Chinese Economics Thread

[gelgoog]

A lot of talk about how backwards Imperial Russia was supposed to be is kind of bullshit. A lot of it spread by Soviet Communists.
In 1913 Russia produced as much steel as either France or Austria-Hungary. Steel production in 1913 was 4.9 million tons. With the Russian Civil War steel production totally collapsed. It only recovered the 1913 level in 1930. And Imperial Russia also was a major oil producer.
The country is huge and flat but a huge part of the land area is basically uninhabitable and covered in permafrost.

While I wouldn't diss Stalin's industrialization achievements in the late 1930s if you compare Imperial Russia with the other European powers they weren't as bad economically as people make you think.

 

[TK3600]

A lot of talk about how backwards Imperial Russia was supposed to be is kind of bullshit. A lot of it spread by Soviet Communists.
In 1913 Russia produced as much steel as either France or Austria-Hungary. Steel production in 1913 was 4.9 million tons. With the Russian Civil War steel production totally collapsed. It only recovered the 1913 level in 1930. And Imperial Russia also was a major oil producer.
The country is huge and flat but a huge part of the land area is basically uninhabitable and covered in permafrost.

By all means Russian empire was relatively backward vs tier 1 like Germany and UK. It has the potential to vastly outperform tiny ass country like France. It certainly did later in USSR.

3 country has finest geography for industry. China, Russia, US. If properly managed, the 3 should be so far ahead of others they are league of their own.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

A lot of talk about how backwards Imperial Russia was supposed to be is kind of bullshit. A lot of it spread by Soviet Communists.
In 1913 Russia produced as much steel as either France or Austria-Hungary.

I'm actually more surprised by the fact Austria-Hungrary was able to produce as much steel as Russia. Like Russia, Austria Hungrary was late to industrialize, but were growing at a respectable pace prior to WW1. France was just slow.

 

[gelgoog]

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

View attachment 129176

Wow, as early as WW1 US was already producing as much as the entirety of the European great powers. The rapidity of the ramp up in US production is incredible. Also surprised by WW1 UK was already significantly behind the Germans.

 

[Minm]

Countries like Germany didn't just benefit from geography or religion (and don't forget, Catholic areas like southern Germany are richer than the Protestant areas), but also economic gravity. The closer geographically and culturally you were to Britain during the industrial revolution, the more technology could be transferred. That's why France and Germany were the next two major countries to industrialise and why the US, with its close connection to the British home islands, could grow so fast. The Netherlands were another great provider of technology and corridor for bringing British tech to Germany. Of course some countries also self sabotaged by having civil wars like Spain, or the ruinous civil wars in the late Qing

Economic gravity is a big factor in east Asian development as well. It was highly beneficial for Korea to have an industrialised Japan next door. Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese factories opening in China also helped create the Chinese economic miracle. But for countries in Africa and South America it's much harder to industrialise because they don't have an industrial power in their region that understands their culture

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Countries like Germany didn't just benefit from geography or religion (and don't forget, Catholic areas like southern Germany are richer than the Protestant areas), but also economic gravity. The closer geographically and culturally you were to Britain during the industrial revolution, the more technology could be transferred. That's why France and Germany were the next two major countries to industrialise and why the US, with its close connection to the British home islands, could grow so fast. The Netherlands were another great provider of technology and corridor for bringing British tech to Germany. Of course some countries also self sabotaged by having civil wars like Spain, or the ruinous civil wars in the late Qing

Economic gravity is a big factor in east Asian development as well. It was highly beneficial for Korea to have an industrialised Japan next door. Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese factories opening in China also helped create the Chinese economic miracle. But for countries in Africa and South America it's much harder to industrialise because they don't have an industrial power in their region that understands their culture

France was not the next to industrialize though. It was behind Germany despite being geographically closer to UK and despite English being Germanic language, most of its vocabulary is French or Latin, not German. Meanwhile Germany was extremely authoritarian even by 19th century standards and was geographically further away yet Germany grasped all technologies of the oil and electrical age. And of course, neither Germany nor France truly grasped mass production the way US and Russia did. They were still using basically artisinal production in WW2 while Soviets for instance used mass production techniques like linear programming for economic planning and stamped parts.

It is well known that South Korea developed due to a Vietnam War bounty the same way Japan developed from the Korean War bounty as a logistics hub for the US. And the closest to US and Japan was Philippines, which was the richest country in Asia in 1950. And then Philippines in the 1980's was both geographically close to and had visa-free travel to Singapore. Yet... where are they now?

The first investors in China after 1979 were overseas Chinese and European, Japanese and Koreans only came later once things were proven. And even then, Koreans invested in Vietnam more. The Korean investment phase was extremely short, only 2006-2017. Barely even 10 years. Samsung had less than 5 years in the sun in China.

IDK about this.

 

[generalmeng]

Success related to geography explanation is not only about raw materials/resources like coal and oil but also stuff like flat land (much cheaper to build anything in that terrain there like roads, railroads, needed for industrial trade, even factories themselves, and everything else in terms of infrastructure, and even the basic housing), inland navigable rivers (much cheaper and easier transporting stuff needed for industry to function and for final products shipments, and overall trade).

And Germany has the highest density of them in the entire world alongside Belgium and Netherlands. Then you have Germany's position at the center of Europe, so once again easier to trade with everyone and from countries all around the continent in all directions (also many wealthy empires with major colonial traditions all around them).

Then you have the Ruhr region, which has one of the best coal mines in the world. When you add anything together, you see how that "protestant work ethic" may maybe an overhyped myth. Germany's early industrialization and success in manufacturing are mostly dependent on geography. Japan and South Korea had it many times worse in terms of those natural gifts, that's why I respect their rise more for example.

Coal and industrialization in germany help bridge the gap and advantage of maritime UK empire. Water trade have a huge advantage, being much cheaper and consume less energy. Although, ship is slower than train.

Germany have maritime access to scandanavia in the North, which is resource rich, population poor. Land access to all of Europe, since Germany is central, with train, they have fast and efficient way to transport goods to population dense south.

Geography is huge in civilization development.

 

[quim]

Idk how much work ethic is attributable to protestants, but there are plenty cases to show social factor trumps resource and 'flat land'.

3 country have finest geography for industrialization. Russia, US, China.

Russia lagged behind in Imperial era. It has plenty flat land, richest resource, finest rivers. The moment Soviet Union changed society, it rapidly became superpower.

China is self explanatory. Absolutely backward in Qing era. Huge land mass, population, extremely coal rich, mineral rich, yellow river and yangtze. PRC had to shape society to make use of it. Today it is industrial hyper power.

USA is absolutely blessed in resources, be it mineral, oil, river, flat land.... At its peak it was 50% world industrial output much like China today. Today... So deindustrialized it cant build a rail. Geography certainly did not change. People did.

You absolutely need social factors. With it you can manage to small degree, limited by resource access. Without it no amount of geography helps. Geography only determine upper bound. Social factor determine whether it is even possible.

Italy is the best example of the relationship between wealth, geography and political environment. The northern half of Italy has always been one of the richest and most industrialized regions in Europe, while the geographically more difficult southern half has lagged behind and is one of the poorest. Same religion, similar culture, but different geography and luck.

The truth is that the first wave of industrialization was directly linked to the growth rate of urbanization, which was directly linked to the birth rate, geography and political struggles, such as civil wars. Excess people after boom population growth needed to migrate from saturated rural areas to cities that needed workers.

France, on the other hand, was geographically likely to be much larger in terms of population and industrial capacity, but political fractures since the French Revolution clearly prevented France from being a much stronger country.

So there are clear links between geography and political context as primary factors facilitating or hindering everyone's luck. It remains for each country to work to take advantage of its position.

The great powers change exactly for this reason. One moment the Chinese were at the top, another time the Latins ruled, then the Germans arrived. The Chinese can certainly return to the top by taking advantage like now. Then the Latins can come back too, then the Germans again. The story is not over.

 

[didklmyself]

And of course, neither Germany nor France truly grasped mass production the way US and Russia did. They were still using basically artisinal production in WW2 while Soviets for instance used mass production techniques like linear programming for economic planning.

This is interesting. Could you provide reading materials on this topic?