The Economist: Emerging Economies

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
why dont you just take the aztec example: they built canals, pyramids, sat on a load of diamonds, even had a zoo in their capital. that doesnt sound like subsistance to me.

Having those things doesn't mean that the people didn't live on subsistance wages (or whatever you want to call it). Building canals and pyramids in fact strain the resources otherwise devoted to producing for the population. Canals do provide for greater production of food, but all that does is allow the population to grow so that the empire can have even bigger armies, builders and farmers.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
also, one more thing.

if gold was so worthless for the aztec and incas, why did they amass so much of it?

The Incas believed it was the sweat of the gods so collecting it to adorn temples was a religious thing. Interestingly enough the reason the Incas could afford to pay Pizarro's ransom of their Emperor was they they basically pulled all of the gold out of the temples but the Inca didn't mind so much since it wasn't materially that valuable. Instead Inca society was a barter economy where practical goods like textiles, food, lamp oil, and tools were considered more valuable then abstract wealthlike gold.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The Incas believed it was the sweat of the golds so collecting it to adorn temples was a religious thing

sounds pretty valuable to me - so valuable that mere mortals were not allowed to have it. it takes a wealthy society to be able to devote a large portion of manpower it to religion.

[Kidlicious]

That really depends on your definition of "wealth." I think the modern definition is level of consumption of the common person. Your definition is outdated.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

for me, the wealth of a society = GDP/ GDP per capita/ HDI. I dont know, maybe Im wrong.

[Colon™]

No Lawrence, the example was purely hypothetical. I was trying to show how relative valuations are but quite frankly, I don't think you have a clue what GDP entails.

In any case, if you're going to put words in my mouth like that and turn this into some PC "Europe is dumb" ****fest, the discussion is over for what I'm concerned.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DanS


See what I mean? Expect nothing less from the Economist.

Shaddap.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No Lawrence, the example was purely hypothetical. I was trying to show how relative valuations are but quite frankly, I don't think you have a clue what GDP entails.

In any case, if you're going to put words in my mouth like that and turn this into some PC "Europe is dumb" ****fest, the discussion is over for what I'm concerned.

hahahahahah. are you saying that an entire field of economics is wrong? you're saying that europe has always dominated the world economically (or europe + north america)

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
why dont you just take the aztec example: they built canals, pyramids, sat on a load of diamonds, even had a zoo in their capital. that doesnt sound like subsistance to me.

With the possible exception of the zoo, so did Calakmul, and at its height it ruled over a ramshackle empire that would have made Montezuma laugh.

Royal extravagance at capitals is very bad measure of the wealth of a nation.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


hahahahahah. are you saying that an entire field of economics is wrong? you're saying that europe has always dominated the world economically (or europe + north america)

Nope, that's what you're saying.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Nope, that's what you're saying.

You've gotta be ****ting me Joker

[Dinner]

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.

No doubt about it there was monumental public archetecture and there were great palaces but those were exclusive to the political elite while the commoner's sole job was to produce agricultural surpluses for the elite to consume.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm still trying to find out how Colon's statement of:

[q=Colon]traditional pre-eminence of Eurasia [/q]

Got turned into:

[q=Lawrence of Arabia]you're saying that europe has always dominated the world economically[/q]

I think reading problems are afoot!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

remove the eur outta eurasia, and then it would be correct. european/ western preeminence only came about in the last few centuries.

[Colon™]

Oh? So now you're turning my statement into a "Asia has always dominated" then? Good thing we have you around to tell us how to read my posts.

Here:

iufmizufhoahbviuz hfhoizfj%/^kzj oihrffnpzz ^lggpz kjzehfo oijfzo foijzpik^yscvbp jpfzo^pojkcz^$gglg p^^^^ xwtrdaq è-_çujpp lfje lojufzihfjzpof mmmmùfc

I'm sure you'll be able to interpret this statement the way it should. Have fun arguing.