nhaliday + industrial-revolution   73

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia
caveat to result below:
An extension of the IPD is an evolutionary stochastic IPD, in which the relative abundance of particular strategies is allowed to change, with more successful strategies relatively increasing. This process may be accomplished by having less successful players imitate the more successful strategies, or by eliminating less successful players from the game, while multiplying the more successful ones. It has been shown that unfair ZD strategies are not evolutionarily stable. The key intuition is that an evolutionarily stable strategy must not only be able to invade another population (which extortionary ZD strategies can do) but must also perform well against other players of the same type (which extortionary ZD players do poorly, because they reduce each other's surplus).[14]

Theory and simulations confirm that beyond a critical population size, ZD extortion loses out in evolutionary competition against more cooperative strategies, and as a result, the average payoff in the population increases when the population is bigger. In addition, there are some cases in which extortioners may even catalyze cooperation by helping to break out of a face-off between uniform defectors and win–stay, lose–switch agents.[8]

Nature boils down to a few simple concepts.

Haters will point out that I oversimplify. The haters are wrong. I am good at saying a lot with few words. Nature indeed boils down to a few simple concepts.

In life, you can either cooperate or defect.

Used to be that defection was the dominant strategy, say in the time when the Roman empire started to crumble. Everybody complained about everybody and in the end nothing got done. Then came Jesus, who told people to be loving and cooperative, and boom: 1800 years later we get the industrial revolution.

Because of Jesus we now find ourselves in a situation where cooperation is the dominant strategy. A normie engages in a ton of cooperation: with the tax collector who wants more and more of his money, with schools who want more and more of his kid’s time, with media who wants him to repeat more and more party lines, with the Zeitgeist of the Collective Spirit of the People’s Progress Towards a New Utopia. Essentially, our normie is cooperating himself into a crumbling Western empire.

Turns out that if everyone blindly cooperates, parasites sprout up like weeds until defection once again becomes the standard.

The point of a post-Christian religion is to once again create conditions for the kind of cooperation that led to the industrial revolution. This necessitates throwing out undead Christianity: you do not blindly cooperate. You cooperate with people that cooperate with you, you defect on people that defect on you. Christianity mixed with Darwinism. God and Gnon meet.

This also means we re-establish spiritual hierarchy, which, like regular hierarchy, is a prerequisite for cooperation. It is this hierarchical cooperation that turns a household into a force to be reckoned with, that allows a group of men to unite as a front against their enemies, that allows a tribe to conquer the world. Remember: Scientology bullied the Cathedral’s tax department into submission.

With a functioning hierarchy, men still gossip, lie and scheme, but they will do so in whispers behind closed doors. In your face they cooperate and contribute to the group’s wellbeing because incentives are thus that contributing to group wellbeing heightens status.

Without a functioning hierarchy, men gossip, lie and scheme, but they do so in your face, and they tell you that you are positively deluded for accusing them of gossiping, lying and scheming. Seeds will not sprout in such ground.

Spiritual dominance is established in the same way any sort of dominance is established: fought for, taken. But the fight is ritualistic. You can’t force spiritual dominance if no one listens, or if you are silenced the ritual is not allowed to happen.

If one of our priests is forbidden from establishing spiritual dominance, that is a sure sign an enemy priest is in better control and has vested interest in preventing you from establishing spiritual dominance..

They defect on you, you defect on them. Let them suffer the consequences of enemy priesthood, among others characterized by the annoying tendency that very little is said with very many words.

To recap, we started with a secular definition of Logos and noted that its telos is existence. Given human nature, game theory and the power of cooperation, the highest expression of that telos is freely chosen universal love, tempered by constant vigilance against defection while maintaining compassion for the defectors and forgiving those who repent. In addition, we must know the telos in order to fulfill it.

In Christian terms, looks like we got over half of the Ten Commandments (know Logos for the First, don’t defect or tempt yourself to defect for the rest), the importance of free will, the indestructibility of evil (group cooperation vs individual defection), loving the sinner and hating the sin (with defection as the sin), forgiveness (with conditions), and love and compassion toward all, assuming only secular knowledge and that it’s good to exist.

Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is an Ultimatum Game: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/07/iterated-prisoners-dilemma-is-ultimatum.html
The history of IPD shows that bounded cognition prevented the dominant strategies from being discovered for over over 60 years, despite significant attention from game theorists, computer scientists, economists, evolutionary biologists, etc. Press and Dyson have shown that IPD is effectively an ultimatum game, which is very different from the Tit for Tat stories told by generations of people who worked on IPD (Axelrod, Dawkins, etc., etc.).


For evolutionary biologists: Dyson clearly thinks this result has implications for multilevel (group vs individual selection):
... Cooperation loses and defection wins. The ZD strategies confirm this conclusion and make it sharper. ... The system evolved to give cooperative tribes an advantage over non-cooperative tribes, using punishment to give cooperation an evolutionary advantage within the tribe. This double selection of tribes and individuals goes way beyond the Prisoners' Dilemma model.

implications for fractionalized Europe vis-a-vis unified China?

and more broadly does this just imply we're doomed in the long run RE: cooperation, morality, the "good society", so on...? war and group-selection is the only way to get a non-crab bucket civilization?

Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent:


analogy for ultimatum game: the state gives the demos a bargain take-it-or-leave-it, and...if the demos refuses...violence?

The nature of human altruism: http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02043
- Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher

Some of the most fundamental questions concerning our evolutionary origins, our social relations, and the organization of society are centred around issues of altruism and selfishness. Experimental evidence indicates that human altruism is a powerful force and is unique in the animal world. However, there is much individual heterogeneity and the interaction between altruists and selfish individuals is vital to human cooperation. Depending on the environment, a minority of altruists can force a majority of selfish individuals to cooperate or, conversely, a few egoists can induce a large number of altruists to defect. Current gene-based evolutionary theories cannot explain important patterns of human altruism, pointing towards the importance of both theories of cultural evolution as well as gene–culture co-evolution.


Why are humans so unusual among animals in this respect? We propose that quantitatively, and probably even qualitatively, unique patterns of human altruism provide the answer to this question. Human altruism goes far beyond that which has been observed in the animal world. Among animals, fitness-reducing acts that confer fitness benefits on other individuals are largely restricted to kin groups; despite several decades of research, evidence for reciprocal altruism in pair-wise repeated encounters4,5 remains scarce6–8. Likewise, there is little evidence so far that individual reputation building affects cooperation in animals, which contrasts strongly with what we find in humans. If we randomly pick two human strangers from a modern society and give them the chance to engage in repeated anonymous exchanges in a laboratory experiment, there is a high probability that reciprocally altruistic behaviour will emerge spontaneously9,10.

However, human altruism extends far beyond reciprocal altruism and reputation-based cooperation, taking the form of strong reciprocity11,12. Strong reciprocity is a combination of altruistic rewarding, which is a predisposition to reward others for cooperative, norm-abiding behaviours, and altruistic punishment, which is a propensity to impose sanctions on others for norm violations. Strong reciprocators bear the cost of rewarding or punishing even if they gain no individual economic benefit whatsoever from their acts. In contrast, reciprocal altruists, as they have been defined in the biological literature4,5, reward and punish only if this is in their long-term self-interest. Strong reciprocity thus constitutes a powerful incentive for cooperation even in non-repeated interactions and when reputation gains are absent, because strong reciprocators will reward those who cooperate and punish those who defect.


We will show that the interaction between selfish and strongly reciprocal … [more]
concept  conceptual-vocab  wiki  reference  article  models  GT-101  game-theory  anthropology  cultural-dynamics  trust  cooperate-defect  coordination  iteration-recursion  sequential  axelrod  discrete  smoothness  evolution  evopsych  EGT  economics  behavioral-econ  sociology  new-religion  deep-materialism  volo-avolo  characterization  hsu  scitariat  altruism  justice  group-selection  decision-making  tribalism  organizing  hari-seldon  theory-practice  applicability-prereqs  bio  finiteness  multi  history  science  social-science  decision-theory  commentary  study  summary  giants  the-trenches  zero-positive-sum  🔬  bounded-cognition  info-dynamics  org:edge  explanation  exposition  org:nat  eden  retention  long-short-run  darwinian  markov  equilibrium  linear-algebra  nitty-gritty  competition  war  explanans  n-factor  europe  the-great-west-whale  occident  china  asia  sinosphere  orient  decentralized  markets  market-failure  cohesion  metabuch  stylized-facts  interdisciplinary  physics  pdf  pessimism  time  insight  the-basilisk  noblesse-oblige  the-watchers  ideas  l 
march 2018 by nhaliday
What Peter Thiel thinks about AI risk - Less Wrong
TL;DR: he thinks its an issue but also feels AGI is very distant and hence less worried about it than Musk.

I recommend the rest of the lecture as well, it's a good summary of "Zero to One"  and a good QA afterwards.

For context, in case anyone doesn't realize: Thiel has been MIRI's top donor throughout its history.

other stuff:
nice interview question: "thing you know is true that not everyone agrees on?"
"learning from failure overrated"
cleantech a huge market, hard to compete
software makes for easy monopolies (zero marginal costs, network effects, etc.)
for most of history inventors did not benefit much (continuous competition)
ethical behavior is a luxury of monopoly
ratty  lesswrong  commentary  ai  ai-control  risk  futurism  technology  speedometer  audio  presentation  musk  thiel  barons  frontier  miri-cfar  charity  people  track-record  venture  startups  entrepreneurialism  contrarianism  competition  market-power  business  google  truth  management  leadership  socs-and-mops  dark-arts  skunkworks  hard-tech  energy-resources  wire-guided  learning  software  sv  tech  network-structure  scale  marginal  cost-benefit  innovation  industrial-revolution  economics  growth-econ  capitalism  comparison  nationalism-globalism  china  asia  trade  stagnation  things  dimensionality  exploratory  world  developing-world  thinking  definite-planning  optimism  pessimism  intricacy  politics  war  career  planning  supply-demand  labor  science  engineering  dirty-hands  biophysical-econ  migration  human-capital  policy  canada  anglo  winner-take-all  polarization  amazon  business-models  allodium  civilization  the-classics  microsoft  analogy  gibbon  conquest-empire  realness  cynicism-idealism  org:edu  open-closed  ethics  incentives  m 
february 2018 by nhaliday
Books 2017 | West Hunter
Arabian Sands
The Aryans
The Big Show
The Camel and the Wheel
Civil War on Western Waters
Company Commander
Double-edged Secrets
The Forgotten Soldier
Genes in Conflict
Hive Mind
The horse, the wheel, and language
The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History
Habitable Planets for Man
The genetical theory of natural selection
The Rise of the Greeks
To Lose a Battle
The Jewish War
Tropical Gangsters
The Forgotten Revolution
Egil’s Saga
Time Patrol

Russo: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/books-2017/#comment-98568
west-hunter  scitariat  books  recommendations  list  top-n  confluence  2017  info-foraging  canon  🔬  ideas  s:*  history  mostly-modern  world-war  britain  old-anglo  travel  MENA  frontier  reflection  europe  gallic  war  sapiens  antiquity  archaeology  technology  divergence  the-great-west-whale  transportation  nature  long-short-run  intel  tradecraft  japan  asia  usa  spearhead  garett-jones  hive-mind  economics  broad-econ  giants  fisher  space  iron-age  medieval  the-classics  civilization  judaism  conquest-empire  africa  developing-world  institutions  science  industrial-revolution  the-trenches  wild-ideas  innovation  speedometer  nordic  mediterranean  speculation  fiction  scifi-fantasy  time  encyclopedic  multi  poast  critique  cost-benefit  tradeoffs  quixotic 
december 2017 by nhaliday
King Kong and Cold Fusion: Counterfactual analysis and the History of Technology
How “contingent” is technological history? Relying on models from evolutionary epistemology, I argue for an analogy with Darwinian Biology and thus a much greater degree of contingency than is normally supposed. There are three levels of contingency in technological development. The crucial driving force behind technology is what I call S-knowledge, that is, an understanding of the exploitable regularities of nature (which includes “science” as a subset). The development of techniques depend on the existence of epistemic bases in S. The “inevitability” of technology thus depends crucially on whether we condition it on the existence of the appropriate S-knowledge. Secondly, even if this knowledge emerges, there is nothing automatic about it being transformed into a technique that is, a set of instructions that transforms knowledge into production. Third, even if the techniques are proposed, there is selection which reflects the preferences and biases of an economy and injects another level of indeterminacy and contingency into the technological history of nations.

Moslem conquest of Europe, or a Mongol conquest, or a post-1492 epidemic, or a victory of the counter-reformation would have prevented the Industrial Revolution (Joel Mokyr)
pdf  study  essay  economics  growth-econ  broad-econ  microfoundations  history  medieval  early-modern  industrial-revolution  divergence  volo-avolo  random  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  wealth-of-nations  europe  the-great-west-whale  occident  path-dependence  roots  knowledge  technology  society  multi  twitter  social  commentary  backup  conquest-empire  war  islam  MENA  disease  parasites-microbiome  counterfactual  age-of-discovery  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  usa  scitariat  gnon  degrees-of-freedom 
november 2017 by nhaliday
“Editor’s Introduction to The New Economic History and the Industrial Revolution,” J. Mokyr (1998) | A Fine Theorem
I taught a fun three hours on the Industrial Revolution in my innovation PhD course this week. The absolutely incredible change in the condition of mankind that began in a tiny corner of Europe in an otherwise unremarkable 70-or-so years is totally fascinating. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath are so important to human history that I find it strange that we give people PhDs in social science without requiring at least some study of what happened.

My post today draws heavily on Joel Mokyr’s lovely, if lengthy, summary of what we know about the period. You really should read the whole thing, but if you know nothing about the IR, there are really five facts of great importance which you should be aware of.

1) The world was absurdly poor from the dawn of mankind until the late 1800s, everywhere.
2) The average person did not become richer, nor was overall economic growth particularly spectacular, during the Industrial Revolution; indeed, wages may have fallen between 1760 and 1830.
3) Major macro inventions, and growth, of the type seen in England in the late 1700s and early 1800s happened many times in human history.
4) It is hard for us today to understand how revolutionary ideas like “experimentation” or “probability” were.
5) The best explanations for “why England? why in the late 1700s? why did growth continue?” do not involve colonialism, slavery, or famous inventions.
econotariat  broad-econ  economics  growth-econ  cjones-like  summary  divergence  industrial-revolution  list  top-n  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  hi-order-bits  aphorism  wealth  wealth-of-nations  malthus  revolution  innovation  the-trenches  science  europe  the-great-west-whale  britain  conceptual-vocab  history  early-modern  technology  long-short-run  econ-metrics  data  time-series  conquest-empire  india  asia  scale  attaq  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  roots  cycles  flux-stasis  whiggish-hegelian 
october 2017 by nhaliday
Muscle, steam and combustion
Vaclav Smil’s Energy and Civilization is a monumental history of how humanity has harnessed muscle, steam and combustion to build palaces and skyscrapers, light the night and land on the Moon. Want to learn about the number of labourers needed to build Egypt’s pyramids of Giza, or US inventor Thomas Edison’s battles with Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse to electrify homes and cities, or the upscaling of power stations and blast furnaces in the twentieth century? Look no further.
pdf  books  review  vaclav-smil  pseudoE  deep-materialism  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  the-world-is-just-atoms  big-picture  history  antiquity  iron-age  medieval  early-modern  farmers-and-foragers  civilization  technology  industrial-revolution  heavy-industry  🔬  phys-energy  the-bones  environment  scale  economics  growth-econ  broad-econ  efficiency  chart  dirty-hands  fluid  input-output 
august 2017 by nhaliday
A Review of Avner Greif’s Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade
Avner Greif’s Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade (Cambridge University Press, 2006) is a major work in the ongoing project of many economists and economic historians to show that institutions are the fundamental driver of all economic history, and of all contemporary differences in economic performance. This review outlines the contribution of this book to the project and the general status of this long standing ambition.
pdf  spearhead  gregory-clark  essay  article  books  review  economics  growth-econ  broad-econ  institutions  history  early-modern  europe  the-great-west-whale  divergence  🎩  industrial-revolution  medieval  critique  roots  world  measurement  empirical  realness  cultural-dynamics  north-weingast-like  modernity  microfoundations  aphorism  track-record 
july 2017 by nhaliday
spaceships - Can there be a space age without petroleum (crude oil)? - Worldbuilding Stack Exchange

What was really important to our development of technology was not oil, but coal. Access to large deposits of high-quality coal largely fueled the industrial revolution, and it was the industrial revolution that really got us on the first rungs of the technological ladder.

Oil is a fantastic fuel for an advanced civilisation, but it's not essential. Indeed, I would argue that our ability to dig oil out of the ground is a crutch, one that we should have discarded long ago. The reason oil is so essential to us today is that all our infrastructure is based on it, but if we'd never had oil we could still have built a similar infrastructure. Solar power was first displayed to the public in 1878. Wind power has been used for centuries. Hydroelectric power is just a modification of the same technology as wind power.

Without oil, a civilisation in the industrial age would certainly be able to progress and advance to the space age. Perhaps not as quickly as we did, but probably more sustainably.

Without coal, though...that's another matter

What would the industrial age be like without oil and coal?: https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/45919/what-would-the-industrial-age-be-like-without-oil-and-coal

Out of the ashes: https://aeon.co/essays/could-we-reboot-a-modern-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels
It took a lot of fossil fuels to forge our industrial world. Now they're almost gone. Could we do it again without them?

But charcoal-based industry didn’t die out altogether. In fact, it survived to flourish in Brazil. Because it has substantial iron deposits but few coalmines, Brazil is the largest charcoal producer in the world and the ninth biggest steel producer. We aren’t talking about a cottage industry here, and this makes Brazil a very encouraging example for our thought experiment.

The trees used in Brazil’s charcoal industry are mainly fast-growing eucalyptus, cultivated specifically for the purpose. The traditional method for creating charcoal is to pile chopped staves of air-dried timber into a great dome-shaped mound and then cover it with turf or soil to restrict airflow as the wood smoulders. The Brazilian enterprise has scaled up this traditional craft to an industrial operation. Dried timber is stacked into squat, cylindrical kilns, built of brick or masonry and arranged in long lines so that they can be easily filled and unloaded in sequence. The largest sites can sport hundreds of such kilns. Once filled, their entrances are sealed and a fire is lit from the top.
q-n-a  stackex  curiosity  gedanken  biophysical-econ  energy-resources  long-short-run  technology  civilization  industrial-revolution  heavy-industry  multi  modernity  frontier  allodium  the-world-is-just-atoms  big-picture  ideas  risk  volo-avolo  news  org:mag  org:popup  direct-indirect  retrofit  dirty-hands  threat-modeling  duplication  iteration-recursion  latin-america  track-record  trivia  cocktail  data 
june 2017 by nhaliday
How important was colonial trade for the rise of Europe? | Economic Growth in History
The latter view became the orthodoxy among economists and economic historians after Patrick O’Brien’s 1982 paper, which in one of many of Patrick’s celebrated phrases, claims that “”the periphery vs peripheral” for Europe. He concludes the paper by writing:

“[G]rowth, stagnation, and decay everywhere in Western Europe can be explained mainly by reference to endogenous forces. … for the economic growth of the core, the periphery was peripheral.”

This is the view that remarkable scholars such as N. Crafts, Deirdre McCloskey, or Joel Mokyr repeat today (though Crafts would argue cotton imports would have mattered in a late stage, and my reading of Mokyr is that he has softened his earlier view from the 1980s a little, specifically in the book The Enlightened Economy.) Even recently, Brad deLong has classifyied O’Brien’s 1982 position as “air tight”.

Among economists and economic historians more on the economics side, I would say that O’Brien’s paper was only one of two strong hits against the “Worlds-System” and related schools of thoughts of the 1970s, the other hit being Solow’s earlier conclusion that TFP growth (usually interpreted as technology, though there’s more to it than that) has accounted for economic growth a great deal more than capital accumulation, which is what Hobsbawm and Wallerstein, in their neo-Marxist framework, emphasize.

A friend tonight, on the third world and the first world, and our relationships to the past: "They don't forget, and we don't remember."
imo the European Intifada is being fueled by anti-Europeanism & widely taught ideas like this one discussed - Europe stole its riches

The British Empire was cruel, rapacious and racist. But contrary to what Shashi Tharoor writes in An Era Of Darkness, the fault for India’s miseries lies upon itself.

Indeed, the anti-Tharoor argument is arguably closer to the truth, because the British tended to use the landlord system in places where landlords were already in place, and at times when the British were relatively weak and couldn’t afford to upset tradition. Only after they became confident in their power did the British start to bypass the landlord class and tax the cultivators directly. King’s College London historian Jon Wilson (2016) writes in India Conquered, “Wherever it was implemented, raiyatwar began as a form of military rule.” Thus the system that Tharoor implicitly promotes, and which is associated with higher agricultural productivity today, arose from the very same colonialism that he blames for so many of India’s current woes. History does not always tell the parables that we wish to hear.


India’s share of the world economy was large in the eighteenth century for one simple reason: when the entire world was poor, India had a large share of the world’s population. India’s share fell because with the coming of the Industrial Revolution, Europe and North America saw increases of income per capita to levels never before seen in all of human history. This unprecedented growth cannot be explained by Britain’s depredations against India. Britain was not importing steam engines from India.

The big story of the Great Divergence is not that India got poorer, but that other countries got much richer. Even at the peak of Mughal wealth in 1600, the best estimates of economic historians suggest that GDP per capita was 61% higher in Great Britain. By 1750–before the battle of Plassey and the British takeover–GDP per capita in Great Britain was more than twice what it was in India (Broadberry, Custodis, and Gupta 2015). The Great Divergence has long roots.

Tharoor seems blinded by the glittering jewels of the Maharajas and the Mughals. He writes with evident satisfaction that when in 1615 the first British ambassador presented himself to the court of Emperor Jehangir in Agra, “the Englishman was a supplicant at the feet of the world’s mightiest and most opulent monarch.” True; but the Emperor’s opulence was produced on the backs of millions of poor subjects. Writing at the same time and place, the Dutch merchant Francisco Pelsaert (1626) contrasted the “great superfluity and absolute power” of the rich with “the utter subjection and poverty of the common people–poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted…only as the home of stark want and the dwelling-place of bitter woe.” Indian rulers were rich because the empire was large and inequality was extreme.

In pre-colonial India the rulers, both Mughal and Maratha, extracted _anywhere from one-third to one half of all gross agricultural output_ and most of what was extracted was spent on opulence and the armed forces, not on improving agricultural productivity (Raychaudhuri 1982).


The British were awful rulers but the history of India is a long story of awful rulers (just as it is for most countries). Indeed, by Maddison’s (2007) calculations _the British extracted less from the Indian economy than did the Mughal Dynasty_. The Mughals built their palaces in India while the British built most of their palaces in Britain, but that was little comfort to the Indian peasant who paid for both. The Kohinoor diamond that graces the cover of Inglorious Empire is a telling symbol. Yes, it was stolen by the British (who stole it from the Sikhs who stole it from the Afghanis who stole it from the Mughals who stole it from one of the kings of South India). But how many Indians would have been better off if this bauble had stayed in India? Perhaps one reason why more Indians didn’t take up arms against the British was that for most of them, British rule was a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

more for effect on colonies: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:4b0128372fe9

INDIA AND THE GREAT DIVERGENCE: AN ANGLO-INDIAN COMPARISON OF GDP PER CAPITA, 1600-1871: http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Guptaetal.pdf
This paper provides estimates of Indian GDP constructed from the output side for the pre-1871 period, and combines them with population estimates to track changes in living standards. Indian per capita GDP declined steadily during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries before stabilising during the nineteenth century. As British living standards increased from the mid-seventeenth century, India fell increasingly behind. Whereas in 1600, Indian per capita GDP was over 60 per cent of the British level, by 1871 it had fallen to less than 15 per cent. As well as placing the origins of the Great Divergence firmly in the early modern period, the estimates suggest a relatively prosperous India at the height of the Mughal Empire, with living standards well above bare bones subsistence.

but some of the Asian wage data (especialy India) have laughably small samples (see Broadberry & Gupta)

How profitable was colonialism for various European powers?: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/p1q1q/how_profitable_was_colonialism_for_various/

How did Britain benefit from colonising India? What did colonial powers gain except for a sense of power?: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Britain-benefit-from-colonising-India-What-did-colonial-powers-gain-except-for-a-sense-of-power
The EIC period was mostly profitable, though it had recurring problems with its finances. The initial voyages from Surat in 1600s were hugely successful and brought profits as high as 200%. However, the competition from the Dutch East India Company started to drive down prices, at least for spices. Investing in EIC wasn’t always a sure shot way to gains - British investors who contributed to the second East India joint stock of 1.6 million pounds between 1617 and 1632 ended up losing money.


An alternate view is that the revenues of EIC were very small compared to the GDP of Britain, and hardly made an impact to the overall economy. For instance, the EIC Revenue in 1800 was 7.8m pounds while the British GDP in the same period was 343m pounds, and hence EIC revenue was only 2% of the overall GDP. (I got these figures from an individual blog and haven’t verified them).


The British Crown period - The territory of British India Provinces had expanded greatly and therefore the tax revenues had grown in proportion. The efficient taxation system paid its own administrative expenses as well as the cost of the large British Indian Army. British salaries were lucrative - the Viceroy received £25,000 a year, and Governors £10,000 for instance besides the lavish amenities in the form of subsidized housing, utilities, rest houses, etc.


Indian eminent intellectual, Dadabhai Naoroji wrote how the British systematically ensured the draining of Indian economy of its wealth and his theory is famously known as ‘Drain of Wealth’ theory. In his book 'Poverty' he estimated a 200–300 million pounds loss of revenue to Britain that is not returned.

At the same time, a fair bit of money did go back into India itself to support further colonial infrastructure. Note the explosion of infrastructure (Railway lines, 100+ Cantonment towns, 60+ Hill stations, Courthouses, Universities, Colleges, Irrigation Canals, Imperial capital of New Delhi) from 1857 onward till 1930s. Of course, these infrastructure projects were not due to any altruistic motive of the British. They were intended to make their India empire more secure, comfortable, efficient, and to display their grandeur. Huge sums of money were spent in the 3 Delhi Durbars conducted in this period.

So how profitable was the British Crown period? Probably not much. Instead bureaucracy, prestige, grandeur, comfort reigned supreme for the 70,000 odd British people in India.


There was a realization in Britain that colonies were not particularly economically beneficial to the home economy. … [more]
econotariat  broad-econ  article  history  early-modern  age-of-discovery  europe  the-great-west-whale  divergence  conquest-empire  economics  growth-econ  roots  trade  endo-exo  patho-altruism  expansionism  multi  twitter  social  discussion  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  🎩  attaq  albion  journos-pundits  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  cjones-like  big-picture  chart  news  org:mag  org:foreign  marginal-rev  wealth-of-nations  britain  india  asia  cost-benefit  leviathan  antidemos  religion  islam  class  pop-structure  nationalism-globalism  authoritarianism  property-rights  agriculture  econ-metrics  data  scale  government  industrial-revolution  pdf  regularizer  pseudoE  measurement  volo-avolo  time-series  anthropology  macro  sapiens  books  review  summary  counterfactual  stylized-facts  critique  heavy-industry  pre-ww2  study  technology  energy-resources  labor  capitalism  debate  org:data  org:lite  commentary  usa  piketty  variance-components  automation  west-hunter  scitariat  visualization  northeast  the-south  aphorism  h2o  fluid 
june 2017 by nhaliday
The Data We Have vs. the Data We Need: A Comment on the State of the “Divergence” Debate (Part I) | The NEP-HIS Blog
Maybe as reaction to Pomeranz, the Great Divergence gets dated earlier & earlier & earlier on the slimmest evidence. Next: Pangaea breakup
I think it's a bit out of control, the urge to keep bringing the roots of the great divergence earlier and earlier and earlier
@s8mb @antonhowes I am impatient w explanations which do not start w origination/adoption/diffusion technology as proximate cause
@s8mb @antonhowes in respect of which finance, market integration, & formal institutions all dead ends for divergence of West with the Rest
Are you more with Pomeranz that there's not major difference until c. 1750 or 1800, or do you put departure much earlier?
it's now beyond doubt established there was a major diff in living standards, state capacity, market integr+
between the most advanced regions of China and the most advanced regions of Europe, no doubt
@bswud +broadberry estimates evidence groupthink on matter (i.e., everyone wants to locate precursor to IR earlier and earlier) @antonhowes

The Little Divergence: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2014/06/12/the-little-divergence/
The Early Transformation of Britain's Economy: https://growthecon.com/blog/Britain-Shares/
There’s a nice working paper out by Patrick Wallis, Justin Colson, and David Chilosi called “Puncturing the Malthus Delusion: Structural Change in the British Economy before the Industrial Revolution, 1500-1800”. The big project they undertake here is to mine the probate inventories (along with several other sources) from Britain in this period to build up a picture of the rough allocation of workers across sectors. They do a very nice job of walking through their data sources, and the limitations, in the paper, so let me leave those details aside. In short, they use the reported occupations in wills to back out a picture of the sectoral structure, finding it consistent with other sources based on apprentice records, as well as prior estimates from specific years.

econotariat  commentary  broad-econ  growth-econ  divergence  history  early-modern  world  europe  the-great-west-whale  china  asia  sinosphere  comparison  chart  critique  measurement  debate  pseudoE  multi  wealth-of-nations  econ-metrics  twitter  social  discussion  lol  troll  rant  org:ngo  🎩  s:*  unaffiliated  occident  orient  article  cliometrics  economics  data  mostly-modern  japan  usa  india  anglo  pre-ww2  medieval  roots  path-dependence  revolution  stylized-facts  industrial-revolution  time-series  wealth  visualization  malthus  econ-productivity  technology  ideas  marginal  hari-seldon  flux-stasis  questions  agriculture  heavy-industry  labor  distribution  evidence 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Fig. 1: maximum possible Gini index still allowing subsistence of population (all surplus redistributed to 1 head honcho)
Fig. 2: scatter plot of Gini vs income, as well as possibility frontier

Ye Olde Inæqualitee Shoppe: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2014/10/01/inequality-possibility-frontier/
Gini indices, mean income, maximum feasible Gini, and "inequality extraction ratios" (gini2/max poss. inequality): https://pseudoerasmus.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/blwpg263.pdf
Growth and inequality in the great and little divergence debate: a Japanese perspective: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ehr.12071/epdf
pdf  study  pseudoE  economics  growth-econ  broad-econ  inequality  industrial-revolution  agriculture  compensation  wealth-of-nations  wealth  britain  history  medieval  early-modern  europe  the-great-west-whale  🎩  cultural-dynamics  econ-metrics  data  multi  article  modernity  rent-seeking  vampire-squid  elite  india  asia  japan  civilization  time-series  plots  volo-avolo  malthus  manifolds  database  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  conquest-empire  germanic  gallic  latin-america  world  china  leviathan  usa  measurement  crosstab  pro-rata  MENA  africa  developing-world  distribution  archaeology  taxes  redistribution  egalitarianism-hierarchy  feudal 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Enclosure - Wikipedia
Enclosure (sometimes inclosure) was the legal process in England during the 18th century of enclosing a number of small landholdings to create one larger farm.[1] Once enclosed, use of the land became restricted to the owner, and it ceased to be common land for communal use. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.

Enclosure could be accomplished by buying the ground rights and all common rights to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as Parliamentary enclosure. The latter process of enclosure was sometimes accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit.[2] The process of enclosure created a landless working class that provided the labour required in the new industries developing in the north of England. For example: "In agriculture the years between 1760 and 1820 are the years of wholesale enclosure in which, in village after village, common rights are lost".[3] Thompson argues that "Enclosure (when all the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery."[4][5]

Community and Market in England:
Open Fields and Enclosures Revisited: https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/allen/community.pdf
Commons Sense: Common Property Rights, Efficiency, and Institutional Change: http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/210a/readings/commons1.pdf
Allen’s Enclosure and the Yeoman: the View from Tory Fundamentalism: http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/Article_52.pdf
history  early-modern  institutions  law  leviathan  property-rights  agriculture  broad-econ  economics  growth-econ  capitalism  markets  entrepreneurialism  britain  anglosphere  wiki  reference  industrial-revolution  divergence  pre-ww2  multi  pdf  study  pseudoE  gregory-clark  cost-benefit  analysis  efficiency  contrarianism  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  🎩  frontier  modernity  political-econ  polanyi-marx 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Lucio Russo - Wikipedia
In The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn (Italian: La rivoluzione dimenticata), Russo promotes the belief that Hellenistic science in the period 320-144 BC reached heights not achieved by Classical age science, and proposes that it went further than ordinarily thought, in multiple fields not normally associated with ancient science.

La Rivoluzione Dimenticata (The Forgotten Revolution), Reviewed by Sandro Graffi: http://www.ams.org/notices/199805/review-graffi.pdf

Before turning to the question of the decline of Hellenistic science, I come back to the new light shed by the book on Euclid’s Elements and on pre-Ptolemaic astronomy. Euclid’s definitions of the elementary geometric entities—point, straight line, plane—at the beginning of the Elements have long presented a problem.7 Their nature is in sharp contrast with the approach taken in the rest of the book, and continued by mathematicians ever since, of refraining from defining the fundamental entities explicitly but limiting themselves to postulating the properties which they enjoy. Why should Euclid be so hopelessly obscure right at the beginning and so smooth just after? The answer is: the definitions are not Euclid’s. Toward the beginning of the second century A.D. Heron of Alexandria found it convenient to introduce definitions of the elementary objects (a sign of decadence!) in his commentary on Euclid’s Elements, which had been written at least 400 years before. All manuscripts of the Elements copied ever since included Heron’s definitions without mention, whence their attribution to Euclid himself. The philological evidence leading to this conclusion is quite convincing.8


What about the general and steady (on the average) impoverishment of Hellenistic science under the Roman empire? This is a major historical problem, strongly tied to the even bigger one of the decline and fall of the antique civilization itself. I would summarize the author’s argument by saying that it basically represents an application to science of a widely accepted general theory on decadence of antique civilization going back to Max Weber. Roman society, mainly based on slave labor, underwent an ultimately unrecoverable crisis as the traditional sources of that labor force, essentially wars, progressively dried up. To save basic farming, the remaining slaves were promoted to be serfs, and poor free peasants reduced to serfdom, but this made trade disappear. A society in which production is almost entirely based on serfdom and with no trade clearly has very little need of culture, including science and technology. As Max Weber pointed out, when trade vanished, so did the marble splendor of the ancient towns, as well as the spiritual assets that went with it: art, literature, science, and sophisticated commercial laws. The recovery of Hellenistic science then had to wait until the disappearance of serfdom at the end of the Middle Ages. To quote Max Weber: “Only then with renewed vigor did the old giant rise up again.”


The epilogue contains the (rather pessimistic) views of the author on the future of science, threatened by the apparent triumph of today’s vogue of irrationality even in leading institutions (e.g., an astrology professorship at the Sorbonne). He looks at today’s ever-increasing tendency to teach science more on a fideistic than on a deductive or experimental basis as the first sign of a decline which could be analogous to the post-Hellenistic one.

Praising Alexandrians to excess: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/2058-7058/17/4/35
The Economic Record review: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2004.00203.x

listed here: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:c5c09f2687c1

Was Roman Science in Decline? (Excerpt from My New Book): https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13477
people  trivia  cocktail  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  speculation  west-hunter  scitariat  knowledge  wiki  ideas  wild-ideas  technology  innovation  contrarianism  multi  pdf  org:mat  books  review  critique  regularizer  todo  piracy  physics  canon  science  the-trenches  the-great-west-whale  broad-econ  the-world-is-just-atoms  frontier  speedometer  🔬  conquest-empire  giants  economics  article  growth-econ  cjones-like  industrial-revolution  empirical  absolute-relative  truth  rot  zeitgeist  gibbon  big-peeps  civilization  malthus  roots  old-anglo  britain  early-modern  medieval  social-structure  limits  quantitative-qualitative  rigor  lens  systematic-ad-hoc  analytical-holistic  cycles  space  mechanics  math  geometry  gravity  revolution  novelty  meta:science  is-ought  flexibility  trends  reason  applicability-prereqs  theory-practice  traces  evidence  psycho-atoms 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Interview: Mostly Sealing Wax | West Hunter

- conformity and Google, defense and spying (China knows prob almost all our "secrets")
- in the past you could just find new things faster than people could reverse-engineer. part of the problem is that innovation is slowing down today (part of the reason for convergence by China/developing world).
- introgression from archaics of various kinds
- mutational load and IQ, wrath of khan neanderthal
- trade and antiquity (not that useful besides ideas tbh), Roman empire, disease, smallpox
- spices needed to be grown elsewhere, but besides that...
- analogy: caste system in India (why no Brahmin car repairmen?), slavery in Greco-Roman times, more water mills in medieval times (rivers better in north, but still could have done it), new elite not liking getting hands dirty, low status of engineers, rise of finance
- crookery in finance, hedge fund edge might be substantially insider trading
- long-term wisdom of moving all manufacturing to China...?
- economic myopia: British financialization before WW1 vis-a-vis Germany. North vs. South and cotton/industry, camels in Middle East vs. wagons in Europe
- Western medicine easier to convert to science than Eastern, pseudoscience and wrong theories better than bag of recipes
- Greeks definitely knew some things that were lost (eg, line in Pliny makes reference to combinatorics calculation rediscovered by German dude much later. think he's referring to Catalan numbers?), Lucio Russo book
- Indo-Europeans, Western Europe, Amerindians, India, British Isles, gender, disease, and conquest
- no farming (Dark Age), then why were people still farming on Shetland Islands north of Scotland?
- "symbolic" walls, bodies with arrows
- family stuff, children learning, talking dog, memory and aging
- Chinese/Japanese writing difficulty and children learning to read
- Hatfield-McCoy feud: the McCoy family was actually a case study in a neurological journal. they had anger management issues because of cancers of their adrenal gland (!!).

the Chinese know...: https://macropolo.org/casting-off-real-beijings-cryptic-warnings-finance-taking-economy/
Over the last couple of years, a cryptic idiom has crept into the way China’s top leaders talk about risks in the country’s financial system: tuo shi xiang xu (脱实向虚), which loosely translates as “casting off the real for the empty.” Premier Li Keqiang warned against it at his press conference at the end of the 2016 National People’s Congress (NPC). At this year’s NPC, Li inserted this very expression into his annual work report. And in April, while on an inspection tour of Guangxi, President Xi Jinping used the term, saying that China must “unceasingly promote industrial modernization, raise the level of manufacturing, and not allow the real to be cast off for the empty.”

Such an odd turn of phrase is easy to overlook, but it belies concerns about a significant shift in the way that China’s economy works. What Xi and Li were warning against is typically called financialization in developed economies. It’s when “real” companies—industrial firms, manufacturers, utility companies, property developers, and anyone else that produces a tangible product or service—take their money and, rather than put it back into their businesses, invest it in “empty”, or speculative, assets. It occurs when the returns on financial investments outstrip those in the real economy, leading to a disproportionate amount of money being routed into the financial system.

Bad day for Lehman Bros.
Good day for everyone else, then.
west-hunter  interview  audio  podcast  econotariat  cracker-econ  westminster  culture-war  polarization  tech  sv  google  info-dynamics  business  multi  military  security  scitariat  intel  error  government  defense  critique  rant  race  clown-world  patho-altruism  history  mostly-modern  cold-war  russia  technology  innovation  stagnation  being-right  archaics  gene-flow  sapiens  genetics  the-trenches  thinking  sequential  similarity  genomics  bioinformatics  explanation  europe  asia  china  migration  evolution  recent-selection  immune  atmosphere  latin-america  ideas  sky  developing-world  embodied  africa  MENA  genetic-load  unintended-consequences  iq  enhancement  aDNA  gedanken  mutation  QTL  missing-heritability  tradeoffs  behavioral-gen  biodet  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  trade  gibbon  disease  parasites-microbiome  demographics  population  urban  transportation  efficiency  cost-benefit  india  agriculture  impact  status  class  elite  vampire-squid  analogy  finance  higher-ed  trends  rot  zeitgeist  🔬  hsu  stories  aphorism  crooked  realne 
may 2017 by nhaliday
One more time | West Hunter
One of our local error sources suggested that it would be impossible to rebuild technical civilization, once fallen. Now if every human were dead I’d agree, but in most other scenarios it wouldn’t be particularly difficult, assuming that the survivors were no more silly and fractious than people are today.  So assume a mild disaster, something like the effect of myxomatosis on the rabbits of Australia, or perhaps toe-to-toe nuclear combat with the Russkis – ~90%  casualties worldwide.

Books are everywhere. In the type of scenario I sketched out, almost no knowledge would be lost – so Neolithic tech is irrelevant. Look, if a single copy of the 1911 Britannica survived, all would be well.

You could of course harvest metals from the old cities. But even if if you didn’t, the idea that there is no more copper or zinc or tin in the ground is just silly. “recoverable ore” is mostly an economic concept.

Moreover, if we’re talking wiring and electrical uses, one can use aluminum, which makes up 8% of the Earth’s crust.

Some of those book tell you how to win.

Look, assume that some communities strive to relearn how to make automatic weapons and some don’t. How does that story end? Do I have to explain everything?

I guess so!

Well, perhaps having a zillion times more books around would make a difference. That and all the “X for Dummies” books, which I think the Romans didn’t have.

A lot of Classical civ wasn’t very useful: on the whole they didn’t invent much. On the whole, technology advanced quite a bit more rapidly in Medieval times.

How much coal and oil are in the ground that can still be extracted with 19th century tech? Honest question; I don’t know.
Lots of coal left. Not so much oil (using simple methods), but one could make it from low-grade coal, with the Fischer-Tropsch process. Sasol does this.

Then again, a recovering society wouldn’t need much at first.

reply to: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/one-more-time/#comment-69220
That’s more like it.

#1. Consider Grand Coulee Dam. Gigawatts. Feeling of power!
#2. Of course.
#3. Might be easier to make superconducting logic circuits with MgB2, starting over.

Your typical biker guy is more mechanically minded than the average Joe. Welding, electrical stuff, this and that.

If fossil fuels were unavailable -or just uneconomical at first- we’d be back to charcoal for our Stanley Steamers and railroads. We’d still have both.

The French, and others, used wood-gasifier trucks during WWII.

Teslas are of course a joke.
west-hunter  scitariat  civilization  risk  nihil  gedanken  frontier  allodium  technology  energy-resources  knowledge  the-world-is-just-atoms  discussion  speculation  analysis  biophysical-econ  big-picture  🔬  ideas  multi  history  iron-age  the-classics  medieval  europe  poast  the-great-west-whale  the-trenches  optimism  volo-avolo  mostly-modern  world-war  gallic  track-record  musk  barons  transportation  driving  contrarianism  agriculture  retrofit  industrial-revolution  dirty-hands  books  competition  war  group-selection  comparison  mediterranean  conquest-empire  gibbon  speedometer  class  threat-modeling  duplication  iteration-recursion  trivia  cocktail  encyclopedic  definite-planning  embodied  gnosis-logos  kumbaya-kult 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Unenumerated: Why the industrial revolution?
unaffiliated  szabo  history  early-modern  spearhead  gregory-clark  roots  industrial-revolution  divergence  culture  society  anthropology  age-of-discovery  developing-world  protestant-catholic  embedded-cognition  commentary  chart  multi  institutions  agriculture  europe  asia  the-great-west-whale  britain  anglosphere  values  china  hanson  gwern  econotariat  marginal-rev  debate  economics  growth-econ  speculation  sinosphere  oceans  capital  capitalism  🎩  transportation  law  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  broad-econ  pseudoE  cultural-dynamics  galor-like  tradeoffs  parenting  developmental  life-history  malthus  zeitgeist  wealth-of-nations  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  property-rights  conquest-empire  modernity  political-econ  microfoundations  ideas  network-structure  meta:reading  writing 
may 2017 by nhaliday
William Stanley Jevons - Wikipedia
William Stanley Jevons FRS (/ˈdʒɛvənz/;[2] 1 September 1835 – 13 August 1882) was an English economist and logician.

Irving Fisher described Jevons' book A General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy (1862) as the start of the mathematical method in economics.[3] It made the case that economics as a science concerned with quantities is necessarily mathematical.[4] In so doing, it expounded upon the "final" (marginal) utility theory of value. Jevons' work, along with similar discoveries made by Carl Menger in Vienna (1871) and by Léon Walras in Switzerland (1874), marked the opening of a new period in the history of economic thought. Jevons' contribution to the marginal revolution in economics in the late 19th century established his reputation as a leading political economist and logician of the time.

Jevons broke off his studies of the natural sciences in London in 1854 to work as an assayer in Sydney, where he acquired an interest in political economy. Returning to the UK in 1859, he published General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy in 1862, outlining the marginal utility theory of value, and A Serious Fall in the Value of Gold in 1863. For Jevons, the utility or value to a consumer of an additional unit of a product is inversely related to the number of units of that product he already owns, at least beyond some critical quantity.

It was for The Coal Question (1865), in which he called attention to the gradual exhaustion of the UK's coal supplies, that he received public recognition, in which he put forth what is now known as the Jevons paradox, i.e. that increases in energy production efficiency leads to more not less consumption. The most important of his works on logic and scientific methods is his Principles of Science (1874),[5] as well as The Theory of Political Economy (1871) and The State in Relation to Labour (1882). Among his inventions was the logic piano, a mechanical computer.

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes the Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[2] However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[3]

The Coal Question: http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ.html
people  big-peeps  history  early-modern  britain  economics  growth-econ  ORFE  industrial-revolution  energy-resources  giants  anglosphere  wiki  nihil  civilization  prepping  old-anglo  biophysical-econ  the-world-is-just-atoms  pre-ww2  multi  stylized-facts  efficiency  technology  org:econlib  books  modernity  volo-avolo  values  formal-values  decision-making  decision-theory 
may 2017 by nhaliday
How Innovation Accelerated in Britain 1651-1851
another possible explanation for this...?:
After staring at my data for long enough, I began to notice a pattern. People went on to innovate if inventors had been among their teachers, colleagues, employers, employees, neighbours, friends, family, and acquaintances. And the more I looked, the more examples I found. Of the hundreds of inventors I studied, nearly all of them began to innovate after meeting inventors. Inspiration mattered - inventing seemed to spread from person to person.
albion  wonkish  econotariat  tumblr  social  essay  innovation  history  early-modern  industrial-revolution  divergence  britain  spreading  anglosphere  optimate  virtu  courage  curiosity  discovery  broad-econ  article  the-great-west-whale  cliometrics  cultural-dynamics  info-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  microfoundations 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Geopolitics and Asia’s Little Divergence – Mark Koyama – Medium
Why did Japan successfully modernize in the 19th century while China failed to do so? Both China and Japan came under increasing threat from the Western powers after 1850. In response, Japan successfully undertook a program of state building and modernization; in China, however, attempts to modernize proved unsuccessful and the power of the central state was fatally weakened. The failure to build a modern state led to China’s so-called lost century while Japan’s success enabled it to become the first non-western country to industrialize. In a paper with Chiaki Moriguchi (Hitotsubashi University) and Tuan-Hwee Sng (NUS), we explore this question using a combination of historical evidence and formal modeling.

Why China did not industrialise before Western Europe may be a tantalising and irresistible subject, but frankly it’s a parlour game. What remains underexplored, however, is the more tractable issue of why Japan managed, but China failed, to initiate an early transition to modern growth and convergence with the West. A recent paper argues that the gap in state capacity between Qing China and Tokugawa Japan was responsible for the divergence. [Edit: Please note, this blogpost disputes that argument.]
org:med  econotariat  broad-econ  article  study  summary  history  early-modern  economics  growth-econ  divergence  political-econ  leviathan  incentives  geopolitics  world  asia  china  japan  comparison  roots  coordination  decentralized  stylized-facts  government  institutions  cultural-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  iron-age  medieval  homo-hetero  sinosphere  industrial-revolution  cliometrics  scale  orient  world-war  multi  pseudoE  pre-ww2  convergence  microfoundations  geography 
april 2017 by nhaliday
The End of the Past | Notes On Liberty
The phenomenon coined by Fernand Braudel, the “Betrayal of the Bourgeois,” was particularly powerful in ancient Rome. Great merchants flourished, but “in order to be truly valued, they eventually had to become rentiers, as Cicero affirmed without hesitation: ‘Nay, it even seems to deserve the highest respect, if those who are engaged in it [trade], satiated, or rather , I should say, satisfied with the fortunes they have made, make their way from port to a country estate, as they have often made it from the sea into port. But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more delightful, none more becoming to a freeman’” (Schiavone, 2000, 103).

Such a cultural argument fits perfectly with Deirdre McCloskey’s claim in her recent trilogy that it was the adoption of bourgeois cultural norms and specifically bourgeois rhetoric that distinguished and caused the rise of north-western Europe after 1650 (here, here, and here).

Could Rome Have Had an Industrial Revolution?: https://medium.com/@MarkKoyama/could-rome-have-had-an-industrial-revolution-4126717370a2
This question is prompted by Kingdom of the Wicked, a new book by Helen Dale. Dale forces us to consider Jesus as a religious extremist in a Roman world not unlike our own. The novel throws new light on our own attitudes to terrorism, globalization, torture, and the clash of cultures. It is highly recommended.
Indirectly, however, Dale also addresses the possibility of sustained economic growth in the ancient world. The novel is set in a 1st century Roman empire during the governorship of Pontus Pilate and the reign of Tiberius. But in this alternative history, the Mediterranean world has experienced a series of technical innovations following the survival of Archimedes at the siege of Syracuse, which have led to rapid economic growth. As Dale explains in the book’s excellent afterword (published separately here), if Rome had experienced an industrial revolution, it would likely have differed from the actual one; and she briefly plots a path to Roman industrialization. All of this is highly stimulating and has prompted me to speculate further about whether Rome could have experienced modern economic growth and if Dale’s proposed path towards a Roman Industrial Revolution is plausible.


This assessment is bold but consistent with the recent findings of archaeologists who continue to uncover evidence of dense trading networks and widespread ownership of industrially produced consumption goods across the empire.


From this wealth of evidence, we know that the classical world experienced what Jack Goldstone has called a “growth efflorescence”.
But at even the Roman empire at its peak in the reign of Marcus Aurelius does not appear to have been on the verge of modern economic growth. Rome lacked some of the crucial characteristics of Britain on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. There was no culture of invention and discovery, no large population of skilled tinkerers or machine builders, and no evidence of labor scarcity that might have driven the invention of labor-saving inventions.

Could the Ancients Have Had an Industrial Revolution?: http://adlows.com/2017/11/12/ancient-industrial-revolution/
I would suggest that what specifically was missing in the case of Rome was a ratchet. By that, I mean some way to lock in the gains of new inventions. Where both the Dutch and British had many social and commercial mechanisms to spread knowledge of new innovations, Roman technology stayed in use only so long as the state continued to fund it. There was no widely-diffused base of knowledge that was constantly passed on and modified, resilient enough to survive political upheavals.

To put this in perspective, consider how stunningly little of Rome’s engineering knowledge endured the collapse of the empire. Imperial authorities erected aqueducts and amphitheaters, and laced the land with a complex network of roads and bridges. Yet none of these feats of engineering ratcheted; all such knowledge was lost with the fall of Rome.


So for all the astonishing engineering feats of the Romans, they were unlikely to incubate an industrial revolution. Is there anyone in antiquity who could have? Perhaps: those notoriously metaphysical Greeks.


Classical antiquity was a low point of human intelligence: https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2019/08/classical-antiquity-was-low-point-of.html
econotariat  history  economics  growth-econ  iron-age  mediterranean  europe  early-modern  comparison  the-classics  innovation  roots  capitalism  the-great-west-whale  industrial-revolution  coordination  counterfactual  culture  society  values  divergence  broad-econ  revolution  rent-seeking  social-norms  🎩  gibbon  chart  leviathan  cultural-dynamics  zeitgeist  wealth-of-nations  great-powers  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  modernity  political-econ  microfoundations  technology  cjones-like  reason  multi  fiction  scifi-fantasy  gedanken  org:med  britain  gallic  labor  supply-demand  incentives  trade  status  law  property-rights  institutions  markets  conquest-empire  inequality  egalitarianism-hierarchy  knowledge  volo-avolo  decentralized  military  war  darwinian  competition  speculation  science  the-trenches  pseudoE  hari-seldon  cycles  whiggish-hegelian  flux-stasis  malthus  gnosis-logos  eden-heaven  west-hunter  scitariat  backup  twitter  social  discussion  explanans  islam  MENA  pop-diff  iq  aDNA  the-bones  network-structure  density  demographics  fer 
april 2017 by nhaliday
Neurodiversity | West Hunter
Having an accurate evaluation of a syndrome as a generally bad thing isn’t equivalent to attacking those with that syndrome. Being a leper is a bad thing, not just another wonderful flavor of humanity [insert hot tub joke] , but that doesn’t mean that we have to spend our spare time playing practical jokes on lepers, tempting though that is.. Leper hockey. We can cure leprosy, and we are right to do so. Preventing deafness through rubella vaccination was the right thing too – deafness sucks. And so on. As we get better at treating and preventing, humans are going to get more uniform – and that’s a good thing. Back to normalcy!

focus: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comment-88691
interesting discussion of mutational load: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/neurodiversity/#comment-88793

I was thinking again about the consequences of having more small-effect deleterious mutations than average. I don’t think that they would push hard in a particular direction in phenotype space – I don’t believe they would make you look weird, but by definition they would be bad for you, reduce fitness. I remembered a passage in a book by Steve Stirling, in which our heroine felt as if her brain ‘was moving like a mechanism of jewels and steel precisely formed.’ It strikes me that a person with an extra dollop of this kind of genetic load wouldn’t feel like that. And of course that heroine did have low genetic load, being the product of millennia of selective breeding, not to mention an extra boost from the Invisible Crown.

Well, what does the distribution of fitness burden by frequency look like for deleterious mutations of a given fitness penalty?
It’s proportional to the mutation rate for that class. There is reason to believe that there are more ways to moderately or slightly screw up a protein than to really ruin it, which indicates that mild mutations make up most load in protein-coding sequences. More of the genome is made up of conserved regulatory sequences, but mutations there probably have even milder effects, since few mutations in non-coding sequences cause a serious Mendelian disease.

I have wondered if there was some sort of evolutionary tradeoff between muscles and brains over the past hundred thousand years through dystrophin’s dual role. There is some evidence of recent positive selection among proteins that interact with dystrophin, such as DTNBP1 and DTNA.

Any novel environment where higher intelligence can accrue more caloric energy than brute strength alone (see: the invention of the bow) should relax the selection pressure for muscularity. The Neanderthals didn’t fare so well with the brute strength strategy.
Sure: that’s what you might call an inevitable tradeoff, a consequence of the laws of physics. Just as big guys need more food. But because of the way our biochemistry is wired, there can be tradeoffs that exist but are not inevitable consequences of the laws of physics – particularly likely when a gene has two fairly different functions, as they often do.
west-hunter  discussion  morality  philosophy  evolution  sapiens  psychology  psychiatry  disease  neuro  scitariat  ideology  rhetoric  diversity  prudence  genetic-load  autism  focus  👽  multi  poast  mutation  equilibrium  scifi-fantasy  rant  🌞  paternal-age  perturbation  nibble  ideas  iq  quotes  aphorism  enhancement  signal-noise  blowhards  dysgenics  data  distribution  objektbuch  tradeoffs  embodied  speculation  metabolic  volo-avolo  degrees-of-freedom  race  africa  genetics  genomics  bio  QTL  population-genetics  stylized-facts  britain  history  early-modern  pre-ww2  galton  old-anglo  giants  industrial-revolution  neuro-nitgrit  recent-selection  selection  medicine  darwinian  strategy  egalitarianism-hierarchy  CRISPR  biotech  definition  reflection  poetry  deep-materialism  EGT  discrimination  conceptual-vocab  psycho-atoms 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Why Isn't the Whole World Developed? Lessons from the Cotton Mills
In 1910 one New England cotton textile operative performed as much work as 1.5 British, 2.3 German, and nearly 6 Greek, Japanese, Indian, or Chinese workers. Input substitution, and differences in technology, management, and workers' training or inherent abilities do not explain this. Instead local culture seems to have determined worker performance. Such differences, if widespread, would explain much of the international variation in wages. They also have important consequences for understanding labor migration, the choice of technique, and the sources of economic growth.
study  economics  history  growth-econ  cliometrics  human-capital  labor  econ-productivity  britain  usa  europe  comparison  anglo  discipline  pdf  gregory-clark  culture  industrial-revolution  world  spearhead  technology  northeast  mostly-modern  the-world-is-just-atoms  divergence  capitalism  biophysical-econ  homo-hetero  heavy-industry  broad-econ  pseudoE  wealth-of-nations  microfoundations 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Information Processing: Recent evolution in humans
"There is a good theoretical argument for why evolution may speed up due to population growth. Given a particular probability distribution for producing beneficial mutations, a large population implies a faster rate of incidence of such mutations. Because reproductive dynamics leads to exponential solutions (i.e., a slight increase in expected number of offspring compounds rapidly), the time required for an advantageous allele to sweep through a population only grows logarithmically with the population, while the rate of incidence grows linearly."

To elaborate on the last point, consider the set of mutations that are sufficiently advantageous that they would sweep through a population of N humans (i.e. reach fixation) in some specified period of time, such as 5000 years. If the probability of such a mutation is p, the rate of occurrence in the population is proportional to pN. Now imagine the population of the group increases to 100N. The rate of mutations is then much higher -- 100pN -- but the time necessary for fixation has only increased by the logarithm of 100 since selective advantage works exponentially: the population fraction with the mutant gene grows as exp( r t ), where r is the reproductive advantage and t is time. This rather obvious point -- that linear beats log -- suggests that the rate of evolution will speed up as population size increases. (A possible loophole is if the probability of mutations as a function of relative advantage is itself an exponential function, and falls off rapidly with increasing advantage.) If the Hawks et al. results are any guide, as many as 7% of all genes have been under intense selection in the last 10-50,000 years. (See here for another summary of the research with a nice illustration of how linkage disequilibrium arises due to favorable mutations.) Importantly, the variants that reached fixation over this period are different in different geographical regions.

Thus civilization, with its consequently larger populations supported by agriculture, enhanced rather than suppressed the rate of human evolution.

A related question is whether selection pressure remained strong after the development of civilization. Perhaps reproductive success became largely decoupled from genetic influences once humans became civilized? Not only is this implausible, but it seems to be directly contradicted by evidence. The graph below, based on English inheritance records, shows that the rich gradually out-reproduced the poor: the wealthy had more than twice as many surviving children as the poor. (Note the range of inheritances in the graph covers the middle class to moderately wealthy; the poor and very rich are not shown.) Thus, in this period of history wealth was a good proxy for reproductive success. Genes which were beneficial for the accrual of wealth (e.g., for intelligence, self-discipline, delayal of gratification, etc.) would have become more prevalent over time. In a simple population model, any lineage that remained consistently poor over a few hundred year period would contribute almost zero to today's population of Britons.


See also my review of Clark's A Farewell to Alms, and this video of a talk by Clark. When Clark wrote the book he wasn't sure whether it was genetic change or cultural change that led to the industrial revolution in England. In the video lecture he comments that he has since become convinced it was largely genetic. That doesn't jibe with the back of the envelope calculation I give below -- even in the optimistic case (largest effect) it would seem to take a thousand years to have a big shift in overall population characteristics.

Here's a very crude back of the envelope calculation: if, in a brutal Malthusian setting, the top 10% in wealth were to out-reproduce the average by 20% per generation, then after only 10 generations or so (say 2-300 years), essentially everyone in the population would trace their heritage in some way to this group. In our population the average IQ of the high income group is about +.5 SD relative to the average. If the heritability of IQ is .5, then in an ideal case we could see a selection-driven increase of +.25 SD every 2-300 years, or +1 SD per millenium. This is highly speculative, of course, and oversimplified, but it shows that there is (plausibly) no shortage of selection pressure to drive noticeable, even dramatic, change. If the estimate is too high by an order of magnitude (the rich group doesn't directly replace the others; there is inevitably a lot of intermarriage between descendants of the rich and non-rich), a change of +1 SD per 10,000 years would still be possible. There's clearly no shortage in genetic variation affecting intelligence: we see 1 SD variations not just within populations but commonly in individual families!
hsu  scitariat  west-hunter  commentary  books  review  summary  evolution  sapiens  gregory-clark  spearhead  industrial-revolution  class  mobility  cliometrics  britain  recent-selection  mutation  civilization  genetics  population-genetics  street-fighting  methodology  🌞  magnitude  biodet  malthus  nibble  roots  divergence  the-great-west-whale  analysis  models  gedanken  sociology  broad-econ  behavioral-gen  wealth-of-nations 
january 2017 by nhaliday
'Decessit sine prole' - Childlessness, Celibacy, and Survival of the Richest in Pre-Industrial England - Centre for Economic Policy Research
Previous work has shown that England's pre-industrial elites had more surviving off-spring than their lower-class counterparts. This evidence was used to argue that the spread of upper-class values via downward social mobility helped England grow rich. We contest this view, showing that the lower classes outperformed the rich in terms of reproduction once singleness and childlessness are accounted for. Indeed, Merchants, Professionals and Gentry married less, and their marriages were more often childless. Many died without descendants (decessit sine prole). We also establish that the most prosperous socio-economic group in terms of reproduction was the middle class, which we argue was instrumental to England's economic success because most of its new industrialists originated from middle-class families.

Childlessness and Economic Development : A Survey: https://sites.uclouvain.be/econ/DP/IRES/2019001.pdf
maybe it was eugenic for the aristocracy to be outbred by the bourgeoisie?
I remember Gregory Clark indicating that English aristocracy was outbred by wealthy commoners largely due to specialization in violent activities at least until 17 th century. Maybe not accounting for bastards.
yes, this supports him
Wonder what Gregory Clark thinks about this
He probably would think 👍
study  spearhead  regularizer  economics  growth-econ  britain  divergence  industrial-revolution  class  mobility  fertility  history  cliometrics  recent-selection  human-capital  europe  pseudoE  gregory-clark  🎩  🌞  critique  biodet  early-modern  lived-experience  roots  the-great-west-whale  sociology  demographic-transition  null-result  broad-econ  behavioral-gen  multi  twitter  social  scitariat  gnon  commentary  backup  data  pro-rata  time-series  aristos 
january 2017 by nhaliday
The most stimulating economic history books since 2000 | pseudoerasmus
Inspired by Vincent Geloso, here is a list of the 20-25 books in economic history published since 2000 which I have found most stimulating or provocative. Not necessarily comprehensive, or the best, or the most ‘correct’, but things which influenced, stimulated, or provoked my own personal thinking.

some highlights I wasn't already aware of:
- Lee & Feng, One Quarter of Humanity: Malthusian Mythology and Chinese Realities, 1700-2000
- Mokyr, The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1850
- Mitterauer, Why Europe? The Medieval Origins of its Special Path
- Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy
- Temin, The Roman Market Economy

econotariat  pseudoE  books  recommendations  top-n  reflection  economics  history  cliometrics  🎩  multi  europe  divergence  britain  industrial-revolution  mediterranean  demographics  fertility  china  asia  confluence  iron-age  early-modern  gregory-clark  turchin  malthus  roots  sinosphere  galor-like  broad-econ  wealth-of-nations  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  2017 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Common law and the origin of shareholder protection
This paper examines the origins of investor protection under the common law by analysing the development of shareholder protection in Victorian Britain, the home of the common law. In this era, very little was codified, with corporate law simply suggesting a default template of rules. Ultimately, the matter of protection was one for the corporation and its shareholders. Using c.500 articles of association and ownership records of publicly-traded Victorian corporations, we find that corporations afforded investors with just as much protection as is present in modern corporate law and that firms with better shareholder protection had more diffuse ownership.
study  economics  cliometrics  industrial-revolution  law  britain  institutions  anglosphere  business  finance  history  contracts  industrial-org  anglo  wonkish  early-modern  roots  the-great-west-whale  capitalism  broad-econ  political-econ  pre-ww2  modernity  north-weingast-like  corporation  axioms  organizing  interests  protocol-metadata 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Morris on the great divergence
Eighteenth-century intellectuals called this approach kaozheng, “evidential research.” It emphasized facts over speculation, bringing methodical, rigorous approaches to fields as diverse as mathematics, astronomy, geography, linguistics, and history, and consistently developing rules for assessing evidence. Kaozheng paralleled western Europe’s scientific revolution in every way—except one: it did not develop a mechanical model of nature.
history  china  asia  europe  comparison  science  culture  anthropology  industrial-revolution  quotes  ratty  economics  speculation  growth-econ  divergence  core-rats  early-modern  the-great-west-whale  roots  frontier  age-of-discovery  discovery  technology  innovation  analytical-holistic  empirical  🎩  🤖  civilization  sinosphere  s:*  definite-planning  big-picture  🔬  broad-econ  info-dynamics  revolution  chart  lens  zeitgeist  wealth-of-nations  great-powers  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  n-factor  orient  occident  modernity  the-trenches  thinking  physics 
december 2016 by nhaliday
LSE International Development – “Wow!” – Robert Wade’s glowing review of Carles Boix, Political Order and Inequality
The main narrative runs as follows. Forager or simple agricultural societies experienced differential technological change (e.g. irrigation, improved fish traps in reverine environments). At this point two basically different strategies emerged. Those who benefitted from the new technologies and became more productive (achieved a comparative advantage in production) preferred to continue with the existing cooperative equilibrium (“the producers”). Those who saw themselves disadvantaged had an incentive to loot or plunder the output of the more productive individuals or societies (“the looters”). The result could be a Hobbesian world of systematic conflict.

At some times and places a state emerged which restored peace. Boix distinguishes two basic types of states. The more common was created by the looters (also known in the literature as “roving bandits”) when they restrained themselves from plunder and invested in providing permanent protection to producers in return for some continuous flow of resources (food, labor, money) from the latter; they became “stationary bandits”. They tended to create states of monarchical or dictatorial type. Less commonly, the producers succeeded in creating a state and kept control of the levers of power, setting up defensive structures to deter potential looters. The resulting political order took a “republican” form, with an elected leader, a governing committee, an oligarchy of traders, a general assembly, in varying combinations (as in some classical Greek polis and medieval and modern European city-states).

Review by Alesina: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1257/jel.20151366
Political Order and Inequality: Their Foundations and Their Consequences argues that geography, technology, and wars determined the formation of a ruling class, inequality, and institutional development, rather than the other way around. Institutions are not a cause but a consequence. This relatively short book covers an enormous amount of material. I have sympathy for the basic idea of the book, but in some parts I would have liked to see more detailed evidence, especially on the more recent history and the Industrial Revolution. (JEL D02, D63, D72, H11, O43)
pseudoE  economics  growth-econ  antiquity  books  summary  review  institutions  🎩  things  agriculture  farmers-and-foragers  leviathan  history  industrial-revolution  europe  new-religion  government  civilization  divergence  social-structure  inequality  big-picture  s:*  roots  democracy  authoritarianism  order-disorder  deep-materialism  domestication  broad-econ  madisonian  chart  article  news  org:edu  cultural-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  great-powers  cooperate-defect  path-dependence  multi  essay  critique  ideas  elite  vampire-squid  egalitarianism-hierarchy  political-econ  north-weingast-like  pdf  piracy  endo-exo  technology  war  causation  regularizer  envy  microfoundations  open-closed  alesina  endogenous-exogenous  interests  feudal  hari-seldon 
december 2016 by nhaliday
Random thoughts on critiques of Allen’s theory of the Industrial Revolution | pseudoerasmus

Allen has been advocating for at least 20 years now that England in the 18th century possessed a “high wage economy”. English labour costs relative to continental Europe and Asia were unusually high. This is an important part of his “induced innovation theory” for the invention and adoption of machines in the leading industries of the Industrial Revolution. In short, England’s high wages relative to its cheap energy and low capital costs biased technical innovation in favour of labour-saving equipment, and that is why it was cost-effective to industrialise in England first, before the rest of Europe (let alone Asia).

The theory is appealing, in part, because the technological innovations of the early Industrial Revolution were not exactly rocket science (a phrase used by Allen himself), so one wonders why they weren’t invented earlier and elsewhere. (Mokyr paraphrasing Cardwell said something like nothing invented in the early IR period would have puzzled Archimedes.)

But I’ve always had reasons to doubt it. As Mokyr has tirelessly argued, inventions were too widespread across British society to be a matter of just the right incentives and expanding markets — and this is a point now being massively amplified by Anton Howes.
econotariat  pseudoE  economics  growth-econ  industrial-revolution  critique  technology  🎩  links  debate  history  multi  divergence  cliometrics  early-modern  the-great-west-whale  roots  broad-econ  chart  article  wealth-of-nations  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  labor  supply-demand  compensation 
december 2016 by nhaliday
Genetically Capitalist? The Malthusian Era, Institutions and the Formation of Modern Preferences.
The highly capitalistic nature of English society by 1800 – individualism, low time preference rates, long work hours, high levels of human capital – may thus stem from the nature of the Darwinian struggle in a very stable agrarian society in the long run up to the Industrial Revolution. The triumph of capitalism in the modern world thus may lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality.


key figure:
Figure 8 Surviving Children by Testator’s Assets in £


on foragers and farmers:
When we consider forager societies the evidence on rates of return becomes much more indirect, because there is no explicit capital market, or lending may be subject to substantial default risks given the lack of fixed assets with which to secure loans. Anthropologists, however, have devised other ways to measure people’s rate of time preference rates. They can, for example, look at the relative rewards of activities whose benefits occur at different times in the future: digging up wild tubers or fishing with an immediate reward, as opposed to trapping with a reward delayed by days, as opposed to clearing and planting with a reward months in the future, as opposed to animal rearing with a reward years in the future.

A recent study of Mikea forager-farmers in Madagascar found, for example, that the typical Mikea household planted less than half as much land as was needed to feed themselves. Yet the returns from shifting cultivation of maize were enormous. A typical yielded was a minimum of 74,000 kcal. per hour of work. Foraging for tubers, in comparison, yielded an average return of 1,800 kcal. per hour. Despite this the Mikea rely on foraging for a large share of their food, consequently spending most time foraging. This implies extraordinarily high time preference rates.39 James Woodburn claimed that Hadza of Tanzania showed a similar disinterest in distant benefits, “In harvesting berries, entire branches are often cut from the trees to ease the present problems of picking without regard to future loss of yield.”40 Even the near future mattered little. The Pirahã of Brazil are even more indifferent to future benefits. A brief overview of their culture included the summary,
"Most important in understanding Pirahã material culture is their lack of concern with the non-immediate or the abstraction of present action for future benefit, e. g. ‘saving for a rainy day.’" (Everett, 2005, Appendix 5).


The real rate of return, r, can be thought of as composed of three elements: a rate of pure time preference, ρ, a default risk premium, d, and a premium that reflects the growth of overall expected incomes year to year, θgy. Thus
r ≈ ρ + d + θgy.

People as economic agents display a basic set of preferences – between consumption now and future consumption, between consumption of leisure or goods – that modern economics has taken as primitives. Time preference is simply the idea that, everything else being equal, people prefer to consume now rather than later. The rate of time preference measures how strong that preference is.

The existence of time preference in consumption cannot be derived from consideration of rational action. Indeed it has been considered by some economists to represent a systematic deviation of human psychology from rational action, where there should be no absolute time preference. Economists have thought of time preference rates as being hard-wired into peoples’ psyches, and as having stemmed from some very early evolutionary process.41


on china:
Figure 17 Male total fertility rate for the Qing Imperial

In China and Japan also, while richer groups had more
reproductive success in the pre-industrial era, that advantage was
more muted than in England. Figure 17, for example, shows the
total fertility rate for the Qing imperial lineage in China in 1644-1840. This is the number of births per man living to age 45. The royal lineage, which had access to imperial subsidies and allowances that made them wealthy, was more successful reproductively than the average Chinese man. But in most decades the advantage was modest – not anything like as dramatic as in preindustrial England.

But these advantages cumulated in China over millennia perhaps explain why it is no real surprise that China, despite nearly a generation of extreme forms of Communism between 1949 and 1978, emerged unchanged as a society individualist and capitalist to its core. The effects of the thousands of years of operation of a society under the selective pressures of the Malthusian regime could not be uprooted by utopian dreamers.

Review by Allen: http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Allen_JEL_Review.pdf
The empirical support for these claims is examined, and all are questionable.

Review by Bowles: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.1149498

The Domestication of Man: The Social Implications of Darwin: http://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/72715/1/The_Domestication_of_Man_The_Social_Impl.pdf

hmm: https://growthecon.com/blog/Constraints/
pdf  economics  pseudoE  growth-econ  study  history  britain  anglosphere  europe  industrial-revolution  evolution  new-religion  mobility  recent-selection  🌞  🎩  sapiens  class  c:**  path-dependence  pre-2013  divergence  spearhead  cliometrics  human-capital  leviathan  farmers-and-foragers  agriculture  fertility  individualism-collectivism  gregory-clark  biodet  early-modern  malthus  unit  nibble  len:long  lived-experience  roots  the-great-west-whale  capitalism  biophysical-econ  time-preference  sociology  deep-materialism  broad-econ  s-factor  behavioral-gen  pop-diff  rent-seeking  patience  chart  antiquity  investing  finance  anthropology  cost-benefit  phys-energy  temperance  values  supply-demand  legacy  order-disorder  markets  entrepreneurialism  self-control  discipline  stamina  data  nihil  efficiency  optimate  life-history  cultural-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  stylized-facts  comparison  sinosphere  china  asia  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  medieval  correlation  multi  essay  books 
november 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : dismalityeconpatterns

related tags

absolute-relative  acemoglu  acm  aDNA  adversarial  advertising  africa  age-of-discovery  agri-mindset  agriculture  ai  ai-control  albion  alesina  alien-character  alignment  allodium  alt-inst  altruism  amazon  analogy  analysis  analytical-holistic  anglo  anglosphere  anthropology  antidemos  antiquity  aphorism  applicability-prereqs  applications  archaeology  archaics  aristos  arms  arrows  article  ascetic  asia  atmosphere  attaq  audio  authoritarianism  autism  automation  axelrod  axioms  backup  barons  behavioral-econ  behavioral-gen  being-right  better-explained  big-peeps  big-picture  big-yud  bio  biodet  bioinformatics  biophysical-econ  biotech  blog  blowhards  books  bounded-cognition  britain  broad-econ  buddhism  business  business-models  c:*  c:**  calculator  canada  cancer  candidate-gene  canon  capital  capitalism  career  causation  characterization  charity  chart  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  cjones-like  class  class-warfare  cliometrics  clown-world  coarse-fine  cocktail  cog-psych  cohesion  cold-war  commentary  communism  comparison  compensation  competition  composition-decomposition  concept  conceptual-vocab  confluence  confounding  conquest-empire  contracts  contradiction  contrarianism  convergence  convexity-curvature  cooperate-defect  coordination  core-rats  corporation  correlation  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  counterfactual  courage  course  cracker-econ  crime  criminology  CRISPR  critique  crooked  crosstab  cultural-dynamics  culture  culture-war  curiosity  current-events  curvature  cybernetics  cycles  cynicism-idealism  dark-arts  darwinian  data  database  dataviz  debate  decentralized  decision-making  decision-theory  deep-materialism  defense  definite-planning  definition  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographic-transition  demographics  density  detail-architecture  developing-world  developmental  dignity  dimensionality  direct-indirect  dirty-hands  discipline  discovery  discrete  discrimination  discussion  disease  distribution  divergence  diversity  domestication  driving  duplication  dysgenics  early-modern  earth  eastern-europe  ecology  econ-metrics  econ-productivity  econometrics  economics  econotariat  eden  eden-heaven  education  EEA  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  EGT  elite  embedded-cognition  embodied  emotion  empirical  encyclopedic  endo-exo  endocrine  endogenous-exogenous  energy-resources  engineering  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entrepreneurialism  environment  envy  equilibrium  error  essay  ethics  EU  europe  evidence  evolution  evopsych  examples  expansionism  expert  expert-experience  explanans  explanation  exploratory  exposition  failure  faq  farmers-and-foragers  fertility  feudal  fiction  film  finance  finiteness  fisher  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  flynn  focus  foreign-lang  formal-values  free-riding  frontier  futurism  gallic  galor-like  galton  game-theory  garett-jones  gavisti  gedanken  gender  gender-diff  gene-flow  genetic-load  genetics  genomics  geography  geometry  geopolitics  germanic  giants  gibbon  gnon  gnosis-logos  google  government  gravity  gray-econ  great-powers  gregory-clark  group-selection  growth-econ  GT-101  guilt-shame  gwern  h2o  hanson  hard-tech  hari-seldon  heavy-industry  henrich  hi-order-bits  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  homo-hetero  honor  housing  hsu  human-capital  ideas  ideology  illusion  immune  impact  impetus  incentives  india  individualism-collectivism  industrial-org  industrial-revolution  inequality  info-dynamics  info-foraging  infrastructure  innovation  input-output  insight  institutions  intel  intellectual-property  intelligence  interdisciplinary  interests  intersection-connectedness  interview  intricacy  investing  iq  iran  iron-age  is-ought  islam  israel  iteration-recursion  japan  jargon  journos-pundits  judaism  justice  knowledge  korea  kumbaya-kult  labor  language  latin-america  law  leadership  learning  left-wing  legacy  len:long  len:short  lens  lesswrong  let-me-see  leviathan  lexical  life-history  limits  linear-algebra  links  list  literature  lived-experience  lol  long-short-run  longitudinal  love-hate  low-hanging  macro  madisonian  magnitude  malaise  malthus  management  managerial-state  manifolds  marginal  marginal-rev  market-failure  market-power  markets  markov  martial  math  math.CO  measurement  mechanics  media  medicine  medieval  mediterranean  memes(ew)  MENA  meta-analysis  meta:medicine  meta:prediction  meta:reading  meta:rhetoric  meta:science  meta:war  metabolic  metabuch  metameta  methodology  microfoundations  microsoft  migration  military  miri-cfar  missing-heritability  mobility  models  modernity  mokyr-allen-mccloskey  monetary-fiscal  money  morality  mostly-modern  multi  musk  mutation  myth  n-factor  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  nature  navigation  network-structure  neuro  neuro-nitgrit  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  noblesse-oblige  nordic  north-weingast-like  northeast  novelty  null-result  number  objektbuch  occident  oceans  old-anglo  open-closed  optimate  optimism  order-disorder  ORFE  org:anglo  org:biz  org:bv  org:data  org:davos  org:econlib  org:edge  org:edu  org:foreign  org:junk  org:lite  org:mag  org:mat  org:med  org:nat  org:ngo  org:popup  org:rec  organizing  orient  oscillation  outcome-risk  oxbridge  paradox  parasites-microbiome  parenting  paternal-age  path-dependence  patho-altruism  patience  pdf  peace-violence  people  perturbation  pessimism  phase-transition  philosophy  phys-energy  physics  piketty  piracy  planning  plots  poast  podcast  poetry  polanyi-marx  polarization  policy  political-econ  politics  pop-diff  pop-structure  population  population-genetics  pre-2013  pre-ww2  prediction  prepping  presentation  pro-rata  probability  property-rights  protestant-catholic  protocol-metadata  prudence  pseudoE  psychiatry  psycho-atoms  psychology  psychometrics  public-goodish  putnam-like  q-n-a  qra  QTL  quantitative-qualitative  questions  quixotic  quotes  race  random  randy-ayndy  rant  ratty  reading  realness  reason  recent-selection  recommendations  recruiting  reddit  redistribution  reduction  reference  reflection  regularizer  regulation  reinforcement  religion  rent-seeking  reputation  retention  retrofit  review  revolution  rhetoric  right-wing  rigor  risk  ritual  robust  roots  rot  russia  s-factor  s:*  s:**  s:***  safety  sampling-bias  sapiens  scale  science  scifi-fantasy  scitariat  security  selection  self-control  self-interest  sequential  signal-noise  signaling  similarity  simplex  singularity  sinosphere  skunkworks  sky  smoothness  social  social-norms  social-science  social-structure  sociality  society  sociology  socs-and-mops  software  space  spearhead  speculation  speedometer  spock  spreading  ssc  stackex  stagnation  stamina  startups  status  stories  strategy  straussian  stream  street-fighting  study  studying  stylized-facts  summary  supply-demand  survey  sv  systematic-ad-hoc  szabo  taxes  tech  technology  telos-atelos  temperance  the-basilisk  the-bones  the-classics  the-great-west-whale  the-south  the-trenches  the-watchers  the-world-is-just-atoms  theory-practice  theos  thiel  things  thinking  threat-modeling  time  time-preference  time-series  time-use  todo  tools  top-n  traces  track-record  trade  tradecraft  tradeoffs  transportation  travel  trends  tribalism  trivia  troll  trust  truth  tumblr  turchin  twitter  unaffiliated  unintended-consequences  unit  urban  urban-rural  us-them  usa  vaclav-smil  values  vampire-squid  variance-components  venture  video  virtu  visualization  volo-avolo  war  wealth  wealth-of-nations  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  whiggish-hegelian  wiki  wild-ideas  winner-take-all  wire-guided  wisdom  within-group  wonkish  working-stiff  world  world-war  writing  yvain  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  🌞  🎩  👽  🔬  🤖 

Copy this bookmark: