4 ms·

Does any of those countries come close to the GDP of, say, Alabama ($160bn)? Sure, comparing the value of organic wine form Rome to a car from Detroit is not st

Does any of those countries come close to the GDP of, say, Alabama ($160bn)? Sure, comparing the value of organic wine form Rome to a car from Detroit is not straight-forward but technological progress and compound interest generally ensure that powers of today absolutely dwarf those of even a hundred years ago, not to mention a thousand years ago, or two. The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight.

oblio 13y ago
I think he wants to compare the relative values. The Achaemenid Empire at its peak probably produced half of the world's goods.
idlewan 13y ago
> The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight. Problem not solved: the population still has problems being fed the right things for their health to improve.
genofon 13y ago
GDP is a modern concept made to measure today's economy. But if you talk about power US is the most powerful country but not dominant (see Syria and Crimea). The British empire at his peak held one fifth of the worlds population. The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. If you consider modern Europe his GDP is very similar to the US, although his political situation is more fragmented. So back to the OP in each era the economic conditions improved, and there was a place where this improvements was more evident, a country who was richer and more powerful than the others. US is one of these nations but it's not something exceptional in history as the OP suggested.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  > The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. The Han dynasty coexisted with the Romans, and I think they had a lot more people and land in their empire.
vacri 13y ago
The gross world product is about 72 trillion dollars. Alabama's share of that is 0.2%. In order to 'come close to Alabama', a historical power would have to be close to 0.2% of the world's GDP at the time. And I don't think any of the ones in that list went that low.
- spindritf 13y ago
  0,2% of the world's GDP in 2012 is a good measure for a comparison of Alabama to other modern countries in 2012, not a comparison of Alamaba 2012 to Rome 12 AD. That's like saying that the last person on Forbes 500 is not really rich because they barely have 0.05% ($3 billion / $6 trillion) of the group's net worth.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Wealth is a relative measure, not an absolute one. "That's like saying that the last person (blah)" No, because relative to other people, they have more stuff. The proportion they have of the group's net worth is significant greater than almost all other members, who have generally have five or more orders of magnitude less wealth (0.0000005% and less). The reason why you're having trouble converting from countries to individuals is because there's currently only 200 countries, but 7 billion individuals. That's why the individual's percentage looks lower. Also, your comparison makes absolutely no allowance for inflation. GDP rises for everyone over time simply due to inflation. Your shekel could purchase more in the time of Herod than it could in the time of Netanyahu. Zimbabwe's GDP went through the roof in recent years in their own dollars; but it didn't as a comparison to the rest of the world's output.

oblio 13y ago

I think he wants to compare the relative values. The Achaemenid Empire at its peak probably produced half of the world's goods.

idlewan 13y ago

> The ancient empires had troubles feeding their populations at times. Today, most Americans are overweight. Problem not solved: the population still has problems being fed the right things for their health to improve.

genofon 13y ago

GDP is a modern concept made to measure today's economy. But if you talk about power US is the most powerful country but not dominant (see Syria and Crimea). The British empire at his peak held one fifth of the worlds population. The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. If you consider modern Europe his GDP is very similar to the US, although his political situation is more fragmented. So back to the OP in each era the economic conditions improved, and there was a place where this improvements was more evident, a country who was richer and more powerful than the others. US is one of these nations but it's not something exceptional in history as the OP suggested.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
> The Roman empire conquered everything was worth conquering and he was providing free food and gigantic games to his poor citizens. The Han dynasty coexisted with the Romans, and I think they had a lot more people and land in their empire.

vacri 13y ago

The gross world product is about 72 trillion dollars. Alabama's share of that is 0.2%. In order to 'come close to Alabama', a historical power would have to be close to 0.2% of the world's GDP at the time. And I don't think any of the ones in that list went that low.

spindritf 13y ago
0,2% of the world's GDP in 2012 is a good measure for a comparison of Alabama to other modern countries in 2012, not a comparison of Alamaba 2012 to Rome 12 AD. That's like saying that the last person on Forbes 500 is not really rich because they barely have 0.05% ($3 billion / $6 trillion) of the group's net worth.
- vacri 13y ago
  Wealth is a relative measure, not an absolute one. "That's like saying that the last person (blah)" No, because relative to other people, they have more stuff. The proportion they have of the group's net worth is significant greater than almost all other members, who have generally have five or more orders of magnitude less wealth (0.0000005% and less). The reason why you're having trouble converting from countries to individuals is because there's currently only 200 countries, but 7 billion individuals. That's why the individual's percentage looks lower. Also, your comparison makes absolutely no allowance for inflation. GDP rises for everyone over time simply due to inflation. Your shekel could purchase more in the time of Herod than it could in the time of Netanyahu. Zimbabwe's GDP went through the roof in recent years in their own dollars; but it didn't as a comparison to the rest of the world's output.