Europe's Golden age? 1890-1914

[Richard Hakluyt]

Really, I thought the US was closer to Germany and GB during this period.  What does "National income mean"?

IIRC correctly they didn't calculate GNP figures back in those days, I would imagine that "national income" is a proxy for that.

This is all well worth reading up on, the lead of the USA in 1914 was quite staggering. Looking at the Europeans, their retreat from power in the 1945-75 period coincided with an unprecedented rise in material comfort, this, I think, is the root cause of Euro-weenyism; who cares about power.......what does the ordinary citizen get from it?

[Sheilbh]

Tony Judt's Postwar is really good on the huge leaps in living standards and the construction of the European model in that period.

And it's just generally a very good book.

[alfred russel]

But it didn't compare to the whole of Europe.  Nor did the US.  Today the economy of the US is fairly close to the entire economy of the EU.  In 1914 the US economy was fairly close to economy of GB or Germany.

This is factually incorrect.

In 1914 the national income of the USA was $37bn with a population of 98 million. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary combined had an income of $43bn and a population of 409 million. The US' superiority increased during the 1920s but then fell with the crash, only to reach a maximum in the immediate post-WW2 period. Note also that in 1914 American per capita income was roughly 4 times that of the Europeans.

After WW2 Western Europe modernised. By 1980 the USA had a GNP of $2590bn and a population of 228 million. The EEC 12 had a GNP of $2907bn and a population of 317 million. That is $11,360 per capita for the USA and $9170 for the EEC-12, the Western Europeans had more or less finally caught up with the USA in a 30-year period.

The figures are from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

I find that many people persistently underestimate the wealth and (potential) power of the USA in the period 1880-1914; yet in terms of streaking ahead of the rotw these are crucial years. In 1914 the USA was an entire level ahead of the European economies, by the 1980s the Euros had caught up, the 25% shortfall largely being a matter of shorter working hours, longer retirements and so on. Money is not everything of course, but a lot of Imperialistic strutting on the world stage by European powers in the period 1880-1914 was precisely because their time was already ending.

RH, I don't have any figures on hand, but my understanding is that America's per capita income has been ahead of Europe since the beginning. Which makes sense--no one was going to make an expensive and dangerous journey to a place that was poorer. Prior to the depression, even Argentina was well ahead of most of Europe. This makes intuitive sense, but it challenges the stereotypes of periods like the American Revolution. No one talks about the wealthy americans overthrowing their distant and poorer overlords.

I've read that southern europe seems to have been behind in per capita income from the beginning of the colonial period, and this was exported to the new world. Thus european settlers in latin america were on a per capita basis better off than in spain and portugal, but still poorer than their northern counterparts.

[DGuller]

RH, I don't have any figures on hand, but my understanding is that America's per capita income has been ahead of Europe since the beginning. Which makes sense--no one was going to make an expensive and dangerous journey to a place that was poorer. Prior to the depression, even Argentina was well ahead of most of Europe. This makes intuitive sense, but it challenges the stereotypes of periods like the American Revolution. No one talks about the wealthy americans overthrowing their distant and poorer overlords.

I've read that southern europe seems to have been behind in per capita income from the beginning of the colonial period, and this was exported to the new world. Thus european settlers in latin america were on a per capita basis better off than in spain and portugal, but still poorer than their northern counterparts.

The Spaniards and Portugese also didn't have the luxury of sparse native population, so they couldn't exterminate nearly all of them to bring their averages up.

[Richard Hakluyt]

One way of having a successful colony with a low per capita income is to have a slave colony. Haiti was deemed to be very wealthy back in the 18th century, when it was a sugar colony and only the small percentage of the population were accounted to be of any importance. With independence and the abolition of slavery it becomes an impoverished place; that happened in the USA's South as well, to a lesser extent.

But, I do agree with AR, if one is to have a successful colony based on free settlement then it will be high incomes that attract the settlers and leads to success.

[alfred russel]

The Spaniards and Portugese also didn't have the luxury of sparse native population, so they couldn't exterminate nearly all of them to bring their averages up.

I doubt the natives would count.

But not having natives, at least from the Spanish point of view, was a negative. The less "native dense" portions of the Spanish New World stayed relatively uninhabited. In much of the new world, including Brazil, the native density problem was solved by importing africans. Presumably it would have been more efficient if the natives were already there. The Spanish certainly wouldn't have wanted to exterminate their labor source, even if they could.

[The Brain]

1890-1914 is the time period during which both the maternal and paternal sides of my family pulled up stakes and came to North America.  Judging from the family stories, if this period was a golden age in Europe for some, there wasnt much in the way of a trickle down.

Exporting non-hackers > importing non-hackers. 1890-1914 wins.

[crazy canuck]

Incidentally I think the US may be in it's Golden Age.  That's not to say we don't have problems.  There's nothing that says a Golden Age must be trouble free.

The US golden age was probably 1989-2001

[Jacob]

Japan was catching up in a lot of ways, but in particular naval power.

While naval power is great, it doesn't make a golden age on its own.

If by "ceding ground" Valmy meant "the gap was narrowed" then I agree with him. If he meant "ceding prerogatives and influence to" (which is what I think "ceding ground" means), then I'd disagree with him.

[The Minsky Moment]

1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.

1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.

I think that's right for Western Continental Europe.

For the UK, if the test is extent to which the human beings that inhabit the country enjoyed improvements in their lives and standard of living, the same period looks very golden indeed.  From 1952-1973, per capital income increased by almost 70%.  While less than increases in France and Italy (from lower bases) - this is still impressive; compare the longer period from 1890-1914, where the equivalent increase was only 23%.  Moreover, the increase in income and wealth was accompanied (as I know you know full well) by a vast extension of public amenities and services to the public.  And of course the 60s saw a cultural rennaissance of sorts - the true era of Cool Britannia.  Against such tangible impovements, the loss of remaining tatters of a obsolete Empire is of little moment.

Although clearly this was not a great period for much of eastern Europe, it was a pretty decent time for most of what was then called Yugoslavia.  More controversially, having placed my period just after the death of Stalin, I would submit the 1953-1973 was about as good a time to be a Russian as there has ever been in history - the jury still being out re the Putin era, and no other period really being in the running.

[alfred russel]

For the UK, if the test is extent to which the human beings that inhabit the country enjoyed improvements in their lives and standard of living, the same period looks very golden indeed.  From 1952-1973, per capital income increased by almost 70%.  While less than increases in France and Italy (from lower bases) - this is still impressive; compare the longer period from 1890-1914, where the equivalent increase was only 23%.  Moreover, the increase in income and wealth was accompanied (as I know you know full well) by a vast extension of public amenities and services to the public.  And of course the 60s saw a cultural rennaissance of sorts - the true era of Cool Britannia.  Against such tangible impovements, the loss of remaining tatters of a obsolete Empire is of little moment.

Although clearly this was not a great period for much of eastern Europe, it was a pretty decent time for most of what was then called Yugoslavia.  More controversially, having placed my period just after the death of Stalin, I would submit the 1953-1973 was about as good a time to be a Russian as there has ever been in history - the jury still being out re the Putin era, and no other period really being in the running.

The problem with the standard "if the test is extent to which the human beings that inhabit the country enjoyed improvements in their lives and standard of living" is that it is much easier to have improvements from a crappy base. Stalin and World War II were a horrible time for Russians, so a vast improvement doesn't say much. By the same standard today Chinese per capita GDP growth dwarfs our own, but they are still a dirt poor country without some basic freedoms.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem with the standard "if the test is extent to which the human beings that inhabit the country enjoyed improvements in their lives and standard of living" is that it is much easier to have improvements from a crappy base. Stalin and World War II were a horrible time for Russians, so a vast improvement doesn't say much. 

It's more than that though: the improvement of Soviet production and living standards from Stalin's death up to the mid-70s simply dwarfs any prior experience in Russian history, and brought standards of living far, far past pre-WW II or pre-revolutionary norms.  And any prior period in Russian history one might pick is so horrifically awful that there just isn't a lot of competition.  That leaves post-89, but the Yeltsin years are a chaotic mess where death rates spiralled out of control, and the Putin period has serious flaws of its own, its ultimate destination unclear.

By the same standard today Chinese per capita GDP growth dwarfs our own, but they are still a dirt poor country without some basic freedoms.

Sure, but China is going through what is easily its best period since the fall of the Ming.

[Valmy]

If by "ceding ground" Valmy meant "the gap was narrowed" then I agree with him. If he meant "ceding prerogatives and influence to" (which is what I think "ceding ground" means), then I'd disagree with him.

When did I say something about ceding ground?

[Sheilbh]

For the UK, if the test is extent to which the human beings that inhabit the country enjoyed improvements in their lives and standard of living, the same period looks very golden indeed.  From 1952-1973, per capital income increased by almost 70%.  While less than increases in France and Italy (from lower bases) - this is still impressive; compare the longer period from 1890-1914, where the equivalent increase was only 23%.  Moreover, the increase in income and wealth was accompanied (as I know you know full well) by a vast extension of public amenities and services to the public.  And of course the 60s saw a cultural rennaissance of sorts - the true era of Cool Britannia.  Against such tangible impovements, the loss of remaining tatters of a obsolete Empire is of little moment.

Not only that but we had the liberation off the start of the collapse of the class system and I think genuine optimism about the future (not a British specialty) that Wilson tapped into with his talk of the 'white heat of the technological revolution'.

I agree with you objectively.  I think MacMillan was right it was the period when most of our people had 'never had it so good'.  The emphasis some people make on Empire's overblown in my view.  From what I've read the average person wasn't that terribly invested in Empire.   I think we lost it ina fit of absentmindedness and most people didn't mind.  But the period's remembered as one of relative decline (which it sort of was) in comparison with Europe and the rest of the world.  I think there was an acute awareness of Germany and France steaming ahead and that's shaped how we perceive the era.  I think it could be argued it was a golden age, but not many people would agree.

Although clearly this was not a great period for much of eastern Europe, it was a pretty decent time for most of what was then called Yugoslavia.  More controversially, having placed my period just after the death of Stalin, I would submit the 1953-1973 was about as good a time to be a Russian as there has ever been in history - the jury still being out re the Putin era, and no other period really being in the running.

I've read that the Khruschev era's really fondly remembered in Russia, don't know if that's true though.

[Valmy]

That period in Western Europe is hard for me to understand as an outsider.  I mean a freaking miracle is going on, one would think after 1914-1945 the French and Germans would be bubbly with giddiness.  Yet there was massive discontentment, terrorism, and violence going on in both countries by the late 60s.  I mean I understand the youth of America being angry about racial segregation, Civil Rights, Vietnam and all that but fuck what was wrong with those French and Germans?  I mean I would have been grateful enough not to die on Southern Russia or Verdun or something.  That strikes me as a weird response to what does appear to be a Golden Age-like period.