Largest economy in the world in history?

[Traitorfish]

not really. it seems kind of self-evident. people aren't islands and can't produce all that they require. therefore people trade.

Oh, certainly, trade becomes an apparent necessary in any society once the division of labour becomes complex, but that's not to say that societies are "based on trade", in the sense that commercial exchange forms the fundamental basis of social production in that society. That requires commodity production to become a generalised activity, which wasn't the case in either Europe or China at that point, or at least outside of geographically limited areas.

 

[Masada]

not really. if at a tribal level where the division of labour is low; we see that exchange occurs between members of the group often on a large, complex, scale. an individual with a reputation as a maker of X won't make all of X, but will still make some proportion of X greater than his needs. likewise women are apt to exchange forage goods, because foraging of nature is an uncertain proposition and one might, and often does, find something in greater profusion that one might need. one therefore exchanges that - often without recourse to money - perhaps in kind perhaps in the understanding that some future service may or may be rendered as the need requires. hell sharing is trade - with trust as the premium.

your also stuck on trade = commercial exchange. when its nothing of the sort.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then it seems that we're just using two definitions of "trade". If it's being used in a very broad sense of the transfer of any good or service from one individual to another, then, yes, all societies are "based on trade", but that doesn't seem to me a very intuitive usage. But, perhaps I'm wrong

 

[metatron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

The three letters that render this completely useless (as always) are already visible in the link... *snicker*

Let's see: I have the choice of either making some pathetic list or making some absurd and crass claims about one nations past prowess (that incidentally happenes to be where i live)?

I'll stick with the list then:
China
China
China
China
Mughal India
China
China
Early modern France
The British Empire
USA

Done.
That was easy.
I very much doubt Germany ever came through as #1 one between the last two (and i am very sure Japan didn't).
And France was probably #1 for a longer time than Britain.

Anyway. If one really wants to stick with PPP (which is even more ridiculous here than it is in 99% of all other given circumstances) one just has to strike France from the above list cut the timeframe (that i didn't offer) for the British Empire significantly.

I shall have the rest of the day off.

Have fun debating Portugals giant reproductive organs!

Edit:
Technically there could be stuff on the list before China. But Empires/Nations/whatever back than had economies that were roughly 97% about keeping people out of starvation and exposure long enough to reproduce that there is rather little sense in debating their relative economic strength (see: PPP being ridiculous).

 

[J. pride]

I'll stick with the list then:
China
China
China
China
Mughal India
China
China
Early modern France
The British Empire
USA

For the most part that list is wrong. For one China was not the most economically advanced "country" for 3000 years. Acheamenid Persia, Roman Empire, The Caliphates (Ummayad, Abbasid, Rashidun) , Mauryan India, Mongol Empire were all at one time or another more economically powerful than China.

Nope, second half. And my contention was not with "specific entities" but with the "dynasties" part.

Dachs, sorry for the late reply..

I said specific dynasties because lets take for example medieval India. India back then was a region (not a country or any kind of unified entity) divided into many northern, southern, eastern, western dynasties. When people say that India had the largest economy in the world that is like saying that Europe had the largest economy in the world. While that would make sense if you were comparing geographical regions but we are not. So this means that you can't just say that the Roman Empire had a larger economy than India or China but the Roman Empire had a larger economy than Muaryan Empire or Han Dynasty or vice versa. What people dont realize is that India and China are regions as big as Western Europe and just like Europe they were divided into many small entities for a significant part of their history (this part is only partially true for China but fully true for India)

 

[metatron]

For the most part that list is wrong. For one China was not the most economically advanced "country" for 3000 years. Acheamenid Persia, Roman Empire, The Caliphates (Ummayad, Abbasid, Rashidun) , Mauryan India, Mongol Empire were all at one time or another more economically powerful than China.

Oh, wait, you are serious about the thread?

Yeah, sure, you are right about the Ten Kingdoms, so you can sneak one of your gangs in there (one, not five!). And if you insist you can have your Three Kingdoms, too.
But regarding the Caliphate > Tang thing you have to provide some, well, you know, arguments.
Not that i did provide any. But after all you are the one being serious.
So?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm noticing that some people are throwing around "large", "advanced" and "powerful" as if they were all identical measures of an economy. They really aren't, and, even if they may correlate to whatever extent, it's tremendously over-simplistic to conflate them.

 

[Masada]

what do 'large', 'advanced and 'powerful' even mean?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure, but if I'm following this thread correctly, it's something to do with how many fish Aquaman's Irish cousin is willing to trade with the Chinese?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Don't know if this will help anyone, or if it's been posted before, and I know this is probably controversial to some degree, but hey, at least it's statistics. Make of it what you guys will, I'm not joining the argument or supporting/counterarguing anybody here, but I thought this might help:

 

[metatron]

[...]

 

[bonefang]

I would say, there is something wrong with the graph...

GDP - Debt as a percentage of GDP as of today

US : 14.58 t - 102%
China: 5.88 t - not sure, they claim 10%
Japan: 5.5 t - 53%
India: 1.73 t - 23%

* US needs to be 10* of India. It is not....

Also, while considering the largest Economies, should people have a look at the External Debt as well ??

 

[History_Buff]

I very much doubt Germany ever came through as #1 one between the last two (and i am very sure Japan didn't).

Well, Germany was definitely ahead of Britain in terms of GDP for a brief period. To be generous, I'll say 1900-1918.

 

[say1988]

I would say, there is something wrong with the graph...

It's PPP and India has a low cost of living.

 

[Civciv5]

I think:
Sumeria<Egyptian Empire<Assyrian Empire<Babylonian Empire<Persian Empire<Egyptian Empire<Roman Empire<Jin Dynasty<Byzantine Empire<Tang Dynasty<Abbasid Caliphate<Pala Empire<Song Dynasty<Mongol Empire<Ming Dynasty<Spanish Empire<Ottoman Empire<Qing Dynasty<French Empire<British Empire<United States of America<People's Republic of China

 

[WWTVICTOR]

Timeline? They don't make sense.

 

[dido]

Again, you keep your ranking rule in output production, we traded, why would we try to compete with China´s behemoth population, if we could buy ten time what we need for a single ounce of gold, what is good in Hard Work, if your hard work has virtually no real value? Don´t get me wrong, hard work is important, but using your brain to make that hard work actually mean something is equal as important.

China produced to internal consumption, they were a totally closed society when the portuguese arrived, China didn´t even traded with it´s richer neighbour Japan, they banned trade, a closed society is a doomed society, China´s output production from its vast population could be bought with a single cargo of portuguese goods several times, the need for external contact and external goods was so great that one of China´s most important harbor Macau was gifted to the portuguese in reward of chasing and defeating away pirates and rebel factions, and establishing of peace and trading.

So what good is a huge population for, if that entire population are all slaves of a failed system? A single portuguese merchant could buy all towns overnight, what was the output good for then?

China´s current economic system is working because it´s the worlds mixed economy, a capitalist enterprise aproach with some socialist traits, unfortanely it´s single party and unnatural birth control policies will take its price over time.

I´m not a fan of Alexander, but one of his sayings is right on the money: "I do not fear 1 million lions commanded by a sheep, however, if the enemy has 1 thousand sheep commanded by a lion, that is a force i will have to deal with extreme caution".

Wait...you are calling Macau "China's most important harbor"?
At no point in history was Macau a noteworthy trading port of China, let alone its "most important harbor". Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Quanzhou, Hangzhou, Wenzhou, Shanghai, Hong Kong were/are. Macau was/is not, and it is evident simply judging from its population.
Macau was virtually a couplemiddle of nowhere when the Portuguese went to China and the Portuguese had to pay RENT to China just for the RIGHT TO TRADE in Macau up until the Opium Wars when Portugal rode the coattails of UK and France. If that is your concept of "gifted" then I am more than happy to "gift" you some of my worthless possessions in return for a 20kg of silver every year

 

[Leoreth]

Timeline? They don't make sense.

The timeline also appears to extend into the future.

 

[BananaLee]

I also didn't realise Sumeria was a single political entity

 

[General Pilates]

I also didn't realise Sumeria was a single political entity

Under Ur it was.