141–150 of 152 posts
Paywalled; Didn't Read. I'm not engaging in illegal behaviour by using the archive.ph link, in fact, I'm reporting it to The Economist as it shall be DMCA'd (I will not, but I stand by my reasoning).
As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. As shafts got deeper there was a need to pump in water and air, and then to lift product out. These steam engines at the site could run on low quality coal allowing all of the good stuff to be sold. The Industrial Revolution really started with these mines in the UK. As regards slavery and other factors, once the steam engines were invented and beg…
I lately had an idea: Why did the industrial revolution start in the UK? Coal mining was probably a factor. But why in the UK? Coal deposits are abundant in other places as well. But the UK has cold, rainy winters. Coal is good for heating, not only for industrial purposes, like smelting metal. Trees have mostly been cut down by that time. I think they used them for ship building. So if you have the coal mining alrea…
People think you can find a "cause" for social processes like this in the same way you can find a cause for a materials tensile strength. But you can't. They are complex events, lasting decades, with technological, social, political, economic, and other factors. That means (1) there is NO single cause and (2) nothing can be quantified, so everyone just picks the cause that suits their world view and gives it oversize…
Fortunately causal analysis supports 1 and contradicts 2. With good data, models and algorithms you can _quantify_ the strengths of various causal factors, and confirm or discredit models. Time scales don't matter, complexity can be overcome, and even unobserved causes can be modeled.
> This is why subjects like history differ from physics. We should not try to apply ideas from the latter (simple cause-effect chains, reproducibility, fixed true answers) to the former.
Anthropologist Richard McElreath[1] applies bayesian statistical models to a variety of social situations, and teaches others how as well. People have won Nobel prizes for this kind of work[2]. In a sense, you already agree: the foundational component of bayesian data analysis is updating your beliefs as new data comes in.
[1]: https://xcelab.net/rm/statistical-rethinking/ [2]: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2021/car...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of developing countries currently have per capita GDP comparable to western European countries in 1980 (Like as an example, Netherlands vs Vietnam). Why not look at somewhat more modern lessons?
Netherlands had a GDP per capita of $13,000 USD in 1980, equivalent to $49,000 USD today. Vietnam had a GDP per capita of $13,000 USD today. They aren’t even close.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development Not necessarily: firstly, some of those factors were "have the right geology" (coal/iron/later oil), which you can't replicate even if you want to, and secondly we're already in a developed world. That changes the environment and cost/benefit analysis greatly. The first person to develop a steam engine and the 1,000th…
I would argue that "applying lessons" ignores not just local geology, but - more importantly - local / regional culture, politics, socio-economics, etc. as well. It assumes that, throughout history, the rest of the world subconsciously has had - and still has - a need for Western-European frameworks of thinking about their place in the world. Which is very eurocentrist perception of the world. A hallmark of post-mode…
Put another way, France had six times higher per capita GDP than South Korea in 1950. Today the two are comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netherlands had a GDP per capita of $13,000 USD in 1980, equivalent to $49,000 USD today. Vietnam had a GDP per capita of $13,000 USD today. They aren’t even close.
~13000 in "Current US$". You don't adjust for inflation and then adjust for inflation again. Vietnam is considerably lower today on that measure (3750), but if you use PPP the comparison isn't quite as stark (but ends in 1990). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat...
And if you’ve ever lived in Vietnam you’d realize the comparison doesn’t make sense.
Vietnam is still very poor today. Netherlands in the 1980’s was a developed nation.
Chattel slavery not only fueled the industrial revolution but laid the foundation for our modern world. Capital accumulation, investment of capital, private ownership of the means of production (people), high levels of wage (free) labor and efficient (non-paid) use of the factors of production (people) - are all mechanisms of capitalism that reach their maximum potential under the conditions of chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery still exists around the world, why aren't they the richer than the places where chattel slavery is outlawed? Where ever machines replaced human labor slavery has been outlawed and is richer than the places where labor is done manually and still allows slavery. The whole point of industrialization was to replace human labor with machines and obviate the capitalist need to own slaves!
Chattel slavery no longer exists. That involved perpetual, lineage based bondage and breeding.
The global economy has evolved so why would you expect countries using a 15th century approach to outperform modern economies? Also, smaller economies don't have the ability to shape global monetary policy in their favor nor have the weaponry to enforce it.
Understanding the development of Western Europe is one of the most important things historians could be doing right now. Because those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development. Unfortunately too much of academia is fixated on faulting the west for past injustices, which leads to an unproductive Eurocentric mindset. (Britain will never, and cannot, pay back India what…
You can't understand the rapid development of western Europe without examining how it's colonialism simultaneously enriched europe and sparked conflicts that are still raging. Who would you suggest modern developing nations colonize?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chattel slavery still exists around the world, why aren't they the richer than the places where chattel slavery is outlawed? Where ever machines replaced human labor slavery has been outlawed and is richer than the places where labor is done manually and still allows slavery. The whole point of industrialization was to replace human labor with machines and obviate the capitalist need to own slaves!
> Chattel slavery still exists around the world, why aren't they the richer than the places where chattel slavery is outlawed? Chattel slavery no longer exists. That involved perpetual, lineage based bondage and breeding. The global economy has evolved so why would you expect countries using a 15th century approach to outperform modern economies? Also, smaller economies don't have the ability to shape global monetary…
The essence of what I feel is wrong about the modern discussion around exploitation of human beings is this: So we just need to accept the original sin that our modern lifestyle has the origin of the slavery of the past only, that the stuff that we buy now is not based on exploitation of labor today.
Our stuff is sometimes from sweatshops. Our gadgets contain materials like Cobalt from "artisanal" mines in Congo. But hey somebody is getting a wage for their labor so it is not slavery even if they get punished for not meeting "quotas"...
People think you can find a "cause" for social processes like this in the same way you can find a cause for a materials tensile strength. But you can't. They are complex events, lasting decades, with technological, social, political, economic, and other factors. That means (1) there is NO single cause and (2) nothing can be quantified, so everyone just picks the cause that suits their world view and gives it oversize…
> (1) there is NO single cause and (2) nothing can be quantified Fortunately causal analysis supports 1 and contradicts 2. With good data, models and algorithms you can _quantify_ the strengths of various causal factors, and confirm or discredit models. Time scales don't matter, complexity can be overcome, and even unobserved causes can be modeled. > This is why subjects like history differ from physics. We should no…
This is why no one can say "industrial revolutions are 8% caused by geography and 12% caused by social structures" with any actual basis for that.