Today I read historical article about Chinese demographic cycles and found one thing. Each cycle, like Ming dynasty 1368–1644 AD shows two types of economics:
- First century labour-deficit economy, when country reconstruct itself after collapse. Reduced population (60 million in 1370s), shortage of labor force, desolated dams and deserted fields. Militaristic tyranny, patriarchal families, agricultural equity and socialistic laws. 2/3 government lands, Gini coefficient <0.3
- Second century labor-proficite economy, when country overpopulated (250 million in 1590s). Constant famines in countryside, tiny family plots, tenancy and aristocracy. Migrants, cheap labor force, growing cities, golden age of architecture, craftsmanship and high arts. Typical capitalism. 1/8 government lands, Gini coefficient >0.5
Socialism --> reconstruction --> capitalism --> collapse --> socialism --> reconstruction.
Again and again, each dynasty, every single time. Perfectly visible pattern. Not only for China, but for Europe too, and even for USA. I'm talking not about socialism as image, but about signs of this type of economic system.
19th century America is country of agricultural equity. Not because of society, but by reason of shortage of labour force (3000 man-hours per year for average worker compared to 2000 hours in Europe), grand surplus of agricultural lands (0.7 man per hectare compared 1.5-2 man/ha in Europe) and energy profusion (150 GJ/capita in USA compared to 135 GJ/capita in Britain, 85 GJ/capita in Germany and 55 GJ/capita in France).
I check trade statistics for 19th century and after some calculations found, that in economy US behaved like socialistic country. Financial turnover for Britain in 1800-1900 period shows ×2.9 maritime trade growth per capita, for Germany ×9.6, for France ×10.3, overall world market ×6.7, but only ×1.8 for USA. But actually during this period European population grown up ×1.4 times (Britain ×4, overall world ×2) but USA ×14 times. Only because of this USA took +5.6% part of world market.
So, 19th century USA is closed socialistic country, which used most of resources not for maritime trade but to develop population, education and infrastructure. America changed dramatically during 20th century, but no one noticed this.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
19th century U.S. was not socialism. It was centralized ownership of the factories by a few capitalist plutocrats.
>>394248
If bird behaves like a duck but looks like a swan this bird may be just duck in disguise. Or just some chaotic creation. Actually I don't know much about 19th century USA, just found interesting correlation with early Ming dynasty.
If bird behaves like a duck but looks like a swan this bird may be just duck in disguise. Or just some chaotic creation. Actually I don't know much about 19th century USA, just found interesting correlation with early Ming dynasty.
I dunno. Late 19th century America is stereotypically all about hyper capitalism. I’ve got mine, fuck you. Huge Conglomerates. Slums full of people barely able to get by. The gilded age, ya know? And then things got more socialist, right? Trust Busting, Teapot Dome, The New Deal. By the end of WWII the redistribution/influx of wealth was enough to create a thriving middle class that has been dwindling ever since.
I dunno, just saying.
I dunno, just saying.
Found it! Actually not socialistic at all, almost modern inequality, but much better, compared to Europe and Britain. Also, poor British elites, totally fucked during 20th century.
>>394989
>Slums full of people barely able to get by
Any country of any economic structure has this. It's all about economic development.
>Slums full of people barely able to get by
Any country of any economic structure has this. It's all about economic development.
Maybe the secret to achieving ancap to do a socialism to get the marry-go-round to spin around again.
7 replies | 4 files | 8 UUIDs | Archived