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]
) 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.
是1957万5026斤 (Under Ming dynasty).
