Were the Nazis the absolute height of historical evil?

[Iosef Cross]

So, essentially, although Italy lagged behind France, Germany, and Britain, I believe it was ahead of Russia at the time.

Proportion of world industrial production 1913:

Russia - 5.5%
Italy - 2.7%
US - 35.8%

Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indrevtabs1.html

However, Italy had 40 million people, while Russia had 170 million. So, per capita industrial production in Italy was double of Russia.

However, the US had 100 million people, 2.5 times the population of Italy, with per capita industrial production 5 times of Italy. So the difference between Italy and Russland was in per capita industrial production was much smaller than the difference between the US and Italy.

[Elfdart]

The USSR had 22 million km2. The US have 9 million, half of it is desert. The USSR's territory should have now 750 million, at the same densities.

Half the US is desert?

[K. A. Pital]

However, the US had 100 million people, 2.5 times the population of Italy, with per capita industrial production 5 times of Italy. So the difference between Italy and Russland was in per capita industrial production was much smaller than the difference between the US and Italy.

It's not just the industrial production, but also other indicators. Besides, this fully proves Italy was more industrialized than Russia, and despite this, it had a smaller population growth rate. The dynamics should've been different, were we to listed to Iosef the master of demographics.

China wasn't industrialized in the 1960. An industrialized country needs to have the bulk of it's population in urban areas. China had 20% of their population in urban areas in 1960.

So? The USSR was not industrialized in the year 1932, when famine struck, likewise - most of it's population was rural. In your terms, it would be a pre-industrial society and thus prone to famine.

If growth in per capita income is entirely driven by technology, population growth wouldn't affect it.

Despite this, nations with small populations can industrialize rapidly and often reach a very high per capita income, while large populations lag behind, often severely so. A case in point - Japan, European nations, USA - most of these nations had a small population (and it's still relatively small). China and India, two large-population nations, industrialize late. It's easier to bring a given technology to a small population, than it is to a large population. *shrugs* Or so it seems, like I said.

I read in an article about wages in 1875, Italy had the lowest wages of the sample.

You have to answer my point, Iosef, not provide trivia:
Why Italy didn't have Russia's abysmal levels of infant and general mortality, then?

Pré industrial duh.. I mean medieval!

Go fuck yourself, Iosef - your constant re-definitions tire me. You said pre-industrial. Your own fucking words. Hell, you said China was pre-industrial before the 1980s.

Latin America in the 20th century is not preindustrial.

I meant the XIX century, idiot. The population growth was still WAY above zero or 0,1. You bullshited. Deal with it.

You saying that pre industrial countries tend to have higher population growth than modern countries... Please, that's fuking retarded in your part.

Prove me wrong, then. I see that the population growth in some nations has decreased in the XX century relative to XIX century, and in general is decreasing as a nation is becoming more advanced. Your explanations to that are?

The USSR's territory should have now 750 million, at the same densities.

Why? Russia had a lower population density. It's geographical and climatic conditions differ severely. Most of Russia is very sparsely populated.

It was region of the same development level as the USSR. Hence, it is the closest comparison. To compare with Germany and Britain is truly off-topic.

Why? Latin America did not take part in World War I, and in general does not correspond to European culture. I'm not sure what you tried to prove (other than that you can use wrong numbers). Eastern Europe had an average population growth rate of 0,7 percent in the XIX century, it seems. That is way different from Latin America of the same period. In fact, there's a 2 times difference (probably owing to climatic conditions) for these nations in pre-industrial period:
Eastern Europe 1820-70: 0,7% average growth.
Latin America 1820-70: 1,6% average growth.

In terms of population growth, the two regions are thus not similar.

Now, as for the progression - the more industrialized a nation became, the less was it's population growth (for the First World nations on the average, at least, it seems). This is well illustrated by, say, Western Offshoots:
1820-70 1870-1913 1913-50 1950-73 1973-92
4.8 - 2.4 - 1.4 - 1.9 - 1.1.

Western Europe as the first region to industrialize, and the first region to lower birthrates, in general, had a more or less constant low growth rate:
1820-70 1870-1913 1913-50 1950-73 1973-92
0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.3

In terms of pop growth, Eastern Europe including Russia better corresponds to Western Europe:
1820-70 1870-1913 1913-50 1950-73 1973-92
0.7 1.1 0.4 1.0 0.4

And even then, at it's most advanced industrial phase, the last half of the XX century, Western Europe's rates dropped thrice from what they were.

On the other hand, many "lagging behind" regions such as Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia, exhibited a different pattern connected to upshoots in population growth rates. *shrugs*

Now, what is your point again?

[Ziggy Stardust]

You saying that pre industrial countries tend to have higher population growth than modern countries... Please, that's fuking retarded in your part.

I usually hate sniping from the sidelines like this, but your posts just make me angry. In addition to Stas' argument, I have to point out that is a widely recognized trend that industrialized nations tend to have lower population growth. Just look at today: the United States has the highest population growth of any First World Nation, ~1%, whereas many African nations have 2-3% growth.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You saying that pre industrial countries tend to have higher population growth than modern countries... Please, that's fuking retarded in your part.

I usually hate sniping from the sidelines like this, but your posts just make me angry. In addition to Stas' argument, I have to point out that is a widely recognized trend that industrialized nations tend to have lower population growth. Just look at today: the United States has the highest population growth of any First World Nation, ~1%, whereas many African nations have 2-3% growth.

Not least, it seems his basic geography and economics is ridiculous. It has been well established for God knows how long that pre-industrial nations have high population growth, lower life expectancy. People reproduce like rabbits just to get people to work on a damn farm which was what people did back in the Medieval ages.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not least, it seems his basic geography and economics is ridiculous.

Indeed. His geography is worse than his economics, though: half the U.S is a desert, and has the same population density as the U.S.S.R ...

[Lusankya]

China wasn't industrialized in the 1960. An industrialized country needs to have the bulk of it's population in urban areas. China had 20% of their population in urban areas in 1960.

According to your stupid definition here, China still isn't an industrialised country, as approximately 57% of their population still live in rural areas.



Anyway, I might actually answer the OP by nominating Australia, specifically the Tasmanians in the 19th century, as they are responsible for the fact that there are no Tasmanian Aborigines left. Not that the rest of Australia was much better: it's just that Tasmania is small enough that it was possible to comb the entire island for black people, while the Mainland is big with lots of desert, which made forming huge chain gangs to comb the island impractical.

[Pelranius]

According to your stupid definition here, China still isn't an industrialised country, as approximately 57% of their population still live in rural areas.

On a side note, the 43% of China's population living in urban areas is counting only the people who are registered, if I remember correctly. Throw in all those migrant workers from rural areas and that expands to maybe 55-60% though it's questionable how many of those migrants actually have families in cities and just can't get actual residential documents as opposed to being temporary, seasonal migrant workers.

[Iosef Cross]

China wasn't industrialized in the 1960. An industrialized country needs to have the bulk of it's population in urban areas. China had 20% of their population in urban areas in 1960.

According to your stupid definition here, China still isn't an industrialised country, as approximately 57% of their population still live in rural areas.

43% in urban areas is the same rate of urbanization of UK in ~1840. I can say that China today is industrializing, and has many industrialized regions.

A country with 20% of urban population cannot be said to be industrialized, though it can have some industrial regions, like Manchuria.

Though the definition of industrialized or not is flexible, to say the least. But you simply cannot say that Mexico is not industrialized, while saying that China is.

[Iosef Cross]

However, the US had 100 million people, 2.5 times the population of Italy, with per capita industrial production 5 times of Italy. So the difference between Italy and Russland was in per capita industrial production was much smaller than the difference between the US and Italy.

It's not just the industrial production, but also other indicators. Besides, this fully proves Italy was more industrialized than Russia, and despite this, it had a smaller population growth rate. The dynamics should've been different, were we to listed to Iosef the master of demographics.

Try to understand that (the "population growth rate" should read as "population"):


In pre industrial countries, population doesn't increase because mortality is high. With the reduction of mortality, population increases and with the end of the industrialization process, population growth stops and fertility decreases, that is the natural part of the process.

My argument was that the USSR was a country in the middle of the development phase in 1920-1960, not at the end, like Germany and UK. Their population growth was only 0.6% because they had great excess mortality. Between 1920 and 1960 we had several famines and WW2, these two factors would result in at least 35 million to 40 million excess mortality, with would mean a much greater population growth between 1920 and 1960.

Before I said that I expected a population growth of 1.5% between 1915 and 1940. Now I was corrected by you that their population growth was smaller between 1870 and 1913 than I previously believed, but I would expect a 1% population growth between 1920 and 1960, instead of 0.6%, with would happen if we didn't have WW2 and famines.

China wasn't industrialized in the 1960. An industrialized country needs to have the bulk of it's population in urban areas. China had 20% of their population in urban areas in 1960.

So? The USSR was not industrialized in the year 1932, when famine struck, likewise - most of it's population was rural. In your terms, it would be a pre-industrial society and thus prone to famine.

It was mostly a peasant economy, yes. But they had a large and growing urban population. Anyway, it is true that famines hold population growth in pre industrial societies and that the industrial revolution stopped the famines and reduced infant mortality, boosting population growth.

If growth in per capita income is entirely driven by technology, population growth wouldn't affect it.

Despite this, nations with small populations can industrialize rapidly and often reach a very high per capita income, while large populations lag behind, often severely so. A case in point - Japan, European nations, USA - most of these nations had a small population (and it's still relatively small). China and India, two large-population nations, industrialize late. It's easier to bring a given technology to a small population, than it is to a large population. *shrugs* Or so it seems, like I said.

1- This is a classic example of statistical illusion. Out of the 200 countries in the world, we have about 40 developed countries. Out of the 5 most populated countries in the world, we have 1 developed country. Out of the 10 most populated countries in the world, we have 2 developed countries, out of the 15 most populated countries we have 3 developed countries. Out of the 20 most populous countries we have 4 developed countries. Out of the 30 most populous countries we have 6 developed countries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... population.

There is apparently no relationship between population and development. The proportion of developed countries out of a sample of countries is always 20%, no matter the average population of the sample.

2- Small countries have small impact on the world capital markets. Hence, to have high levels of per capita investment in small countries the required foreign investment is small. Hence, it is easier for small countries to become developed by attracting foreign capital, the case of Hong Kong.

3- In reality per capita income growth is not only driven by technology, though in developed countries it is mostly driven by technology. That explains why the US and Western Europe have the same rates of per capita income growth between 1990 and 2008 (around 1.65% per year).

Pré industrial duh.. I mean medieval!

Go fuck yourself, Iosef - your constant re-definitions tire me. You said pre-industrial. Your own fucking words. Hell, you said China was pre-industrial before the 1980s.

China indeed was a country mostly based on subsistence farming until the 1980's, like Europe in the Middle Ages, though they had some modern sectors. When the majority of the country's population is not engaged in subsistence farming, we said that I had become industrialized. China has reached this phase quite recently.

Latin America in the 20th century is not preindustrial.

I meant the XIX century, idiot. The population growth was still WAY above zero or 0,1. You bullshited. Deal with it.

True. Pre industrial countries can have high population growth when their population is spread over a large area, like Latin America in the 19th century and Russia at the same time. In this case mortality rates tends to decrease and population grows.

However, the industrial revolution had great impacts on Latin American population growth, with accelerated during the 20th century.

Also, during the 19th century, US's population, a country more industrialized than any in latin america, grew at faster rates than latin america. Compare Brazil and US populations (in thousands):

------- US ----- Brazil

1820 - 9.981 ---- 4.507

1910 - 92.767 --- 22.216

2000 - 282.158 --- 176.320

Estimated per capita income's:

------- US ----- Brazil

1820 - 1.257 ---- 646

1910 - 4.964 ---- 769

2000 - 28.467 --- 5.532

source: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical ... 2-2010.xls

Rate of urbanization:

------- US ----- Brazil

1820 - 10% ---- 5%

1910 - 45% ---- 20%

2000 - 80% --- 75%

sources: taken from memory from several sources.

US's population increased more between 1820 and 1910, the period of industrialization of the US. While Brazil's period of industrialization was between 1910 and 2000, with was the period of the country's greatest population growth.

It is very strange that USSR's population didn't growth much between 1920 and 1960, since that was the period of industrialization of that country. Hence, they had massive excess mortality, both due to WW2 and due to internal problems and Soviet opression.

That was my case.

You saying that pre industrial countries tend to have higher population growth than modern countries... Please, that's fuking retarded in your part.

Prove me wrong, then. I see that the population growth in some nations has decreased in the XX century relative to XIX
century, and in general is decreasing as a nation is becoming more advanced. Your explanations to that are?

Did you knew that:

?

Countries in the process of industrialization have greater population growth rates than mature economies. Mature countries have lower rates of average population growth than countries in the process of development.

However, pre industrial countries only experience population growth when their population density is very small, and in the beginning of their process of industrialization mortality rates fall and population increases.

If USSR's process of industrialization happened between 1920 and 1960, then their population should have increased to a greater degree. It didn't because of excess mortality, not because a 0.6% rate of population growth was "normal" for the USSR. It would have been normal if the country was industrialized like UK by 1920, but it wasn't.

It is not valid to say that USSR's population growth was normal between 1920 and 1960 because it was near UK's growth, as you said before.

[K. A. Pital]

In pre industrial countries, population doesn't increase because mortality is high. With the reduction of mortality, population increases and with the end of the industrialization process, population growth stops and fertility decreases, that is the natural part of the process.

However, pre-industrial population growth can be higher for a given nation than the population growth in its more industrialized period (or in its more industrialized neighbor). Besides, the industrialization is not a one-time process. It has at least three waves (or so do some researchers put it, and I'm inclined to agree). My point stands still - Italy was more industrialized than Russia, and despite this, it had a smaller population growth rate. The dynamics should've been different. Therefore, your generalization is not a rule.

"With the end of industrialization, population growth stops" - were Western offshoots fully industrialized by 1870 as they suffered massive pop growth declines?

I would expect a 1% population growth between 1920 and 1960, instead of 0.6%, with would happen if we didn't have WW2 and famines.

So would I, but World War II impacted population growth not only in the USSR. Other East European nations had similar growth in the period. *shrugs* I'm not sure what's so particularly amazing about that, either.

Anyway, it is true that famines hold population growth in pre industrial societies and that the industrial revolution stopped the famines and reduced infant mortality, boosting population growth.

*shrugs* So once the USSR fully industrialized, famines stopped. There could have been a boost in population growth, but the deaths of so many men in World War II precluded this from occuring. So, we only got (for the most part) a reduction in mortality due to industrialization and introduction of penicillins. I never disputed that, anyway.

Out of the 5 most populated countries in the world, we have 1 developed country. ... [20%]

However, there's a factor of three or four difference between China or India and the USA. The sampling is not taking into account the massive difference between #1 and #2 and following nations.

Small countries have small impact on the world capital markets.

And it's easier to force-industrialize small nations (see: Operation Bootstrap and other such efforts). Yeah.

In reality per capita income growth is not only driven by technology, though in developed countries it is mostly driven by technology. That explains why the US and Western Europe have the same rates of per capita income growth between 1990 and 2008 (around 1.65% per year).

Nothing you said here contradicts my point - it's easier to raise per capita income with a smaller population, easier to advance technology.

True. Pre industrial countries can have high population growth when their population is spread over a large area, like Latin America in the 19th century and Russia at the same time. In this case mortality rates tends to decrease and population grows.

So it's not abnormal for a more industrialized nation - this or another - to have lower population growth.

However, the industrial revolution had great impacts on Latin American population growth, with accelerated during the 20th century.

Who cares? My example stands - Eastern Europe which had similar historical circumstances has had declining growth rates. Also, you seem to think the US population growth rate increased during it's industrialization 1820 onwards. But it's wrong.

USA (annual average compound growth rates)
1820-70 1870-1913 1913-50 1950-73 1973-92
2.9 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.0
As one can see, the population growth declined as the United States industrialized.

It is very strange that USSR's population didn't growth much between 1920 and 1960, since that was the period of industrialization of that country.

USSR was typical of East European nations (which, for the most part, had similar industrialization periods). I've already provided the relevant numbers. Carefully read the tables here:
http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Monitoring ... s_appA.pdf

Countries in the process of industrialization have greater population growth rates than mature economies. Mature countries have lower rates of average population growth than countries in the process of development.

So the more advanced an industry becomes, the less is a population growth rate. This is proven by the USA, as well - at the start it had high population growth rate, but the further it advanced, the more it decreased.

It would have been normal if the country was industrialized like UK by 1920, but it wasn't.

It wasn't, but it was more industrialized than in the 1860-1920 period. And in that period it had a higher growth rate, since it was the very initial period of industrialization. Much like with many other nations. Obviously the massive losses in World War II and repressions precluded a larger post-war population boom.

It is not valid to say that USSR's population growth was normal between 1920 and 1960 because it was near UK's growth, as you said before.

Once again:
http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Monitoring ... s_appA.pdf

For Western offshoots:
1820-70 1870-1913 1913-50 1950-73 1973-92
4.8 2.4 1.4 1.9 1.1

The population growth declined as the nations became more and more industrialized. What was 4,8 in 1820-70 became 2,4 in 1870-1913, then 1,4 in 1913-1950, slightly higher in 1950-1973 and finally as low as 1,1 in 1973-92.

What exactly is not clear for you here? The tables in Maddison take all the term from 1820 to 1992. Do you postulate that the USA was already fully industrialized by the year 1870 and thus it's population growth declined?