Economic history of the world since Jesus

July 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Hat Tip: Andrew Bolt.

It will be interesting to see what it is in 20 more years. China and India will continue to grow, Europe will decline steeply and US moderately.

Tags:

38 Responses to “Economic history of the world since Jesus”

  1. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    The impact of the industrial revolution and colonisation. India went a bit skinny after the poms went over and pinched everything. All we are seeing now is a return to the status quo.

    BTW DPF, did you have to use the “J” word, or was it necessary ground bait?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (4,732 comments) says:

    Hey look bigots……….it’s never gone backwards. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Harriet (4,732 comments) says:

    “….The impact of the industrial revolution and colonisation….”

    WTF ? From yr1 – 2008 ?

    The continueous impact of advancement and education.

    There Idiot.Fixed it for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. anonymouse (709 comments) says:

    Its an interesting chart, but dangerous to read alone, A better set of comparisons is here,

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2000-years-part-iii/258877/

    It shows that until around 1900 GDP share was pretty much equivalent to population share, but come the 20th Century it all changed,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (4,732 comments) says:

    Ok.

    If we are going to take little bits and peices out…simply to wind people up….I want the Regan, Thatcher and Douglas years……Ceasar, Churchill and Key too :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. realize (21 comments) says:

    Share of global GDP, as shown, is useful for comparing countries to each other and looking at trends of relative strength. However, it can be misleading if you try to draw conclusions about any particular country. More established economies such as the US could be growing healthily, but still have a declining share of global GDP as other economies become established. I’d like to see this alongside a chart of absolute GDP, perhaps adjusted to be in today’s dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    About three quarters of GWP has been generated only since 1980. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product#Historical_and_prehistorical_estimates

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,417 comments) says:

    @Harriet Hey look bigots……….it’s never gone backwards.

    Yep. Good on Jesus for inspiring a proportions of 100% chart that stays at a total of 100%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,745 comments) says:

    And then Jesus said unto them: Outsource your manufacturing to China; labour is so much cheaper there…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    There’s not a whole lot of conclusions you can draw from one such chart – maybe start with a general book on world economic history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. realize (21 comments) says:

    There is also something a bit funky with the x axis on that graph.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kowtow (8,103 comments) says:

    yep.The secular bigots just hate that time itself is measured in terms of the Big J guy and not according to the French or Soviet Revolution or north Korean clock…….bwahahahaha

    and don’ count on China continuing to grow,I think it’s more likely to blow and it will be very ugly for a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mike Readman (363 comments) says:

    Well, that’s weird. Supposedly 100% of world GDP was up of the GDPs of only 14 nations as late as 2008.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Mike – you might find that is close enough as an approximation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. simonway (379 comments) says:

    wtf is going on with the x-axis scale?

    I got the original dataset and made one with the dates scaled properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. simonway (379 comments) says:

    And one showing the relative sizes of per-capita GDP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. simonway (379 comments) says:

    Argh, that first one is slightly wrong – the USSR area disappears in the mid-19th century. Here’s the corrected version.

    mikenmild: those countries, according to original dataset, make up 82% of world GDP in AD 1, declining to 69% in 2008.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. WineOh (624 comments) says:

    Mikenm, really, the combined economies of Australia, Phillipines, Pakistan, Indonesia, all of South America and all of Africa are not statiscally significant?

    Simon, sorry didn’t see your post. The date-scale puts the industrial revolution into context eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    WineOh
    Not relative to the others on the chart. The individual countries you mention maybe contribute 2or 3% of world GDP, all of Africa I’m guessing less than 5% and all of South America well less than 10%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I see now that Africa’s share is about 2% and South America’s 6%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. yobha (5 comments) says:

    What do you mean what is wrong with the x-axis? It doesn’t have to be linear, or don’t they teach that in primary school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Martin Gibson (234 comments) says:

    I was at a massive Indian wedding near London last year and met a whole lot of bright, highly-educated, ambitious, friendly people of Indian descent who had the ability to move seamlessly between the English and Indian world and beyond, and yet had still learned their traditional dances and ceremonies. I spoke to well-educated, wealthy, cultured and thoughtful people from all over the world.

    They are going to outcompete the poms simply because they have better moral compasses, place more value on education and less on violence. They have not had a sense of entitlement drummed into them and they adopt an “I’m ok you’re ok” attitude . . .

    . . . And they’re brown indigenous people who were brutally colonised by the English. There are lessons there for Maori.

    You’re not going to stop these Indians and Chinese with “Geev me beck moi fleg” faux patriotism, but there are plenty of opportunities for New Zealand if we engage with them. What we’re seeing is a correction and it ain’t going to stop . . . the various Trojan horses we let in the gates have caused the end of the West as we know it.

    We haven’t cottoned on yet, but they have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Yes, because British rule in India was exactly the same as the colonisation of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Martin Gibson (234 comments) says:

    A point without a point there milky . . . so it wasn’t exactly the same, the people weren’t exactly the same. Are you simply feeling that pointless outrage without thought that we hear so often from people who struggle to move from shouting slogans to engaging in rational debate bro?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You wanted to compare Indian with Maori. Pardon me for pointing out the facile nature of such a simplistic comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Martin Gibson (234 comments) says:

    All I said — and very much as a side point — was that it is worthwhile for Maori to thoughtfully compare the Indian reaction to colonisation to their own.

    Do you have a reflexive need to express sighing sarcastic smug superior outrage at that . . . without actually advancing an argument of your own about why you felt it was an invalid point to make?

    I find Indian impressions of Maori pretty fascinating, and I know Maori are pretty interested in the ability of Indians to out-compete white folks.

    Do you just feel you have a free pass to the moral highground on this one . . . somehow?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    ‘. . And they’re brown indigenous people who were brutally colonised by the English. There are lessons there for Maori.’

    No moral high ground. Your comment seemed to imply that Maori should just get over colonisation, as you presume Indians have got over the Raj. If you meant something other than that, I apologise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. cha (3,918 comments) says:

    More at The Economist.

    AAAGGGGHHHH! How could Michael Cembalest of JP Morgan do it? Did he really produce a stunning chart of global economic history—but compress the time-series on the x-axis in horrid, improper ways?

    Why yes, he really did.

    Wipe away the tears from your eyes if you’re an economist, or the frothy-mouthed rage from your face if you’re an infographic designer. As the chart below shows, the first increment of time is 1,000 years. The next, same-sized increment is compressed into 500 years. This is followed by increments of some 100 years, 80, 30, 20, even one of 13 years and 27 years. It ends with a few decades and an eight-year increment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Martin Gibson (234 comments) says:

    “They have not had a sense of entitlement drummed into them and they adopt an “I’m ok you’re ok” attitude . . . ”

    Yep, that’s pretty much what I’m saying, no apology necessary.

    You can’t eat enough to feed hungry ancestors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kowtow (8,103 comments) says:

    What have the British ever done for us…….?

    Here we go again,those awful colonising Brits.FFS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    cha
    Maybe that’s some kind of present-centric bias, like 40% of the greatest Britons in history having lived in the 20th century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. cha (3,918 comments) says:

    Munted the link, here’s the correct one.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/mis-charting-economic-history

    edit: according to the economist article it’s a graphic error MM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    kowtow
    “The aquaducts?” “Apart from the “aquaducts”, etc, etc…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,570 comments) says:

    Since who??? That jesus fulla that 50% of the Kiwiblog readership believe in. Good grief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. questions (192 comments) says:

    “Martin Gibson:
    All I said — and very much as a side point — was that it is worthwhile for Maori to thoughtfully compare the Indian reaction to colonisation to their own.”

    Hi Martin,

    I think you might find the reason people are suggesting you might be a racist is because you have formed your conclusion (Indians good, Maoris bad) before analyzing any evidence.

    Had you looked into the topic more you might have found that the colonization of India and New Zealand were utterly incomparable.

    Just something you might want to think about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    “. . . And they’re brown indigenous people who were brutally colonised by the English. There are lessons there for Maori.”

    What lesson? Boot out the British and tell the Anglo-Indians they can stay, but they are going to be living under a government composed of Indians (with a guarantee of a minority representation in parliament)? Is this the way you want Maori to head?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Dave Mann (1,200 comments) says:

    This is a completely bullshit graphic. It starts off with a 500 year period, then works into 100 years and finally ends up showing 10 year breaks.

    Nothing in this article is worth a pinch of fly shit. It just goes to show that any old lies will be wanked over by people with no brains as long as they are shown pretty colours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.