Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[EQandcivfanatic]

Russia's economy is actually pitifully small when you look at the size of the population, even assuming lesser numbers than luckymoose initially postulated. If you look at the examples nuke postulated:

Germany is suffering the worst of the European nations from the recession, dealing with constant undermining and competition from the French states, a resurgent economy in Spain (sort of), constant flow of cheap goods from places like Argentina, Brazil, and Russia. It's a miracle they have any sort of economic relevance at all.

Japan is currently embroiled in a war taxing all of its resources, and what territory isn't in direct rebellion is in lesser stages of unrest.

Britain is similar to Japan, except they're losing their war in China.

 

[Nuka-sama]

But it still has the largest economy by far in the world. I really dont understand how their economy is even bigger than say, Brazil or Argentina. It just seems ridiculous to say that their economy is so massive because of their population :/

 

[Circuit]

But it still has the largest economy by far in the world. I really dont understand how their economy is even bigger than say, Brazil or Argentina. It just seems ridiculous to say that their economy is so massive because of their population :/

Mmm... Even I have to say no it's not.

 

[Crezth]

But it still has the largest economy by far in the world. I really dont understand how their economy is even bigger than say, Brazil or Argentina. It just seems ridiculous to say that their economy is so massive because of their population :/

Fwiw china's otl 1836 GDP was 2.4 billion pounds, compared to the UK's then-GDP of 600 million pounds. So if there's a reason it's ridiculous, it's not population.

That said I agree with your analysis. To say that Russia is an exporter is missing the point: they're a serf-based economy, how do you urbanize with that?

 

[Jehoshua]

how do you urbanize with that?

By decree.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

By decree.

That doesn't make any sense at all. A serf class is tied, by definition, to the land, and cities, natural refuges for escaped serfs, are an existential threat to the whole system.

 

[Jehoshua]

Crezths question was "how does one urbanise with a serf economy". My answer was by decree.

-

Now logically proceeding from that one liner, what do I mean? I mean that since a serf-based society is static, and is unlikely to result of its own merits on an urban renaissance the only way for Russia to have urbanised was for some extraneous factor to have precipitated the development of urban culture. (albeit they would still be islands in a sea of serfdom).

Considering its Russia, the logical precipitator of said action is the tsar, who has absolute power. Ergo, by decree the tsar could have, in the hypothetical urbanisation process, simply ordered the creation of cities, and the training of relevant classes of people (the middle classes), and forcibly relocated serfs from the lands they were bound too (much like occurred OTL with the construction of St Petersburg) to provide the raw labour for the endeavour.

To put that more simply (but less simply than saying "by decree") the way to achieve urbanisation in a serf-society is through a conscious imposition of will from an extraneous, and absolute authority, that is not bound by the established system.

 

[Crezth]

Now logically proceeding from that one liner, what do I mean? I mean that since a serf-based society is static, and is unlikely to result of its own merits on an urban renaissance the only way for Russia to have urbanised was for some extraneous factor to have precipitated the development of urban culture. (albeit they would still be islands in a sea of serfdom).

Considering its Russia, the logical precipitator of said action is the tsar, who has absolute power. Ergo, by decree the tsar could have, in the hypothetical urbanisation process, simply ordered the creation of cities, and the training of relevant classes of people (the middle classes), and forcibly relocated serfs from the lands they were bound too (much like occurred OTL with the construction of St Petersburg) to provide the raw labour for the endeavour.

To put that more simply (but less simply than saying "by decree") the way to achieve urbanisation in a serf-society is through a conscious imposition of will from an extraneous, and absolute authority, that is not bound by the established system.

Middle classes aren't created by training or decree. They're created by favorable economic conditions and the rising up of the lower-classes. That said, this motion still creates a few problems. Let's imagine one can urbanize by force - you can't, but let's say the St Petersburg model applies flawlessly everywhere - you still don't have the economic basis for an urban society because your agricultural development is not at the point where that urbanization occurs by itself. You're using valuable import exchange on agricultural products - a thing that a non-urban economy can actually make - and you don't have the capital to pursue realistic urban development. In a word, you're practicing urban bias, which is a strategy more suited to Latin America or South-East Asia (or any other developing economy which would prefer to not have wealth and development) rather than freaking Russia.

I can only imagine this strategy working if you were the first to industrialize and you flooded the world market with your amazing manufactured goods. But ITL, that demand was already satisfied by the United Kingdom and anywhere else that had already industrialized, so achieving parity is incredibly difficult, especially when import duties are unrealistic since you need to import so much food!

 

[Jehoshua]

Firstly you are making a number of assumptions, namely that parity with other powers is the goal, that increasing the prosperity of the serfs is a goal, and that Russia can't support itself foodwise.

But to address the actual points, you are of course quite correct in saying one doesn't create a whole class by training, one can train someone only to have him become a vagrant for lack of work! What I mean is that the individuals within the groups that form the nucleus of the middle class can be trained to serve the urban artifice (not to mention they pre-exist in any given society to begin with, the Russia of serfs is not devoid of lawyers and merchants), to fill the specific jobs an urbanisation program requires, and that from this fulfilment of certain needed roles a middle class can then emerge as a protean urban-industrial complex takes shape over the decades. (an urban industrial process that could be supported by tariffs on imported manufactures ensuring domestic monopoly, or alternatively on cheap serf labour to undercut the costs of foreign equivalents through exports. Twould be a terrible system, but it would support the industry even if very inefficiently)

As to your other points, who says urbanisation (the development of cities) cannot occur by fiat? One could hypothetically fabricate cities to serve various purposes (as has been the case many times in history), and see about the establishment of those persons who facilitate the cities purpose. So for example a city could be built as a seat of power, which naturally requires the presence of various personages and industries which serve the court and provide it with its special needs (artisans, furriers and the like), and the corresponding personages and industries that keep that whole complex going. A garrison city as another example fundamentally would proceed from the need to impose order and control/defend against threats in a certain region, and would require the establishment of services and industry that facilitate that cities primary purpose (serving the soldiers) and so on and so forth.

Now even accepting your assumption that Russia was not at the theoretical agricultural threshold to support the development of an urban culture (and it is an assumption as I noted), the process of urbanisation simply shifts to the development of more efficient agriculture, with this then creating a population boom which facilitates urban development as people move away from overworked land. This would be a more natural civic development cycle that urbanisation by decree, but it does not preclude a deliberate urbanisation strategy making use of the population surplus.

Now with regards to "realistic" in realistic urban development. I presume by this you mean a nice comfortable city. This needn't be presupposed, a new urban centre could quite well be a den of squalor filled with slums with the few boyars thriving off the toil of the poor serfs like bloated worms on the plague-ridden corpses that presumably litter the streets. We ARE talking about Russia, and need I remind you that it is a serf-state, centred on a very small aristocracy with an absolute ruler. Who says the enfranchisement of the serfs with wealth is a goal? The main interested parties here are presumably those already wealthy, and the Tsar. In this sense the broader goal of any urbanisation would presumably be the projection of their power, and the power of Russia irrespective of the interests of the common people.

 

[Crezth]

I'm only going to argue the points that I think are relevant, namely those economic ones. The discussion at hand is what urbanization and industrialization entail and how they happen, and why creating cities by fiat is unsustainable a priori. I think it could technically be done, for the record, but I also think it would destroy itself over time.

(an urban industrial process that could be supported by tariffs on imported manufactures ensuring domestic monopoly, or alternatively on cheap serf labour to undercut the costs of foreign equivalents through exports. Twould be a terrible system, but it would support the industry even if very inefficiently)

It's true that tariffs on imported manufactures help protect fledgeling industries, but they do not guarantee their fitness. You need export disciplines for that, or else the industries focus too inwardly - they don't export (too competitive) and only sell domestically (because tariffs give them a home-field advantage). In countries like Germany and Japan in the late 19th century, export discipline was not necessary to build a prosperous industry because Germany and Japan both had rising middle classes as a consequence of their effective agricultural development, Prussia from having long since moved away from serfdom and ineffectual tenant farming and Japan from instituting land reforms. In other words, there was a domestic market for their goods that were not being exported all that vigorously.

In our hypothetical Russia where the farmers aren't moving to the cities because they're richer and want to invest their energy into urban endeavors, but are moving to cities because the Tsar told them to, that domestic market is absent. People don't have the money to buy manufactures, and that includes the farmers who might otherwise be spending their extra income on new machinery like tractors. As for big aristocratic landholders, it's worth mentioning that as a big landowner in a land of poor serfs, it always makes more sense to squeeze more money out of your agricultural workers than it does to invest in making the land more productive. And that includes buying tractors etc.

Basically, the industry is unsustainable.

Now even accepting your assumption that Russia was not at the theoretical agricultural threshold to support the development of an urban culture (and it is an assumption as I noted), the process of urbanisation simply shifts to the development of more efficient agriculture, with this then creating a population boom which facilitates urban development as people move away from overworked land. This would be a more natural civic development cycle that urbanisation by decree, but it does not preclude a deliberate urbanisation strategy making use of the population surplus.

Emphasis mine: this is not true. Urbanization does not mean more "efficient" agriculture, although it is often caused by more efficient agriculture. What I'm saying is just because you have cities doesn't mean you have more productive farms. Increasing the productivity of farms (yield per acre, not $$$ per acre, as these two almost never align) is achieved in two primary ways: small farmers with significant credit support to invest into the productivity of their land (or, as in the US, small farmers with no shortage of land to acquire), or tenanted farmers, protected by the government from their renters, are incentivized to pull extra profit by investing in their land. By definition this precludes most peasant farming situations and especially serfdom.

The point I'm making is that under an agricultural system that focuses on rent or serfs, labor is not being effectively utilized. This is what precludes the idea that Russia was sitting on a population surplus, much less a population that has money to spend on manufactures and wants to move into the city.

Now with regards to "realistic" in realistic urban development. I presume by this you mean a nice comfortable city.

Stop. No. I mean an urban development that can sustain itself economically and isn't held aloft by artificial inflations. When you neglect your agricultural development in favor of urban development, you crash and burn. See: Latin America, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia. When you encourage your agricultural development first, you succeed.

 

[Jehoshua]

I'm only going to argue the points that I think are relevant, namely those economic ones. The discussion at hand is what urbanization and industrialization entail and how they happen, and why creating cities by fiat is unsustainable a priori. I think it could technically be done, for the record, but I also think it would destroy itself over time.

I'm not arguing that it would be sustainable (I have my doubts it would), only that the creation of an urban structure by fiat can occur, and at least be sustained temporarily. From this I think we have fundamental agreement at least on the essential matter.

It's true that tariffs on imported manufactures help protect fledgeling industries, but they do not guarantee their fitness. You need export disciplines for that, or else the industries focus too inwardly - they don't export (too competitive) and only sell domestically (because tariffs give them a home-field advantage). In countries like Germany and Japan in the late 19th century, export discipline was not necessary to build a prosperous industry because Germany and Japan both had rising middle classes as a consequence of their effective agricultural development, Prussia from having long since moved away from serfdom and ineffectual tenant farming and Japan from instituting land reforms. In other words, there was a domestic market for their goods that were not being exported all that vigorously.

In our hypothetical Russia where the farmers aren't moving to the cities because they're richer and want to invest their energy into urban endeavors, but are moving to cities because the Tsar told them to, that domestic market is absent. People don't have the money to buy manufactures, and that includes the farmers who might otherwise be spending their extra income on new machinery like tractors. As for big aristocratic landholders, it's worth mentioning that as a big landowner in a land of poor serfs, it always makes more sense to squeeze more money out of your agricultural workers than it does to invest in making the land more productive. And that includes buying tractors etc.

Basically, the industry is unsustainable.

Being coerced by the tsar, and having personal reasons (moneys) for moving to the city are not mutually exclusive. Serf life is hardly idyllic. At any rate, as to the tariffs vis a vis export discipline, the two are as you imply not mutually exclusive and there is nothing to say our hypothetical Russia did not put in place such policies. I also noted that cheap labour could be used to undercut foreign competitors. Parity it might not be, but it does give an impetus to Russian industry (I'm thinking here of the process that occurred in East Asia, where the "less advanced" industries gradually moved down the chain as each country industrialised, with the first industrialising countries generally retaining the more advanced industries that cheap labour couldn't undercut)

On the question of domestic demand, presumably it could be fulfilled by various sectors. The military for example would be a natural recipient of industrial development, the very construction of the cities themselves also encourages demand. Now presuming Russia captures a share of the foreign market, and a middle class then emerges, you'd get a more sustainable demand. Although I like you think that a command driven fiat urban-industrialisation scheme is not likely to be sustainable.

Emphasis mine: this is not true. Urbanization does not mean more "efficient" agriculture, although it is often caused by more efficient agriculture. What I'm saying is just because you have cities doesn't mean you have more productive farms. Increasing the productivity of farms (yield per acre, not $$$ per acre, as these two almost never align) is achieved in two primary ways: small farmers with significant credit support to invest into the productivity of their land (or, as in the US, small farmers with no shortage of land to acquire), or tenanted farmers, protected by the government from their renters, are incentivized to pull extra profit by investing in their land. By definition this precludes most peasant farming situations and especially serfdom.

The point I'm making is that under an agricultural system that focuses on rent or serfs, labor is not being effectively utilized. This is what precludes the idea that Russia was sitting on a population surplus, much less a population that has money to spend on manufactures and wants to move into the city.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was that in the event the agricultural system is not able to support urbanisation, the development of agricultural efficiency is likely to precede the actual establishment of cities. Ergo, I'm not saying cities somehow magically "cause" greater efficiency in agriculture (that would be absurd as you rightly noted). Ergo, process of urbanisation shifts to agricultural development (presumably by active government program [decree], which is what according to TLJ iirc occurred) as a necessary precursor to the development of an urban framework. (population growth resulting from this agricultural program serving to provide the impetus for urban development)

Stop. No. I mean an urban development that can sustain itself economically and isn't held aloft by artificial inflations. When you neglect your agricultural development in favor of urban development, you crash and burn. See: Latin America, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia. When you encourage your agricultural development first, you succeed.

Again you are acting on the presumption that our hypothetical Russia's agricultural state is not able to support the population. In the event that it is then it is possible, and in the event that it is not than I have already said (although you misunderstood what I said, due to poor syntax on my part) an agricultural program likely is the first stage of an eventual urbanisation by fiat arrangement. Although again I note, that my point is not whether such a scheme (fiat urbanisation) is sustainable, but that it is possible to do it that way in a serf-state ruled by an absolutely monarch such as the Tsar.

 

[Crezth]

I'm not arguing that it would be sustainable (I have my doubts it would), only that the creation of an urban structure by fiat can occur, and at least be sustained temporarily. From this I think we have fundamental agreement at least on the essential matter.

Perhaps, but my point then is that the Russia we have now is impossible as it is presented to us.

Being coerced by the tsar, and having personal reasons (moneys) for moving to the city are not mutually exclusive. Serf life is hardly idyllic. At any rate, as to the tariffs vis a vis export discipline, the two are as you imply not mutually exclusive and there is nothing to say our hypothetical Russia did not put in place such policies.

I really doubt there would be export discipline since this need was not understood back then (it's not even fully understood by some countries now) and because the behaviors it demands from the government would have appeared to be at odds with the goal of industrializing. When you're so desperate for cities and factories that you force people at gunpoint to move to the cities and work in factories, culling non-exporters and holding their subsidies hostage would seem counterproductive, especially since these firms don't have a domestic market to start growing with. That said, it's not entirely out of the question for Russia's government to impose and follow through with serious export discipline, just very unlikely.

Also, serfs can't really move around freely. That's what being a serf is all about!

I also noted that cheap labour could be used to undercut foreign competitors. Parity it might not be, but it does give an impetus to Russian industry (I'm thinking here of the process that occurred in East Asia, where the "less advanced" industries gradually moved down the chain as each country industrialised, with the first industrialising countries generally retaining the more advanced industries that cheap labour couldn't undercut)

Cheap labor as a tool of industrial competition did not really exist before globalization and it certainly did not exist in the time of protections. At the start of industrialization is the cheapest labor will ever be, so Russia's advantage is effectively nullified by the circumstances.

On the question of domestic demand, presumably it could be fulfilled by various sectors. The military for example would be a natural recipient of industrial development, the very construction of the cities themselves also encourages demand. Now presuming Russia captures a share of the foreign market, and a middle class then emerges, you'd get a more sustainable demand. Although I like you think that a command driven fiat urban-industrialisation scheme is not likely to be sustainable.

OK, well if Russia's government is the source of all domestic demand, then it couldn't possibly encourage export discipline! That would be at cross-purposes with itself! After all, it's buying up all the goods that are being produced! Also, where does the money come from? Taxes? Yeah, right, the serfs have no money. And taxing the rich ain't exactly kosher when you want them to invest in new businesses (not that it would do much to tax them anyway). Tariffs? OK, again, Russia's market has already been described as "exclusively governmental" so any money it made on tariffs it would lose since it's ordering all these imports in the first place.

This is basically what I'm talking about when I say there's no capital for development - a problem that OTL Russia also experienced, and it's worth noting that OTL Russia sucked hardcore - and there wouldn't be, not without emancipating the serfs and stomping down on rent-seeking behavior.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was that in the event the agricultural system is not able to support urbanisation, the development of agricultural efficiency is likely to precede the actual establishment of cities. Ergo, I'm not saying cities somehow magically "cause" greater efficiency in agriculture (that would be absurd as you rightly noted). Ergo, process of urbanisation shifts to agricultural development (presumably by active government program [decree], which is what according to TLJ iirc occurred) as a necessary precursor to the development of an urban framework. (population growth resulting from this agricultural program serving to provide the impetus for urban development)

OK, well as stated, the best thing the government could do to encourage agricultural development would be to emancipate the serfs and end that horrible business with aristocrats owning 100% of farmlands. Otherwise, they aggressively pursue non-productive options in the name of profit, and agricultural development is completely stagnant.

Again you are acting on the presumption that our hypothetical Russia's agricultural state is not able to support the population. In the event that it is then it is possible, and in the event that it is not than I have already said (although you misunderstood what I said, due to poor syntax on my part) an agricultural program likely is the first stage of an eventual urbanisation by fiat arrangement.

The fundamental core of my argument is that in order to urbanize sustainably - either by "fiat" or not - Russia would have needed to institute a number of agricultural reforms that we know for a fact it did not (it has been described as Peter the Great's Russia transposed to the modern day).

The only way this Russia exists is if it is a significantly agrarian state with a petite bourgeousie. The problems are more endemic than unrest and instability, I'm afraid.

 

[Jehoshua]

Perhaps, but my point then is that the Russia we have now is impossible as it is presented to us.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on precisely what occurred. Although I agree there is a massive discrepancy between the "how" and the "is".

Also, serfs can't really move around freely. That's what being a serf is all about!

Correction: serfs can't move about freely of their own volition. Our Tsar friend can effect a move (as I noted occurred historically in the construction of St Petersburg, when serfs were supplied from elsewhere to prepare the foundations of the city, digging up the marsh with their bare hands [literally since wheelbarrows and tools were not supplied])

Cheap labor as a tool of industrial competition did not really exist before globalization and it certainly did not exist in the time of protections. At the start of industrialization is the cheapest labor will ever be, so Russia's advantage is effectively nullified by the circumstances.

As a consciously realised strategy yes. But you are presupposing conscious labour. You are also making a broad sweeping assumption in assuming all peasantries are equal prior to the industrial revolution. This is not so, an English tenant farmer is much better off than a Russian serf, and correspondingly better financially endowed for example.

OK, well if Russia's government is the source of all domestic demand, then it couldn't possibly encourage export discipline!

Again with the broad sweeping assumptions. I didn't say "all" and its an erroneous assumption anyway to presume it is the source of all demand. It may be a major driver for demand, but no one agency is likely to have an exclusive monopoly on manufactures
.

and it's worth noting that OTL Russia sucked hardcore - and there wouldn't be, not without emancipating the serfs and stomping down on rent-seeking behavior.

I'm not saying our hypothetical Russia would be good. I have no doubt it would be a squalid mire of poverty and despair

OK, well as stated, the best thing the government could do to encourage agricultural development would be to emancipate the serfs and end that horrible business with aristocrats owning 100% of farmlands. Otherwise, they aggressively pursue non-productive options in the name of profit, and agricultural development is completely stagnant.

Absolutely agreed. Although naturally vested interests often hinder what is best. As a lecturer of mine is fond of quoting, "never underestimate the staying power of mediocrity!"

The fundamental core of my argument is that in order to urbanize sustainably - either by "fiat" or not - Russia would have needed to institute a number of agricultural reforms that we know for a fact it did not (it has been described as Peter the Great's Russia transposed to the modern day).

The only way this Russia exists is if it is a significantly agrarian state with a petite bourgeousie. The problems are more endemic than unrest and instability, I'm afraid.

Again agreed, as I said my point is that it could occur, not that it could sustain itself. What I am arguing is that a process could occur that facilitates urbanisation not that such a process would be successful in the long term.

 

[Luckymoose]

Mmm... Even I have to say no it's not.

Then it is clearly silly to say Argentina, with a third the population of Brazil, has nearly the same economy as Brazil when Argentina is basically devoid of resources for industry (iron, aluminum, etc) and Brazil has those metals, easily accessible, on a scale similar to Russia. People look at South America and think OTL poverty and corruption, failing to understand that in a world like CI, we should be booming beyond belief.

For example, there is no reason Britain should have the industrial might of Germany, and even less of a reason for Britain to have double the economy of Brazil. There is no sort of determinism on economics for nations like the United States here. Had the world been different as it is in CI, nations like Brazil would be the US analog, not weaker than Italy.

My biggest complaint with the economic system is that is basically means Brazil, per capita, is a rather poor nation. And it means, even if Russia is super poor per capita, they have drastically more EP to spend on things that matter. Which nullifies their poverty to a great extent.

 

[Crezth]

Correction: serfs can't move about freely of their own volition.

Woah, hold the phone. You contradicted this earlier:

Being coerced by the tsar, and having personal reasons (moneys) for moving to the city are not mutually exclusive. Serf life is hardly idyllic.

Where it sounds like you're suggesting that some serfs picked up roots and moved to the cities. At least now we both acknowledge that that is silly and that the moving impetus is purely Tsarist coercion.

As a consciously realised strategy yes. But you are presupposing conscious labour. You are also making a broad sweeping assumption in assuming all peasantries are equal prior to the industrial revolution. This is not so, an English tenant farmer is much better off than a Russian serf, and correspondingly better financially endowed for example.

Not the point. Farmer incomes usually exceed factory worker incomes for the first several years of urbanization; the starting conditions for factory worker incomes are universally low, comparatively. So even if Russian workers cost less to employ in real money terms (since Russia would be "poorer"), that does not translate into a better throughput ratio, as the main reason for the low pay is a lack of demand for their labor. The fact that British workers were just as poorly paid and British navigation is superior by leaps and bounds is just the icing on the cake.

Again with the broad sweeping assumptions. I didn't say "all" and its an erroneous assumption anyway to presume it is the source of all demand. It may be a major driver for demand, but no one agency is likely to have an exclusive monopoly on manufactures.

No, but I asked for examples of domestic demand and you provided, exclusively, instances of state infrastructure projects and the army. I would agree with you: I think this is where most of the demand would reside. As it happens, this strategy is, usually, directly counterproductive to export discipline (let alone any kind of industrial discipline), except when there is a presence of capital, such as with increased farmer productivity. To give a real-life example, the PRC's success in the past several decades is due mainly to its agricultural policies since 1978, despite the fact that the Chinese government hoovered up a lot of demand for its own industrial products to invest in infrastructure, etc. The Chinese farmers were also better off, and farming communities could buy farming equipment manufactured in Chinese factories. How does this happen? Because China's agricultural productiveness increased, the prosperity of its citizens increased, and there was capital.

I'm not saying our hypothetical Russia would be good. I have no doubt it would be a squalid mire of poverty and despair

And, most importantly, poor, and with a very low mfg tonnage and crop yield.

Again agreed, as I said my point is that it could occur, not that it could sustain itself. What I am arguing is that a process could occur that facilitates urbanisation not that such a process would be successful in the long term.

Right, so that brings us back to square one, vis a vis "what the heck is happening to make this Russia so productive and powerful."

 

[Jehoshua]

Woah, hold the phone. You contradicted this earlier

No I didn't, you just made invalid assumptions about what I meant. Tis the perennial problem that results from the fact every person (myself included as this discussion and others shows) presumes that everyone else he comes into contact with thinks the same way as himself, with this assumption remaining until one has otherwise proven otherwise. So for the benefit of clarity, my point is a serf may be coerced to move, but he may well move gladly (until he arrives ofc ) due to some pre-existing ideal of what "the city" is like, or the omnipresent miasma of state propaganda addling his poor uneducated brain.

Not the point... *cut*

We are talking about serfs, who said anything about payment in cash . Likewise you are again making an assumption, namely that industrialisation in Britain vis a vis Russia is occurring simultaneously. I on the other hand am presuming a somewhat later date of industrialisation as indeed previously you did (otherwise your earlier parity comments don't make sense).

No, but I asked for examples of domestic demand and you provided, exclusively, instances of state infrastructure projects and the army. I would agree with you: I think this is where most of the demand would reside. *cut 2*.

As you noted, I used those examples because they were where most of the demand would reside. It seemed self-evident that the major sources should be mentioned, and that the existence of other sources can be assumed . Either way, the precise efficacy of our speculative Russian urbanisation/industrialisation we can presume is dependant on contingent factors as you noted, namely if Russia somehow managed to make a serf-driven system productive (tis perhaps possible.. although we would be seeing a very different manner of serfdom to the one we are accustomed too)

And, most importantly, poor, and with a very low mfg tonnage and crop yield.

Poverty is a characteristic present in Capto's present Russia no? I think we can take that as a given

Right, so that brings us back to square one, vis a vis "what the heck is happening to make this Russia so productive and powerful."

Short of usurious speculative financial malpractice going on in game pertaining to future Russian development and non-existent produce, the answer is obviously that there is a calculation error in the thaumaturgical calculator EQ has going on in his back shed, or that the ant-cylinder that drives the whole things needs replacing.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I've already mentioned that Russia has spent the last 30+ years undergoing painful mechanization of agriculture, which by its nature has phased out large elements of serfdom. Furthermore, for those unwilling or unable to recall, Novgorod (one of the two main states behind the formation of Russia) was a far more Western-style state than Moscowy. There is plenty of industry in Russia, there's plenty of resources in Russia, and overall, plenty of reason why Russia has as much EP as it does. Does the economic system make it stable? No, but it does give it a lot of power behind its punches.

As for Brazil and Argentina, the fact is that the OTL USA did not share power in terms of Western economic powerhouses. In CI, the power of the USA is divided among a number of states in the Western Hemisphere, Argentina and Brazil just being the two obvious ones. At the same time, a lot of that potential has also gone to places like Peru, Colombia, Vinland, and even the USA to a smaller extent.

I may be willing to budge on manpower sizes and populations, but I stand behind the current economic ratings

 

[Jehoshua]

I've already mentioned that Russia has spent the last 30+ years undergoing painful mechanization of agriculture, which by its nature has phased out large elements of serfdom. Furthermore, for those unwilling or unable to recall, Novgorod (one of the two main states behind the formation of Russia) was a far more Western-style state than Moscowy. There is plenty of industry in Russia, there's plenty of resources in Russia, and overall, plenty of reason why Russia has as much EP as it does. Does the economic system make it stable? No, but it does give it a lot of power behind its punches.

...

I may be willing to budge on manpower sizes and populations, but I stand behind the current economic ratings

the last 30 years is a bit fast to achieve an agricultural AND industrial revolution on the tail-end of other powers though... and if the whole social order of serfdom was radically altered in that brief frame of time...well lets just say Russia seems awfully free of the social unrest one would expect. There's still plenty of arcane oddities in our Russian teacup...

I would also note that if you're willing to budge on manpower sizes and populations, than that by association speaks to an economic reality in our fictional world. Afterall if there are suddenly 100 million fewer Russians lets say, the rest of them have suddenly become quite a bit richer (or the rich are even richer than before, with a greater income disparity) by their absence which changes the previous social assumptions and dynamic, and from that political and other ramifications emerge that are anomalous to the context prior to the population clarification.

Saying that its your teacup, albeit the tea-leaves are all TLJ's, so if you don't want to shift ground on the basis of player ruminations on the topic so be it. Doesn't mean we won't keep trying to read the leaves.

 

[Crezth]

No I didn't, you just made invalid assumptions about what I meant. Tis the perennial problem that results from the fact every person (myself included as this discussion and others shows) presumes that everyone else he comes into contact with thinks the same way as himself, with this assumption remaining until one has otherwise proven otherwise. So for the benefit of clarity, my point is a serf may be coerced to move, but he may well move gladly (until he arrives ofc ) due to some pre-existing ideal of what "the city" is like, or the omnipresent miasma of state propaganda addling his poor uneducated brain.

Bull-honky. You said serfs can move freely and then you said they can't move freely. Which is it?

We are talking about serfs, who said anything about payment in cash . Likewise you are again making an assumption, namely that industrialisation in Britain vis a vis Russia is occurring simultaneously. I on the other hand am presuming a somewhat later date of industrialisation as indeed previously you did (otherwise your earlier parity comments don't make sense).

It doesn't matter as the proportional worker income didn't rise and wouldn't rise until the demand terrain changes, and usually because of political reasons. Since Britain still has a manufacturing-focused population it won't lose out on business to Russian workers, no matter how "cheap" they are. And to the extent that the existence of cheap Russian workers effects the market, well that feeds back into why British workers don't get regular raises.

As you noted, I used those examples because they were where most of the demand would reside. It seemed self-evident that the major sources should be mentioned, and that the existence of other sources can be assumed . Either way, the precise efficacy of our speculative Russian urbanisation/industrialisation we can presume is dependant on contingent factors as you noted, namely if Russia somehow managed to make a serf-driven system productive (tis perhaps possible.. although we would be seeing a very different manner of serfdom to the one we are accustomed too)

Whether they are most of the demand or all of the demand, it is still not an optimal arrangement (productively, financially, and developmentally - take your pick).

Poverty is a characteristic present in Capto's present Russia no? I think we can take that as a given

Duh, I never argued with that nor wanted to. But impoverished nations are also unproductive ones almost always.

 

[Jehoshua]

Bull-honky. You said serfs can move freely and then you said they can't move freely. Which is it?

I stand by what I said about you making invalid assumptions. Go have your Bull-Honky, and eat it too.

Duh, I never argued with that nor wanted to. But impoverished nations are also unproductive ones almost always.

Than let us toast the phantasmical gothic (in the non-architectural sense) aedifice of despair, misery, poverty and squalor that is the Empire of Russia!