The Economist: Emerging Economies

[DanS]

I would have to think about the phrase "traditional pre-eminence" some more. Eurasia certainly has had stretches of pre-eminence before the modern era.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and I agree, but you also must look at the fact that the Aztecs and Incas were not living at a subsistance level, while most europeans were (not to mention being swept by plagues, cold snaps, famines, etc.)

WTF??

They lived the same way. They worked their asses off and they got food and shelter. That's it. Just because one society had canals doesn't mean that they lived better.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

WTF??

They lived the same way. They worked their asses off and they got food and shelter. That's it. Just because one society had canals doesn't mean that they didn't live better.

Oerdin seems to disagree.

You misread Colon's statement, LoA. Just get over it.

Explain to me how I misread it. Go slowly, since it seems I havnt gotten it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Oerdin seems to disagree.

Yeah? So what. The people of every pre-industrial society lived at subsistence levels with the exception of periods of population declines because of population increases. The Aztecs were no different. The only thing that changes is how the people died when the population outsripped the food supply. Canals didn't make any difference.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah? So what. The people of every pre-industrial society lived at subsistence levels with the exception of periods of population declines because of population increases. The Aztecs were no different. The only thing that changes is how the people died when the population outsripped the food supply. Canals didn't make any difference.

no thats not true, you cannot say that pre industrial Chinese were living at a subsistence level, or even the pre industrial Romans, or the pre industrial arab empire.

[Kidlicious]

I'm still amazed that you have any training in economics at all.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

likewise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Explain to me how I misread it. Go slowly, since it seems I havnt gotten it.

Oy. "Traditional pre-eminence of Eurasia" - how many civilations outside of Eurasia can you say were pre-eminent or dominant over those in Eurasia before the rise of the US? Very few. Egypt, perhaps Carthage... The Aztecs, Mayans, Olmecs, Inca, Sioux/Lakota, Iriquois/Houdanesee were never dominent or pre-eminent over Eurasian civilizations. The only ones that came close, I'd argue is Songhai and Mali in Africa, but they still lagged behind the Islamic empires of the Mid East and Turkey.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And I agree, and I said it earlier. However, I object to the term Eurasian, because its throws in Europe, when infact, it was almost entirely the Asian side of the equation (with the notable except of Rome who were powerful from what, around the defeat of Hannibal whenver that was to the 4th century AD) So we must say that it was mainly the Asian continent which were economic powerhouses until the last few centuries. You can throw in the Songhai and Mali too, and the Inca (who dominated a vast area) and the Aztec, who were the most powerful north american power until the Europeans came and cleaned house.

Which brings us back to the point of comparing todays developped countries (the west), who were once the dominated, with todays LDCs, many of which were the historic dominators, which to me makes perfect sense, since we are looking at historic 'winners' who are today's losers' and historic 'losers' who are todays 'winners'.

anyways, have I still missed anything, or is it all covered?

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, I object to the term Eurasian, because its throws in Europe, when infact, it was almost entirely the Asian side of the equation (with the notable except of Rome who were powerful from what, around the defeat of Hannibal whenver that was to the 4th century AD)

Europe didn't just have Rome, but also Alexander's Greece, Muslim Spain (which was, in fact, in Europe), and after 1500, Europe states started becoming very powerful, usurping Asia fairly quickly.

You can't merely say Asia was the most powerful area, because there are many European examples as a counter... and the fact that, realistically, Europe and Asia aren't seperate continents (as like the Americas).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Europe didn't just have Rome, but also Alexander's Greece, Muslim Spain (which was, in fact, in Europe), and after 1500, Europe states started becoming very powerful, usurping Asia fairly quickly.

You can't merely say Asia was the most powerful area, because there are many European examples as a counter... and the fact that, realistically, Europe and Asia aren't seperate continents (as like the Americas).

Alexanders greece was centered in Asia (persia, middle east, egypte, all the way to india) and was not a european power. Muslim spain was an extension of the Islamic Empire, and was dominated by the Moors (who controlled North Africa and came north.) So no, that was no european either.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And btw, nearly everyone accepts that Europe and Asia are separate continents.

[Fake Boris]

Glad to learn that Rome wasn't an Italian power

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hé, de quoi je me mêle?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
likewise.

I'm sure you'll get a PhD and become the Sec. of the Treasury some day. You still won't make any sense though.