An Evaluative Essay on Mark Elvin's "High Level Equilibrium Trap" - Chinese Economy

[BananaLee]

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.

 

[Teeninvestor]

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%.

 

[Masada]

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.

 

[Teeninvestor]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Masada]

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'.

 

[innonimatu]

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

I think it's getting through