3 ms·

> it is obvious that GDP per-capita has been flatish throughout history But is it? That's ostensibly the point of this article--trying to actually use data to

> it is obvious that GDP per-capita has been flatish throughout history But is it? That's ostensibly the point of this article--trying to actually use data to establish whether or not this "obvious" principle is true [1]. But if you turn to the actual data, the author of the data is creating the historical data using one of three assumptions: either real GDP per-capita is correlated with population growth, which comes both with and without an arbitrary pre-industrial haircut, or real GDP per-capita is literally flat pre-industrial. It really isn't clear to me if there really is a step change in per-capita GDP growth around the First (and/or Second) Industrial Revolution, or if it's a one-off jump, or if it's a continuous, consistent per-capita growth rate with no real impact. All of those would look pretty similar in a linear-scale graph at first glance. What we do know from other economic proxies from archaeology is that pre-industrial economies weren't exactly static: you can see a clear trend that highlights the rise and fall of Rome (see, e.g., the data in https://acoup.blog/2022/02/11/collections-rome-decline-and-fall-part-iii-things/ https://acoup.blog/2022/02/11/collections-rome-decline-and-f...), so you better expect that the econometric statistics you use can replicate that trend. [1] Let's assume the purposes of discussion that GDP here is something meaningful for economic prosperity in pre-industrial times, something that can capture the productivity enhancements that did occur at that time.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago
There's no such thing as a "pre-industrial" economy. Sweden and Russia had a military-industrial complex, in the modern sense of the word, back in the Northern War. The Bronze Age required global supply chains and massive mining of rare earth minerals to function. (And before that, going back to the Neolithic we have the same for flint or jade.) Europe's medieval economy was a specific reaction to Rome's supply chain collapse, not a default state of humanity.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  No, Russia certainly did not "had a military-industrial complex, in the modern sense of the word" back then because back then, labour was not a commodity (that's the main innovation of the capitalism, after all). The Demidovs' manufakturs in the Ural mountains were using state-provided serfs as the workers. Industrialization, in the modern sense of the world, hasn't happen in Russia until the very late of the XIX century.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    Commodity labor is not a necessary characteristic of industrialization. In fact, most cases of industrialization in history involve forced labor. The standard definition of "industrial revolution" is about the switch to steam from hydropower. (I don't agree with the standard definition, but what you're saying here is even more "out there".)
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  >The Bronze Age required global supply chains and massive mining of rare earth minerals to function. I want to see your source or citation for this claim. (Unless you're using "rare earth minerals" to mean something other than the current meaning.)
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    Strictly speaking, tin is less abundant than many rare earths, although rare earths isn't meant to refer to their abundance in Earth's crust.
  - hef19898 2y ago
    Those two things are not exclusive: one can have near-global supply chains without modern industry. And one can have modern industry without global supply chains.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I was questioning the "rare earth" part, not the supply chain part.
      - hef19898 2y ago
        Which makes much more sense.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    Yes, tin is a rare earth mineral. (In the sense that it is rare and mined from the earth. Not in the akshually technical sense.) Prospecting and mining tin was a very serious and complicated business in the 20th century. (Maybe still is, I'm not up to date to current events.) Copper, tin, gold, flint, jade - this isn't stuff that was just lying there on the ground for the taking. Mining it poses immense technical and social challenges even for today's mining industry.
    - defrost 2y ago

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

There's no such thing as a "pre-industrial" economy. Sweden and Russia had a military-industrial complex, in the modern sense of the word, back in the Northern War. The Bronze Age required global supply chains and massive mining of rare earth minerals to function. (And before that, going back to the Neolithic we have the same for flint or jade.) Europe's medieval economy was a specific reaction to Rome's supply chain collapse, not a default state of humanity.

Joker_vD 2y ago
No, Russia certainly did not "had a military-industrial complex, in the modern sense of the word" back then because back then, labour was not a commodity (that's the main innovation of the capitalism, after all). The Demidovs' manufakturs in the Ural mountains were using state-provided serfs as the workers. Industrialization, in the modern sense of the world, hasn't happen in Russia until the very late of the XIX century.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  Commodity labor is not a necessary characteristic of industrialization. In fact, most cases of industrialization in history involve forced labor. The standard definition of "industrial revolution" is about the switch to steam from hydropower. (I don't agree with the standard definition, but what you're saying here is even more "out there".)
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
>The Bronze Age required global supply chains and massive mining of rare earth minerals to function. I want to see your source or citation for this claim. (Unless you're using "rare earth minerals" to mean something other than the current meaning.)
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Strictly speaking, tin is less abundant than many rare earths, although rare earths isn't meant to refer to their abundance in Earth's crust.
- hef19898 2y ago
  Those two things are not exclusive: one can have near-global supply chains without modern industry. And one can have modern industry without global supply chains.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I was questioning the "rare earth" part, not the supply chain part.
    - hef19898 2y ago
      Which makes much more sense.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  Yes, tin is a rare earth mineral. (In the sense that it is rare and mined from the earth. Not in the akshually technical sense.) Prospecting and mining tin was a very serious and complicated business in the 20th century. (Maybe still is, I'm not up to date to current events.) Copper, tin, gold, flint, jade - this isn't stuff that was just lying there on the ground for the taking. Mining it poses immense technical and social challenges even for today's mining industry.
  - defrost 2y ago