Why do Nations fail?

[PainRack]

I'm not sure whether this should be in the history section of the forum or under politics, but I'm leaving it here since its an extension of the debate of Why did civilisation lag in Africia.


The fundamental assertion of Robinson is that geopolitics, geo fauna aside, the political insitutions of a nation matter. And they matter in the following sense.

Inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions. This leads to a more equal distribution of income, empowering a broad segment of society and making the political playing field even more level. This limits what one can achieve by usurping political power and resources the incentive to re-create extractive political institutions

Inclusive political institutions here is defined as politics that gather influence and decision making from more segments of the population, whereas inclusive economic institutions are economic organisations that practise economic practices which are fairer. This ranges from lack of corruption, free trade, non equitable taxation to a whole other host of practices that needs to be placed within context to see whether its inclusive or not.


Their central argument isn't that extractive institutions can't generate growth, but rather, they can generate catch up growth or etc up to the limit of the current economy, and then there it will falter because extractive political institutions tend to not generate the positive feedback loops, or nurture negative feedback loops that prevent revolutionary changes and ideas.


http://www.dklevine.com/general/aandrreview.pdf

A good review of the book problems emerges here.

For one, increasingly democratic countries need not neccessarily favor inclusive economic growth , or if so, need not execute this in a way that tends to perpetuate further growth. Zimbawadee and South Africia was the examples used, where increase in democracy did not mean the construction of economic institutions.

To make things even worse, India was a democracy and heavily democraticized, however, it also put in place BECAUSE of said democratic ideals wealth sharing practices....... that ultimately wasn't economically liberal and prevented India growth. Heavy protectionism, a self reliant economy was the result of India democratic decision to increase rural wealth.

Of course, one COULD argue that India has changed in the last two decades, that the time period of 3 decades is too short to condemn India.


YET, the time period of several centuries, 2 of them was enough for Robinson to condemn the Romans, because the shift to Empire led to extractive institutions there......... sure, there was the whole 3rd century crisis, but to argue that the Romans subsequent collapse was due to the shift to empire 2 centuries ago?!?!?!?!



And of course. Ming China. I pointed this out in the previous thread but will like to elaborate more on how Ming china shows the bankruptcy of Robinson flawed historical knowledge.


Zheng He failed naval expeditions.
There's a problem with Robinson narrative. Zheng He naval expeditions were an attempt to sustain Ming China imperialism across the seas. Its subsequent collapse has more to do with China reversal away from Imperialism, as mentioned in my other thread.

In the form of economic practices, Zheng He 'trade' was within the confines of state sanctioned trade under the tributary system, a system that was already considered increasingly inadequate by the end of Zheng He expeditions.

AFTER Zheng He expedition ended, the shift was increasingly towards mercentile trade. HELL, DURING Zheng He expeditions, the emergence of private merchant trade was already rising, it was during the utter collapse of the state sanctioned tributary system that naval trade subsequently picked up. And when naval trade was finally embraced by the state, it became one of the pillars of Ming economic policies and a transformational move of society.(Details found in the Zheng He thread on this forum)


So................................ just why is the cancellation of Zheng He state naval expeditions somehow proof of things gone wrong? If anything, shouldn't it be proof of things going right for Ming China? Because its collapse signified the end of state sanctioned trade, where the profits go straight into the state(aka, extractive economic policies) and its failure led to the rise of a more inclusive economic policy(entrepot trade by Chinese merchants, albeit, trade on the mainland took place only 2 centuries later as China remained closed off to merchants unless via smuggling or state tributary trade system.)

Oh right........ Robinson can't use that example, because Ming China was ultimately technologically inferior to other states and was destroyed by an invasion and the economic unrest of that period.

[Simon_Jester]

I think what it comes down to is that any attempt to take modern quasi-libertarian economic paradigms and apply them to pre-modern societies rapidly leads to absurdity. While a few pre-modern states were very successful while adopting a paradigm of relatively free trade, 'open' political institutions, and so on, others were successful in other ways. And attributing the rise or fall of a single civilization to how much "freedom" its people enjoyed* ignores so many complicating factors that it's not worth anything as an explanation.

In Robinson's case, his choice of the word "extractive" makes things worse because it's misleading. Taken literally, it does not describe many of the 'nonfree' economies in the world; the USSR was not focused on 'extracting' resources or anything of the sort, and genuinely sought to create viable economic institutions for all its people. Taken less literally... well, a lot of other words would make more sense than 'extractive.'

*For a definition of 'freedom' that is often purely economic...

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think another part of the problems with theories like this is that people have a tendency to only look at the massively successful historical societies (e.g. Rome, China, et al) on the one hand OR the ones that underwent massive collapses (e.g. the Mayans), without also examining the multitude of sometimes poorly documented or studied societies that never "prospered" or "failed" in magnificent fashion. You never hear people talk about, say, the Sabaeans, who quietly flourished as a trading state in southern Arabia for the better part of a millenium; or the Pagan Kingdom in modern day Burma, that slowly collapsed as a result of Mongol invasions and repeated civil wars.

If you really want to test one of these theories, you have to see how well it fits all of these cultures, not just cherry-picked examples like Rome and China. Did the Pagans fall due to their economic structure undermining central political rule or due to geography or what?

[FTeik]

Having an inclusive political/economic system sounds nice and dandy to explain the rise and fall of a civilisation/nation until you consider the fact, that for most of history without modern means of communication that inclusiveness in practice ended at the city-walls of the capital, so I think that theory is bullshit.

If you look at institutions like the old egypt or the persian empire, which - while in the end they did fall - lasted longer than any such construct of the last two millenia. The really deciding factor is the ability to adept to suddenly occuring massive changes (an invasion of the Mongols, a huge famine or a small ice-age to name a few examples).

[BabelHuber]

The fundamental assertion of Robinson is that geopolitics, geo fauna aside, the political insitutions of a nation matter. And they matter in the following sense.
Inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions. This leads to a more equal distribution of income, empowering a broad segment of society and making the political playing field even more level. This limits what one can achieve by usurping political power and resources the incentive to re-create extractive political institutions

Inclusive political institutions here is defined as politics that gather influence and decision making from more segments of the population, whereas inclusive economic institutions are economic organisations that practise economic practices which are fairer. This ranges from lack of corruption, free trade, non equitable taxation to a whole other host of practices that needs to be placed within context to see whether its inclusive or not.

A key point also is that in exctractive societies, talents of people are often waisted. A medieval farmer may be a good engineer, but he has (almost) no chance to use this talent when he is bound to his land and his job.

In a more inclusive society, his talent can be discovered in school, so he can get a scholarship.

Their central argument isn't that extractive institutions can't generate growth, but rather, they can generate catch up growth or etc up to the limit of the current economy, and then there it will falter because extractive political institutions tend to not generate the positive feedback loops, or nurture negative feedback loops that prevent revolutionary changes and ideas.

Extractive societies run into a problem when 'creative destruction' is involved:

- The elites who make money with the old technology usually oppose new technology which takes away this money source (e.g. stagecoaches vs. trains).
- Or the elites in power don't see the need to replace one technology by another (e.g. office computers vs. typewriters in the soviet union)

For one, increasingly democratic countries need not neccessarily favor inclusive economic growth , or if so, need not execute this in a way that tends to perpetuate further growth. Zimbawadee and South Africia was the examples used, where increase in democracy did not mean the construction of economic institutions.

Zimbabwe is a democracy only by name IIRC. Mugabe e.g. threw out the white farmers without establishing a sensible follow-up concept, so now chaos reigns. I wouldn't call this 'inclusive'.

South Africe should does also better after the Apartheid has ended: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/27/busin ... apartheid/

To make things even worse, India was a democracy and heavily democraticized, however, it also put in place BECAUSE of said democratic ideals wealth sharing practices....... that ultimately wasn't economically liberal and prevented India growth. Heavy protectionism, a self reliant economy was the result of India democratic decision to increase rural wealth.

Of course, one COULD argue that India has changed in the last two decades, that the time period of 3 decades is too short to condemn India.

OK.

YET, the time period of several centuries, 2 of them was enough for Robinson to condemn the Romans, because the shift to Empire led to extractive institutions there......... sure, there was the whole 3rd century crisis, but to argue that the Romans subsequent collapse was due to the shift to empire 2 centuries ago?!?!?!?!

Here I agree - I also think that this is too simplistic regarding the long time span and the complecity of the Roman society and its surounding powers.

And of course. Ming China. I pointed this out in the previous thread but will like to elaborate more on how Ming china shows the bankruptcy of Robinson flawed historical knowledge.

As I already have pointed out, I don't know enough of Ming China to discuss this.

But one outcome of England's development from 1215 to 1688 was that the King became weaker over time. After 1688, the British king did not have the power to stop the development anymore.
In the parliament, merchants and factory owners would oppose restricting trade, and they had the power to come out victorious in such a conflict.

This is quite a high level of inclusiveness for that time.

So for me the question is if this was also the case in Ming China. If you have merchants without political power, a new king/emperor can always work against them, which is not so easy otherwise.

[BabelHuber]

Having an inclusive political/economic system sounds nice and dandy to explain the rise and fall of a civilisation/nation until you consider the fact, that for most of history without modern means of communication that inclusiveness in practice ended at the city-walls of the capital, so I think that theory is bullshit.

The first primitive steam engine was invented in the 1st century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... eam_engine

While primitive, it proved that steam can be used to do work.

But the elites of that time were not interested in developing this technology further, because they used slaves to do the work anyways. These are cheaper than primitive steam engines.

A society with slave labour is very extractive. In a more inclusive society, where the elite at least has to pay their workers, using steam as a replacement for manual labour is more likely to be viewed as a potential cost-saver.

So the industrial revolution could have started much earlier under other circumstances.

IMO, this is a prime example of extractive institutions preventing progress.

If you look at institutions like the old egypt or the persian empire, which - while in the end they did fall - lasted longer than any such construct of the last two millenia. The really deciding factor is the ability to adept to suddenly occuring massive changes (an invasion of the Mongols, a huge famine or a small ice-age to name a few examples).

But in a more inclusive society you also have more people providing solutions - slaves and serfs usually don't have much incentive to think about improving things - if they do not profit from higher yields, why should they care? What do they lose if the mongols take the place as their new masters?

[Purple]

But the elites of that time were not interested in developing this technology further, because they used slaves to do the work anyways. These are cheaper than primitive steam engines.

Well it could be that. Or it could be that the whole thing would not have been even remotely profitable to use before we got to the industrial revolution and a cheep supply of high grade steel which allows you to mass produce strong pressure vessels required for proper exploitation of steam power.

[BabelHuber]

Well it could be that. Or it could be that the whole thing would not have been even remotely profitable to use before we got to the industrial revolution and a cheep supply of high grade steel which allows you to mass produce strong pressure vessels required for proper exploitation of steam power.

Of course they couldn't have produced a James Watt-style steam engine immediately, that's clear.

But people could have started to develop better alloys etc. to create better steam engines, so this could have been a starting point for further development.

[Purple]

But people could have started to develop better alloys etc.

And they did. Steel alloys improved over time throughout the centuries between the beginning of the iron age and the industrial revolution. There were after all plenty of very good reasons to do this. None the least of which was that they wanted better tougher steel so that they can make stronger and lighter weapons and armor. It's not like technology stood still in the middle ages, regardless of what TV would like you to believe. But this is a process that takes time. And no amount of good will is going to change that and give you 19th century quality alloys 19 centuries sooner.

[PainRack]

A key point also is that in exctractive societies, talents of people are often waisted. A medieval farmer may be a good engineer, but he has (almost) no chance to use this talent when he is bound to his land and his job.

In a more inclusive society, his talent can be discovered in school, so he can get a scholarship.

That's a result, not a definition.

For one, increasingly democratic countries need not neccessarily favor inclusive economic growth , or if so, need not execute this in a way that tends to perpetuate further growth. Zimbawadee and South Africia was the examples used, where increase in democracy did not mean the construction of economic institutions.

Zimbabwe is a democracy only by name IIRC. Mugabe e.g. threw out the white farmers without establishing a sensible follow-up concept, so now chaos reigns. I wouldn't call this 'inclusive'.

South Africe should does also better after the Apartheid has ended: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/27/busin ... apartheid/

South Africa was a democracy in the 1950s-70s, yet, it did not end apartheid and heavily restricted Africans from economic oppurtinities.

As for democracy in name, Robinson argument is about increasing levels of inclusiveness, hence, an increase in the franchise did not lead to more inclusive economic practices for the whites. This even though for a short period in the 80s, the BBC and foreign press did praise the government for the relatively fair management of racial tensions. It was the failure of said management, assassination attempts that led to the reversal.

We COULD take a longer view of course. South Africa became more inclusive and thus did become more economically inclusive as the decades went by, however, that argument still breaks down for Zimbabwe.....

Going down into nuts and bolts, we can show why the theory failed but it still shows that the theory has no real predictive power.

So for me the question is if this was also the case in Ming China. If you have merchants without political power, a new king/emperor can always work against them, which is not so easy otherwise.

Robinson attempt to portray the reversal because 'extractive' political insitutions will curb inclusive economic policies is wrong. The ending of tributary trade led to an increase in private merchant trade.

He argued that Yongle ending the international trade and the 'trade ban' was the 'tip of the extractive iceberg'. This is sheer nonsense. The ending of the expeditionary fleet and the subsequent naval ban is over 100 years APART and it only lasted 17 years.
And again, contrary to his assertion, this actually led to more liberal trade and economic policies. His assertion is simply historically wrong, yet, he built this as a founding argument for why China failed.


As for your question, we do know that the merchants were able to complain and subsequently end a later naval trade ban in Fujian, however, that's putting the cart before the horse. It was precisely BECAUSE the merchants had greater economic power that they gained political power.

[PainRack]

Having an inclusive political/economic system sounds nice and dandy to explain the rise and fall of a civilisation/nation until you consider the fact, that for most of history without modern means of communication that inclusiveness in practice ended at the city-walls of the capital, so I think that theory is bullshit.

The first primitive steam engine was invented in the 1st century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... eam_engine

While primitive, it proved that steam can be used to do work.

But the elites of that time were not interested in developing this technology further, because they used slaves to do the work anyways. These are cheaper than primitive steam engines.

A society with slave labour is very extractive. In a more inclusive society, where the elite at least has to pay their workers, using steam as a replacement for manual labour is more likely to be viewed as a potential cost-saver.

So the industrial revolution could have started much earlier under other circumstances.

IMO, this is a prime example of extractive institutions preventing progress.

This argument breaks down under detailed examination.

Irrigration projects were usually created under massive societies that tend to own slaves for example.
Similarly, we can easily point to labour saving devices for the Romans......

But in a more inclusive society you also have more people providing solutions - slaves and serfs usually don't have much incentive to think about improving things - if they do not profit from higher yields, why should they care? What do they lose if the mongols take the place as their new masters?

You're ignoring his criticism. His point is regarding timeframes. Just how do you justify them failing, when they built empires that lasted so long and was prosperous for so long?

Let's not also forget that the rate of technological invention was still ongoing and that for the Romans, didn't falter when they switched from Republican to Empire.

[BabelHuber]

That's a result, not a definition.

So what? It explains why inclusive societies have an advantage, so it is relevant in this context.

South Africa was a democracy in the 1950s-70s, yet, it did not end apartheid and heavily restricted Africans from economic oppurtinities.

The Apartheid ended in the 90ies, though. Honestly I do not see your point here - the theory does not state that an Apartheid-regime transforms itself to a 'real' democracy within X years.

As for democracy in name, Robinson argument is about increasing levels of inclusiveness, hence, an increase in the franchise did not lead to more inclusive economic practices for the whites. This even though for a short period in the 80s, the BBC and foreign press did praise the government for the relatively fair management of racial tensions. It was the failure of said management, assassination attempts that led to the reversal.

We COULD take a longer view of course. South Africa became more inclusive and thus did become more economically inclusive as the decades went by, however, that argument still breaks down for Zimbabwe.....

Zimbabwe is not a democracy and certainly not an inclusive society - just look at the expulsion of the white farmers and the economical results of it. You cannot use a society which actively excludes people as an example for inclusiveness.

Going down into nuts and bolts, we can show why the theory failed but it still shows that the theory has no real predictive power.

The theory did not fail here. You need to bring up better examples than South Africa and Zimbabwe if you want to proof your point - I am all ears.

Robinson attempt to portray the reversal because 'extractive' political insitutions will curb inclusive economic policies is wrong. The ending of tributary trade led to an increase in private merchant trade.

He argued that Yongle ending the international trade and the 'trade ban' was the 'tip of the extractive iceberg'. This is sheer nonsense. The ending of the expeditionary fleet and the subsequent naval ban is over 100 years APART and it only lasted 17 years.
And again, contrary to his assertion, this actually led to more liberal trade and economic policies. His assertion is simply historically wrong, yet, he built this as a founding argument for why China failed.

I cannot discuss this in detail because of my limited knowledge of China in this time.

But as far as I know, the expeditionary fleet was superiour to every fleet the western powers could lump together at this time. So China basically opened the door for the western powers to spread into Asia by ending it.

Hence the western powers grew stronger in Asia, which also means that China became comparatively weaker.

I have never stated that this theory is the be-all-end-all to explain all historical events, but I think it can be a building block among others to understand the development of a country.

As for your question, we do know that the merchants were able to complain and subsequently end a later naval trade ban in Fujian, however, that's putting the cart before the horse. It was precisely BECAUSE the merchants had greater economic power that they gained political power.

This is not a given. In medieval Europe, the jewish merchants and bankers also had economic power, but couldn't gain political power.

In England, people started to have some political power in 1215, long before the classical merchant class was established. But this development lead to more power for the merchants once they showed up, so here you have this virtous cycle in full effect.

If you have a merchant class which starts to annoy the elite and the elite has the political power necessary to suppress the merchants, the merchants most likely will lose.

This is also stated in the book: If you have extractive political institutions and an inclusive economy, it is possible that the extractive elements win in the end, of course thereby making the society more extractive as a whole.

[BabelHuber]

This argument breaks down under detailed examination.

Irrigration projects were usually created under massive societies that tend to own slaves for example.
Similarly, we can easily point to labour saving devices for the Romans......

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.

Also, I think it would hardly be feasible to replace Rome's aqueducts with slaves carrying water buckets.

Hence the example of the steam engine: Using a primitive steam engine does not have an immediate tangible benefit (unlike an aqueduct).

But in a society where you actually have to pay workers the prospects of using better steam engines in the future is daunting. So this can spur further developments.

Let's not also forget that the rate of technological invention was still ongoing and that for the Romans, didn't falter when they switched from Republican to Empire.

True. But this was the technological progress which was possible in the boundary of their society. Their slave-driven economy set this bounders, and these cannot be overcome until society changes first.

[BabelHuber]

And they did. Steel alloys improved over time throughout the centuries between the beginning of the iron age and the industrial revolution. There were after all plenty of very good reasons to do this. None the least of which was that they wanted better tougher steel so that they can make stronger and lighter weapons and armor. It's not like technology stood still in the middle ages, regardless of what TV would like you to believe.

Yes, there was some progress in the middle ages: Wind mills, water mills and camshafts come into mind.

But nevertheless, progess is not static. If you have incentives for further development, technology develops faster.

On the other hand, when you execute people for getting higher yields when brewing beer, it hampers progress.

And yes, this exactly was happening (at least) in Germany in the middle ages: People didn't know that yeast was needed to brew beer, so it was hit and miss. When somebody was lucky enough to get much higher yields than the average brewer, he was accused of having signed a pact with the devil. Needless to say that such accusations were quite dangerous.

Of course you can have some progres in such circumstances, but science does not exactly thrive.

But this is a process that takes time. And no amount of good will is going to change that and give you 19th century quality alloys 19 centuries sooner.

I have never stated that 19th century-alloys could have been developed in the 1st century. I merely stated that if people had tried to create better steam engines in this time, they would have quickly realized that better alloys are needed, which could have led to faster development in this area.

[PainRack]

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.

Also, I think it would hardly be feasible to replace Rome's aqueducts with slaves carrying water buckets.

Hence the example of the steam engine: Using a primitive steam engine does not have an immediate tangible benefit (unlike an aqueduct).

But in a society where you actually have to pay workers the prospects of using better steam engines in the future is daunting. So this can spur further developments.

Except the reasons why the steam engine wasn't adopted is because the technology and supporting economic uses wasn't present. The primitive steam engines there was used for nothing more than playthings because that's all they were capable of.

True. But this was the technological progress which was possible in the boundary of their society. Their slave-driven economy set this bounders, and these cannot be overcome until society changes first.

You're changing Robinson words, which was that the more egalitarian Roman Republic was more effective than the more stratified Empire.

Furthermore, how the FUCK do you measure this? We don't see any decline in technological innovation from the switch from Republic to Empire. Again, barrels, changes in stained glass, pottery......... is there any measurable decline in technological innovation because the Romans switched from a Republican to an Imperial system?

This is not a given. In medieval Europe, the jewish merchants and bankers also had economic power, but couldn't gain political power.

In England, people started to have some political power in 1215, long before the classical merchant class was established. But this development lead to more power for the merchants once they showed up, so here you have this virtous cycle in full effect.

If you have a merchant class which starts to annoy the elite and the elite has the political power necessary to suppress the merchants, the merchants most likely will lose.

This is also stated in the book: If you have extractive political institutions and an inclusive economy, it is possible that the extractive elements win in the end, of course thereby making the society more extractive as a whole.

I KNOW. Will you stop assuming that our criticism is present because we haven't understood what Robinson is saying?
I AM pointing out however that the Chinese merchants political power in ending the naval ban came about primarily because they had economic power, as opposed to the model that Robinson portrayed, which would be political power would prevent 'elites' from stopping unfavourable economic changes. In this case, the economy of Fujian was instrumental in giving the merchants enough political heft to end the later naval ban.

I cannot discuss this in detail because of my limited knowledge of China in this time.

But as far as I know, the expeditionary fleet was superiour to every fleet the western powers could lump together at this time. So China basically opened the door for the western powers to spread into Asia by ending it.

Hence the western powers grew stronger in Asia, which also means that China became comparatively weaker.

I have never stated that this theory is the be-all-end-all to explain all historical events, but I think it can be a building block among others to understand the development of a country.

The thread is here.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=156845

The ending of the fleet had nothing to do with China naval decline but rather, the Western superior metallagury was finally combined with the economics to put a fleet large enough in the water to face them.
The Ming 'superior' technology was in the rudder mechanisms, because the large Treasure Ships were nothing more than showships, with the bulk of the fleet comprising of the normal war junks and these were simply not comparable to a war galleon. Not without western cannons anyway.

Furthermore, the argument that the ending of the expeditionary fleet= the end of China naval power is wrong. We know that China, in response to Portugeuse advances in Malacca built another naval fleet in response, a fleet which ultimately was not used in war and decayed away. Yet, their naval fleet was large enough that they swarmed under superior armed Portugeuse ships in the battle of Tamao, and the remmants of Ming power was upheld by naval power, including a renegade 'warlord'.

The Apartheid ended in the 90ies, though. Honestly I do not see your point here - the theory does not state that an Apartheid-regime transforms itself to a 'real' democracy within X years.

You're ignoring that the theory argues for degrees of inclusiveness and not some set threshold is needed. IF we were going to use that, then the USA shouldn't have been prosperous until the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s................

I pointed out the problems with India as well. Simply put, the theorists is willing to claim that inclusive societies will be successful by using the timeframe of a few decades but are entirely willing to dismiss successful extractive societies because they took centuries, if not years to fall.

[BabelHuber]

Except the reasons why the steam engine wasn't adopted is because the technology and supporting economic uses wasn't present. The primitive steam engines there was used for nothing more than playthings because that's all they were capable of.

Would you please stop beating strawmans? For the nth time, I never have stated that it would have been possible to design a James Watt-style steam engine in the 1st century!

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

Nevertheless, nobody was even interested in trying out to use steam to enhance efficency in production

Hell, this even had to be re-discovered, because it was forgotten!

If you can show me that somebody has tried to use steam for production, but failed because of bad alloys or whatnot, then you would have a point. But they did not even try! They just saw this as a nice toy without any further relevance, which speaks volumes!

You're changing Robinson words, which was that the more egalitarian Roman Republic was more effective than the more stratified Empire.

I have already stated that the decline of Rome is a bad example I do not agree with.

My point is that slave labour prevents the development of technology after a certain point. This point is reached when further progress is deemed unnecessary because the slaves already do it good enough.

Furthermore, how the FUCK do you measure this? We don't see any decline in technological innovation from the switch from Republic to Empire. Again, barrels, changes in stained glass, pottery......... is there any measurable decline in technological innovation because the Romans switched from a Republican to an Imperial system?

Very easy: The Roman empire had technological progress, but it stopped before an industrial revolution could occur, and this was mainly because of the usage of slaves.

Just look at Roman baths: Was it an invention to create a building where slaves heat up water in the basement, so the guests can enjoy their warm baths? Hell yes!

But why did the progress stop there? Why didn't they develop this further, so it became more efficient (= using less people to heat the water)?

Because the slaves were cheap enough to prevent such a development! Nobody can make money by inventing a system where you e.g. need only 18 slaves instead of 20, when slaves are cheap enough so that this does not matter.

If you have paid workers instead of slaves, investing money to slightly reduce the number of workers suddenly becomes much more attractive.

Hence you can have all sort of progress in such a society, but you most likely will never reach the point where the industrial recolution starts.

Why? Because such a society is too extractive.

You first need to get rid of slaves. Then work gets more expensive. Then you have an incentive to reduce costs by getting more efficient.

In the end, this has lead us to fully automated cheese factories, where a handfull of workers can produce tons of cheese every day. Such a development would have been impossible in Rome - it literally takes thousands (or even more) of small improvements in cheese production until you can get so far, and each single step of improvements would have been pointless with cheap slave labour.

I KNOW. Will you stop assuming that our criticism is present because we haven't understood what Robinson is saying?

Well, since you also seem to have difficulties understanding what I write...

I AM pointing out however that the Chinese merchants political power in ending the naval ban came about primarily because they had economic power, as opposed to the model that Robinson portrayed, which would be political power would prevent 'elites' from stopping unfavourable economic changes. In this case, the economy of Fujian was instrumental in giving the merchants enough political heft to end the later naval ban.

This is no contradiction, sorry. When the merchants get political power because of their economical success and hence can end a naval ban this is in line with the book.

I pointed out the problems with India as well. Simply put, the theorists is willing to claim that inclusive societies will be successful by using the timeframe of a few decades but are entirely willing to dismiss successful extractive societies because they took centuries, if not years to fall.

This is not true. The book explicitly states the Sovjet Union as an example of growth under extractive conditions. The book even states that such growth can continue for decades.

Also Robinson sees the plagues in the 14th century as decisive for the development of Europe for the next few hundred years, so this is no short-term-only theory.

Also, you have to define 'successful' in this context. If 'success' is defined as surviving, there is no dispute: Extractive societies can survive for centuries - under the right circumstances.

But of course this also depends on other countries: Rome was successful because it dealt with enemies it could handle.

If we'd imagine some sort of alternative history where North America has the technology of 16th century Spain in 200 BC and discovers Europe, Rome would have an enemy it cannot handle.
Would it then be invalid to claim Rome went down because the structure of its society prevented technological breakthroughs which were discoverd in North America? That Rome went down because it was too extractive compared to the fictional North AMerican states?

[Purple]

Yes, there was some progress in the middle ages: Wind mills, water mills and camshafts come into mind.

But nevertheless, progess is not static. If you have incentives for further development, technology develops faster.

It does not work that way. Technological advancements don't happen in a vacuum. Regardless of your desires or needs you can only move so quickly and go so far until you hit limitations imposed by your environment, knowledge of other technologies, population size and other factors. You don't just get to poor more tech points from your treasury into something and it happens.

The development of steel already had as I explained a very high incentive. Better steel made for better weapons and armor which made for better killing which made for more gold for the nobility. It also made for better tools for the everyman so he tended to starve less.

I have never stated that 19th century-alloys could have been developed in the 1st century.

But that's what they had to do if they were to ever see any real potential in steam engines other than low powered toys, trinkets and the occasional fancy door opener for a temple or mansion. You can not see potential in something that is worthless.

I merely stated that if people had tried to create better steam engines in this time, they would have quickly realized that better alloys are needed, which could have led to faster development in this area.

And that still would not have allowed them to advance to the 19th century before the 19th century. End of story.

You are working with some sort of messed up recursive logic. Your entire premise rests on the idea that they could have somehow magically known that steam engines will be useful and than started working the materials and technology that they need in order to even conceive it as a useful thing to begin with.

[Thanas]

If we'd imagine some sort of alternative history where North America has the technology of 16th century Spain in 200 BC and discovers Europe, Rome would have an enemy it cannot handle.

Lolnope. Unlike the aztecs, Rome would easily crush any expedition of the size that destroyed the great empires of the new world.

Would it then be invalid to claim Rome went down because the structure of its society prevented technological breakthroughs which were discoverd in North America? That Rome went down because it was too extractive compared to the fictional North AMerican states?

This is wrong in the extreme. Roman society embraced technological advances. It was also not extractive, certainly not more than the states of the renaissance which after all were the states that discovered the new world.

I am also getting pretty tired of uninformed people claiming Rome had no industrial works. She did, on a scale unmatched until the 19th century. And in global trade, resource extraction and resource transfer, she beats everything until late 19th century Britain.

Anybody who claims that Rome was not incredibly advanced for her time does not know history. You don't get that advanced if you don't care for technology. Heck, Romans even maintained the first computers we know of to calculate the tides, something that no state until the 20th century managed after them.

But why did the progress stop there? Why didn't they develop this further, so it became more efficient (= using less people to heat the water)?

See, just by this statement you have shown yourself to know nothing on Roman baths, because guess what? They did develop them further. Late Roman baths got larger, cheaper to construct and more efficient all the time.

Oh, and they also developed the steam engine further on. In the Byzantine court for example, we find it powering singing birds and some robot-like constructions. And they also built mills and weaveries on a scale not seen before and not even seen during the Industrial revolution.

So where the hell do you get off with claiming Rome was somehow against developing technology?

[BabelHuber]

I am also getting pretty tired of uninformed people claiming Rome had no industrial works. She did, on a scale unmatched until the 19th century. And in global trade, resource extraction and resource transfer, she beats everything until late 19th century Britain.

Anybody who claims that Rome was not incredibly advanced for her time does not know history. You don't get that advanced if you don't care for technology. Heck, Romans even maintained the first computers we know of to calculate the tides, something that no state until the 20th century managed after them.

Please show me where I have claimed that Rome had no industrial works. You seem to believe that I am stupid enough to think that it is possible to equip an army with 200000 men without having any industry at all.

I merely stated that a system like in ancient Rome - which uses slaves instead of paid workers - cannot innovate beyound a certain point.

And this point is reached when further innovation doesn't deliver a Return of investment (ROI) because of the cheapness of slaves.

Please explain what is wrong with this instead of accusing me to be stupid.

[Purple]

Slaves aren't cheap by any measure. If you want to keep your slaves productive, obedient and prevent revolts you have to keep them fed, clothed and give them shelter. All of which comes out of your pocket. In fact, I'd wager that it would be cheaper to pay an unskilled worker than to keep a slave because the worker can work multiple jobs, scrounge from his family etc. where as the slave is your responsibility full time. And if a slave is injured or dies thats money out of your pocket. Where as with a worker you only lose as much productivity as it takes time to hire a replacement. It's always more productive to replace them with machines which you don't need to feed and support as much.

Thanas, you are the resident roman expert. How bad were working conditions for slaves in comparison to say industrial England?

[Thanas]

Please show me where I have claimed that Rome had no industrial works. You seem to believe that I am stupid enough to think that it is possible to equip an army with 200000 men without having any industry at all.

I merely stated that a system like in ancient Rome - which uses slaves instead of paid workers - cannot innovate beyound a certain point.

And this point is reached when further innovation doesn't deliver a Return of investment (ROI) because of the cheapness of slaves.

Please explain what is wrong with this instead of accusing me to be stupid.

Because it is so very stupid in so many ways that should be obvious to anybody who has studied economic history. The renaissance states had their economies based on serfdom or profiting from slaves working in their trade partners. Spain built an entire empire on the backs of people it bought from Africa. Great Britain innovated despite being the largest slave-state ever known to mankind. Heck, arguably a lot of the work in the third world today is slave labour.

You also assume the Roman economy was slave-based. That is one really hard accusation to make considering the Romans conscientously shifted from slaves to tenant farmers over the course of the empire (as early as 200 a case can be made that slavery in production was actually the exception and not the rule) and it has never been proven slaves made up the majority of producers. And as early as the first centuries BC we find texts saying free farmers are better than slaves.

And you also asusme a rather stupid one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to slaves. Roman slaves were not slaves in the sense you assume. Heck, Roman slaves had a lot more rights than colonial suspects of the British up to 1950 ever did. They even had more rights than industrial workers of the 19th century did, for it was not accepted by society to just abandon a slave once he got old or suffered an accident. You seriously fail to grasp Roman concepts like familia and what they mean for the slaves.

A lot of slaves were actually high-priced specialists btw, so slaves provided technological expertise and research. Heck, a lot of prominent scientists were actually slaves in Rome, so I don't see the need to reduce slavery to just resource extraction.

BTW, the only area where slavery was the majority of producers throughout the entire empire was the mines. And Roman mines were more efficient than any mine in modern history, so you cannot even say that they were a hindrance there. Romans mined more resources than Europe did until the 19th century. So explain how slaves held them back there?

Oh and one final thing about bath slaves. How is bath slavery any more expensive to society than just to pass a law saying some citizens were drafted to do some unpleasant jobs? Because that is the way most cities worked until the 19th century and it didn't stop people from usheirng the industrial revolution either.

Thanas, you are the resident roman expert. How bad were working conditions for slaves in comparison to say industrial England?

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).

[BabelHuber]

Because it is so very stupid in so many ways that should be obvious to anybody who has studied economic history. The renaissance states had their economies based on serfdom or profiting from slaves working in their trade partners. Spain built an entire empire on the backs of people it bought from Africa. Great Britain innovated despite being the largest slave-state ever known to mankind. Heck, arguably a lot of the work in the third world today is slave labour.

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.

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

You also assume the Roman economy was slave-based. That is one really hard accusation to make considering the Romans conscientously shifted from slaves to tenant farmers over the course of the empire (as early as 200 a case can be made that slavery in production was actually the exception and not the rule) and it has never been proven slaves made up the majority of producers. And as early as the first centuries BC we find texts saying free farmers are better than slaves.

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

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?

[Purple]

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.

Give one good reason to the contrary.

[PainRack]

Would you please stop beating strawmans? For the nth time, I never have stated that it would have been possible to design a James Watt-style steam engine in the 1st century!

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

Nevertheless, nobody was even interested in trying out to use steam to enhance efficency in production

Hell, this even had to be re-discovered, because it was forgotten!

If you can show me that somebody has tried to use steam for production, but failed because of bad alloys or whatnot, then you would have a point. But they did not even try! They just saw this as a nice toy without any further relevance, which speaks volumes!

Because the first steam engine was TOO inefficient to do any work.

You're ASSERTING that the Romans, and any slave owner society wouldn't have an incentive to develop labour saving devices, going directly against proof that they DID. I already shown you an early example which was irrigation. We can also show how the world first mechanical screw-pumps were developed by slave owning GREEKs.

Will you please fucking acknowledge the point?

My point is that slave labour prevents the development of technology after a certain point. This point is reached when further progress is deemed unnecessary because the slaves already do it good enough.

Except that this has never been shown to be statistically true.
May I remind you that the cotton gin led to the slave cotton planations of the South?

Very easy: The Roman empire had technological progress, but it stopped before an industrial revolution could occur, and this was mainly because of the usage of slaves.

Just look at Roman baths: Was it an invention to create a building where slaves heat up water in the basement, so the guests can enjoy their warm baths? Hell yes!

But why did the progress stop there? Why didn't they develop this further, so it became more efficient (= using less people to heat the water)?

Because the slaves were cheap enough to prevent such a development! Nobody can make money by inventing a system where you e.g. need only 18 slaves instead of 20, when slaves are cheap enough so that this does not matter.

If you have paid workers instead of slaves, investing money to slightly reduce the number of workers suddenly becomes much more attractive.

Hence you can have all sort of progress in such a society, but you most likely will never reach the point where the industrial recolution starts.

Why? Because such a society is too extractive.

You first need to get rid of slaves. Then work gets more expensive. Then you have an incentive to reduce costs by getting more efficient.

In the end, this has lead us to fully automated cheese factories, where a handfull of workers can produce tons of cheese every day. Such a development would have been impossible in Rome - it literally takes thousands (or even more) of small improvements in cheese production until you can get so far, and each single step of improvements would have been pointless with cheap slave labour.

Bullshit. Thanas can probably show you more details but we do know that the Roman baths were very technologically advanced, because it requires very advanced architecture and technology to maintain a heated bathouse and the development of thermite and said industry as fuel for said bathouses.

Just how was the technology not developed further?

Well, since you also seem to have difficulties understanding what I write...

Really? The problem is on your end.

I AM pointing out however that the Chinese merchants political power in ending the naval ban came about primarily because they had economic power, as opposed to the model that Robinson portrayed, which would be political power would prevent 'elites' from stopping unfavourable economic changes. In this case, the economy of Fujian was instrumental in giving the merchants enough political heft to end the later naval ban.

This is no contradiction, sorry. When the merchants get political power because of their economical success and hence can end a naval ban this is in line with the book.

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.

This is not true. The book explicitly states the Sovjet Union as an example of growth under extractive conditions. The book even states that such growth can continue for decades.

You do NOT see my point. Again, Robinson examples allow democracies a huge span of time to show that they work to inspire prosperity but they're unwilling to consider how the successful span of centuries for extractive societies show that they're successful.

Also, you have to define 'successful' in this context. If 'success' is defined as surviving, there is no dispute: Extractive societies can survive for centuries - under the right circumstances.

I'm using successful in Robinson context. Namely, that societies will prosper economically.

Would it then be invalid to claim Rome went down because the structure of its society prevented technological breakthroughs which were discoverd in North America? That Rome went down because it was too extractive compared to the fictional North AMerican states?

Why the fuck NOT when Robinson uses this very example for Ming China?

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?


(Note: To argue that the merchants had political influence= society was more inclusive is heavily ahistorical.)

[PainRack]

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.....