Because I can't be bothered converting to BBCode, I'll just attach my own essay here.

Thank you, that was interesting. So the theory is that the chinese economy grew considerably in the quantitative sense (agriculture toke more land) but not qualitatively (only small, incremental, technological improvements) until it eventually fell into a malthusian trap by the 18th century?

A similar thing (increasing population, use of marginal lands, changes in crops, and technological improvements) happened in Europe between the 11th and 14th centuries. Western Europe was by then entering the malthusian trap, but that was broken by the Black Plague.
Then the dramatic reduction of the population both relived scarcity among the survivors, and led to the concentration of land ownership. Still, population went on to increase again and Europe would again fall into a malthusian trap after the 16th century. The important question is why that one was broken by industrialization. Political factors were likely important (landowners were powerful enough in Britain to carry out the enclosures, but not on most of continental Europe, for example). But the one technological breakthrough which allowed the Industrial Revolution was the use of fossil fuel - coal - for energy. The textile industry did develop on hydro power, but that was not new (Italy had it in the 14th century...) and the available power was limited.
China (and most of Europe and the world) was in disadvantages there, for as you mentioned the coal reserves it had were inconveniently located... some specific regions, which had the all-important raw materials for the new industry, would inevitably take the lead.

Pretty much. I don't fully recall the details of my research (wrote this about 6 months ago) but Elvin essentially argued the technological changes done in China were not conducive to creating the "jump" which occured in the West. It sounds slightly Diamond-esque but essentially, it was just luck which enabled the West to achieve industrialisation the way it did - a series of (un)fortunate events, if you will.

Political unity of China didn't help, and the lack of seas to perform cheap trade through hurt China too.
Excerpts from your document:
fuel crisis due to official discouragement of the mining industry
Europe wasn't unified, partly due to lots of natural borders (English Channel, Alps, Pyreneans...), so official policies couldn't hurt as much as in China. If France had a stupid policy for instance, England wouldn't necessarily, and would benefit from it.
The ample coal reserves in the Northwest were unusable due to the great distance from the Yangzi and inadequate transport infrastructure.
The seas helped Europe a lot. The areas with better sea access (Greece in antiquity, Italy, England, France, Portugal and Spain later) were the most prosperous and advanced.

One has to remember that official or not, China was a very physiocratic (beware: slightly anachronistic term to use) state. Almost all of China 'proper' (namely the bits that stayed more or less the same from the Qin to Ming) was agricultural - partially due to the necessity of growing food and the fact that the area was just so awesome at growing food.
The next thing that would happen is to speculate on how far official *encouragement* of mining would have helped. I don't know enough on the politics to make a stand.

Water access was available in many areas of China 'proper' with the epic canals. However, the Northwest was too far away for canals to be built - so yes, that point probably stands.

EDIT: It seems Sharwood can't read the pdf - so if anyone wants to waste contribute their time by converting that to BBCode, I wouldn't mind too much.

One has to remember that official or not, China was a very physiocratic (beware: slightly anachronistic term to use) state. Almost all of China 'proper' (namely the bits that stayed more or less the same from the Qin to Ming) was agricultural - partially due to the necessity of growing food and the fact that the area was just so awesome at growing food.
The next thing that would happen is to speculate on how far official *encouragement* of mining would have helped. I don't know enough on the politics to make a stand.

Water access was available in many areas of China 'proper' with the epic canals. However, the Northwest was too far away for canals to be built - so yes, that point probably stands.

EDIT: It seems Sharwood can't read the pdf - so if anyone wants to waste contribute their time by converting that to BBCode, I wouldn't mind too much.

I remember that Song and Ming dynasties in China were quite "industrial" as in their manufacturing was quite developed. In wikipedia articles Economy of the Song and Economy of the Ming, references are made to up to 30% of population working in manufacturing. In addition, China had a very vibrant trade before the Manchu takeover. The exact amount was about 300 million taels in 80 years(note that is 12 times Chinese government's income for 1600, and China had 40% of world's GDP then). Not exactly isolationist.

I would not trust the Wikipedia articles unless there is further backing with academic sources. My own notes say 80% is the often-quoted percentage for China's peasant population. The peasant population were also involved in manufacturing their own clothes, etc. because that was how life was in a Chinese village. Specialisation was not a concept known to the 农民 of Ming and Qing. So you might want to find out what that 30% means before throwing a Wiki stat at me.

Vibrant trade with what? I already said in my essay (if you bothered reading it) that there was a good amount of trade between provinces. But China was effectively a little world in itself. Coastal trade was bannned (and therefore untaxed) between 1371 and 1567 (partial lift of ban), then from the late Ming to 1685 (when open coast policy was done), then again in 1717. Trade was only done with the Mongols up north and as proven many times, the Chinese could just cut trade off as they liked (sparking Mongol raids). All trade in China was internal trade. Again, you are throwing the term isolationist around when the only time I used that in my essay was regarding the relative isolation of each province from each other.

Try reading the essay properly.

Vibrant trade with what? I already said in my essay (if you bothered reading it) that there was a good amount of trade between provinces. But China was effectively a little world in itself. Coastal trade was bannned (and therefore untaxed) between 1371 and 1567 (partial lift of ban), then from the late Ming to 1685 (when open coast policy was done), then again in 1717. Trade was only done with the Mongols up north and as proven many times, the Chinese could just cut trade off as they liked (sparking Mongol raids). All trade in China was internal trade. Again, you are throwing the term isolationist around when the only time I used that in my essay was regarding the relative isolation of each province from each other.

If you read some of Joseph Needham's books, you will notice Ming economy was a very vibrant trade. Also check wikipedia. Ming engaged in a gigantic trade involving importing huge amounts of silver in exchange for Chinese products such as Tea. Check Ming dynasty and Economy of the Ming dynasty. It was a very vibrant trade. Of course, the Manchu Qing changed this and virtually shut down this trade in 1685. The Zheng clan for example(a merchant clan) could dispose of 100 million taels, four times the revenue of the MIng government. That's impressive in any case.

Also, Ming manufacturing was quite advanced. At Jingde, hundreds of THOUSANDS of workers were employed to work the pottery shops.
From China the major exports were silk and porcelain. The Dutch East India Company alone handled the trade of 6 million porcelain items from China to Europe between the years 1602 to 1682.[126] Antonio de Morga (1559–1636), a Spanish official in Manila, listed an extensive inventory of goods that were traded by Ming China at the turn of the 17th century, noting there were "rarities which, did I refer to them all, I would never finish, nor have sufficient paper for it".[127] After noting the variety of silk goods traded to Europeans, Ebrey writes of the considerable size of commercial transactions:


Map of East Asia by the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci in 1602; Ricci (1552–1610) was the first European allowed into the Forbidden City, taught the Chinese how to construct and play the spinet, translated Chinese texts into Latin and vice versa, and worked closely with his Chinese associate Xu Guangqi (1562–1633) on mathematical work.In one case a galleon to the Spanish territories in the New World carried over 50,000 pairs of silk stockings. In return China imported mostly silver from Peruvian and Mexican mines, transported via Manila. Chinese merchants were active in these trading ventures, and many emigrated to such places as the Philippines and Borneo to take advantage of the new commercial opportunities.[117]

After the Chinese had banned direct trade by Chinese merchants with Japan, the Portuguese filled this commercial vacuum as intermediaries between China and Japan.[128] The Portuguese bought Chinese silk and sold it to the Japanese in return for Japanese-mined silver; since silver was more highly valued in China, the Portuguese could then use Japanese silver to buy even larger stocks of Chinese silk.[128] However, by 1573—after the Spanish established a trading base in Manila—the Portuguese intermediary trade was trumped by the prime source of incoming silver to China from the Spanish Americas.[129][130]

I agree with your essay with its description of Qing dynasty China though. Manchu China did only increase quantatively and not qualitatively.

*sigh*
Do.
Not.
Use.
Wikipedia.


Now, Needham's work is on Science and Technology - NOT economics. I already said, there was a significant amount of inter-provincial trade. Ever considered that the Zheng clan got that from said interprovincial trade?
Where is this Zheng clan based? Jiangnan? I need a source on this Zheng clan because there is a very limited number of Chinese surnames and I have no idea of which Zheng clan you were talking about.

Have you even read what I wrote in the essay?

Now, Needham's work is on Science and Technology - NOT economics. I already said, there was a significant amount of inter-provincial trade. Ever considered that the Zheng clan got that from said interprovincial trade?
Where is this Zheng clan based? Jiangnan? I need a source on this Zheng clan because there is a very limited number of Chinese surnames and I have no idea of which Zheng clan you were talking about.

Have you even read what I wrote in the essay?

Yes I have. The wikipedia article I used happened to be written by a history major from George Mason University- an excellent historian, in my view.

Zheng clan refers to the clan whihc established the Tungning kingdom. They were specialized completely in foreign trade. The head married a Japanese woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Zhilong

This guy bought up 60% of the land in a province. Pretty wealth if you ask me.

The Ming engaged in much overseas trade. A respected sinologist, Joseph Needham believed that the amount of silver flowing into Ming China through trade amounted upwards to 300 million taels of silver. To put this into perspective, the Ming government's entire annual revenues were only 27 million taels, and the Ming had 31% of the world's GDP.[1]

Initially, the Ming engaged in state-sanctioned overseas trade. This was best exemplified by the expeditions of Zheng He, the eunuch admiral, who visited India, East Africa, and Indonesia seven times in massive fleets. However, like many other industries, the trade gave way to the merchants. By the 15th Century, the Ming had abolished the restriction on private overseas trade and Ming merchants prospered. One evidence of this prosperity was the wealth of the Zheng Clan,(Chinese:郑芝龍集團) an influential group of overseas traders who had their own navy and set up their own overseas outposts. The Zheng clan drove the East India company out of Taiwan and virtually out of business in East Asia. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Ming_Dynasty#Introduction_of_Americ an_crops

Yes I have. The wikipedia article I used happened to be written by a history major from George Mason University- an excellent historian, in my view.
FWIW, who is that? I'm actually there right now. :p

PericlesOfAthens. I'm sure you've heard of him on wikipedia????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PericlesofAthens

Oh, he goes to GMU? That's lulzy. Perhaps I should seek him out. Anyway, enough hijacking by me.

Okay.
After reading and rereading and rerereading, I finally concluded that you're trying to argue that my thesis does not apply for the Ming Dynasty.

The points you put forward were : -
1. A manufacturing economy by "30%" of the population
2. A "vibrant" trade during the Ming

I've already refuted point 1 in one of the posts above because your numbers don't seem to match up with the sources I have.

Regarding point 2, I argued that the significant proportion of Chinese trade was still inter-provincial and not maritime. I still stand by that statement. Apart from those in the trade provinces (Fujian and Guangdong), the others do not feel the effects of maritime trade.
Your numbers for silver imports sound correct BUT: -
a) The exchange was not for tea, it was mostly for silk and other non-perishable commodities. The tea trade only got to a flying start with the British
b) Silver is and was NOT a currency in the Ming. It is, like gold or silk a mere commodity to be traded at a profit.
Try these for a bit of knowledge on how the Chinese currency system worked (can't be bothered to change citation styles, copied straight from journals)
King, F.H.H. Monetary Policy in China 1845-1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965
Myth and Reality of China's Seventeenth-Century Monetary Crisis
Author(s): Richard von Glahn
Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 56, No. 2, Papers Presented at the Fifty-Fifth
Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association (Jun., 1996), pp. 429-454
Therefore, you can't use the taels of silver to indicate on the "vibrancy" of foreign trade - particularly when figures of domestic trade are much harder to obtain (the govt. didn't care about market trade)

Now with regards to my thesis statement, my conclusion was that there WAS quantitative and qualitative growth throughout the Ming-Qing Dynasties. So I don't see where the argument really is.

From the evidence laid out, it can be easily seen in hindsight that the Chinese economy was headed towards stagnation. However, it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. ... Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period.

Regarding point 2, I argued that the significant proportion of Chinese trade was still inter-provincial and not maritime. I still stand by that statement. Apart from those in the trade provinces (Fujian and Guangdong), the others do not feel the effects of maritime trade.
Your numbers for silver imports sound correct BUT: -
a) The exchange was not for tea, it was mostly for silk and other non-perishable commodities. The tea trade only got to a flying start with the British
b) Silver is and was NOT a currency in the Ming. It is, like gold or silk a mere commodity to be traded at a profit.
Try these for a bit of knowledge on how the Chinese currency system worked (can't be bothered to change citation styles, copied straight from journals)

Actually, for my point, the Ming based their currency on silver after the mid-1500's, after silver imports became so large fiat currency was outcompeted.
Also in regard to the trade, if we put Ming GDP at roughly 10 times that of the Ming government revenues(sounds like a correct figure to me) the total GDP would only be about 270 million taels. The Ming trade over a roughly 50 year period was 300 million taels, or about 6 million taels per year. Thus, foreign trade made up about 3-5% of the Ming GDP and was significant in providing a key source of silver. In addition, this trade in modern money would be be about 1.2-3% of world GDP(Ming GDP was 40% of World GDP) or about 1.8 TRILLION per year! That is by no means an insignificant amount.

See Economy of the Ming dynasty for details.

Also, as to "specialization" I argue that Ming industry was much more vibrant than Qing or earlier Song, due to a gigantic privatization programme. During Ming, state monopolies were disestablished. By specialization, I meant that many farmers became workers and became an urban class of workers; that is pretty specialized, in my view. Ming went farther than Song in going towards capitalism.

Also, the Ming merchant class was very vibrant. As I have mentioned above, Zheng Zhilong and many other merchants were extremely wealthy and influential. In addition, if you read some asian history, many CHinese merchants fleeing the Manchu conquest were able to set up "kingdoms" and "republics" in Southeast Asia such as the Lanfang Republic.

Also, remember we did not account for the trade between 1400 and 1570. Ming trade was "banned" but the ban was not enforced anywhere correctly. Needham has documented this as well as Pericles, so I won't need to debate on this.
See this source for details(You seem to be able to understand Chinese) http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf

Read my sources regarding the Chinese currency system. Silver was NOT a currency - it was a convenient commodity. Day to day transactions were still conducted in copper cash, and taxes could be paid in either produce or silver - it being just another commodity.

And if you stop repeating the Wikipedia article and look at my other sources, perhaps you might stop going like a broken record.

Your other points do not refute my thesis conclusion either.

Silver is not a currency?????

That is contradicted by every source I know. Silver WAS the standard for Ming currency after the 1500's. And my other points refute your thesis quite well. The fact that such a high percentage of the population was urbanized, and there was such a large trade, show that the Ming is nowhere near what you described. Check Ming dynasty and Economy of the Ming dynasty. As well as any source on currency. Ming emperors TRIED to instate paper currency. THEY FAILED.

Your other points do not refute my thesis conclusion either.

How is the Ming qualitatively stagnatory when large-scale private enterprise is popping up everywhere and China is having one of its most intellectually free and cultured times????
The economy of Ming is not more dependant on agriculture than Europe. Trade and manufacturing were a major part of the economy. However, Ming entrepreneurs were able to resist taxation better.
in 1598, when the Wanli Emperor tried to increase the tax, his tax collectors were stoned to death.

Ming emperors TRIED to instate paper currency. THEY FAILED.

They were out-competed by private issuers of bills. Paper was still well used in the Ming dynasty, just not state paper.

The fact that such a high percentage of the population was urbanized, and there was such a large trade, show that the Ming is nowhere near what you described.

High percentage of the population urbanized =/ to large amounts of trade beyond the transfer of food from peripheral regions to the core urban centers. Ask Rome at its height about that.

How is the Ming qualitatively stagnatory when large-scale private enterprise is popping up everywhere and China is having one of its most intellectually free and cultured times????

Private Enterprise /= Economic Growth, especially if it is merely re-privatized industry that was formerly government.

Intellectual pursuits and culture /= Economic Growth.

The economy of Ming is not more dependant on agriculture than Europe. Trade and manufacturing were a major part of the economy. However, Ming entrepreneurs were able to resist taxation better.

Proof for the not more dependent on agriculture than Europe (and what you actually mean).

Proof for the trade and manufacturing being a major part of the economy, and what it is they produced, traded in and to whom. [The to whom is the most important bit].

What was the actual taxation rate between the two and how was it levied? You should also note that the ability to resist taxes is also a show of a weak central authority, more so than the actual or percieved strength of capitalists [word used with trepidation].

in 1598, when the Wanli Emperor tried to increase the tax, his tax collectors were stoned to death.

Who stoned him to death? Pre-capitalist interests or irate peasants?

*

You haven't proved anything... you've strung together a bunch of tangentially unverifiable facts to try and create a narrative. You also haven't really addressed any on Bananalee's points to boot. You also need to understand the central premise of Malthus and Elvin before you can comment since that seems to have gone over your head.

Silver is not a currency????? That is contradicted by every source I know.

Since *every* source you know is Wikipedia, I can see why. I already told you to read the sources I suggested to understand the monetary system.

How is the Ming qualitatively stagnatory when large-scale private enterprise is popping up everywhere and China is having one of its most intellectually free and cultured times????

I shall write down my concluding paragraph again.

From the evidence laid out, it can be easily seen in hindsight that the Chinese economy was headed towards stagnation. However, it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. ... Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period.

EDIT: The most important bit of my thesis conclusion is the bit in red, in case you didn't realise.

Since *every* source you know is Wikipedia, I can see why. I already told you to read the sources I suggested to understand the monetary system.

Cambridge, histories of China, published essays in Chinese, a ton of stuff contradicts. Yes paper money was issued. But you have to realize a crucial difference. ALL THINGS WERE MEASURED IN SILVER. Therefore, the paper issued was representative money, rather than fiat currency(whose value depends on government authority). Also, if you think the Ming didn't have a vibrant trade, how come a country who is so lacking in silver, uses the silver standard for its currency????

Sources;
Cambridge history of China, The Ming dynasty,
Jia Qing. "On the reasons why China fell behind the west". http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-02-01.
^ Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7, page 994-997
^ ^ Du Zhebie, "The seeds of capitalism and Chinese history."

And that's just after a few minutes of researching.

As to your argument, what do you think is the crucial difference between Ming China and the later 18th century Europe????
Intellectual ferment?? check
Large amounts of investement?? check
Emphasis on technological improvement?? check
Huge overseas trade?? check

In fact, Ming economy was not more "agarian-based" than Europe later. Ming population as a percentage working in manufacturing was just as large, if not larger for one instance.

Also, as far as I know, Song and Ming were both dynasties that had relatively little peasant revolts(with exception for end of Ming, due to Little Ice Age), so they did not come up against "Malthusian restraints".

The Ming government abolished the mandatory forced labor by peasants used in early dynasties and replaced it with wage labor. A new class of wage laborers sprung up where none had existed before.

A key feature of an "agarian-based" economy is self-sufficiency. By Ming, wage labor was replacing other types at a fast speed.

Who stoned him to death?

Irate copper merchants. Throughout the Ming merchants were able to successfully resist taxation. The tax on commerce was only 0.5% compared to 1.5% on agriculture.

What I think is the problem here is that Ming and Qing were two very different periods. You shouldn't confuse them into one. Ming rulers were much less powerful and there were more capitalistic developments there. Even if Ming did not have industrial revolution, it would have copied it rather quickly(similar to how Ming armies reequiped themselves rapidly when they discovered their muskets had less range than European-made muskets).
Qing, on the other hand, stifled capitalistic development by discouraging commerce, especially foreign commerce. Its rulers were also non-Chinese, and fearful of any innovation the Chinese might come up with to overthrow their rule.

BananaLee....nice essay. :)

Even if Ming did not have industrial revolution, it would have copied it rather quickly

They would not, because it was impossible. China didn't had the raw materials for it, in the right places. Only three regions in the world had the population, the resources (coal and iron), and easy transportation all together in the same place. Those were Great Britain, the northestern United States (around Pennsylvania), and the Rhine zone, between Germany, France and Belgium.

They would not, because it was impossible. China didn't had the raw materials for it, in the right places. Only three regions in the world had the population, the resources (coal and iron), and easy transportation all together in the same place. Those were Great Britain, the northestern United States (around Pennsylvania), and the Rhine zone, between Germany, France and Belgium.

I meant as in copying the reforms quickly, similar to Japan's Meiji reforms. And that is a pretty biased statement(I'm pretty sure pretty much all areas developed enough can develop into industrial revolution).

I meant as in copying the reforms quickly, similar to Japan's Meiji reforms. And that is a pretty biased statement(I'm pretty sure pretty much all areas developed enough can develop into industrial revolution).

Now they can, because now we can move oil around cheaply, we have that little invention called electricity, etc. With 18th and 19th century technology they couldn't.

Now they can, because now we can move oil around cheaply, we have that little invention called electricity, etc. With 18th and 19th century technology they couldn't.

I was talking about the difference between Ming and Qing:

Qing- closet-minded, and were non-Chinese. Were afraid that if reforms passed, their rule would collapse.

Ming- advancing, pretty capitalistic, and would adopt reforms quickly. Note how fast Japan industrialized compared to China.

And that's assuming the Ming would not have the ability to industrialize in the first place....

Teeninvestor, you're not arguing on anything in my thesis. "A few minutes" of research is not three weeks of ploughing and trolling through a pile of books. If you spent more than a few minutes reading, maybe you'd understand the subtlety of the parralel currency system of China.

If you also read Cambridge more, you'd also realise that the Ming Dynasty was JUST AS "closet-minded" prior to its fall (the stopping of Zheng He's expeditions anyone?) - and the Qing was very expansionistic during the reigns of Yongzheng-Kangxi-Qianlong.

Using terms like "capitalistic" are rather anachronistic simply because they didn't think of their economy in that manner. Marxist philosophy is long dead, mate.

Maybe if you read up more and understand the basics behind it, you'd come up with more intellectual answers. But until then, PLEASE don't waste my time or yours with random discussions with no historical basis.

how come a country who is so lacking in silver, uses the silver standard for its currency????

Oh My ******* God....

PLEASE in the name of ALL that is Holy - READ MY SOURCES ON THE CURRENCIES. Those are intellectual journal entries on the currency system of Ming China.

It is NOT a silver standard. It is just a convenient measure of calculating wealth for large transactions. But it is a COMMODITY.

READ READ READ READ my sources. Please. Before my brain melts with your idiocy

Warning for language/flaming. - KD

Oh My ******* God....

PLEASE in the name of ALL that is Holy - READ MY SOURCES ON THE CURRENCIES. Those are intellectual journal entries on the currency system of Ming China.

It is NOT a silver standard. It is just a convenient measure of calculating wealth for large transactions. But it is a COMMODITY.

READ READ READ READ my sources. Please. Before my brain melts with your idiocy


You know when all money is measured in silver, it becomes the currency. That is something called REPRESENTATIVE MONEY. ALL MONEY MUST BE REPRESENT SILVER>

AND YOU ARE CONTRADICTED BY THIS SOURCE:

By the 16th century the Ming economy was stimulated by maritime trade with the Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch. China became involved in a new global trade of goods, plants, animals, and food crops known as the Columbian Exchange. Trade with European powers and the Japanese brought in massive amounts of silver, which then replaced copper and paper banknotes as the common medium of exchange in China. During the last decades of the Ming the flow of silver into China was greatly diminished, thereby undermining state revenues and indeed the entire Ming economy. This damage to the economy was compounded by the effects on agriculture of the incipient Little Ice Age, natural calamities, crop failure, and sudden epidemics. The ensuing breakdown of authority and people's livelihoods allowed rebel leaders such as Li Zicheng to challenge Ming authority.

I think that settles it.

Need repetition?

Silver as a common medium of exchange

Get that into your head.

Also, I wouldn't call one of the greatest cultural, scientific, and open periods in Chinese history, one of China's 3 Golden Ages, closet-minded. Ming writers were advocating republicanism and representation, for gods sake. That's like saying the enlightenment was closet-minded.

Read my sources, that's all I have to say.

Silver was not the common medium of exchange, copper cash was. Your source (Wikipedia) is either wrong or making a simplistic generalisation.

Read my sources, that's all I have to say.

Silver was not the common medium of exchange, copper cash was. Your source (Wikipedia) is either wrong or making a simplistic generalisation.


Not just wikipedia, but
Cambridge history of China
5000 years of Chinese history(a publication in China)
Two essays on the Ming dynasty

Copper was used too but it was used in small denominations, and silver for larger.

Until you read specific books and sources on the currency system (like the ones I suggested), you're just repeating yourself like a broken record with oversimplifications typical of general histories.
Your statements don't refute my thesis so until you have something more intelligent to say, I won't respond.

Good day.

Until you read specific books and sources on the currency system (like the ones I suggested), you're just repeating yourself like a broken record with oversimplifications typical of general histories.
Your statements don't refute my thesis so until you have something more intelligent to say, I won't respond.

Good day.

You still haven't responded to my sources. Please show me the exact statements said in your sources. I have highlighted my statements and given sources. So far you have given none. Also, I have demonstrated unlike you thought the Ming had a very vibrant trade and manufacturing industry, which I believe refutes your thesis of the Ming not having a qulitative breakthrough(graudal urbanization, investment, and others).

I have highlighted my statements and given sources. So far you have given none.Half-false. I'll be kind and point them out from where BananaLee put them (you know, from the pdf?):
Bray, F. "Agricultural Revolution in China?" In Science & Civilization in China, Volume 6: Biology and Biological Technology: Part 2: Agriculture, by J. & Bray, F. Needham, 587-616. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Eastman, L.E. Family, Fields and Ancestors: Constancy and Change in China's Social and Economic History 1550-1949. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Elvin, M. Patterns of the Chinese Past. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1973.
Elvin, M. "The Last Thousand Years of Chinese History: Changing Patterns in Land Tenure." Modern Asian Studies 4, no. 2 (1970): 97-114.
Ho, P. Studies in the Population of China 1368-1953. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
King, F.H.H. Monetary Policy in China 1845-1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Kirby, E.S. Introduction to the Economic History of China. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954.
Lu, H. "Arrested Development: Cotton and Cotton Markets in Shanghai, 1350-1843." Modern China 18, no. 4 (1992): 468-99.
Myers, R.H. "Transformation and Continuity in Chinese Economic and Social History." The Journal of Asian Studies 33, no. 2 (February 1974): 265-77.
Pan, M. "Rural Credit in Ming-Qing Jiangnan and the Concept of Peasant Petty Commodity Production." The Journal of Asian Studies 55, no. 1 (1995): 94-117.
Pomeranz, K. The Great Divergence: Europe, China and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
If you have a local library, go for 'em! :)
I believe refutes your thesis of the Ming not having a qulitative breakthroughYou misrepresent BananLee. I quote from his essay: "[...] it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. The specialisation of crops and development of a thriving petty production industry would have doubtlessly improved the lot of the peasant family. Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period."

You misrepresent BananLee. I quote from his essay: "[...] it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. The specialisation of crops and development of a thriving petty production industry would have doubtlessly improved the lot of the peasant family. Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period."

Sorry Bananalee.
But My original point was that the Ming was in no way stagnant(due to constant innovation) but I agree that the Qing were quite stagnant.

As I understand economics, stagnation can only be a result of
a) stifling of science
b) stifling of competition(like the planned economies of USSR and pre-1976 Maoist China)
c) constant political uncertainty/warfare.

None of these elements were in effect during the Ming. But a) and to some degree b) was in effect during the Qing.

See this source for details(You seem to be able to understand Chinese) http://gz-hanfu.cn/doc/The-Truth-of-History.pdf

Call me prejudiced, but if a paper claims to tell the truth in it's title, it's rarely worth of reading.

Little like my neighbour, who one Monday afternoon came across at the street and told me he was sober, by so revealing he was drunk.

Call me prejudiced, but if a paper claims to tell the truth in it's title, it's rarely worth of reading.

Little like my neighbour, who one Monday afternoon came across at the street and told me he was sober, by so revealing he was drunk.
It's also wholly in Mandarin, making it rather useless as a proof to this audience, the only commonality of which is that we all have a semblance of understanding of English.

Nice essay. This will be useful in the NES :goodjob:

As I understand economics, stagnation can only be a result of
a) stifling of science
b) stifling of competition(like the planned economies of USSR and pre-1976 Maoist China)
c) constant political uncertainty/warfare.

You really need to look up what a High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model) is. You also need to understand how the pre-industrial world functioned, before you can start throwing around idiot terms like 'planned economy' and 'science' as a panchea to stagnation. You've failed to understand the fundamental premise upon which the essay hinges, until you figure that out you really just look foolish.

But My original point was that the Ming was in no way stagnant(due to constant innovation) but I agree that the Qing were quite stagnant.

By way of example Maddison gives the following figures in 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars for per capita income in China as at:

1AD: 450
1000AD: 466
1500AD: 600
1660AD: 600
1700AD: 600
1820: 600

According to Maddison there was no significant increase in Chinese per capita wealth. One can infer that gains in technology are rapidly eaten away by gains in population and so on. The average lot of the peasant was not therefore improved, innovation, technical prowess, industry and all the contingent factors of the Ming were therefore irrelevant for an absolute majority of the population.

China on the whole over the same period grew according to Maddison in GDP figures in million's of 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars:

1AD: 26,820
1000AD: 27,494
1500AD: 661,800
1660AD: 96,000
1700AD: 82,800
1820: 228,600

However, this was growth not from technical innovation by a net increase in population, any additional gains in productivity only fueled population growth which combined with declining marginal returns on land productivity ate away at any individual increase in the welfare of an absolute majority of the population.

Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population.

This central point about land is made in perhaps the most important line of Bananalee's essay which you seem to have completely missed.

On a more hopeful note you will eventually get it.

According to Maddison there was no significant increase in Chinese per capita wealth. One can infer that gains in technology are rapidly eaten away by gains in population and so on. The average lot of the peasant was not therefore improved, innovation, technical prowess, industry and all the contingent factors of the Ming were therefore irrelevant for an absolute majority of the population.

Oh wow....
Please actually read some Chinese history before you begin.
First, start off with the Economy of the Song dynasty article on wikipedia.
No increase in per capita wealth in 2000 years???? utter BS.....
:lol::lol::lol:

And you haven't still addressed my issues with stagnation. Economies won't stagnate on their own; they will only stagnate when they are a) technologically stagnant(no innovations) b) outcompeted or in a state of political turmoil, c) stifling of developments of capital(for example, Qing taking over the salt & iron industries.

No rise in per capita income? check this:
The Song government encouraged people to reclaim barren lands and put them under cultivation. Anyone who opened up new lands and paid taxes were granted permanent possession of the new land. Under this policy, the cultivated land in the Song Dynasty is estimated to have reached a peak number of 720 million mu, and was not surpassed by later Ming and Qing Dynasties

Earlier Han and Tang dynasties had nothing comparable. And during Ming;

The Ming saw the rise of commercial plantations who produced crops suitable to their regions.
Tea, fruits, paint and other goods were produced on a massive scale by these agricultural plantations. Regional patterns of production established during this period continued into the Qing dynasty.

Emergence of specialized, market agriculture is a far cry from the self-sufficient peasants of the Han and Tang Era.
From agriculture alone we can see that technologically wise, this was an era of gigantic growth.

And what's next? arguing the Song and Ming, which are one of China's most innovative eras and generally considered to be high points of Chinese civilization, who invented gunpowder, printing press, and compass, as well as sending huge fleets around the world, were "technologically stagnant". That belongs in the humor & jokes section.

Also, GDP per capita figures(for ancient times) are notoriously unreliable.

Qing taking over the salt & iron industries

I think the salt and iron monopolies were used on and off by ALL dynasties.
Again, read OTHER sources apart from Wikipedia.

EDIT: Also, since you're such a fan, read this Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
And this Register article on Wikipedia
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/

Oh wow....
Please actually read some Chinese history before you begin.
First, start off with the Economy of the Song dynasty article on wikipedia.
No increase in per capita wealth in 2000 years???? utter BS.....


It isn't my opinion, it comes from a well regarded study, conducted by a well regarded economics historian, who is routinely cited by academic sources and who has had the grace to provide results study free through the World Bank. I'm sorry, I'll take Maddison, over any Wikipedia article.

In addition, you have systematically failed to understand what a High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model)is. Before you can comment on an essay that's central premise concerns the existence of a High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model) you must first understand what it is. I have provide a link to give you a simplified understanding of the model, from your very own Wikipedia, which you have obviously not read - it is only 500 words approximately.

Once you understand the model then you will understand why 2000 years of stagnation is well within the realms of possibility. However, I will give you a chance to redeem your intellectual credibility.

Example:

World per capita GDP growth since the birth of Christ could not possibly have been as high as, say, 0.5%; it it were, per capita GDP would have grown from $400 in current dollars to over $8.6 million by the year 2000! We can be certain, then that, for most of this period, growth was indeed close to zero.

Putting it another way, even the most wildly optimistic estimates suggest no more than a doubling or tripling of global per capita between the year 1 and AD 1000.

1 Dollar=1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars (look up what these are before you comment on where the $400 figure came from).

And you haven't still addressed my issues with stagnation. Economies won't stagnate on their own; they will only stagnate when they are a) technologically stagnant(no innovations) b) outcompeted or in a state of political turmoil, c) stifling of developments of capital(for example, Qing taking over the salt & iron industries.

Irrelevant, you do not understand that capital markets, technological innovation, private enterprise et al are not preconditions of an increase in GDP per capita, nor are they preconditions of an increase in GDP in a pre-industrial society. Re: High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model).

No rise in per capita income? check this:

The Song government encouraged people to reclaim barren lands and put them under cultivation. Anyone who opened up new lands and paid taxes were granted permanent possession of the new land. Under this policy, the cultivated land in the Song Dynasty is estimated to have reached a peak number of 720 million mu, and was not surpassed by later Ming and Qing Dynasties

Explain your logic. How does that create an increase in per capita GDP? The only people going to take over barren land are the landless rural poor. The very word barren land really gives away the game, it may have lead to increase in acreage, but not an increase in GDP per capita. Re: High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model).

Emergence of specialized, market agriculture is a far cry from the self-sufficient peasants of the Han and Tang Era.
From agriculture alone we can see that technologically wise, this was an era of gigantic growth.

Yet again you do not understand what an increase in specialization means in a society under the effects of a High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model)

And what's next? arguing the Song and Ming, which are one of China's most innovative eras and generally considered to be high points of Chinese civilization, who invented gunpowder, printing press, and compass, as well as sending huge fleets around the world, were "technologically stagnant". That belongs in the humor & jokes section.

You fail to understand what technological improvements mean in a pre-industrial economy. Re: High Level Equilibrium Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Growth_Model).

Also, GDP per capita figures(for ancient times) are notoriously unreliable.

Granted. However China has by far the best historical sources for such calculations. I will also note that statistically the error margin is within acceptable tolerances for historical economics, and is far more reliable than any descriptive work by a historian.

*

I also refer you to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use). And wish to inform you, that had you been in a class of mine and spouted disingenuous arguments, backed up with spurious logic, based on Wikipedia articles, with such an obvious poor grasp of economics theory I would have failed you on the spot.

Furthermore, before you comment again on pre-industrial societies economics, you need to understand that you might as well throw out any economic preconditions you have learned in school or university, because they will not be applicable.

If you honestly want to learn, then I'm happy to help and direct you to proper sources which are not Wikipedia. I'm also happy to take the time to explain concepts and the kind of thought processes which are required to arrive at meaningful conclusions which adhere to logic and economic principles.

I quite honestly find it hilarious that Teeninvestor sidetracks into topics that have little to do with the original topic and essay, and instead delve into minor side issues or issues that weren't even mentioned in the original source material, and then call people as "off-topic".

Explain your logic. How does that create an increase in per capita GDP? The only people going to take over barren land are the landless rural poor. The very word barren land really gives away the game, it may have lead to increase in acreage, but not an increase in GDP per capita. Re

How could you ignore the fact I posted? The whole point of this essay was that the economy expanded quantitatively but not qualitatively.

The Song dynasty had 720 million Mu under cultivation. This figure was not exceeded under the Ming and Qing dynasties

From that figure, we can see
Song dynasty - 720 million Mu, 100 million
Ming dynasty- 720 million Mu, 180 million

That just destroyed the whole point of the essay. With the amount of land staying the same & population increasing, the economic growth is coming from better cultivation techniques, which would be a "qualitative" expansion.

And you call wikipedia bad? I bet wikipedia's writers are 100 times better than you in terms of knowledge about China(and many other subjects). I can say with confidence that the editors of wikipedia are much more knowledged than you guys. I challenge you to produce a featured article on wikipedia. Please, ACTUALLY LEARN something about China before you post this stuff on. Thinking you know something you don't is the worst type of thinking. Geez.

He cites two principle factors that led to this state of affairs. Firstly, that because the non-mechanized processes in agriculture and industry in China were so well developed and efficient they out-competed early mechanized processes, thus making capital investment in mechanization unprofitable. He also goes on to explain that China's massive size allowed its population to simply migrate to a new region instead of forcing them to develop more efficient mechanized processes when resources became scarce, such as occurred in Europe.

In his analysis of figure 1 Elvin makes several simplifying
assumptions: most importantly, he assumes that the total cultivated land area
is fixed and that the types of techniques available for cultivation are fixed and
unchanging.


Yes I do know the "reasoning" behnd this. However, studies have shown that the steam engine and other industrial processes would have outcompeted Chinese non-mechanized processes, which discredit the theory. Also, this theory relies on cultivation techniques "standing still" which was definitely not the case.

In addition, this theory rests on Chinese economy supposedly only growing "enough to keep up with population growth." However, this is misfounded as Economy of the Ming demonstrated; there was a gigantic surplus of grain created during the Ming, despite an 60 to 80% increase in population.
In fact, this surplus was so huge, that whole areas could be dedicated to specialized crops, as other areas could plant grain(which would be enough to supply the whole country). This was unheard of in all earlier countries, as usually most of the land had to be used in all areas to produce grain.

So please, before you make accusations and try to use big words to confuse people, please ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH. THANK YOU. It is a sad day when these discredited dinosaur theories are actually treated seriously by unknowing people....

Also, what about your much vaunted Europe, where technology soared? You're gonna have a hard time proving Ming China's growth rate was slower than Europe during the same period, or during the 1700's(don't even try the Song period).

And wish to inform you, that had you been in a class of mine and spouted disingenuous arguments, backed up with spurious logic, based on Wikipedia articles, with such an obvious poor grasp of economics theory I would have failed you on the spot.

And any credible professor would fail you(if you are a student)on the spot if you use theories that have long been discredited, as well as ignoring CERTAIN FACTS that discredit your whole theory. I can use hypotheticals too, eh? And yes, any one can pretend to be a professor. It doesn't add credibility to the debate until they can come up with FACTS.

Granted. However China has by far the best historical sources for such calculations. I will also note that statistically the error margin is within acceptable tolerances for historical economics, and is far more reliable than any descriptive work by a historian.

Once you understand the model then you will understand why 2000 years of stagnation is well within the realms of possibility. However, I will give you a chance to redeem your intellectual credibility.

Not when they are flat-out contradicted by economic observations(e.g. Huge surplus in Ming, grain market).

And any academic who thinks the level of technology and economic growth was standstill from Han to Qing should resign and never engage in history again....
Seriously- Check: List of Chinese Inventions on wikipedia. Yes, I'm sure that the new merchant activity in Tang and Song, investing in large voyages, is standstill. The surplus of the Ming was standstill; The fact a gigantic overseas trade of 300 million taels developed added nothing; The invention of paper, numerous agricultural techniques are standstill, didn't change anything.

And your criticism of wikipedia shows me that this project is still massively misunderstood. Go, check a featured article on wikipedia. One I just found had 200 citations and up to 30 academic sources. Do you know how long that would take to create on a guy's spare time?

If anything, you need a chance to redeem your credibility. Your utter ignorance of several key facts about China's economic development, your use of outdated, discredited theories, and your strange, prejudiced misperceptions of "2000 years' stagnation" and other things dashes your credibility to the ground.

It isn't my opinion, it comes from a well regarded study, conducted by a well regarded economics historian, who is routinely cited by academic sources and who has had the grace to provide results study free through the World Bank. I'm sorry, I'll take Maddison, over any Wikipedia article.

When contradicted by economic observations, per above, Any result must be challenged. Even Galileo said "Question all authority". And I suppose if the world bank released a figure the US GDP grew 10% in Q1, you'd believe it as well?

In addition, you have systematically failed to understand what a High Level Equilibrium Trap is. Before you can comment on an essay that's central premise concerns the existence of a High Level Equilibrium Trap you must first understand what it is. I have provide a link to give you a simplified understanding of the model, from your very own Wikipedia, which you have obviously not read - it is only 500 words approximately.

Irrelevant; per above, I have shown that cultivation techniques and others were definitely not stagnant.

Irrelevant, you do not understand that capital markets, technological innovation, private enterprise et al are not preconditions of an increase in GDP per capita, nor are they preconditions of an increase in GDP in a pre-industrial society. Re: High Level Equilibrium Trap.

Uh huh. New overseas markets for trade, a gigantic jump in agricultural productivity, a gigantic influx of silver, constant increase in productivity and whole new industries, does not result in increase of GDP per capita. That makes so much sense.

Where you accuse me of not understanding what a high equilibrium trap is, you have failed to understand the VERY BASICS of a preindustrial economy. Also, 0.5% growth, while small, is not "Stagnation" in any sense.

Yes, and your references to the discredited Malthus strengthens your argument so much. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES AND INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY IS THE RESULT.As long as productivity is increasing(as it is most of the time), the Malthusian model is absolutely worthless. That happened during the whole time in Han, Tang, Song and Ming; productivity kept on increasing. If you want to dispute that, check "List of Chinese inventions", "Economy of the Song dynasty", or just read the history of China(which I doubt you have).

ANd that's the problem with a lot of people. They don't know jack about the subject, but they then rush in to comment to defend their own orthodoxy and prejudices.

For example, on the subject of "preindustrial economies". Would you say Ancient Greece and Song were on same plane of development, roughly? Would you say that Ming was the same as the Romans on the same plane of development? Of course not. Just like any other economy, preindustrial economies(especially ones like Post-Song China and Renaissance Europe) are subject to basic rules.
More productivity, more growth. More technological change, more productivity. I would encourage you to actually study this area before proceeding to comment.

Also, I think Maddison's credibility is destroyed by the fact he thought India had a higher GDP than the Song in 1000, at a time when India is in the middle of centuries of devastating warfare(which affects all economies, modern or premodern) and probably has half the population of the Song, not to mention a lower technological level.

Bryan Haig, who has characterized Maddison's figures for 19th century Australia as "inaccurate and irrelevant"[1], by John Caldwell, in whose assessment Maddison's arguments have a "dangerous circularity"[2], by W. W. Rostow, according to whom, "This excessive macroeconomic bias also causes him (Maddison) to mis-date, in my view, the beginning of what he calls the capitalist era at 1820 rather than, say, the mid-1780s[3], and by W. J. MacPherson who has described Maddison's work on India and Pakistan of using "dubious comparative data."[4]

And you call wikipedia bad? I bet wikipedia's writers are 100 times better than you in terms of knowledge about China. I can say with confidence that the editors of wikipedia are much more knowledged than you guys. Could you produce economy of the SOng dynasty? Please, ACTUALLY LEARN something about China before you post this stuff on. Thinking you know something you don't is the worst type of thinking. Geez.

Hey am Wikipedia writer, guess I know everything on this subject now.

Can someone else be bothered to say why Teeninvestor's long post is not valid?
Hint: Logical fallacies.
Second hint: Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as the straw man, ad nauseam and ad hominem

Can someone else be bothered to say why Teeninvestor's long post is not valid?
Hint: Logical fallacies.
Second hint: Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as the straw man, ad nauseam and ad hominem

Third hint: Everyone is a Wikipedia writer

How could you ignore the fact I posted? The whole point of this essay was that the economy expanded quantitatively but not qualitatively.

[...]

That just destroyed the whole point of the essay. With the amount of land staying the same & population increasing, the economic growth is coming from better cultivation techniques, which would be a "qualitative" expansion.[...]

You misrepresent BananLee. I quote from his essay: "[...] it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. The specialisation of crops and development of a thriving petty production industry would have doubtlessly improved the lot of the peasant family. Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period."char[] = new char[10]

According to Maddison there was no significant increase in Chinese per capita wealth. One can infer that gains in technology are rapidly eaten away by gains in population and so on. The average lot of the peasant was not therefore improved, innovation, technical prowess, industry and all the contingent factors of the Ming were therefore irrelevant for an absolute majority of the population.

No rise in per capita income? check this:

The Song government encouraged people to reclaim barren lands and put them under cultivation. Anyone who opened up new lands and paid taxes were granted permanent possession of the new land. Under this policy, the cultivated land in the Song Dynasty is estimated to have reached a peak number of 720 million mu, and was not surpassed by later Ming and Qing Dynasties

Explain your logic. How does that create an increase in per capita GDP? The only people going to take over barren land are the landless rural poor. The very word barren land really gives away the game, it may have lead to increase in acreage, but not an increase in GDP per capita. Re

How could you ignore the fact I posted? The whole point of this essay was that the economy expanded quantitatively but not qualitatively.

Teeninvestor resented a claim I made about a stagnation of GDP per capita and then quoted a passage about an increase in farmed barren land. I replied that, that did not necessarily show an increase in per capita GDP but an increase in acreage. To which he replied that I ignored 'the fact I posted' which I hadn't, I had merely stated that it was it did not necessarily lead to an increase qualitatively. He then claimed that this was no the purpose of the essay, which I grant, but if indeed it was not why then did he reply to it in the first place? In the context of the discussion it was both appropriate and pertinent for showing stagnation, which is best represented by GDP per capita figures. I did grant in the same post that real GDP overall had increased but claimed that it was matched by an increase in population white ate away any gains in per capita income something born out of data I produced.

That just destroyed the whole point of the essay. With the amount of land staying the same & population increasing, the economic growth is coming from better cultivation techniques, which would be a "qualitative" expansion.

I refer the reader to Flying Chickens post above my own for why Teeninvestor in engaging in misrepresentation.

And any credible professor would fail you(if you are a student)on the spot if you use theories that have long been discredited, as well as ignoring CERTAIN FACTS that discredit your whole theory. I can use hypotheticals too, eh? And yes, any one can pretend to be a professor. It doesn't add credibility to the debate until they can come up with FACTS.

Refer me to these 'discredited theories' please. If Neo-Malthusian Models and High Level Equilibrium Traps are what you are referring to they are not discredited. They are not even heterodox economics in economic history or cliometrics anymore. In reference to your need for facts, I have posted data which backs up my assertion. Your 'facts' are no use to an economic analysis... being descriptive and all.

Not when they are flat-out contradicted by economic observations(e.g. Huge surplus in Ming, grain market).

And any academic who thinks the level of technology and economic growth was standstill from Han to Qing should resign and never engage in history again....
Seriously- Check: List of Chinese Inventions on wikipedia. Yes, I'm sure that the new merchant activity in Tang and Song, investing in large voyages, is standstill. The surplus of the Ming was standstill; The fact a gigantic overseas trade of 300 million taels developed added nothing; The invention of paper, numerous agricultural techniques are standstill, didn't change anything.

Technological growth =/ economic growth, mercantile economic activity =/ economic growth, long voyages =/ economic growth, 300 million tael trade (turnover) =/ economic growth.

Just because you have all of the above doesn't mean that it is necessarily going to lead to an increase in economic growth again because they are descriptive. They certainly indicate growth, but what magnitude of growth I can't tell from just looking at 'this happened'. I also refer you to the general definition of stagnation which is rather I don't know interesting? I also refer you to my earlier post which pointed out that growth could not have been higher than 1% for any extended period in history ($5 million International Geary-Khamis dollars and all) it is therefore possible with some simple math to infer that it was indeed close to 0%.

If anything, you need a chance to redeem your credibility. Your utter ignorance of several key facts about China's economic development, your use of outdated, discredited theories, and your strange, prejudiced misconceptions of "2000 years' stagnation" and other things dashes your credibility to the ground.

You haven't refuted Maddison, my argument stands in-spite of your descriptive facts and snide attacks. Your yet to show me anything as an economist that would be useful to make an informed decision. My 'outdated, discredited theories, and... strange, prejudiced misconceptions "2000 years' stagnation" and other things dashes [my] credibility to the ground" apparently, but again my theories are orthodox economics in economic history and cliometrics, my 'misconceptions' are backed up by a wealth of economic evidence including some of which I have cited (re: Maddison) and I also hold exactly the same beliefs for the rest of the world bar the occasional ephemeral efflorescence of growth which if you had cared to ask me includes more periods in China than anywhere else including Europe. You also seem to get the idea that I'm hating on China, far from it, I'm not European, nor am I a euro-centrist, if anything I'm an economic Asiaphile, I just can't abide ignorance, nationalism (?) or someone who manages to misrepresent someone from the first post.

When contradicted by economic observations, per above, Any result must be challenged. Even Galileo said "Question all authority". And I suppose if the world bank released a figure the US GDP grew 10% in Q1, you'd believe it as well?

You seem to mistakes your 'facts' as economic observations, they are not, they are descriptive and don't have sufficient detail for me or anyone else to make anything useful out of them. It's not like your saying, "grain production increased from 60 million bushels to 90 million bushels, with a population which grew at a rate slower than the growth of grain production for the 25 year period. This indicates that per capita consumption increased by [whatever]" to which I can reply, "Indeed you've made a case for per capita consumption, this might indeed show an increase in per capita GDP! [again it might not, that might be inefficiently produced grain on barren land with workers who might be more gainfully employed elsewhere]." Instead I'm getting "paper" which I'm meant to infer increased economic growth... based on what? "Or a trade of 300 million taels" which I admit sounds better (and it tees with figures I have) but that is not an economic fact per say, its merely descriptive of the trade, if you provided something like "A trade of 300 million taels which grew from a trade of 100 million taels only 50 years earlier and which assisted in the growth of key industries like silk and led to an inflow of silver which expanded the money supply and helped stimulate demand and assisted in further monetizing the economy" I might be able to comment [those figures were drawn from memory, but they are about right, however they do not of themselves show an increase in economic growth].

Irrelevant; per above, I have shown that cultivation techniques and others were definitely not stagnant.

Half the story again, did the population increase a rate proportional to the increase of population?

Uh huh. New overseas markets for trade, a gigantic jump in agricultural productivity, a gigantic influx of silver, constant increase in productivity and whole new industries, does not result in increase of GDP per capita. That makes so much sense.

Refer to above, but that's more like economics argumentation.

Where you accuse me of not understanding what a high equilibrium trap is, you have failed to understand the VERY BASICS of a preindustrial economy. Also, 0.5% growth, while small, is not "Stagnation" in any sense.

0.5% growth was a figure I made up in an example.

Yes, and your references to the discredited Malthus strengthens your argument so much. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES AND INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY IS THE RESULT.As long as productivity is increasing(as it is most of the time), the Malthusian model is absolutely worthless. That happened during the whole time in Han, Tang, Song and Ming; productivity kept on increasing. If you want to dispute that, check "List of Chinese inventions", "Economy of the Song dynasty", or just read the history of China(which I doubt you have).

Again, I said "like" this, a High Level Equilibrium Trap is significantly more advanced than the old Malthusian models. In any case Mathlus was not fully discredited (he has only been discredited during the period of the industrial revolution and after). I'm aware of that, has diminishing returns ever occurred to you? Or technological growth being eaten up by an increase in population? Partially correct as to your second assertion (been reading Wikipedia I gather!), technological growth indeed might outstrip population growth, but seldom for long periods, Re: the occasional ephemeral efflorescence of growth mentioned above. However, you don't account for the other side of the equation, diminishing returns and increases in population. In any case this is closer to economic argument.

ANd that's the problem with a lot of people. They don't know jack about the subject, but they then rush in to comment to defend their own orthodoxy and prejudices.

What Orthodoxy and prejudices? You can form an accurate picture of what I regard as economic Orthodox and what my prejudices are after this?

For example, on the subject of "preindustrial economies". Would you say Ancient Greece and Song were on same plane of development, roughly? Would you say that Ming was the same as the Romans on the same plane of development? Of course not. Just like any other economy, preindustrial economies(especially ones like Post-Song China and Renaissance Europe) are subject to basic rules.

You have hit the nail on the head! Now the question is, what was the average lot of the population like, and what was the gap in years between the two. Now compare it to the last say 20 years for China and the last 150 for the West and you will see the massive increase in both GDP and per capita GDP growth!

Now please tell me what these basic rules are... because I honestly don't think you know given that you quoted the following causes for stagnation

they will only stagnate when they are a) technologically stagnant(no innovations) b) outcompeted or in a state of political turmoil, c) stifling of developments of capital(for example, Qing taking over the salt & iron industries.

Which don't really matter all that much.

More productivity, more growth. More technological change, more productivity. I would encourage you to actually study this area before proceeding to comment.

Population, diminishing returns... look I can make a catalog to!

Also, I think Maddison's credibility is destroyed by the fact he thought India had a higher GDP than the Song in 1000, at a time when India is in the middle of centuries of devastating warfare(which affects all economies, modern or premodern) and probably has half the population of the Song, not to mention a lower technological level.

Well, 1000AD according to Maddison

India: 75 million people
China: 50 million people

A note is attached for India, "These estimates refer to the combined economy of the various states located in the regions now corresponding to the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh." at a guess the population is included.

India: 33,750million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars
China: 27,494 million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars

That is from the start of the century, according to R. Findlay and K. Rourke (2007) from the 50 million or so it had been at the height of the Tang in 750 (which was less than the 63 million estimated for the year 200), to well over 100 million by the twelfth century (McEvedy and Jones 1978, p. 167; Maddison 1998, p. 169). As Mark Elvin (1973) pointed out, this can be seen as the operation of a classical Malthusian-type model, with population growth eventually wiping out gains in productivity. The last bit was to show that Elvin is far from obscure.

I don't have figures other than Maddison for India's population at a 1000AD. And I don't have access to JSTOR at this present moment. Although I'm lead to believe that your assertion that the Sung dynasties population was indeed double is looking shaky, 200 years later certainly.

Bryan Haig, who has characterized Maddison's figures for 19th century Australia as "inaccurate and irrelevant"[1], by John Caldwell, in whose assessment Maddison's arguments have a "dangerous circularity"[2], by W. W. Rostow, according to whom, "This excessive macroeconomic bias also causes him (Maddison) to mis-date, in my view, the beginning of what he calls the capitalist era at 1820 rather than, say, the mid-1780s[3], and by W. J. MacPherson who has described Maddison's work on India and Pakistan of using "dubious comparative data."[4]

I can't check Haigs figures or the basis of his argument, but Australian GDP was historically until the advent of the ABS very difficult to check. Nor can I check if the context is correct.

Caldwell has some meaty criticism, but I don't full access to JSTOR beyond the first page.

As to Rostow he invented the take-off model, and his '1820 instead of mid 1780's argument' is fairly well known. If you are aware of the Dating of the Industrial Revolution debate, your aware that the precise start of it is highly variable, that isn't the issue the issue is the accuracy of his figures.

I can't comment on MacPherson but it doesn't look like he attacks the veracity of the data or that, that is the central crux of his argument, I don't have access to JSTOR beyond the first page.

And your criticism of wikipedia shows me that this project is still massively misunderstood. Go, check a featured article on wikipedia. One I just found had 200 citations and up to 30 academic sources. Do you know how long that would take to create on a guy's spare time?Have you every played the "source" game where a teacher gives one person from the class a message, then has it passed on around until it gets back to the teacher? Have you ever taken a college course. maybe on English or History or Journalism, on research and what constitutes a reliable source? A tertiary source like Wikipedia may be credited for information, but its sources need to be examined. Discrepancies between secondary/primary sources and the tertiary ones pop up from time to time... but that's not my main concern anyway so what am I saying?

My only concern here is your continual misrepresentation of the essay.

You seem to mistakes your 'facts' as economic observations, they are not, they are descriptive and don't have sufficient detail for me or anyone else to make anything useful out of them. It's not like your saying, "grain production increased from 60 million bushels to 90 million bushels, with a population which grew at a rate slower than the growth of grain production for the 25 year period. This indicates that per capita consumption increased by [whatever]" to which I can reply, "Indeed you've made a case for per capita consumption, this might indeed show an increase in per capita GDP! [again it might not, that might be inefficiently produced grain on barren land with workers who might be more gainfully employed elsewhere]." Instead I'm getting "paper" which I'm meant to infer increased economic growth... based on what? "Or a trade of 300 million taels" which I admit sounds better (and it tees with figures I have) but that is not an economic fact per say, its merely descriptive of the trade, if you provided something like "A trade of 300 million taels which grew from a trade of 100 million taels only 50 years earlier and which assisted in the growth of key industries like silk and led to an inflow of silver which expanded the money supply and helped stimulate demand and assisted in further monetizing the economy" I might be able to comment [those figures were drawn from memory, but they are about right, however they do not of themselves show an increase in economic growth].

SO are you saying that technology doesn't cause ECONOMIC GROWTH. THEN WHAT WAS THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

These things will obviously help stimulate the economy because they cause MORE ECONOMIC ACITIVTY. That causes growth.

Well, 1000AD according to Maddison

India: 75 million people
China: 50 million people

A note is attached for India, "These estimates refer to the combined economy of the various states located in the regions now corresponding to the Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh." at a guess the population is included.

India: 33,750million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars
China: 27,494 million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars

That is from the start of the century, according to R. Findlay and K. Rourke (2007) from the 50 million or so it had been at the height of the Tang in 750 (which was less than the 63 million estimated for the year 200), to well over 100 million by the twelfth century (McEvedy and Jones 1978, p. 167; Maddison 1998, p. 169). As Mark Elvin (1973) pointed out, this can be seen as the operation of a classical Malthusian-type model, with population growth eventually wiping out gains in productivity. The last bit was to show that Elvin is far from obscure.

I don't have figures other than Maddison for India's population at a 1000AD. And I don't have access to JSTOR at this present moment. Although I'm lead to believe that your assertion that the Sung dynasties population was indeed double is looking shaky, 200 years later certainly.

It's been proven academically Song population is about 100 million. This is not only on wikipedia, but also on other encyclopedias. Tang population was already about 60 million, you know. Ina ddition, I doubt the cultivated land in India was anywhere near the 720 million Mu during the Song.

Again, I said "like" this, a High Level Equilibrium Trap is significantly more advanced than the old Malthusian models. In any case Mathlus was not fully discredited (he has only been discredited during the period of the industrial revolution and after). I'm aware of that, has diminishing returns ever occurred to you? Or technological growth being eaten up by an increase in population? Partially correct as to your second assertion (been reading Wikipedia I gather!), technological growth indeed might outstrip population growth, but seldom for long periods, Re: the occasional ephemeral efflorescence of growth mentioned above. However, you don't account for the other side of the equation, diminishing returns and increases in population. In any case this is closer to economic argument

I have already cited Growth in Ming and Song agricultural production far exceeded Population growth. In fact, a check of any Chinese history can show that agricultural production OUTPACED the population growth, in almost any dynasty. That is why specialized agriculture popped up during Ming; enough grain was being produced that whole provinces devoted themselves to other crops.

Technological growth =/ economic growth, mercantile economic activity =/ economic growth, long voyages =/ economic growth, 300 million tael trade (turnover) =/ economic growth.

Just because you have all of the above doesn't mean that it is necessarily going to lead to an increase in economic growth again because they are descriptive. They certainly indicate growth, but what magnitude of growth I can't tell from just looking at 'this happened'. I also refer you to the general definition of stagnation which is rather I don't know interesting? I also refer you to my earlier post which pointed out that growth could not have been higher than 1% for any extended period in history ($5 million International Geary-Khamis dollars and all) it is therefore possible with some simple math to infer that it was indeed close to 0%.

Growth is an increase in economic activity. As long as economic activiity is increasing due to higher productivity, the economy is technically growing. The nature of preindustrial economies prohibit extremely higher growth(due to less returns on investment). And I'm sure you won't argue that the above do not increase economic activity?

Teeninvestor resented a claim I made about a stagnation of GDP per capita and then quoted a passage about an increase in farmed barren land. I replied that, that did not necessarily show an increase in per capita GDP but an increase in acreage. To which he replied that I ignored 'the fact I posted' which I hadn't, I had merely stated that it was it did not necessarily lead to an increase qualitatively. He then claimed that this was no the purpose of the essay, which I grant, but if indeed it was not why then did he reply to it in the first place? In the context of the discussion it was both appropriate and pertinent for showing stagnation, which is best represented by GDP per capita figures. I did grant in the same post that real GDP overall had increased but claimed that it was matched by an increase in population white ate away any gains in per capita income something born out of data I produced.


Note.
The ploughland was the same, yet a greater population could be fed. That destroys the main theme of the essay, which is that Chinese economic productivity did not increase; there was merely an increase in the ploughland. This fact that the ploughland stayed constant through all the dyansties show that it was the opposite that happened; the ploughland was the same, agricultural producitvity increased(except during Qing).

My sources are academic and reputable peer-approved sources. They have from multiple sources as listed in the bibliography of my essay - and some of the accepted facts are covered by several of them at once.

You have only cited Wikipedia - and whatever source they cite. Again, please do not waste space by your non-contribution and straw man fallacies.

EDIT: Because I do not associate with... how shall I put it politely.. idiots, I have added Teeninvestor to my ignore list. He has been given ample opportunity to counter my arguments - mostly about his use of Wikipedia as his only source. Therefore, I have concluded he follows the principle of argumentum ad nauseam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam).
A final word of advice; if you repeat something often enough, it doesn't always become the truth.
Good day.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

SO are you saying that technology doesn't cause ECONOMIC GROWTH. THEN WHAT WAS THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

These things will obviously help stimulate the economy because they cause MORE ECONOMIC ACITIVTY. That causes growth.

I'm not saying technological growth doesn't lead to economic growth, I'm simply saying that it does not necessarily lead to growth. The industrial revolution saw sustained productivity growth which outstripped population growth. If you will the industrial revolution outpaced the diminishing returns on land, something it continues to do, to this day.

It's been proven academically Song population is about 100 million. This is not only on wikipedia, but also on other encyclopedias. Tang population was already about 60 million, you know. Ina ddition, I doubt the cultivated land in India was anywhere near the 720 million Mu during the Song.

Provide your proofs. Findlay & Rourke are in addition well regarded academics. In any case the area of land under cultivation is not really all useful to deduce crop yields but whatever.

I have already cited Growth in Ming and Song agricultural production far exceeded Population growth. In fact, a check of any Chinese history can show that agricultural production OUTPACED the population growth, in almost any dynasty. That is why specialized agriculture popped up during Ming; enough grain was being produced that whole provinces devoted themselves to other crops.

No you haven't. You've said that it did, you have provided no evidence from any source other than Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't read Mandarin or Cantonese so that isn't much use to me. I'm aware that specialization of crops occurred during the Ming dynasty, but as I've stated that is merely descriptive and is of no use to me. I can't draw a conclusion about population growth or economic growth or productivity growth from the 'fact' that specialization grew I can't even infer anything from it.

Growth is an increase in economic activity. As long as economic activiity is increasing due to higher productivity, the economy is technically growing. The nature of preindustrial economies prohibit extremely higher growth(due to less returns on investment). And I'm sure you won't argue that the above do not increase economic activity?

Growth is an increase in economic activity over time, yes. Yes, not always due to productivity growth. That is one theory amongst many and is far to simple to explain the situation., but your right in that pre-industrial economies do prohibit growth. They don't necessarily increase economic activity. Economic growth does not preclude stagnation.

The ploughland was the same, yet a greater population could be fed. That destroys the main theme of the essay, which is that Chinese economic productivity did not increase; there was merely an increase in the ploughland. This fact that the ploughland stayed constant through all the dyansties show that it was the opposite that happened; the ploughland was the same, agricultural producitvity increased(except during Qing).

Diminishing returns. All the good land was already under protection and 'barren' land was bought under cultivation. That implies a diminishing return. With a diminishing return for each unit of labour added to work the land... you have diminishing productivity!

All land is subject to diminishing returns. I have a field, I add a tractor, productivity rises, I add another tractor the second tractor is only needed half the time, productivity declines, I add 10 tractors and you end up with grid lock, productivity declines further. Hence diminishing returns. That is first year economics... fixed stock of land, diminishing returns, the definition of productivity...

Diminishing returns. All the good land was already under protection and 'barren' land was bought under cultivation. That implies a diminishing return. With a diminishing return for each unit of labour added to work the land... you have diminishing productivity!

All land is subject to diminishing returns. I have a field, I add a tractor, productivity rises, I add another tractor the second tractor is only needed half the time, productivity declines, I add 10 tractors and you end up with grid lock, productivity declines further. Hence diminishing returns. That is first year economics... fixed stock of land, diminishing returns, the definition of productivity...

Yo, you realize that the ploughland remained constant, but a greater population was fed.

Let me put it this way:
Song- 720 million MU, 100 million ppl(fed)
Ming- 720 million MU, 180 million ppl(fed at same level as Song+surplus)
That is proof that agricultural production was rising during the same period.

That meant the production of the land was RISING the whole time, and returns were INCREASING. SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. HOW IS CHINA IN A HIGH LEVEL EQUILIBRIUM TRAP, IF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY WAS INCREASING.
EDIT: Because I do not associate with... how shall I put it politely.. idiots, I have added Teeninvestor to my ignore list. He has been given ample opportunity to counter my arguments - mostly about his use of Wikipedia as his only source. Therefore, I have concluded he follows the principle of argumentum ad nauseam.
A final word of advice; if you repeat something often enough, it doesn't always become the truth.
Good day.

You still haven't answered my question. How is Chinese economy not expanding qualitatively if agricultural production is rising.

Let me put it this way:
Song- 720 million MU, 100 million ppl(fed)
Ming- 720 million MU, 180 million ppl(fed at same level as Song+surplus)
That is proof that agricultural production was rising during the same period.

That meant the production of the land was RISING the whole time, and returns were INCREASING. SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. HOW IS CHINA IN A HIGH LEVEL EQUILIBRIUM TRAP, IF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY WAS INCREASING.

Fixed stock of land, diminishing returns and increasing population? It's not that hard to understand. Two sides of an equation and all that? Where is your evidence for this surplus and what were they doing with it (burning it?)

You still haven't answered my question. How is Chinese economy not expanding qualitatively if agricultural production is rising.

Because it had no increase in per capita GDP like I've shown. In any case re:

You misrepresent BananLee. I quote from his essay: "[...] it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. The specialisation of crops and development of a thriving petty production industry would have doubtlessly improved the lot of the peasant family. Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period."

Fixed stock of land, diminishing returns and increasing population? It's not that hard to understand. Two sides of an equation and all that? Where is your evidence for this surplus and what were they doing with it (burning it?)


Uh if the same land can fed more and more people that isn't exactly diminshing returns is it... Also, considering not only was there more people fed, a gigantic surplus of grain was produced. See:

Emperor Hongwu (r. 1368–1398) attempted to create a society of self-sufficient rural communities in a rigid, immobile system that would have no need to engage with the commercial life and trade of urban centers. His rebuilding of China's agricultural base and strengthening of communication routes through the militarized courier system had the unintended effect of creating a vast agricultural surplus that could be sold at burgeoning markets located along courier routes. Rural culture and commerce became influenced by urban trends. The upper echelons of society embodied in the scholarly gentry class were also affected by this new consumption-based culture. In a departure from tradition, merchant families began to produce examination candidates to become scholar-officials and adopted cultural traits and practices typical of the gentry. Parallel to this trend involving social class and commercial consumption were changes in social and political philosophy, bureaucracy and governmental institutions, and even arts and literature.

From a featured article on wikipedia, the Ming dynasty. Check it out.

Because it had no increase in per capita GDP like I've shown. In any case re:


Yet again the increasing surplus of grain(as I have already pointed out, whole provinces stopped cultivating grain and cultivated other crops like Cotton, would have been unthinkable) meant that more grain was being produced per peasant= increase in GDP Per capita.

Fixed stock of land, diminishing returns and increasing population? It's not that hard to understand. Two sides of an equation and all that? Where is your evidence for this surplus and what were they doing with it (burning it?)

Selling it, obviously. That's the mention of the market for grain, eh?

Sources:
Check the sources for the Ming dynasty article on wikipedia, that's all I have to say.

Anyways, we've already proven that a) agricultural productivity was raising the whole time, surpassing population growth and actually creating a surplus. b) technological innovation during this time vastly improved life of people.

You would have no academic credibility if you think the Ming peasant's lot is just as bad as say , the Han or Roman times. A Ming peasant, with water-powered mills, carts, various iron tools, the wheelbarrow, and knowledge of advanced ploughing techniques, is far better than say, an ancient greek slave working his back off with a wooden stick.
If you disagree, check List of Chinese Inventions on wikipedia and check all the agricultural inventions. you think that did not improve productivity???

Also, a 1 minute search found this source to support my agricultural surplus theory-
http://books.google.ca/books?id=YuMcHWWbXqMC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=Ming+agricultural+surplus&source=bl&ots=7Nn-OU_Uij&sig=OyDPfVIEcfXZ-87oqIvbX-PLuZk&hl=en&ei=joDNSca0EKSwmQeW7t24CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

I have already cited Growth in Ming and Song agricultural production far exceeded Population growth. In fact, a check of any Chinese history can show that agricultural production OUTPACED the population growth, in almost any dynasty. That is why specialized agriculture popped up during Ming; enough grain was being produced that whole provinces devoted themselves to other crops.

Far exceeded population growth? That claim is entirely absurd. China was an agricultural society, like all other pre-industrial societies. And it did not export food. What was produced was consumed. Unless the population was chronically malnourished during the previous centuries, what was not consumed was waste, and therefore of no economic value.

If you meant instead that production per farmer increased, and so did the fraction of urban population, well, that may or may not be true, I'm not the right person to comment on it.


Growth is an increase in economic activity. As long as economic activiity is increasing due to higher productivity, the economy is technically growing. The nature of preindustrial economies prohibit extremely higher growth(due to less returns on investment). And I'm sure you won't argue that the above do not increase economic activity?

I's absurd to speak of "the economy" about pre-industrial empires.The ideas about the proper running of a country, or of a family, during those times simply don't fit with what we now understand by "the economy". So I dare say that this discussion is becoming absurd.
Still the notion of malthusian trap (poor Malthus, decided to write about it just when it was disappearing! :lol:) is useful for historians, because one common thing over the history of all agrarian societies is the cycle of impoverishment of the peasants caused by population increases - usually followed by political crisis, wars or some other solution leading to a reductions in population or an increase in production. The important thing is that these are cyclical, and keep happening, even if they sometimes take centuries building up. China was not, and could not, be immune to it, unless it went beyond the agrarian state - and we already know that the Industrial Revolution did not start in China.


The ploughland was the same, yet a greater population could be fed. That destroys the main theme of the essay, which is that Chinese economic productivity did not increase; there was merely an increase in the ploughland.

THAT WAS NOT THE MAIN THEME OF THE ESSAY!

It wasn't even a theme in BananaLee's essay. The theme was that population eventually, after the 17th century, increased faster that production could. Before that production had increased, crops had diversified, some industrial activity increased (it even discusses cash-crops!), but eventually population growth brought unbearable pressure on the available resources. Imagine that a farmer might double his crop for the same area. But if population growth reduced the size of his plot to 1/4, he would be in a worse situation! Eventually labour was channeled to increase marginal returns (ouch, I hate using this expression, but it's right when speaking of limited land) which were by their nature decreasing - the farmer worked harder to try to make his smaller plot yield enough so that he didn't starve to death. Overall agricultural surplus can decrease under those conditions, even despite greater production by area.

Is this easy enough to understand now?

Uh if the same land can fed more and more people that isn't exactly diminshing returns is it... Also, considering not only was there more people fed, a gigantic surplus of grain was produced. See:

It is basic first year level economics that all land is subject to diminishing returns, the fact that you can feed more people on the same parcel does not invalidate diminishing returns. Fixed stock of land and all that basics economics.

From a featured article on wikipedia, the Ming dynasty. Check it out.

Descriptive and thus completely useless to me. Vast is useless and vast surplus is useless, its historian speak not economic historian speak.

Yet again the increasing surplus of grain(as I have already pointed out, whole provinces stopped cultivating grain and cultivated other crops like Cotton, would have been unthinkable) meant that more grain was being produced per peasant= increase in GDP Per capita.

Your ignoring every other factor except grain to get your desired result. I've provided economic sources which have shown your claim to be demonstrably false, have shown that an increase in the stock of land cultivated does no necessarily indicate an increase in per capita GDP, have shown again and again that your 'facts' are descriptive nonsense which can't be used to show anything. So again I repeat, one side of the equation.

Selling it, obviously. That's the mention of the market for grain, eh?

Descriptive.

Anyways, we've already proven that a) agricultural productivity was raising the whole time, surpassing population growth and actually creating a surplus. b) technological innovation during this time vastly improved life of people.

I've shown that population increased, nowhere have I shown that agricultural productivity was increasing although I can infer that it had to have been to feed the growing population (two sides of an equation which you don't seem to understand). I've also shown that the average lot of people measured in GDP per capita did not significantly rise or rise at all.

You would have no academic credibility if you think the Ming peasant's lot is just as bad as say , the Han or Roman times. A Ming peasant, with water-powered mills, carts, various iron tools, the wheelbarrow, and knowledge of advanced ploughing techniques, is far better than say, an ancient greek slave working his back off with a wooden stick.

You don't seem to get that you can't measure GPD per capita in terms of any of those things. Your not looking at the purchasing power your looking at something linked to it but quite separate.

If you disagree, check List of Chinese Inventions on wikipedia and check all the agricultural inventions. you think that did not improve productivity???

An increase in productivity does not necessarily lead to an increase in GDP per capita it can be eaten up by growth in population for instance. In legal parlance A does not always lead to B. I've stated this half a dozen times and you still fail to understand that. You also do not understand productivity.

Nor have I denied that technological invention might lead to an improvement in GDP per capita, I have merely stated again and again that A does not always lead to B.

Also, a 1 minute search found this source to support my agricultural surplus theory-
http://books.google.ca/books?id=YuMc...um=9&ct=result

The Confusions of Pleasure marks a significant departure from the conventional ways in which Chinese history has been written. Rather than recounting the Ming dynasty in a series of political events and philosophical achievements, it narrates this longue durée in terms of the habits and strains of everyday life. Peppered with stories of real people and their negotiations of a rapidly changing world, this book provides a new way of seeing the Ming dynasty that not only contributes to the scholarly understanding of the period but also provides an entertaining and accessible introduction to Chinese history for anyone.

Again its descriptive and useless to me. It's also not quite up to academic standards having a look at the description. It's also not your theory, it's one you've quite prosaically from Wikipedia, don't claim it as yours.

Is this easy enough to understand now?

If you can get through to him I owe you. I've had to repeat again and again to make basic economic points, which he doesn't seem to understand.

You still haven't answered my question. How is Chinese economy not expanding qualitatively if agricultural production is rising.Hello. I believe that the thesis statement of the essay was:

[...] it would be inaccurate to call the entire Ming-Qing period one of economic standstill. Heading towards stagnation is not the same as being there. The specialisation of crops and development of a thriving petty production industry would have doubtlessly improved the lot of the peasant family. Only when the land ran out after 1750 did problems start to rise for the still-increasing population. The term ‘quantitative growth, qualitative standstill’ would therefore only be accurate for a small sliver of the 1368-1799 period.

That was from this essay you so constantly vilify. Please point out how that says that Chinese economy had only quantitative growth and not qualitative growth.

It wasn't even a theme in BananaLee's essay. The theme was that population eventually, after the 17th century, increased faster that production could. Before that production had increased, crops had diversified, some industrial activity increased (it even discusses cash-crops!), but eventually population growth brought unbearable pressure on the available resources. Imagine that a farmer might double his crop for the same area. But if population growth reduced the size of his plot to 1/4, he would be in a worse situation! Eventually labour was channeled to increase marginal returns (ouch, I hate using this expression, but it's right when speaking of limited land) which were by their nature decreasing - the farmer worked harder to try to make his smaller plot yield enough so that he didn't starve to death. Overall agricultural surplus can decrease under those conditions, even despite greater production by area.

This part I agree with. After the 17 th century, The Chinese economy began to stagnate, though for more reasons than mentioned in the essay. However, before the 17 th century, this is demonstrably false.

Your ignoring every other factor except grain to get your desired result. I've provided economic sources which have shown your claim to be demonstrably false, have shown that an increase in the stock of land cultivated does no necessarily indicate an increase in per capita GDP, have shown again and again that your 'facts' are descriptive nonsense which can't be used to show anything. So again I repeat, one side of the equation.

K
Basic economics:
Technological increase= higher productivity= more food or "stuff" produced per person= increase in GDP per Capita.

What you are saying is that the population growth was such that it meant that the rate of resources diminishing cancelled out the technological productivity increase and caused GDP per capita to decrease. I apologize for not understanding thsi part.

However, I believe this premise does not exist.

The rise of specialized crops during Ming is enough to disprove this theory. Specialized agriculture= less land farmed for grain which meant the grain supply was more than the demand, so farmers stopped farming because other commodities were more profitable. This is enough to show that the increase in grain meant that was more grain per person , which is an increase in GDP per capita. This is a simple example, but it shows that GDP per capita was rising (at least during the Ming).

In addition, you have not taken into account the fact that a 300 million tael trade was in place during the late Ming dynasty. This would have caused an increase in GDP per capita as it did not exist before.

Also, the population pressure is not nearly as great as you think.
Even assuming a growth rate of 0.5% for the Ming, the economy would have increased by at least 8 times during its 278 year history(rule of 72). During the same time, the population of China rose by about 80%. So it would not be unreasonable to assume that the GDP per capita rose greatly during this period.

Another example- Ming tax revenues.
During the Hongwu Era, the agricultural tax was about 3.3% of output and yielded about 14 million taels.
about 200 years later, the agricultural tax was about 1.5% of output and yielded about 24 million taels.

The population increased about 70% in between.

Our focus on agriculture also obscures the gigantic increase in other industries, which was a hallmark of the Ming:
元朝中统四年（1263年）584万4000斤 (under Mongol Empire)
明朝永乐初年(1405年)是1957万5026斤 (Under Ming dynasty).

This info from a chinese source refers to steel production shows the jump in steel production from the Mongol Yuan to the Ming. As you can see, this was a massive increase. Keep in mind Ming did not end until 1644. It was believed the rate of growth slowed after the Yongle emperor, but you get the point; the development was huge.

Also, large-scale enterprises popped up in Ming that did not exist in prior dynasties.
For example, Zheng Zhilong, who ran several colonies in Philippines & indonesia, and was a big merchant in Ming's foreign trade, reputedly had a fortune of several hundred million taels. This did not appear in earlier dynasties. THe creation of such large enterprises, dealing with millions of taels, would also be a sign of increase in the economy, and thus, GDP Per capita.

For comparison, Ming government revenues equalled only 27 million taels in 1600, and at the time Ming had 31% of world's GDP.

I feel what I have presented above showed that MIng growth far exceeded population growth.

Also, as for my sources in a 5 minute search:
Cambridge history of China, the Ming dynasty
Li Bo and Zheng Yin, 5000 years of Chinese history, Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001

Technological increase= higher productivity= more food or "stuff" produced per person= increase in GDP per Capita.

Correct but still one side of the equation. If it were just an increase in technology holding everything else constant then yes you could infer that there was an increase in GDP per capita. Unfortunately we are not dealing with a situation where you can hold everything else constant.

What you are saying is that the population growth was such that it meant that the rate of resources diminishing cancelled out the technological productivity increase and caused GDP per capita to decrease. I apologize for not understanding thsi part.

You've still got it wrong but your almost there. In any case this is what I have been saying for the entirety of the thread almost, it has taken you this long to understand a basic economic concept.:goodjob:

The rise of specialized crops during Ming is enough to disprove this theory. Specialized agriculture= less land farmed for grain which meant the grain supply was more than the demand, so farmers stopped farming because other commodities were more profitable. This is enough to show that the increase in grain meant that was more grain per person , which is an increase in GDP per capita. This is a simple example, but it shows that GDP per capita was rising (at least during the Ming).

No it does not. Your accounting for the Technological increase= higher productivity= more food or "stuff" produced per person= increase in GDP per Capita side but ignoring other factors which might be acting against an increase in GDP per capita like population.

In addition, you have not taken into account the fact that a 300 million tael trade was in place during the late Ming dynasty. This would have caused an increase in GDP per capita as it did not exist before.

It's descriptive, you haven't told me anything about the trade other than a single number, that single number is not enough to infer anything about it. I have provided examples in previous posts about what would be useful to me. That is not.

Also, the population pressure is not nearly as great as you think.
Even assuming a growth rate of 0.5% for the Ming, the economy would have increased by at least 8 times during its 278 year history(rule of 72). During the same time, the population of China rose by about 80%. So it would not be unreasonable to assume that the GDP per capita rose greatly during this period.

There was no way it grew at a rate of 0.5%, nor did it increase by a factor of 8 times during a period of 278 years. That would be so optimistic it would be comical. It is unreasonable, because your pulling figures from an example I made to illustrate a point about how growth must have been close to 0%, absurdly large GDP per capita and all.

Another example- Ming tax revenues.
During the Hongwu Era, the agricultural tax was about 3.3% of output and yielded about 14 million taels.
about 200 years later, the agricultural tax was about 1.5% of output and yielded about 24 million taels.


Again I can't infer anything except that tax revenues just under doubled, 200 years later despite a halving of the taxes on agriculture.

The population increased about 70% in between.

That is more useful. But I can't infer anything from the two together except to say that taxation revenue grew by about the same amount as population (potentially revenue grew more but I can't be sure).

This info from a chinese source refers to steel production shows the jump in steel production from the Mongol Yuan to the Ming. As you can see, this was a massive increase. Keep in mind Ming did not end until 1644. It was believed the rate of growth slowed after the Yongle emperor, but you get the point; the development was huge.

I can't read Mandarin. The figures could be 1 kilo to 3 kilo's for all I know. I'm however aware that the Ming did indeed see an increase in steel production.

Also, large-scale enterprises popped up in Ming that did not exist in prior dynasties.

Again I cant infer anything from 'large-scale enterprises popped up in Ming' it's descriptive.

For example, Zheng Zhilong, who ran several colonies in Philippines & indonesia, and was a big merchant in Ming's foreign trade, reputedly had a fortune of several hundred million taels. This did not appear in earlier dynasties. THe creation of such large enterprises, dealing with millions of taels, would also be a sign of increase in the economy, and thus, GDP Per capita.

Wasn't Zheng Zhilong a pirate who attacked the Ming? Although I'm aware of the large merchantile houses that China had in the period.

For comparison, Ming government revenues equalled only 27 million taels in 1600, and at the time Ming had 31% of world's GDP.

Comparison to what?

Also, as for my sources in a 5 minute search:
Cambridge history of China, the Ming dynasty
Li Bo and Zheng Yin, 5000 years of Chinese history, Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001

Evidence? You can't just quote book titles.

General Note:

Thus far I have shown that you have at best a crude understand of economics, that you do not understand basic economic principles, theories, definitions or that multiple factors might be acting on something. I've had to repeat myself post after post to get basic points across, think my consistent use of High Level Equilibrium Trap or the repeated use of Descriptive for instance. I have provided simple examples and have not resorted to language that someone with the use of Wikipedia could not understand (you eventually used that only after having made a fool of yourself). You attacked Malthus with something you lifted from Wikipedia, I responded, you let it slip because you had no idea how to respond. You accused me of being Heterodox for my use of Malthus, yet beyond a Wikipedia search, you had no understanding of what Malthus wrote, or even seemed to understand that what he did was 200 years old and has since been refined. You attacked my academic credibility on a number of occasions because you did not understand and still do not understand basic first year economics, you have since backed down from every attack because all you had for evidence is Wikipedia and did not seem to understand what it is you were writing.

In short: You have not argued, you have engaged in smearing of your opposition, you have engaged in misrepresentation and have only just begun to improve. I suggest that you read outside of Wikipedia and what is available on the internet, if you have access to a University Library then I implore you to spend your time there, or if you don't like to leave your seat you can at least use JSTOR or some-such.

I suggest that you read outside of Wikipedia and what is available on the internet

Quoted for truth. There is more to the world than Wikipedia.

Another example- Ming tax revenues.
During the Hongwu Era, the agricultural tax was about 3.3% of output and yielded about 14 million taels.
about 200 years later, the agricultural tax was about 1.5% of output and yielded about 24 million taels

This refers to the revenue yielded by the agricultural tax, not tax revenue in general. In both cases, the total tax revenue was higher.

No it does not. Your accounting for the Technological increase= higher productivity= more food or "stuff" produced per person= increase in GDP per Capita side but ignoring other factors which might be acting against an increase in GDP per capita like population.

Note:
Population increase during the Ming was about 70%.
In order for this theory to not stand, I only have to show that the economy grew more than 70% during this period.
The agricultural tax revenue I have shown above, I believe, is enough to display that in agriculture alone, the growth far exceeds 70%.
Thirdly,I have shown that production in various industries(Such as iron)'s growth was much more than 70%.

This refers to the revenue yielded by the agricultural tax, not tax revenue in general. In both cases, the total tax revenue was higher.

Fair enough, point still stands, with the addition of a strategic use of the word agriculture. Slip of the pen if you will.

Population increase during the Ming was about 70%.
In order for this theory to not stand, I only have to show that the economy grew more than 70% during this period.
The agricultural tax revenue I have shown above, I believe, is enough to display that in agriculture alone, the growth far exceeds 70%.
Thirdly,I have shown that production in various industries(Such as iron)'s growth was much more than 70%.

You would have to show that GDP increased faster than population growth. Not any of what you have just said. If you show that population increased by about 70% and relied on agricultural tax revenue to infer qualitative growth, it's going to be useless in making a definitive conclusion.

Why? I refer you to this point made earlier:

Far exceeded population growth? That claim is entirely absurd. China was an agricultural society, like all other pre-industrial societies. And it did not export food. What was produced was consumed. Unless the population was chronically malnourished during the previous centuries, what was not consumed was waste, and therefore of no economic value.

As has been further stated, China did not pass out of the effects of a high level equilibrium trap, it merely grew into it (one of the subtle differences between a regular Neo-Malthusian Model and Elvins). It came crashing back down. Therefore you probably want to explain your parameters for success and the tolerances your willing to deal with.

You would have to show that GDP increased faster than population growth. Not any of what you have just said. If you show that population increased by about 70% and relied on agricultural tax revenue to infer qualitative growth, it's going to be useless in making a definitive conclusion.

I'm pretty sure you can infer what happened using this.

Agricultural tax in 1368- 3.3% of output 14 million taels
Agricultural tax in 1600- 1.5% of output 24 million taels

From this you can infer that the output(had GDP per capita stayed with population growth), should be about 14*1.7*(1.5/3.3) or about 11 million taels. Instead. it was 24million taels. From this alone you can conclude that GDP per capita increased far more than population growth, as agriculture made up 80%+ of the GDP of all preindustrial economies.

Iron production and foreign trade shows the same details.
It's hard, raw numbers. Could you honestly say that GDP per capita during Ming was standstill?

Far exceeded population growth? That claim is entirely absurd. China was an agricultural society, like all other pre-industrial societies. And it did not export food. What was produced was consumed. Unless the population was chronically malnourished during the previous centuries, what was not consumed was waste, and therefore of no economic value.

Ever considered that if the food is produced, it increases GDP? Its mere production and consumption increases GDP.

Ever considered that if the food is produced, it increases GDP? Its mere production and consumption increases GDP.

I never questioned that. Only the claim that "agricultural production far exceeded Population growth". One tends to accompany the other in any agrarian society.

And I think that this whole discussion has been about GDP (or whatever approaches to that may be calculated) per capita.

And I think that this whole discussion has been about GDP (or whatever approaches to that may be calculated) per capita.

Welcome to my hell. It's taken this long to get something resembling 'progress'.

Welcome to my hell. It's taken this long to get something resembling 'progress'.

I think it's getting through :D