Why do Nations fail?

[Thanas]

Of course you can use slaves in factories (once you have them). But the question is if the industrial revolution could occur in a society where the production is performed by slaves.

Most of the production in Britain was done by serfs and by the colonial subjects. And industrial workers had frighteningly little rights anyway.

It would depend on the question if certain modes of production are more efficient than others. But that is not a subject of "slavery bad, "free" workers with no rights good", that is a question on the effectiveness of certain methods of production.

Note that I am talking about industrial production, not about farming.

The economy of Britain at the time the industrial revolution occured was primarily agrarian and based on the trade of non-industrial goods. Only the industrial revolution changed that. Given how steam engines were not practical at all during the times of the Romans, I don't understand your point on how the Roman economy was somehow inferior.

I thought that Rome's industry consisted of mines and small plants in the cities (which did the manufacturing).

That is one very broad generalization. For some parts at some times it is true, but definitely not for all of the empire. And btw, these are not small plants we are talking about here. Fabricae (you know, where the word factory is derived from) were really huge industrial areas. The Roman state factories were really large - see for example this area, which was a fabrica converted into a palace.

And I am also confused by your description of industry. Since when is industry not related to agrarian products? What makes a massive construction like this which is able to feed over 13k people in itself non-industry?

(Oh and btw, that is a very low conservative estimate, real production was probably at least twice, if not three times that high. The conservative estimate thinks that the mills had 50% downtime and broke down a lot, which is both nonsense as this aquaeduct also supplied Arles with water and we would have known if there had been frequent water crisis there)

I challenge you to find any similar construction in England before the 19th century.

I also challenge you to find any huge market halls like the ones built in Rome by Maxentius. Here. This is the small part remaining. The full structure was much larger as you can see here. And this building stood without any maintenance until 1349, for over 900 years.

I challenge you to claim that the Romans were hostile to technology on those facts. If anything, they would laugh at our poor construction methods. After all, our buildings barely survive a hundred years.

Mines used slaves anyways. But I thought that the small plants in the cities also used slaves as their work force. Am I wrong here?

Some did, others did not. The huge Roman factories used a combination of both. Some factories (like those producing armour) had few slaves and a lots of craftsmen. But I don't see how this should matter at all. What is the productive difference between a slave hammering something and a free worker with no rights hammering something? Is there a +20 productivity bonus attached to nominal (but not real) freedom?

And it is a huge generalization in any case. I don't think you really understand just how massive and industrialized the Roman economy really was.

Here are a few fun facts:
- Until the industrial period no city in all of Europe was able to support over a million people. Rome was able to support three or four cities with populations of well over a million, in some cases even 3.5 millions (a feat not achieved again until the 20th century iirc). Now, you may yell "extractive extractive" until you get blue in the face, but the fact is that without a huge degree of technology there is no way to feed and keep them healthy.
- The Roman diet was at least as healthy as the modern one and featured a wide variety of meats and vegetables.
- The Roman state was able to provide free meat, oil, wine and grain to the citizens of the City of Rome. This is unheard of and is only matched by the European social networks of the 20th century.
- City Romans used way more water than we used today, and at a much higher water quality to boot. They used about 150-250 litres per day, depending on the city.
- Roman concrete holds for over 2000 years. The less said about modern concrete the better.
- The Romans were the first to industrially manufacture and use glass. They produced glass windows that were really freaking huge. See those windows? They are really huge.


And maybe the real kicker:

Roman Empire output of metals per annum:
Iron: 82,500-120.000 tons
Copper: 15,000 tons
Lead: 80,000 tons
Silver: 200tons
Gold: 9 tons.

This blows every medieval and modern production out of the water (until the middle 19th century). In the 16th century, Europe was producing 60,000 tons of iron per year. Heck, Britain barely produced 30.000 tons of Iron in the 1760. In 1800, it produced 100k, still within the range of Roman numbers and already using steam engines. And finally, Rome produced 16-14x as much metals than the contemporary chinese empires.

This means that right up until the steam engine was perfected, Roman production blows everything out of the water. So I don't get where your argument derives its data from. It seems contradictory to what every expert in the field says about the Roman economy.

I suspect Robinson has done very little actual work on the time periods in favor of a more generalized approach. Which would be fine if his claims are not simply lacking in fact.


___________________________

A lot better. Much less child exploitation, much less accidents, more work safety etc. Unless you talk about the mines, but mines have always been a place where society disposes of prisoners and unwanted elements (until the 19th century).

Hmm........... How much would you know about slavery in this context Thanas? I'm a bit curious because I have this text by an author, which compared Roman and Jewish differences and he asserted that the Jews treated their slaves better than the Romans............. My house is a mess atm but I would love to dig up the book and discuss its claims here.....

Those claims are really BS IMO.

[Thanas]

Oh, and btw, another area where Robinson seriously fails is his claim that the change from Roman Republic to Empire lead to a more extractive economy and a restriction on economic freedom.

To that I only have to say: He is a fucking idiot who does shoddy research. I mean, how the hell do you even arrive at that conlcusion?

First of all, the Roman Republic was a much less open society than the Empire. Under the Empire, merit and abilities counted. Under the Republic, your ancestors mattered much more. Posts were distributed according to alliances. There is no comparable career in Republic times to that of Maximinus Thrax or Diocletians, allegedly the sons of farmers and barbarians (exaggerated, but it still shows the idea) who became Emperors.

Second, the Roman Republic had an oftentimes arbitrary justice system. The real codification of law and the development of professional courts and jurists occurred under the Empire.

Third, the Roman Republic controlled far less of an area. The Empire had trade all across the world. Roman trade missions lived in Sri-Lanka and even in Burma and Thaland. They reached and traded with China.

Fourth, the Roman Empire had the greatest extension of liberty we have ever known of. In 218 AD, the Emperor Caracalla (who undeservedly got a bad rap) extended Roman citizenship to ever free born of the Empire. That is such a massive inclusion which is unparallelled in any modern times. Not even the emancipation of slaves comes close to this, it is orders of magnitudes lower.

Fifth, the Roman Empire was the most inclusionary society until the 20th century. It integrated barbarians and foreigners. Heck, one infamous example involved a Roman Emperor marrying a Germanic princess according to her marriage customs and law (without being forced to do so). Skin colour did not matter. There was no biological racism (there was political one, directed at your overlord. But if say, a goth, immigrated to Rome and got citizenship, he was treated no different than any other Roman).

Sixth, the Roman Empire was very much desired by others as an immigration destination. Rome was the primary destination for immigration until its fall. Millions of barbarians migrated to Rome to find a better life and were successfully integrated. (You know how the gothic invasion of 378 started? It started with the goths seeking to immigrate into the empire and only came to violence when corrupt Roman officials tried to snatch goths as slaves).

Seventh, the Roman Empire was the best thing for trade and commerce ever. There was a set series of taxation and levies. This was much less arbitrary than the previous system, where the local ruler basically did what he wanted.

Eigth, the Roman Empire had a degree of literacy not achieved until the 19th century. Why is this important? Because being able to participate in political life and to read your rights and laws is the hallmark of inclusionary societies.

Ninth, talent got discovered and promoted. Be it the dextrous slave, the apt engineer etc. Roman society is full of the examples of ordinary Romans living what we now term the American dream (though the chance to do so was much higher in Rome than it is today in the USA). Heck, in Roman society we have people going from slaves to multibillionaires in the same lifetime. People bragged about this on their tombstone.

Tenth, I really would wonder if Robinson has even read anything of Ancient Rome. I mean, what would he say to this example of Marcus Licinius Privatus, who was born a slave, got freed and eventually, through his talents, became the father of Roman nobility and one of the richest members of the city. He donated 50k in one instance alone.

Does that sound like a non-inclusive society to you? If so, can you show any example of freed slaves becoming millionaires (and this being a regular thing) in 19th century Britain and America? I would wager that Roman society was a lot more inclusive than those two states. Which really throws a massive monkey wrench in the argument. I mean, you could possibly twist it to say that Rome was successful because it was inclusive and you would absolutely be right. But that pretty much destroys the "industrialization did not happen because Rome was so bad".

[Thanas]

Missed these things:

Sigh. I have never stated that a society with slave labour is unable to come up with labour saving technology at all - I do know that the Roman empire built the aqueducts to provide Rome with fresh water.

Supplying a city with fresh water is also a huge advantage when under siege, especially when some water reservoirs also have been created. Such reasons also have to be factored in and are often the main reason for such endeavours.

You know what the first thing people did in sieges? Destroy the aqaueducts to cause the citizens great comfort. Aquaeducts actually reduce the strategic value of a city because it means the citizens do not gather water by themselves (like building cisterns etc). The only reasons to build aquaeducts at all is to power industrial works (like the huge water mills), supply a massive city population (also real bad in military terms) or for quality of life.

But in a society where you actually have to pay workers the prospects of using better steam engines in the future is daunting.

Explain this. Please explain to me how the meagre pay of industry workers in the 19th century caused this? If anything, the surplus of labour drove down costs. Heck, in the USA, entire industries bloomed by issuing company script, in effect treating their workers like slaves.

My point is that the first primitive steam engine proved that you can use steam to do work.

It really did not. In fact, it probably did the opposite because it needed a constant supply of firewood (and a slave to bring that one). Without coal, it is impossible to get a reliable steam engine.

BTW, please state the reasons why you think steam engine development happened in the 18th century.

[PainRack]

To be fair thanas, he agrees that daaron and Robinson were wrong about Rome and his argument is that it's still a useful theory to explain nations development....


Simon Jester probably said it best. It's easy to get the answer if you simply draw the bullseye around the dart.

[Thanas]

To be fair thanas, he agrees that daaron and Robinson were wrong about Rome and his argument is that it's still a useful theory to explain nations development....

The problem is that he still insists Roman society was anti-technology and non-inclusive because it had slaves, but thinks the colonial empires built on slavery were somehow more inclusive.

[LaCroix]

He probably equates Roman slavery with the Colonial model, not knowing how different the term slave was in that era from what we think now.

Roman slaves were allowed to have property, sometimes lived on their own in the shop they led in their owner's name. Usually, they were completely autonomous businesses, to a degree that most didn't know they actually were slaves. (They even decided against a law demanding slaves would need to wear something marking them as such, out of fear that they might realize how many they were.)
Even more important - the easiest way to become a full Roman citizen was to be a slave of a Roman citizen and be freed - 'libertini' even had had the right to vote (although only active, not passive)

The (non-agrarian, non mining) slaves usually even earned small wages for their work, which they could use to buy their freedom, if they wanted to. So working hard and productively would mean that you could turn from a slave to a free employee.

Though sometimes, this option wasn't sought, since being free meant you were free to starve. A slave, though, was cared for by his owners - treating slaves badly was a bad reputation. This was especially true for children born into slavehood at your house, they enjoyed higher status than simple slaves and much better care.

Of course, this did vary between Roman periods, but in general, only few slaves lived a life even remotely akin to colonial slaves.

[BabelHuber]

The problem is that he still insists Roman society was anti-technology and non-inclusive because it had slaves, but thinks the colonial empires built on slavery were somehow more inclusive.

I have never claimed that the Roman society was anti-technology! I did claim that progress had to stop at some point because of the slave-driven economy, though.

It is no problem for me to get slapped for things I have stated - after all I'm just an amateur regarding history - but I do not accept strawmans.

That is one very broad generalization. For some parts at some times it is true, but definitely not for all of the empire. And btw, these are not small plants we are talking about here. Fabricae (you know, where the word factory is derived from) were really huge industrial areas. The Roman state factories were really large - see for example this area, which was a fabrica converted into a palace.

And I am also confused by your description of industry. Since when is industry not related to agrarian products? What makes a massive construction like this which is able to feed over 13k people in itself non-industry?

(Oh and btw, that is a very low conservative estimate, real production was probably at least twice, if not three times that high. The conservative estimate thinks that the mills had 50% downtime and broke down a lot, which is both nonsense as this aquaeduct also supplied Arles with water and we would have known if there had been frequent water crisis there)

I challenge you to find any similar construction in England before the 19th century.

I also challenge you to find any huge market halls like the ones built in Rome by Maxentius. Here. This is the small part remaining. The full structure was much larger as you can see here. And this building stood without any maintenance until 1349, for over 900 years.

I challenge you to claim that the Romans were hostile to technology on those facts. If anything, they would laugh at our poor construction methods. After all, our buildings barely survive a hundred years.

Some did, others did not. The huge Roman factories used a combination of both. Some factories (like those producing armour) had few slaves and a lots of craftsmen. But I don't see how this should matter at all. What is the productive difference between a slave hammering something and a free worker with no rights hammering something? Is there a +20 productivity bonus attached to nominal (but not real) freedom?

And it is a huge generalization in any case. I don't think you really understand just how massive and industrialized the Roman economy really was.

Here are a few fun facts:
- Until the industrial period no city in all of Europe was able to support over a million people. Rome was able to support three or four cities with populations of well over a million, in some cases even 3.5 millions (a feat not achieved again until the 20th century iirc). Now, you may yell "extractive extractive" until you get blue in the face, but the fact is that without a huge degree of technology there is no way to feed and keep them healthy.
- The Roman diet was at least as healthy as the modern one and featured a wide variety of meats and vegetables.
- The Roman state was able to provide free meat, oil, wine and grain to the citizens of the City of Rome. This is unheard of and is only matched by the European social networks of the 20th century.
- City Romans used way more water than we used today, and at a much higher water quality to boot. They used about 150-250 litres per day, depending on the city.
- Roman concrete holds for over 2000 years. The less said about modern concrete the better.
- The Romans were the first to industrially manufacture and use glass. They produced glass windows that were really freaking huge. See those windows? They are really huge.

OK, I stand corrected.

But then I do not understand why the Roman Empire was not able to walk the last mile and start the industrial revolution:

- They had huge construction for irrigation throughout the Empire. I saw a report on TV where huge water wheels in Eqypt and Syria were shown. One such facility is even still in use today.

I'd think that it is only a small step from such constructions to a factory - you can just use such a water wheel to propel a shaft. There should be plenty of locations throughout the empire where you have rivers with halfways constant water flow.

- They had banks and factories, but they didn't have a stock market and financial derivates.

I would think that huge factories can have a complex ownership structure. This begs for the creation of legal entities and stocks.

And once you trade goods from these factories, financial derivates should also be only a small step away.

Up to now, I thought that the slave-driven economy was at fault here. But since this cannot be true I'm wondering now...

[PainRack]

Tell you what Babelhunter. Define the Industrial Revolution in a way that isn't England did this thus revolution first, then see if you realise why that question makes very little sense.

[BabelHuber]

Will you please fucking acknowledge the point?

Since Thanas showed that I am wrong here anyways this is a moot point meanwhile, so I stand corrected.

Wrong. The book outright states that the spreading of political power was needed to prevent reversals of economic development.

Now, granted, the book got the history wrong, but to suggest that this isn't a contradiction is absurd. Robinson explicitly used the Russians and the Chinese to say that you needed political influence first to prevent reversal of economic developments. In this case, it was the state allowing the economic development first, which gave the merchants political influence, this even though the government was still as dictatorial as in the past. The sheer difference is that economic developments led to a new elite in Chinese society.

You stated that the Chinese merchants gained political power through economic success, so they were able to lift the trade ban. So political power did spread here.

To clarify: Of course one can discuss how this progressed before (and if the development of the merchant-class fits to the theory at all), but once we look at the point where the merchants were established, the outcome was political influence - which fits.

Granted, Robinson was wrong regarding the historical context, but he was most willing to say that the Ming inability to embrace trade because of dictatorship meant they were defeated by superior technological armed foes.

The FUCKING problem of course is that Robinson was wrong fundamentally. China embraced international trade as opposed to rejecting it under an extractive society.
BTW, let's say we use your 'no contradiction ' argument.The Chinese failed to fend off the Mongols, and later, the Europeans. How would you explain that?

For being able to fend of the Europeans, China would have needed the industrial power to manufacture the needed weapons, which it obviously did not have.

The main point of Robinson was that in England, factory owners could flourish despite having different interests than merchants or nobles. I've already posted this here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3871547

When the first factory owners showed up, they had some different interests than the leading classes.

E.g. factory owners supported importing cheap grain from abroad. The reason was that they wanted to pay low wages to their workers, but OTOH they has to pay enough so that the workers didn't starve.

Hence with falling food prices, they could pay less to them.

This of course was conflicting with the interests of the land owners, because they were interested in high grain prices, so they could make more money (IIRC the book states some other areas of conflicts with the merchants, but I don't have the details in my head. But I can look it up if you want)

The book states that this is a situation where it would have been possible for the nobles and the merchants to unite against the factory owners.

So in an extractive society the two would unite to fight the factory owners. This of course would prevent the industrial revolution.

But they could not brake the law while doing so, because this would violate the rule that nobody is above the law. And this could cause a precedence.

So basically, if the nobles and the merchants would brake the law to fight the factory owners, the king could also do so to fight the nobles and the merchants in the future, arguing that the others did the same to the factory owners.

And the nobles and the merchant feared the king more than they were annoyed by the factory owners.

Hence they had to stick to the law themselves and therefore could not get rid of the factory owners, even though tehy tried within the boundary of the law.

The book argues that in more extractive societies the nobles and the merchants just wouldn't have cared about the law and would have used their combined power to get rid of the factory owners.

So you don't need a total extractive society in China to fall behind compared to England, you just need a society which is not as inclusive, so the class of factory-owners cannot show up.

[Purple]

- They had huge construction for irrigation throughout the Empire. I saw a report on TV where huge water wheels in Eqypt and Syria were shown. One such facility is even still in use today.

I'd think that it is only a small step from such constructions to a factory - you can just use such a water wheel to propel a shaft. There should be plenty of locations throughout the empire where you have rivers with halfways constant water flow.

And what would they be doing with that shaft? That's the real question.

- They had banks and factories, but they didn't have a stock market and financial derivates.

And why are these necessary? Institutions such as this are simply something that we stumbled into. You make it sound that they are a magical formula for success or the only way things can be done.

I would think that huge factories can have a complex ownership structure. This begs for the creation of legal entities and stocks.

Not really. Complex ownership structures like the ones you describe are not a requirement for industry to work. In fact a large percentage of industry works just fine without them. They only really matter for entities which are too large, expensive and valuable to be maintained by a relatively small group of people. That is to say corporations. If you don't have corporations than you do not need stocks or any of the other stuff you mentioned. And there are plenty of alternate way to organize your economy so as to not require corporations and still have a large industrial society.

And once you trade goods from these factories, financial derivates should also be only a small step away.

Again, not really.

Do you have any formal education in economics at all? Because as someone who actually does (it's a long story) I can tell you that most of the assumptions you make are just wrong. You are basically looking at the current economic model as if it is the forgone conclusion that societies have to come to as opposed to what it is, just another variation among a myriad of successful possible economic systems. You are basically making an argument that starts with a false premise and thus draws false conclusions. A direct analogy would be if you looked at humans as the pinnacle of evolution and than judged all animals based on how close they are to evolving into us. And the last line in your post would than quite literally read: "I am confused as to how whales can survive when they don't have arms, legs or feet or anything."

[Purple]

Missed the edit mark.

Just to answer the final question. Why did the Romans not have a stock market? Because their economic model did not require and their technology did not allow one.

[BabelHuber]

Do you have any formal education in economics at all? Because as someone who actually does (it's a long story) I can tell you that most of the assumptions you make are just wrong. You are basically looking at the current economic model as if it is the forgone conclusion that societies have to come to as opposed to what it is, just another variation among a myriad of successful possible economic systems.

Yes, I did study economics in the 90ies. Of course you can think of some other economic models, but I do not want to get into this discussion in this context here.

My point is simple:

As soon as you have bigger privately-owned businesses which survive a generation or two, you also will likely have shared ownership of these businesses.

The easiest example is a business founder who dies, so his children inherit the company. As soon as you don't give the business to a single succesor, things can get complicated. Even more so after a few generations.

Creating own legal entities and issuing shares are obvious solutions to this problem.

The same goes for derivates: As soon as you start making contracts with future deliveries, you run into the problem of currency fluctuations (except if you have a very static currency). Signing a second contract to ensure your profit does not seem too far fetched to me.

[BabelHuber]

And what would they be doing with that shaft? That's the real question.

The Romans did have machines, like those automatically opening temple portals and whatnot. So I'd say they could connect some machine to that shaft

[Purple]

Yes, I did study economics in the 90ies. Of course you can think of some other economic models, but I do not want to get into this discussion in this context here.

Really? Could have fooled me.

My point is simple:

As soon as you have bigger privately-owned businesses which survive a generation or two, you also will likely have shared ownership of these businesses.

The easiest example is a business founder who dies, so his children inherit the company. As soon as you don't give the business to a single succesor, things can get complicated. Even more so after a few generations.

Creating own legal entities and issuing shares are obvious solutions to this problem.

Not really. Shares only make sense in the context of limited liability. And LL in turn only makes sense a situation where you are not directly dependent on the property in question for survival. If you only own that one factory than your livelihood depends on that factory. And even if there is 20 of you everyone is still in it together and with 100% of their property because that's what their lives depend on. So there is no reason to produce shares and establish the whole corporate system, let alone a legal framework for it to exist. Instead you'll just establish an ad hock system internally.

Plus, how do you imagine a stock market functioning in a world where news takes months to get from one end of the market to the other?

The same goes for derivates: As soon as you start making contracts with future deliveries, you run into the problem of currency fluctuations (except if you have a very static currency). Signing a second contract to ensure your profit does not seem too far fetched to me.

The obvious problem being that making such long term contracts only really makes sense in a world where you can get from one side of the planet to the other and ship cargo affordably between them. And whilst this was true to some extent in the roman world it was not nearly comparable to what happened after the invention of railroads. You certainly did not have to worry about your supplier in India not delivering if you knew that you had to buy resources locally or risk them spoiling by the time they get to you.

[LaCroix]

Actually, the Romans had a form of incorporation (of sorts) in the "condominium", where each owner only had a share of the joint property, to use pleadge or sell as they saw fit, while the whole property itself could only be sold by common consent. Each also had the right to prohibit his partners to use the property in unaccepable manner that infringed on his share - which meant that decisions concerning the use and exploitation were done by shareholder meetings.

If they couldn't find consensus, the partnership could be terminated. (There were laws reglementing how to distribute it among the shareholders according to their share, either physically or monetary.)

[BabelHuber]

According to wikipedia, the Romans even had some sort of stocks, at least in the Republic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock#History

During the Roman Republic, the state contracted (leased) out many of its services to private companies. These government contractors were called publicani, or societas publicanorum as individual company.[7] These companies were similar to modern corporations, or joint-stock companies more specifically, in couple of aspects. They issued shares called partes (for large cooperatives) and particulae which were small shares that acted like today's over-the-counter shares.[8] Polybius mentions that “almost every citizen” participated in the government leases.[9] There is also an evidence that the price of stocks fluctuated. The great Roman orator Cicero speaks of partes illo tempore carissimae, which means “share that had a very high price at that time."[10] This implies a fluctuation of price and stock market behavior in Rome

[Guardsman Bass]

It really did not. In fact, it probably did the opposite because it needed a constant supply of firewood (and a slave to bring that one). Without coal, it is impossible to get a reliable steam engine.

Minor nitpick, but that's actually not true. US steam engines relied very heavily on cheaply available wood for much of the 20th century, so it's possible. Britain depended on coal for its steam engines because it was already heavily using coal by the time they were building them, and wood was comparatively scarce.

Tell you what Babelhunter. Define the Industrial Revolution in a way that isn't England did this thus revolution first, then see if you realise why that question makes very little sense.

I'd describe it as changes in business organization and technology to utilize new forms of labor-saving technology and energy sources, leading to drastic increases in the production (and productivity in) creating goods and services. That means that in many ways, most of Europe didn't really "industrialize" until the middle of the 19th century, although some of the major changes I described above happened in select industries.

That's also why the Roman Empire and Song Dynasty Chinese don't really count as "industrialized", although you could make a good argument that they were "proto-industrial" economies that simply lacked the technology, and possibly the incentives to shift away from more labor-intensive technology and manufacturing set-ups when they had plentiful human and animal labor (as well as the organizational capabilities to utilize it effectively).

Or at least that's the impression I get from my readings - that water and wind power were in much more widespread use in Europe starting with the High Middle Ages in Europe than they were in the Classical Era, although that may be a case of "technology getting better" as well. Overall production was still much lower than during the better parts of the Roman Empire(s) because of a much reduced population and far lower economic integration.

[PainRack]

You stated that the Chinese merchants gained political power through economic success, so they were able to lift the trade ban. So political power did spread here.

To clarify: Of course one can discuss how this progressed before (and if the development of the merchant-class fits to the theory at all), but once we look at the point where the merchants were established, the outcome was political influence - which fits.

I said before that the theory arbitrarily redefine inclusive vs extractive so as to get the answer it wants, thank you for showing that clearly.

You're wrong. The merchants didn't gain any political power, they gained political influence yes, but that's different from having a voice in the political process, which is Robinson criteria for inclusive politics.
Furthermore, this is absurd.

The ending of Zheng He expedition was in 1433 approximately. The trade ban occurred in 1550, ended in 1567. This sparked off the 2nd wave of wukou pirates, joined by Chinese merchants, with Wang in particular resorting to smuggling and piracy because he was unable to get the court to hear his petition that the ban be ended.

THIS is your example of political inclusiveness?

The ending of the trade ban I refer to was in 1638. More than 8 decades LATER. And here, it was the court which heard the petition that the the province of Fujian was now so economically tied to naval trade that a long ban would be disastrous and not just cripple the merchants.

There was NO increase in democracy, since the power of petition had always been in the hands of the commoners. The sole difference was that the merchants were now so economically successful and vital that they could reverse a military policy.

For being able to fend of the Europeans, China would have needed the industrial power to manufacture the needed weapons, which it obviously did not have.

Because of China technological backwardness. Furthermore, once China acquired the technology through trade and reverse engineering, they rapidly became one of the largest firearm equipped army in the world, including entire musket squares, a marked difference compared to contemporary European powers which was mixing muskets with pikes.


AS for industrial power, just how is this linked to inclusive vs extractive politics? There was no fucking difference in politics apart from different emperors and circumstances, such as the conversion to a monetary economy post 1580.

YET, we could point to more liberal policies including the liberalization of the salt and iron monopolies, a temporary reversal on wine monopoly and of course, the grain trade. After 1580, the switch to a monetary economy because of trade was enough that the government refrained from labour corvees to maintain the Grand Canal, relying instead of money taxes to hire smiths to maintain the locks and canal.

Unfortunately, these aren't details that are easy to google for, so, feel free to disbelieve me due to lack of citations, I'm also being deliberately vague to the extent of being wrong, because policies were in flux and execution differed from theory and etc that I cannot post more details without references.


Nevertheless, all these facts shows that your arguments that somehow, the lack of political inclusiveness leading to lack of factory owners is rubbish. Just WHAT is the proto factory industrial kilns? The iron works and smiths that now sold their labour and skills to maintain the Grand Canal and other works?

[BabelHuber]

You're wrong. The merchants didn't gain any political power, they gained political influence yes, but that's different from having a voice in the political process, which is Robinson criteria for inclusive politics.
Furthermore, this is absurd.

Sorry, but this is absurd: When you can influence political decisions, you have poltical power. Also, this power can potentially be used to gain an official voice in the long run.

But if you insist on distinguishing between 'influence' and 'power', I'd say having influence is a prerequisite of gaining power later on.

There was NO increase in democracy, since the power of petition had always been in the hands of the commoners. The sole difference was that the merchants were now so economically successful and vital that they could reverse a military policy.

So in China, the merchants were not able to institutionalize their 'political influence', hence this did not lead to 'political power'. Am I correct?

In Great Britain, the merchants achieved this. Therefore GB was more 'inclusive'.

Nevertheless, all these facts shows that your arguments that somehow, the lack of political inclusiveness leading to lack of factory owners is rubbish. Just WHAT is the proto factory industrial kilns? The iron works and smiths that now sold their labour and skills to maintain the Grand Canal and other works?

But did this lead to the wide-spread industrialization of China or not? Was there some sort of 'industrial revolution' in China because of this? If not, why?


But overall, I think we are going too much into details here:

The main point for me is that Robinson delivers an explanation why the industrial revolution started in England and not in Spain, France or Russia.

I agree that 'inclusiveness' is only one factor. I also agree that the theory has some weaknesses. I also agree that Robinson/Daron went way overboard with their analysis of the Roman Empire, and I can also concede that the analysis regarding Ming China was too simplistic.

But on the other hand I have yet to see a better explanation of why the industrial revolution started in England at this time, so I don't dismiss this theory as invalid as a whole.
If you can point me to a better explanation, I am all ears.

We can also go one step back: The theory tries to explain why the indutrial revolution started in England and the reasons seem sound to me. OTOH, the authors did get some historical facts wrong and also mis-analyzed some societies in history.
So as a conclusion, I'd say that the theory fails at being the be-all-end-all of all historic theories, and hence it also fails in establishing the 'inclusiveness' as THE deciding factor in history.

But OTOH I think that the level of 'inclusiveness' probably is ONE factor which makes sense taking into account when comparing states/ societies in the same historical time frame.

So e.g. comparing ancient Rome with the 18th century Great Britain is bogus, I agree.

But when comparing 18th century England with 18th century Spain and France, the level of inclusiveness seems to be an important factor. But then these societies share lots of similarities, so it is relatively easy to determine the areas where they differ.

But when comparing e.g. 18th century England to 18th century China, the differences in the political systems, the legal frameworks, the economic systems and hence in the societies as a whole are so huge that there most probably is not one decisive big factor.

Instead we have a shitload of differences, and so a theory which focuses only on 'inclusiveness' falls short.

[PainRack]

Sorry, but this is absurd: When you can influence political decisions, you have poltical power. Also, this power can potentially be used to gain an official voice in the long run.

But if you insist on distinguishing between 'influence' and 'power', I'd say having influence is a prerequisite of gaining power later on.

Then by that criteria, Czar Russia was also inclusive.

Furthermore, the merchants were not politically powerful in the 15th century or in 1567, yet, the Ming court did liberalise their economic policies.
You keep ignoring that Robinson thesis is that political inclusiveness leads to economic inclusiveness. In this example, its clearly not true. What happened was that a more economic liberal position had became so entrenched and vital that to retreat away from it would be disastrous.

So in China, the merchants were not able to institutionalize their 'political influence', hence this did not lead to 'political power'. Am I correct?

In Great Britain, the merchants achieved this. Therefore GB was more 'inclusive'.

SO?!?!?!?!?!

The fact STILL remains that Ming China chose a more economic liberal position, something Robinson thesis dictates can't come true. You CAN"T have your cake and eat it.

But did this lead to the wide-spread industrialization of China or not? Was there some sort of 'industrial revolution' in China because of this? If not, why?

May I fucking remind you that your argument is based around the position that China did not have the industrial power to produce weapons to repulse the Europeans? This is clearly untrue in 1640, although the reasons why is due to the complex nature of geopolitics and the difficulties in projecting power so far to the East.

We KNOW that China did possess the industrial power, because they introduced massed gunpowder weaponery and cannons, incorporating Portugeuse cannons into their arsenal. We know the massed deployment of gunpowder weaponery was critical to repulsing early Qing advances. We know just how powerful the Ming dynasty was because a single renegade was able to mobilise several hundred junks to invade Taiwan, a dutch colony , overrunning the outpost through sheer numbers and cannonade of inferior cannons. This was all built by Chinese industry.

You're deliberately evading the point now.

I agree that 'inclusiveness' is only one factor. I also agree that the theory has some weaknesses. I also agree that Robinson/Daron went way overboard with their analysis of the Roman Empire, and I can also concede that the analysis regarding Ming China was too simplistic.

How the fuck was it too simplistic when its outright wrong?

But on the other hand I have yet to see a better explanation of why the industrial revolution started in England at this time, so I don't dismiss this theory as invalid as a whole.
If you can point me to a better explanation, I am all ears.

Just HOW does the theory explain why the industrial revolution started in England? Its basic hypothesis is that England was free, thus, it was able to adopt economically liberal policies such as the policies that brought about the industrial revolution.

May I ONCE again remind you that Robinson argument is this.

inclusive economic institutions also pave the way for two other engines of prosperity: technology and education. Sustained economic growth is almost always accompanied by technological improvements that enable people(labor), land and existing capital(buildings, existing machines, and so on) to become more productive.

So, ANY society that adopts inclusive economic institutions can bring about the industrial revolution.

And

In contrast, political insitutions that distribute power broadly in society and subject it to constraints are pluralistic. Instead of being vested in a single individual or a narrow group, political power rests with a broad coalition or a plurality of groups. There is obviously a close connection between pluralism and inclusive economic institutions.

Its clear to me that you badly need to reread Robinson book, because you have no idea what his argument is.

It gets even more ludicrous when one remembers that his example of South Korea was a dictatorship until the 90s.

Oooh. And let's not forget. While Robinson throws the sob bone that Qing China had 'some did develop'(referring to international trade), ignoring actual historical data such as how Qing junks routinely called in at Bangkok to trade with the European powers or how the first Chinese trading junk called in at Singapore in 1819, just 2 years after its founding. Or how the Chinese had already had massed emigration to Singapore in 1820, to the extent that the treat of 1824 between Farquhar and Sultan Hussein demarcated racial segregation to create Chinatown.



So right now, your argument literally becomes ohm Robinson is wrong about Korea, about China, about Rome, but he's right when discussing Latin America and Spain vs England and Russia.


Why is it more likely that if we have anyone knowledgeable in that field here on the board, we probably can tear apart new holes in his data? A singular example is NOT data. A limited data set is NOT proof.

[BabelHuber]

So right now, your argument literally becomes ohm Robinson is wrong about Korea, about China, about Rome, but he's right when discussing Latin America and Spain vs England and Russia.

Robinson is wrong when he touts that inclusiveness is the only factor in history which matters.

Why is it more likely that if we have anyone knowledgeable in that field here on the board, we probably can tear apart new holes in his data? A singular example is NOT data. A limited data set is NOT proof.

No, a single example is NOT proof, you are right.

But as I repeatedly have stated, I am all ears why Robinson is wrong regarding the industrial revolution.

See, if a theory does not fit to everything an author states, it is not necessarily completely wrong under all conditions. It also could be valid under certain circumstances.

Example: During the German reunification in 1989/1990, the West German government came up with a plan to boost the economy in the former GDR. This was a typical Keynesian plan - boosting the economy by simply pumping money into it (the plan actually was more complex, but this is what it boils down).

Well, it did not turn out as expected - unemployment levels skyrocketed and the East German economy didn't quickly recover from the turmoil the reunification caused. This was becoming clear in ~1992 IIRC.

So according to your logic this would prove that Keynes was wrong. But Keynes was still right in some way - his theory works in a 'closed' economy, meaning an economy where you can ignore imports and exports. In todays complex economic landscape, it does not work. Still it is not 'wrong'.

[PainRack]

[quote="BabelHuber]

No, a single example is NOT proof, you are right.

But as I repeatedly have stated, I am all ears why Robinson is wrong regarding the industrial revolution.

See, if a theory does not fit to everything an author states, it is not necessarily completely wrong under all conditions. It also could be valid under certain circumstances.

Example: During the German reunification in 1989/1990, the West German government came up with a plan to boost the economy in the former GDR. This was a typical Keynesian plan - boosting the economy by simply pumping money into it (the plan actually was more complex, but this is what it boils down).

Well, it did not turn out as expected - unemployment levels skyrocketed and the East German economy didn't quickly recover from the turmoil the reunification caused. This was becoming clear in ~1992 IIRC.

So according to your logic this would prove that Keynes was wrong. But Keynes was still right in some way - his theory works in a 'closed' economy, meaning an economy where you can ignore imports and exports. In todays complex economic landscape, it does not work. Still it is not 'wrong'.[/quote]
Keynes had statistical data supporting his conclusion that it works under certain models and etc. There's a whole realm of data and papers supporting his stance.


What data support Robinson argument that inclusive politics leads to inclusive economic situations?

[BabelHuber]

If there is no truth in Robinson's theory at all then please explain why the industrial revolution started in England and not in Spain, France or Prussia. Since Robinson obviously is soooo full of shit, it should be easy for you to do so.

[Simon_Jester]

BabelHuber, that's a childish response and you have to know it.

Saying "Robinson's theory is incomplete, inaccurate, and poorly supported by actual data" is not the same as

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that if Robinson's theory is inaccurate or unimportant, then there is no alternative. You are comparing "Robinson's right!" to the null hypothesis, when in fact you should be comparing it to the set of all the other historical theories out there, to figure out which one fits the evidence best and is most complete.

Because of this, you are acting in a frivolous way by demanding that someone invent out of whole cloth a new theory of their own. And doing it with a blatant non sequitur: "Since Robinson obviously is [wrong], it should be easy for you to [invent a new theory that explains everything Robinson claims to explain, only better."
_______________________

To which, actually, I can come up with two good responses off the top of my head.

I mean, I could answer "Spain was technologically backward in the late 18th century due to a mix of causes, France was bankrupted by the monarchy and then wracked by repeated civil and foreign wars, and Prussia was a militarized state without the wealth of pre-existing infrastructure and trade opportunities enjoyed by the British."

Or I could answer "I don't care if Robinson purports to explain why the Industrial Revolution happened in the UK first. He's not the first, or even the twentieth, historian to present a Just So Story that claims to explain this. The fact that he has written the thirtieth or fortieth Just So Story 'explaining' the Industrial Revolution does not give him any unique claim to special insight about economics or history.

Insofar as Robinson's story is different from older ones, it should stand or fall on its own merits, which it would then fall on you to defend.

Insofar as Robinson's story is the same as older ones, Robinson hasn't presented any new work, and is therefore unimportant.

[BabelHuber]

Because of this, you are acting in a frivolous way by demanding that someone invent out of whole cloth a new theory of their own. And doing it with a blatant non sequitur: "Since Robinson obviously is [wrong], it should be easy for you to [invent a new theory that explains everything Robinson claims to explain, only better."

Yes, this would be stupid. But I don't expect a completely new theory for this, an already-existing competing theory which 'fits better' would be enough.