4 ms·

If you go to their source, you also see that there are only 3 data points in the first 75% of the graph. This makes sense, since obviously global GDP can only

If you go to their source, you also see that there are only 3 data points in the first 75% of the graph. This makes sense, since obviously global GDP can only be very roughly estimated in e.g. 1000AD. It kind of raises the question of whether GDP is even a coherent concept in 1000AD. However, the post-1500 numbers are going to be at least somewhat reliable, and can be inspected at the source: 1500: 502.98G 1600: 671.14G (0.29% annualized growth) 1700: 751.59G (0.11%) 1820: 1.40T (0.52%) 1850: 1.85T (0.93%) 1870: 2.35T (1.2%) 1900: 4.19T (2.9%) (skipping a bunch because it's pretty high res now) 2000: 68.44 (2.8%) There are periods of faster and slower growth in those years -- most evidently, growth slowed between 1940 and 1950 for geopolitical reasons -- but that's at least the average. There is clearly something interesting going on between 1700 and 1900, with the significantly positive second derivative. However, that interesting thing is called the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution fits the article's narrative pretty well, and it's probably safe to assume their readers are aware of it. I don't know why they went this route rather than just pointing to the industrial revolution as evidence.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago
In the past, more than today, a lot of material benefits to people were provided via baked in social relations and other ways of life, and not via monetary exchange. For example, paying someone to take care of your kids is not something that happened when extended families lived with each. This was not included in past (or today's gdp). Similarly, if you grow part of your own food, then that's not included in the gdp. Past estimates of GDP largely only account for monetary exchanges, and not for stuff like the above. So they grossly underestimate how "wealthy" people were. I have seen several recent papers that try to correct for this.
- didgetmaster 2y ago
  I agree. I believe that until the past century, the default behavior was to provide the majority of your family's needs yourself and only go outside of that for a small portion where money would exchange hands. People lived on family farms where they grew their own food, made their own clothes, and built their own shelter. It is not clear in the article if barter was considered in past GDP numbers (e.g. "I'll trade you my cow for the wagon you built.") These days everyone works for cash and often pays for services that they could easily do themselves.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

In the past, more than today, a lot of material benefits to people were provided via baked in social relations and other ways of life, and not via monetary exchange. For example, paying someone to take care of your kids is not something that happened when extended families lived with each. This was not included in past (or today's gdp). Similarly, if you grow part of your own food, then that's not included in the gdp. Past estimates of GDP largely only account for monetary exchanges, and not for stuff like the above. So they grossly underestimate how "wealthy" people were. I have seen several recent papers that try to correct for this.

didgetmaster 2y ago
I agree. I believe that until the past century, the default behavior was to provide the majority of your family's needs yourself and only go outside of that for a small portion where money would exchange hands. People lived on family farms where they grew their own food, made their own clothes, and built their own shelter. It is not clear in the article if barter was considered in past GDP numbers (e.g. "I'll trade you my cow for the wagon you built.") These days everyone works for cash and often pays for services that they could easily do themselves.