterly poor until deep into the 20th century. It’s mildly controversial, but I really like Buñuel’s Tierra Sin Pan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Without_Bread https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Without_Bread). Honestly I never thought that level of poverty existed in Western Europe even in the 1930’s.
- DonsDiscountGas 3y agoThe height of the British empire was ~1500-1800. Here is a graph of their GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?yScale=log https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-... There is definitely some increase, but it really kicks up in 1800s and 1900s, with the industrial revolution.
- j7ake 3y agoThe increase in slope at 1850 onwards corresponds to the start of the British Raj rule, when about a trillion dollars of wealth was transferred. India went from 23% of global GDP to under 3% during this period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_Bri...