>A new study by Stephen Broadberry of Oxford University, Hanhui Guan of Peking University and David Daokui Li of Tsinghua University in Beijing argues that China has indeed lagged behind Europe for centuries. It compares levels of GDP per person in China, England, Holland, Italy and Japan since around the year 1000. It finds the only period when China was richer than the others was during the 11th century. By that time China had invented gunpowder, the compass, movable type, paper money and the blast furnace.
>But according to Mr Broadberry and his co-authors, Italy had caught up with China before 1300, and Holland and England by 1400. Around 1800 Japan overtook China as the richest Asian country. Chinese GDP per person fell relentlessly during the Qing dynasty (1644-1912). In 1620, it was roughly the same as it had been in 980. By 1840, it had fallen by almost a third (see chart).
>These findings challenge a hitherto common belief that China and Europe had similar living standards for centuries until the West’s industrial revolution began in the late 18th century: a point often referred to by historians as the “great divergence”.
But by the time they're done industrializing, China will dwarf Europe in terms of GDP. Not even the United States will be as big.
William Foster
They were heavily centralized in their high period prior to the Mongol conquest, and the Manchurian Qing dynasty were backwards isolationists who forcefully decentralized China and made sure that everyone was a backwoods mud farmer by the time Europeans arrived
Joseph Miller
>1990 international dollars
Biggest red flag right here. If you understand economics, you will notice the flaw as well.
Hudson Rivera
im confused
Charles Wilson
Good wording, but it lacks context.
Italy/Holland/England are tiny compared to China. So what does the wording mean? It means on average, China as a whole is poorer than Italy, one of the richest if not THE richest place in Europe at the time.
However the richest Chinese cities are still very rich if not richer than Italy at least during the 1300s.
So what happened during that time? Did China regress and stagnate? Or did the Europeans found a new source of wealth that propelled them upwards? The answer is both, but much more on the second part. Chinese dynasties experienced wealth drains and hardships throughout the centuries to come. This was due to the Mongol's ruthlessness and also the coming turmoil to come. Wars and turmoils in Europe in the Chinese scale didn't exist in Europe till the WW1 and WWII.
Few hundred thousands? That's nothing. Chinese were casually and consistently waging wars that would kill millions of people at time. However that didn't mean it was always like this. Periods of long peace reigns in China.
While the Chinese state were in turmoil, Europe was busy plundering gold from the New World. It was busy building its trade routes with the Old World. There is also the fact that the Europe had a great field day at the Qing's expense. Still, the main part is colonial exploitation in Europe propelled their GDP and at the same time turmoil in China slowed their growth. They never really stagnated, only experienced periods of slow growth due to large scale wars/famines. China was too large to stagnate unless the whole country was underseige at the time from multiple forces (during Qing).
Joseph Scott
All previous estimates utilized a somewhat different definition of international dollars. For example, Angus Maddison's seminal work "Contours of the World Economy."
This new analysis does not actually reveal much more than what he already found. The new authors just cherrypicked the three richest per capita places in Europe post-1600.
If you include all of Europe, China was ahead until 1700. That is the problem with the new study, it ignores the rest of Europe and focuses on only three "European" nations.
Meanwhile Japan, a nation know in the 1600's for impressive literacy and life expectancy, is poorer than China until the 1800's? That is another question for this new study.
t. International Development economist who works in DC at the IMF (although I am low level)
Matthew Nelson
Italy, Holland/Flanders, and England were the richest places in Medieval Europe along with northeastern France, it's pretty nitpicky to compare them to all of China.
Dominic Price
Guys better begin learning Chinese.
Angel Lee
AHAHAHHA CHINESE COPE
Elijah Gray
>1300s. >"""Italy"""
Also everyone knows the later Qing sucks. Literally what is new.
Lincoln Kelly
2030 is closer to us than 2000.
In 2000, China's GDP (ppp) was under a trillion dollars. US was at 10 trillion In 2010, China's at 6 trillion and US @ 15 trillion. In 2016, China's at 21 trillion and US @ 18.5 trillion. In 2030, China would be at 38 trillion and US @ 23.5 trillion.
It seems like the history is going in reverse. If US can capitalize on space before China does, it might create a repeat of economy boom. If China does so before US can take advantage, then they will completely dominate the solar system economy.
Ian Bennett
>But by the time they're done industrializing, China will dwarf Europe in terms of GDP. Not even the United States will be as big.
Is this really supposed to be suprising though? China's population is larger than both of them combined. Just by sheer numbers alone, China will have the largest economy (until maybe India industrializes at the same level).
The only statistic that really matters is GDP per capita.
Michael Evans
>The only statistic that really matters is GDP per capita. Not quite
You can have quite high GDP per capita yet small GDP as a country. See Singapore/Nordic countries.
GDP as a country matters on geopolitical level. This will control the overall world economy. Per capita will rise as overall GDP increases.
This is even more relevant with China since its a state capitalism. Thus market forces is directly tied with overall GDP.
Owen Murphy
>Manchurian Qing dynasty were backwards isolationists who forcefully decentralized China Qing didn't decentralize China, the whole political system basically directly inherited Ming minus eunuchs interferences.
Jonathan Stewart
>International Development economist who works in DC at the IMF
Do you have any book recommendations for this sort of economic pissing contest or any good analysis of the evolution of the Chinese economy?
Michael Morgan
China didn't really lost the supremacy in east Asia even at these 2 dynasties. There are more complicated reasons than steppniggas which caused the stagnation of China after 18th century.
Dominic Stewart
In a sense, the problematic analysis is still used in the present day. The ~100 million people living in the top 3 Chinese city-provinces of Beijin, Shangai and Tianjin plus Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau enjoy European standards of living, as evidenced by HDI and GDP/cap PPP
Michael Hernandez
>China will have a similar ppp to Brazil Bullshit
Joseph Barnes
>It seems like the history is going in reverse. If US can capitalize on space before China does, it might create a repeat of economy boom. If China does so before US can take advantage, then they will completely dominate the solar system economy.
Totally wrong. Space mining will not be feasible until we create space elevator, and fusion energy(100+ years). The next great divergence will be about AI. The first country to create ASI will essentially have a thousand year lead when it comes to technological progress.
Christian Nguyen
Fusion energy will never be feasible.
Charles Powell
At the rate China's super computer is going, it will probably be the first if not close to the US in terms of creating an ASI. This is assuming ASI will be created sometime in the 2050s at earliest.
By 2050s, China would be nearly twice the economy of US, so it will have a huge population of scientists working on the problem. Meanwhile the US will still be denying evolution and climate changes because God.
Adrian Russell
Actually they did.
They let a lot of Provinces run their own economy and fund their own State militias which contributed to the rise of the Warlords once the military became aware they were the real power.
Landon Rivera
>The next great divergence The world economy is too interconnected for that. Whoever creates it first will definitely have an advantage, but through trade the rest of the world will eventually acquire the same technology in relatively short span.
And considering that most of Wall-street is already being managed by algorithmic software, it's likely that creating intelligence which is truly sapient will be a soft, gradual process, and whatever insights we discover into the nature of consciousness will be insights we can apply to our own consciousness.
>Space mining will not be feasible until we create space elevator, and fusion energy(100+ years). Not necessarily. A space elevator will require materials of far greater tensile strength than what we currently have, and would be a public works project of far greater scale than we are currently capable of funding. One of those is probably centuries away.
Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is an area of active research. Once we have fusion reactors we'll have residential electricity too cheap to meter, warships which never run out of fuel, planes which can stay airborne for weeks, and torchships with insane delta-v capable of approaching relativistic speeds. At that point we just send the mining equipment to the asteroid and use magnetic slings to send them on a controlled descent to the Earth's surface.
Well I cited the one book many of us consider to be the most important work in the field. I'm no historian, so I can't say with certainty who is correct or what books are most useful in this issue.
I'm just pointing out that the new research did not exactly change the previous research of Maddison. The Economist tends to utilize some sensational content for obvious reasons.
Agreed. PPP per capita China overtook Brazil PPP per capita last year. The implosion of Brazil is a very disturbing event because many in the IMF praised its policies only a few years ago.
Grayson Fisher
Brazil is a country of tomorrow. And it will always be that.
Brody Roberts
...
Adam Hill
>These findings challenge a hitherto common belief that China and Europe had similar living standards for centuries until the West’s industrial revolution began in the late 18th century
I've genuinely never understood how anyone could ever believe this.
Jason Bennett
>The first country to create ASI will essentially have kickstarted human extinction ftfy
>Let's create a machine that renders humans obsolete, what could go wrong? I want to split open every egg-heads skull with a hammer and watch the yolks run.
Kayden Rivera
ASi will probably need some form of 3D integrated neuromorphic chips that are yet to be invented . We are a long way from creating ASI or even knowing the hardware requirements for ASI. One thing I know is, the silicon Vonn Neumon based chips that are used in current day supercomputers will be considered outdated technology within a decade.
Jose Campbell
>they've already made fusion reactors which give more energy than was required to build them.
This is nice, but there are practical issues like having to replace the inner armor that protects the machine from high energy neutrons, which means dismantling the massive yet delicate device and puting it back together, which is expensive not only in money, but also in time. And since you’ll have to do it quite often, the chance of fucking up and blowing the expensive internal parts of the device goes skyhigh.
It’s a pipe dream.
Same is true for every emerging market.
Samuel Reyes
>assessing GDP in 1 AD Meme tier graph.
Landon Gray
>that fucking graph
Lincoln Wilson
So is no one else going to point out the obvious problem with the methodology here?
Comparing China against specific European states doesn't make sense because of the scale involved. It makes far more sense to compare China against all of Europe or parts of China against specific European states. Once you start comparing parts of China against European states, i.e. Yangzi river delta vs England, the supposed gap disappears until the 18th century.
I only know about this because I saw papers pointing out this problem years ago. It is probably because of those old papers showing the gap disappears if you do parts of China vs European states comparisons instead of all of China vs European states comparisons that the belief in similar living standards became common in the first place. This "new" paper basically wants to go back to a previous point before the problem was pointed out.
Do modern day historians not read old papers anymore?
Henry Williams
the wars and turmoil part is wrong
the Wars of Religion affected all of Europe and devastated Germany more than the world wars.
The war of Spanish Succession and the Peninsular war devastated Spain as badly as world wars
The period between the French Revolution to the fall of Napoleon was as devastating for France as a world war, and there was war in Europe because of France from Portugal to Russia.
Jayden Allen
Imagine someone comparing China as a whole to a small opium-riddled part of the Appalachians, and using that to prove China has had higher living standards than America since day one. Would the Economist publish that?
Evan Ramirez
The Wars of Religion are the only Euro conflict that came anywhere close to the scale of the civil wars China was experiencing every half-century or so. Nevermind the wars against steppeniggers.
Chase Watson
>send them on a controlled descent to the Earth's surface That sounds completely unfeasible in any way, compared to mining them in Earth or Moon orbit and doing the refining there.
Daniel Torres
Warlordism and decentralization occured as a result of the Taiping uprising. The Qing state prior to the uprising was highly centralized.
Robert Davis
>1000 years >500 years >100 years >100 years >120 years >50 years >43 years >37 years >23 years >30 years
Mason Cruz
>What is the Hundred years war >What is the seven years war >What are the napoleonic wars >What is the war of Spanish succession >What is the War of Austrian Succession
China was always shit compared to Europe
Bentley Parker
>What is the Hundred years war A regional scuffle. >What is the seven years war A big meme where the casualties were often in the high hundreds or low thousands, basically a lot of scores being settled at the same time in different theaters. It was mostly Spain getting their shit wrecked in completely one-sided battles that racked up the body count, with an honorable mention for Prussia and Austria for actual fighting something resembling a war. Compare the An Lushan rebellion that lasted about as long and killed at least 10 million people (that's the lowball estimate) >What are the napoleonic wars Dwarfed by no less than 5 Chinese internal conflicts and even Europe's own Thirty Years War >What is the war of Spanish succession >What is the War of Austrian Succession Comparable to minor Chinese rebellions.
>China was always shit compared to Europe I don't get it, instability and infighting is nothing to brag about. What's pathetic is giving unwarranted importances to little border skirmishes.
Grayson Hernandez
More people died in the Taiping Rebellion than in all of those conflict combined. Same goes for the Dungan Revolt and the Qing Conquest of Ming.
Andrew Gray
>It's important because china has a really big population None of these wars had any impact on human history outside of China, whereas a major conflict in Europe could literally change the modern world as we know it.
Also the majority of casualties in the Taiping rebellion are attributed to Famine and Disease, not the actual war. Also the Napoleonic wars involved more soldiers than any of these Chinese civil wars
Aaron Jones
I'm more surprised about Japan. I was fairly sure Edo Japan was more developped than China under the Qing.
Jonathan Ramirez
>That sounds completely unfeasible in any way You mean verses bringing an asteroid into Earth orbit? I highly doubt that even with torchships that would be something which could be accomplished in a timely fashion.
We're already at the point where we can sling probes on a one-way collision course with a comet, it would not be very difficult to come up with a series of magnetic mass-drivers which bring the raw material in a disposable canister with a parachute on a controlled descent to the Earth's surface. The first time you get a dump-truck sized load of platinum or other precious rare Earth metals, and they keep falling at the same spot at regular intervals (maybe a few times a week?) the infrastructure starts easily paying for itself.
Jonathan Young
Nobody knows enough about fusion energy to say that
Aaron Richardson
>Taiping Rebellion had no impact on human history outside China >None of these wars had any impact on human history outside of China [Citation needed]
Anons, this is the level of intelligence of your average /pol/tard on Veeky Forums.
Chase Fisher
>CHINA WIRR GROW FOREVER
the chinese delusion makes me kek every time
Josiah Murphy
Europe isn't a country, retard
Evan Butler
China is just another asian tiger like Japan was. And, like Japan, they will have a stock crash and be stuck in economic stagnation for decades due to low growth. Their falling birthrates is indicative of this, long term.
As for space, it's not going to be a major component of the global economy because there's no way to cheaply get stuff down from space in bulk.
Julian Jenkins
yes it is and it's capital is brussels
Isaiah Morales
Let's compare the effect of the Taiping Rebellion on the USA with the effect of the American Civil War on China.
Josiah Reyes
>Taiping Rebellion on the USA One of the major causes for the Scramble for Concessions as well as THE cause for the large influx of Chinese immigrants to the American West
>the effect of the American Civil War on China I can't think of anything.
Matthew Gray
>I can't think of anything.
Maybe not immediate effect, but you can't deny there must be some influence even by cultural interaction via it's effect on the American character.
Bentley James
Just like how Japan was going to own half the USA by 2000
Mason Ross
Nope. The Chinese were too preoccupied to notice the American Civil War, considering the second bloodiest conflict (at mean estimate, by far the bloodiest at the greatest estimate) of all time occurring during the same time frame.
Dominic Harris
>The first country to create ASI user, if ASI is created none of this even matters, the AI can just self-improve until it figures out the economy on its own.
Jordan Mitchell
Oh so the USA hasn't had any influence on China, culturally or economically. Good to know.
Zachary Jenkins
Japan lacked the population, territory and resources for limitless growth, and basically benefited from having an headstart in industrialization over the rest of the Asia, which ended when most of the pack caught up. There are no physical limitations on China surpassing the US and Europe, and after industrializing and developing so much they have started relying on their internal market more. Incidentally Japan is still the second largest investor in the US (after the UK) and is responsible for "over 80 percent of all FDI in the United States that originates from Asia-Pacific." It also holds the largest share of US foreign debt along with China, they each hold 4 times as much as the next few creditor countries.
Ethan Nguyen
You should fuck off down the yellow brick road with that strawman, Dorothy.
Jayden Baker
If you expand the timeline you'd see they've had bigger dips.
Sebastian Allen
>you can't deny there must be some influence >Nope
you just failed to understand the assertion. Undoubtedly the ACW had an effect on the US, and undoubtedly the US had an effect on China.
Even just considering the opening and modernization of Japan.
Nathan Hall
...
Colton Perez
There's no reason to think that. "Country of tomorrow" is just a meme, and these come and go.
Parker Bailey
Oh, it should be mentioned that Japanese investments in the US are being dwarfed by their investments in Western Europe.
Julian Ross
That wasn't your original argument you stupid fuck. You originally asserted that the Taiping Rebellion had no effects on outside states which is patently false (literally caused one of the largest immigration booms in U.S. history) and then falsely implied that because the ACW had negligible effects on China that the U.S. had no effect on China which is a strawman argument. Your entire premise has been proven false and you just keep making it worse. The ACW had little to no effect on China. The Taiping Rebellion had direct and easily measurable effects on the United States. Now fuck off down to Oz so you can hide your head behind the curtain instead of sticking it further up your ass.
Christian Martinez
>You originally asserted that the Taiping Rebellion had no effects on outside states you have me confused for someone else, I'm not just someone who jumped in
you're new here, aren't you?
>falsely implied that because the ACW had negligible effects on China that the U.S. had no effect on China which is a strawman argument lol reading comprehension get your panties sorted out faggot
>The ACW had little to no effect on China.
pls
Grayson Moore
>Good wording, but it lacks context.
>Italy/Holland/England are tiny compared to China. So what does the wording mean? It means on average, China as a whole is poorer than Italy, one of the richest if not THE richest place in Europe at the time.
>However the richest Chinese cities are still very rich if not richer than Italy at least during the 1300s.
they used administrative records of economical output, and textual evidence of the price of everyday things like grain, and how much it went for. The data is mostly derived from cities anyway.
Pic-related. China always has been underdeveloped shithole.
Colton Gomez
>>The ACW had little to no effect on China. not him but it really didn't tbqh. Maybe you should post some sources to back up your claim. Is there even a single Chinese source document about the American civil war?
Joseph Diaz
>The ACW had little to no effect on China It did. Prove otherwise. You can look at immigration statistics, the Central Pacific portion of the transcontinental railroad, and the histories of various Chinatowns in California if you want to see the direct and lasting effects the Taiping Rebellion had on the United States. You can do nothing of the sort for the reverse.
>the rest of your post Not an argument.
Ryder Jones
again >Maybe not immediate effect >cultural interaction >Japan
Benjamin Richardson
So what you're saying is >America in general, at some point, had an effect on certain countries near China, maybe not immediately and only through "cultural interaction" >Therefore the ACW affected China really makes me think
Isaac Jackson
>implying the English Civil War didn't affect Germany
Hudson Parker
>Japan You keep mentioning this like it means something but Sakoku ended 6 years BEFORE the ACW happened and it wasn't just an American effort despite all the memery. Russia, Britain, France and the United States played equal parts in "opening" Japan. If anything, Russia played the biggest role in opening Japan.
Hunter Smith
he's also forgetting that Japan isn't in fact a chinese province
Christian Brooks
>Japan isn't in fact a chinese province HAHAHAHAHA RICE
but seriously tell me how American culture hasn't influenced China. Tell me how American culture was unaffected by the ACW.
Colton Rogers
>Sakoku ended 6 years BEFORE the ACW happened thanks
Zachary Evans
m8, "American culture has influenced China" != "The ACW affected China at the time". I don't know how else to explain it to you, others have said the same thing. maybe it's just time to admit you're wrong, this is an anonymous board, it won't cause you any shame
William Barnes
>ACW affected China at the time notice what I never implied
Matthew Wright
We compared and you got BTFO
Jaxon Williams
WE >Let's compare the effect of the Taiping Rebellion on the USA with the effect of the American Civil War on China at the time.
broaden your horizons
Jace Watson
>when the mongols hit real hard
Bentley Cox
>move goalposts because you got BTFO >continue to cry like a child because no one acknowledges your fallacy Want to have a real trip on how the United States affected China?
As we both know (hopefully you're not as retarded as you've made yourself seem so far, if you are, just try to keep up), the United States favored the Republic of China over the People's Republic of China in the One China Policy until 1992 with the One China Principle. The Republic of China has a fairly long history (longer than the PRC) which starts with Sun Yat-Sen who argued for things like democracy and what not, very similar to the United States which makes sense because he studied in Hawaii (not yet a state or even a territory of the United States when Sun was there so influence is out at that point in time). The U.S. saw this Sun Yat-Sen guy and thought he was a pretty good dude and liked what he was preaching so they backed his overthrow of the Qing and the Kuomintang (The party that Sun Yat-Sen founded) ever since. This was a huge boon for the Kuomintang as it allowed them to stave off attempts at further colonization by Europeans and help hold back the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War/Pacific War. This is the part where you say "Hey! The United States really did affect China!" right? Wrong. Sun Yat-Sen moved to Honolulu due to the aftermath of the Taiping Rebellion. His inspiration for overthrowing the Qing didn't come from the United States either. His inspiration came from studying the Taiping Rebellion in Hong Kong. In essence, the Taiping Rebellion, which affected Sun Yat-Sen influenced the United States which influenced China which ultimately means that any American influence on China between 1911 and 1992. When you consider that the PRC considers Sun Yat-Sen their founder as well, that date moves from 1911 to the present.
tl;dr U.S. influence on China stems from Chinese influence on the United States and thus you are still wrong. LAWYERED
Camden Hill
>As for space, it's not going to be a major component of the global economy because there's no way to cheaply get stuff down from space in bulk. The telecommunications industry would like to have a word with you.
Sebastian Anderson
If you only considered the eastern cities or even just the first tier municipalities as China proper and the provinces as merely sources of raw materials and cheap, readily-exploitable labor (which is pretty much how the country is presently administered), you'd realize that China has already won and the west is good and fucked. Decolonize now before you have to, nerds.
Jaxon Robinson
>before you have to Who's going to make us? China? With what navy?
Connor Turner
Funny you say that, they're already have 2 aircraft carrier and a third under construction and fourth in plan.
While it may not be a match for the US, its already a match for any European country today.
Angel Brooks
>in bulk
That ain't bulk nigga
Brayden Thompson
Exactly 0 super carriers and an inability for blue water operations mean they're not any threat for Europe either. China may be a global power economically, but militarily they're a regional threat at best.
Aiden Lee
Yeah, right now. The 3-4 aircraft carrier will be had within the next 5 years-10 years. Not exactly that far into the future.
The main plan for PRC seems to drive the US away from the Pacific arena by making it costly. This loss of US regional power will change the dynamics of economy for the world. Europe is dependent on the US for its protection right. If the US scales back in the coming decades, the EU will lose its economic edge as it will have to start investing more into defense and less into social programs.
Christian Sullivan
Except the Chinese aren't using those for blue water operations. Their stated goal and the assumed goal by experts is regional sea power because they just don't have the logistical capability for blue water operations. Even with the new carriers, they're going to be forced to operate in pairs while the rest stay in port.
>This loss of US regional power will change the dynamics of economy for the world Unless the PLAN somehow makes 50 years of advances overnight and the U.S. remains stagnant (it isn't, the USMIC is the one guaranteed portion of U.S. government funding since it's factored into mandatory spending rather than discretionary which means Congress can realistically do fuck all about it) that's not a likely scenario. They don't even have the means to keep U.S. air forces out of the South China Sea, let alone the USN.
Nathan Howard
There are over 2,200 satellites in orbit.
Disposable rockets are not ideal, but they can serve well enough for use to send a fully automated car sized roving science lab to Mars. If Emdrive and nuclear fusion pan out, rockets will become even cheaper and more effective.
Space is for the robots. They don't need much more than a few grams of silicon circuitry and a solar array, and they can be purpose-built to fulfill a single purpose. You send the explorer probes to the asteroids to scope out the resources, digger probes, refining probes, and then slinger probes to shoot them into Earth orbit, to be grabbed by collection probes and parachuted to the ground. And the best part is that you can just leave them there when they've served their purpose.
This sort of technology is not totally out of reach, but we'd need a way to manufacture a shitload of insanely high tensile strength materials before a space elevator becomes feasible. The problem is that our society just isn't prioritizing the industrialization of space.
Christian Gonzalez
Every time we get this argument on Veeky Forums people will point out that"China" is a meme and didnt really exist until 1949 but now suddenly its fine for China as a geographical entity to be compared to small states in Europe on the basis of stated meme?
Like I'm not even surprised by the findings and my headcanon is that the chinks never really recovered from being MONGOL'd but this is just hypocritical
Blake Gray
Chinese are just trying to cope with the fact that they fell behind several centuries ago and still have not caught up
Jordan Cruz
>Different dynasties rule China. >"DURHURR CHINKNA IS LE MODERN INVENTION."
Aaron Williams
Yet you don't object to England, Holland and Italy being treated as countries 1400-1850
Easton Price
Who are you quoting?
Henry White
Cunts who say China didn't really exist until 1949.
