3 ms·
Not on a per-capita basis. Real GDP growth per-capita rose 2.2x* between 1866-1913. That's smaller than say, the period starting after WW2, 1946-1993 which as 2
by Aloisius 2y ago
Not on a per-capita basis. Real GDP growth per-capita rose 2.2x* between 1866-1913. That's smaller than say, the period starting after WW2, 1946-1993 which as 2.5x.
Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes.
Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive.
Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872.
* Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP
- ty6853 2y agoThat is strong evidence post WW2 is a competing nomination. At 2.2 vs 2.5 it is probably down into the noise if they are estimates, especially ones from 1800s. This why I did not provide any quantitative comparison. Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.
- Aloisius 2y agoThere is no reason to believe that they would have achieved the same growth rate had they started with a larger economy. As I stated, it is much easier to double growth when you're small and ultimately, growth rate doesn't matter as you can't spend growth rates. Nominal growth matters. The economy increasing by $5.5k per capita (2011 $) in the period after the civil war is a lot less impressive than increasing by $23k after WW2.