The Economist: Emerging Economies

[Lawrence of Arabia]

throw in a nobel prize too

but not sec of the treasury - ill take pascal lamy's job, or chief economist at world bank, or head of the world bank development section.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Glad to learn that Rome wasn't an Italian power

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

The Hellenistic empire was short lived, a brief candle. Muslim Spain was intellectually proficient, but hardly a significant geo-political power.

Europes rise came when it got to exploit the Western Hemisphere for free thanks to the native's inability to handle Eurasian disease. It was raw materials, and more importantly money form the new world that made Europe's economy take off

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).

You can easily say that at least form the fall of rome until the 17th century states in Asia were the biggest and richest empires. The Chinese empires, the MUghal Empire, the Mongol waves, Timur's empire, and the Ottomans all were certainlky much bigger world powers than any European state until Charles V's Habsburg empire. Heck, you could say that the Ottomans were the sigle most powerful state in the Mediterranean basin until the mid of the 17th century, when they fell behind.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I imagine the huge surge in exports and increases in GDP seen in the third world mostly have to do with free trade and the off shoring of jobs from the first world.

Actually, no. The entire Asian rim developed their economies by massive state interference in the economy combined with strong tarifs. Every economy that has followed the Washington consensus has become a basket case. Every country that has turned their back on economic liberalism has grown.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The elite in Meso-America and the Andes were not subsistance but just about everyone else was. Since the economy was barter and technology rarely improved you gained power mainly by conquoring other people and taking their positions. Either that or by becoming a kleptocratic elite who stole everything from common people. It was a neo-fuedal system where socially higher people took a share of what the people below them made. No real economic advancement waspossible and trade was virtually unknown.

Uhhhh no. They weren't neo-feudal. They were organized on rather different lines. The Incan conquest did substantially improve the lot of the people's they conquered through improved trade, roads, communications, etc. Some of the areas they conquered were of the same technological level, and so those areas didn't see much improvement.

The Incan economy was particuarly interesting, as it was organized around collecting food in order to give it back to the peasants in great festivals. That was how the Inca insured his immortality.

The Aztecs were a completely different animal altogether, organinzed around the collection of human sacrifces for their gods. The fact that this undermined their economy went unnoticed by them, except in as much as they saw that the gods were punishing them with falling tribute and productivity, so they needed to make more sacrifices, etc.

Previous MesoAmerican societies had more in common with ancient civizations like Sumer: no centralized government, rule of many priest kings, etc. Generally speaking, it was the climate or environment that brought down everyone else.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

aaah the cavalry is here. where did all the sharks go??

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia 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.

That is not correct. Muslim Spain was a totally independent califate, in fact most time it was at war with the rest of the muslim world.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

you're right, I just checked . however, that wasn't until the 13th century. Until then, it was part of the Islamic Empire

[Thorgal]

No, it was in the 8th century. When the Abassis salughtered the Umeya family at Damascus, in 750 (the Umeyyas were the first califa dinasty after Mohamed), only an Umeya was able to scape. He went to the last confine of the muslim empire, Spain, and there he proclaimed a new independent Caliphate, proclaiming himself Califa taking the name of Abd al-Rahman I, opposed to the hated Abassi caliphate in Bagdag who reigned above all the muslim world excepting Spain. So in fact Spain was only part of the muslim empire since 712 to the 755.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

right. its in wikipedia.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I just want to know - and any of you circling sharks here can answer - do you believe that todays dominant powers, namely the West, has any historical claim to being the dominant powers throughout history. Does anyone really believe that, as Colon so eloquently put it . . .

Asia was historically dominant in population and thus in total output. Europe and USA overtook in output with the industrial revolution. However, dominance in total output may be going back to East Asia. That's all the article is trying to say.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Thorgal
No, it was in the 8th century. When the Abassis salughtered the Umeya family at Damascus, in 750 (the Umeyyas were the first califa dinasty after Mohamed), only an Umeya was able to scape. He went to the last confine of the muslim empire, Spain, and there he proclaimed a new independent Caliphate, proclaiming himself Califa taking the name of Abd al-Rahman I, opposed to the hated Abassi caliphate in Bagdag who reigned above all the muslim world excepting Spain. So in fact Spain was only part of the muslim empire since 712 to the 755.

I learn something new everyday

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
You can easily say that at least form the fall of rome until the 17th century states in Asia were the biggest and richest empires. The Chinese empires, the MUghal Empire, the Mongol waves, Timur's empire, and the Ottomans all were certainlky much bigger world powers than any European state until Charles V's Habsburg empire. Heck, you could say that the Ottomans were the sigle most powerful state in the Mediterranean basin until the mid of the 17th century, when they fell behind.

I think that only works if you consider the Byzantine Empire to be Asian, which I don't consider to be the case. The Byzantine Empire was fabulous rich and fairly powerful to rival Asian empires (though not all, admittedly), in its earlier years.

And, of course, Europe became the King of all after the 1600s.

If you take that into account, the age of unquestioned Asian superiority (well, aside from Moorish Spain) was from 1100-1600. About the same amount of time of unquestioned European superiority after 1600 (aside from the US).

[chequita guevara]

I think most scholars consider the Byzantine Empire to be more Oriental than Occidental.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

If you take that into account, the age of unquestioned Asian superiority (well, aside from Moorish Spain) was from 1100-1600. About the same amount of time of unquestioned European superiority after 1600 (aside from the US).

plus, you are forgetting the other age of unquestioned middl eastern dominance - from the first cities and language and farms (which is what, 4000 BC?) through the Babylonians and the Egyptians and Sumerians etc, which runs all the way to the roman empire (which really began dominating after the Punic Wars in the 3rd century BC)