I've been reading the Proud Tower http://www.amazon.com/Proud-Tower-Portrait-Before-1890-1914/dp/0345405013 lately and like all good books it got me a thinking. Was this time period, 1890-1914, Europe's Golden age? Barbara Tuchman says that it explicitly is not. Reasoning that no golden age would have the seeds of it's own destruction sown with in it and that people looked back across the gulf of the war with rose tinged glasses. However, Tuchman herself was a product of her time, she was writing in a period of great anxiety and uncertainty and perhaps that colored her thoughts. I think that perhaps it was Europe's golden age. Europe was a at the pinnacle of it's power it's culture was bright. Innovations were coming fast and furious and life for the average person was getting better then it ever had before. After the war art took a dark and cynical tone (unless it was overwhelmed by the shrill madness of the ideology states). I don't think Europe ever recovered. The Euro attitude is still fairly cynical. They seem to lack the life and energy of their pre-war fore-fathers. They lack that self-confidence they had before and I often detect a sense of bitterness towards the US which still has that self-confidence and vitality.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:46:21 AMAfter the war art took a dark and cynical tone
Before, too, if you look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Zille
I agree with Raz
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:46:21 AM
They lack that self-confidence they had before and I often detect a sense of bitterness towards the US which still has that self-confidence and vitality.
We do? Well I guess in comparison.
Quote from: Razgovory...the US which still has that self-confidence and vitality.
Or at least wish they did...
To be honest, US self-confidence and vitality seems to be roughly on par with France right now. High self-confidence for no obvious reason while the claims of vitality is getting more and more desperate and shrill.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:46:21 AM
They lack that self-confidence they had before and I often detect a sense of bitterness towards the US which still has that self-confidence and vitality.
We do? Well I guess in comparison.
Indeed, despite the brief bit of "hope" following the transition from Bush to Obama, I think we've been down right depressed as a nation.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:46:21 AM
They lack that self-confidence they had before and I often detect a sense of bitterness towards the US which still has that self-confidence and vitality.
We do? Well I guess in comparison.
The US does shit. Like Iraq. It may not be a good idea, but it goes in and does stuff. That's self confidence. If nobody wanted to help the US in Iraq the US still would have attacked. Compare this to the Euros and the Yugoslav wars. They couldn't do much unless the US came in. Hell, look at Libya. They lacked even the capability to actually operate a no fly zone with out the US.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2011, 09:54:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 09:17:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:46:21 AM
They lack that self-confidence they had before and I often detect a sense of bitterness towards the US which still has that self-confidence and vitality.
We do? Well I guess in comparison.
Indeed, despite the brief bit of "hope" following the transition from Bush to Obama, I think we've been down right depressed as a nation.
Well we are in a Depression. Look at the Euros across the pond. They aren't completely confident of their monetary system will still be there in a few years.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 09:58:05 AM
The US does shit. Like Iraq. It may not be a good idea, but it goes in and does stuff. That's self confidence. If nobody wanted to help the US in Iraq the US still would have attacked. Compare this to the Euros and the Yugoslav wars. They couldn't do much unless the US came in. Hell, look at Libya. They lacked even the capability to actually operate a no fly zone with out the US.
Eh they do that to have the resources to buy off their voters. If we left they would eventually be compelled to fund their militaries again. I do not know if their military weakness is necessarily the evidence of their lack of vilality but just evidence they do not need to spend money on their militaries. The evidence of European lack of vitality is the fact they seem to have to wait for a crisis before actually being able to address their problems which is textbook evidence for a society that lacks vitality.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 09:58:05 AM
The US does shit. Like Iraq. It may not be a good idea, but it goes in and does stuff. That's self confidence. If nobody wanted to help the US in Iraq the US still would have attacked. Compare this to the Euros and the Yugoslav wars. They couldn't do much unless the US came in. Hell, look at Libya. They lacked even the capability to actually operate a no fly zone with out the US.
Eh they do that to have the resources to buy off their voters. If we left they would eventually be compelled to fund their militaries again. I do not know if their military weakness is necessarily the evidence of their lack of vilality but just evidence they do not need to spend money on their militaries. The evidence of European lack of vitality is the fact they seem to have to wait for a crisis before actually being able to address their problems which is textbook evidence for a society that lacks vitality.
By the definition America has never had vitality. We always wait until a crisis to do something about a problem.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 10:00:17 AM
Well we are in a Depression. Look at the Euros across the pond. They aren't completely confident of their monetary system will still be there in a few years.
Our "spiritual" depression started under Bush. I don't have any animus for the man but American pride certainly faltered under Bush 2 term 2.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 09:58:05 AM
The US does shit. Like Iraq. It may not be a good idea, but it goes in and does stuff. That's self confidence. If nobody wanted to help the US in Iraq the US still would have attacked. Compare this to the Euros and the Yugoslav wars. They couldn't do much unless the US came in. Hell, look at Libya. They lacked even the capability to actually operate a no fly zone with out the US.
Eh they do that to have the resources to buy off their voters. If we left they would eventually be compelled to fund their militaries again. I do not know if their military weakness is necessarily the evidence of their lack of vilality but just evidence they do not need to spend money on their militaries. The evidence of European lack of vitality is the fact they seem to have to wait for a crisis before actually being able to address their problems which is textbook evidence for a society that lacks vitality.
I think there is a distinct lack of will. If we left NATO I don't think they would do much with their militaries (Spell check doesn't like this word). I think they would prefer to isolate themselves politically, putting faith in the UN and the like and shake their fists at more active countries like an old man complaining about teenagers. Europe is becoming a retirement communities for nations.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:09:27 AM
By the definition America has never had vitality. We always wait until a crisis to do something about a problem.
If that was true you would be right.
But that is total nonsense.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:12:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:09:27 AM
By the definition America has never had vitality. We always wait until a crisis to do something about a problem.
If that was true you would be right.
But that is total nonsense.
Name one big crisis we headed off at the pass by fixing an underlying problem before it blew up into a big crisis?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
Name one big crisis we headed off at the pass by fixing an underlying problem before it blew up into a big crisis?
Um all of them? The only one we failed to do so was the slavery thing and that was simply intractable. Even the compromises made it worse. But that had to do more with the unsolvable nature of the crisis than a lack of will to solve it.
I mean look at the problems with social unrest because of the industrial revolution. I thought we did excellently by addressing those issues before any serious threats to the social order really got rolling.
What big crises are you thinking of?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 09:58:05 AM
The US does shit. Like Iraq. It may not be a good idea, but it goes in and does stuff. That's self confidence. If nobody wanted to help the US in Iraq the US still would have attacked. Compare this to the Euros and the Yugoslav wars. They couldn't do much unless the US came in. Hell, look at Libya. They lacked even the capability to actually operate a no fly zone with out the US.
Eh they do that to have the resources to buy off their voters. If we left they would eventually be compelled to fund their militaries again. I do not know if their military weakness is necessarily the evidence of their lack of vilality but just evidence they do not need to spend money on their militaries. The evidence of European lack of vitality is the fact they seem to have to wait for a crisis before actually being able to address their problems which is textbook evidence for a society that lacks vitality.
I think there is a distinct lack of will. If we left NATO I don't think they would do much with their militaries (Spell check doesn't like this word). I think they would prefer to isolate themselves politically, putting faith in the UN and the like and shake their fists at more active countries like an old man complaining about teenagers. Europe is becoming a retirement communities for nations.
The French will continue to intervene in its former colonies and maintains the capability to do so. The rest of the misbegotten lump of NATO nations? A joke except for the Turks.
Speaking of the Turks, please invade Syria. TV is boring right now.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:18:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
Name one big crisis we headed off at the pass by fixing an underlying problem before it blew up into a big crisis?
Um all of them? The only one we failed to do so was the slavery thing and that was simply intractable. Even the compromises made it worse. But that had to do more with the unsolvable nature of the crisis than a lack of will to solve it.
That was a string of crises that lasted 80 years and just kept getting bigger.
Quote
I mean look at the problems with social unrest because of the industrial revolution. I thought we did excellently by addressing those issues before any serious threats to the social order really got rolling.
What big crises are you thinking of?
The Great Depression, WWII, 70s(protest movements/stagflation), Global Warming, the 2008 financial collapse. These all could have been ameliorated if steps had been taking before hand to address the root causes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:12:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 21, 2011, 10:09:27 AM
By the definition America has never had vitality. We always wait until a crisis to do something about a problem.
If that was true you would be right.
But that is total nonsense.
Name one big crisis we headed off at the pass by fixing an underlying problem before it blew up into a big crisis?
How about the Marshall Plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
The crisis averted was to use European economic recovery to forestall the spread of Communist influence in Western Europe.
I think it's reasonable to describe 1890-1914 as Europe's golden age.
1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.
1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.
1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.
Troll? :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2011, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.
1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.
Troll? :hmm:
:secret:
Best part of the
Trente Glorieuses or Glorious Thirties if you prefer.
At least in the 30s there was a new hope.
1930s Star Wars sucked.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 10:03:15 AMEh they do that to have the resources to buy off their voters. If we left they would eventually be compelled to fund their militaries again.
To defend against whom?
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2011, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.
1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.
Troll? :hmm:
The trolls had it pretty bad from the end of the Middle Ages until mass access to the World Wide Web. Their Golden Age is now.
Europe's Golden Age was obviously the postwar and post-Cold War period. Most Europeans lived in peace for more than 66 years now and have unparalled prosperity. Having colonial empires and great power status is pretty meaningless for the average person.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:46:21 AMReasoning that no golden age would have the seeds of it's own destruction sown with in it and that people looked back across the gulf of the war with rose tinged glasses.
I would speculate that all golden ages have the seeds of their own destruction built in.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2011, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
1890-1914 was pretty awful for most Europeans.
1953-1973 would probably be a better choice, except for the Hungarians and the Czechs.
Troll? :hmm:
:lol:
The trolls had it pretty bad from the end of the Middle Ages until mass access to the World Wide Web. Their Golden Age is now.
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2011, 11:56:02 AM
Europe's Golden Age was obviously the postwar and post-Cold War period. Most Europeans lived in peace for more than 66 years now and have unparalled prosperity. Having colonial empires and great power status is pretty meaningless for the average person.
This is a function of technology more the society. If we use this criteria nearly all countries are in a golden age. Most Russians live better then their ancestors did, though this is hardly the golden age of Russia. Hell, North Koreans probably have better amenities then their ancestors did under the Japanese or living in mud huts. They don't have a lot of electricity but they had more then then they did 200 years ago. I'm not sure if most European countries have been at peace for 66 years now. Several European powers were engaged in an air war over Libya a few months ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 12:27:01 PMThis is a function of technology more the society. If we use this criteria nearly all countries are in a golden age. Most Russians live better then their ancestors did, though this is hardly the golden age of Russia.
Fair enough. I don't put much value into empires and such.
QuoteI'm not sure if most European countries have been at peace for 66 years now. Several European powers were engaged in an air war over Libya a few months ago.
The population at large was not really affected by this or other conflicts after the end of WW2. There are a couple of cases where you could say that European countries fought serious wars after WW2, e.g. the French in Algeria, the Yugoslavian Wars or the Portuguese in Africa. But mostly it was just small skirmishes that didn't really change much for the civilian population.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2011, 11:56:02 AM
Europe's Golden Age was obviously the postwar and post-Cold War period. Most Europeans lived in peace for more than 66 years now and have unparalled prosperity. Having colonial empires and great power status is pretty meaningless for the average person.
This is a function of technology more the society. If we use this criteria nearly all countries are in a golden age. Most Russians live better then their ancestors did, though this is hardly the golden age of Russia. Hell, North Koreans probably have better amenities then their ancestors did under the Japanese or living in mud huts. They don't have a lot of electricity but they had more then then they did 200 years ago. I'm not sure if most European countries have been at peace for 66 years now. Several European powers were engaged in an air war over Libya a few months ago.
Yeah, if living standards are the benchmark, almost every part of earth is in its golden age (maybe even North Korea). If the golden age of a continent is instead the period it reached its height of cultural and political power relative to the rest of the world, then 1890 - 1914 would seem like a good choice.
If we are to use relative living standards rather than cultural and political power, then I don't know. Maybe that would be now.
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2011, 11:56:02 AM
Europe's Golden Age was obviously the postwar and post-Cold War period. Most Europeans lived in peace for more than 66 years now and have unparalled prosperity. Having colonial empires and great power status is pretty meaningless for the average person.
I guess I thought Golden Ages were marked by creativity and dynamism and not by being filled with society wide decadence.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2011, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2011, 11:56:02 AM
Europe's Golden Age was obviously the postwar and post-Cold War period. Most Europeans lived in peace for more than 66 years now and have unparalled prosperity. Having colonial empires and great power status is pretty meaningless for the average person.
I guess I thought Golden Ages were marked by creativity and dynamism and not by being filled with society wide decadence.
You were right to think that.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 21, 2011, 01:00:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2011, 11:56:02 AM
Europe's Golden Age was obviously the postwar and post-Cold War period. Most Europeans lived in peace for more than 66 years now and have unparalled prosperity. Having colonial empires and great power status is pretty meaningless for the average person.
This is a function of technology more the society. If we use this criteria nearly all countries are in a golden age. Most Russians live better then their ancestors did, though this is hardly the golden age of Russia. Hell, North Koreans probably have better amenities then their ancestors did under the Japanese or living in mud huts. They don't have a lot of electricity but they had more then then they did 200 years ago. I'm not sure if most European countries have been at peace for 66 years now. Several European powers were engaged in an air war over Libya a few months ago.
Yeah, if living standards are the benchmark, almost every part of earth is in its golden age (maybe even North Korea). If the golden age of a continent is instead the period it reached its height of cultural and political power relative to the rest of the world, then 1890 - 1914 would seem like a good choice.
Agree.
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.
Quote from: Zanza on November 21, 2011, 12:52:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 12:27:01 PMThis is a function of technology more the society. If we use this criteria nearly all countries are in a golden age. Most Russians live better then their ancestors did, though this is hardly the golden age of Russia.
Fair enough. I don't put much value into empires and such.
QuoteI'm not sure if most European countries have been at peace for 66 years now. Several European powers were engaged in an air war over Libya a few months ago.
The population at large was not really affected by this or other conflicts after the end of WW2. There are a couple of cases where you could say that European countries fought serious wars after WW2, e.g. the French in Algeria, the Yugoslavian Wars or the Portuguese in Africa. But mostly it was just small skirmishes that didn't really change much for the civilian population.
I think you underestimate the troubles that many European states had with decolonization. France nearly went into Civil war (instead their government simply collapsed), the Portuguese government collapsed in part because of the decolonization. Germany was divided and partially occupied, and Eastern Europe was largely occupied in the post-war era. Britain had some nasty bushfire wars, and the Troubles and the risk of nuclear devastation was shared by all.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
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.
Especially at 1700 dollars an ounce. :)
QuoteReasoning that no golden age would have the seeds of it's own destruction sown with in it
Isn't that the definition of a golden age? I mean, at least implicitly, by the fact that a golden age is so-named only when compared to later, (supposedly) shittier ages?
QuoteSeveral European powers were engaged in an air war over Libya a few months ago.
Wars not fought on your own soil don't count much against peace, and they'd count even less if I were in charge, because they would only take a few days apiece.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 21, 2011, 01:00:16 PM
Yeah, if living standards are the benchmark, almost every part of earth is in its golden age (maybe even North Korea). If the golden age of a continent is instead the period it reached its height of cultural and political power relative to the rest of the world, then 1890 - 1914 would seem like a good choice.
I'd probably put it a bit earlier. They were rapidly losing ground to the US and Japan in that period.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 21, 2011, 06:57:28 PMI'd probably put it a bit earlier. They were rapidly losing ground to the US and Japan in that period.
To the US, yes. To Japan? How so?
Come on, everybody knows Europes Golden Age was between 1492 and 1945
Wars are not Golden Age Ending events. The resulting peace, and its conditions, is.
Besides, I would rather talk of golden ages for individual states than for the entire continent.
Otherwise Asia's Golden Age was between 333 BCE to 1492 CE.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
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.
I think that's over with now.
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
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.
I think that's over with now.
Of course you'd say that. You are insanely Jealous of the US.
Quote from: Siege on November 21, 2011, 07:23:22 PM
Come on, everybody knows Europes Golden Age was between 1492 and 1945
I kinda agree, actually. Well, maybe not as late as '45. I'd mark the unification of Germany and Italy as the end of it.
Quote from: Siege on November 21, 2011, 07:23:22 PM
Besides, I would rather talk of golden ages for individual states than for the entire continent.
That's part of what's difficult about this question, because the whole continent -- and the continent as such -- is implicated. I'd tend to agree that Europe qua Europe was probable at its peak at the end of the Nineteenth Century. Europe as the dominant definition of the states comprising it, Europe at the peak of its ideological and material importance to the world system.
I think the fact that it was also the peak of capital-c Colonialism had a lot to do with speeding up the consolidation of European identity across such a wide range of states/cultures/etc. The lack of US presence in Africa at the time makes it possible to materially distinguish Europe and North America at that moment in a way that you can't anymore.
Quote from: Jacob on November 21, 2011, 07:18:38 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 21, 2011, 06:57:28 PMI'd probably put it a bit earlier. They were rapidly losing ground to the US and Japan in that period.
To the US, yes. To Japan? How so?
Japan was catching up in a lot of ways, but in particular naval power.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 07:36:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
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.
I think that's over with now.
Of course you'd say that. You are insanely Jealous of the US.
Not really. I have what I want in Canada. Who wants more guns, more non-whites and less government services?
You don't have Nixon.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:04:05 PM
You don't have Nixon.
You guys don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
Not really. I have what I want in Canada. Who wants more guns, more non-whites and less government services?
:hmm: That's a damn good question.
Heh. The climate where I live is resistant to rust and decay, so you often see really old classic cars on the road. Today, I saw an old Volkswagen station wagon with a bumper sticker so faded it looked solid white. When examined closely, I could just make out Nixon/Agnew.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 21, 2011, 06:57:28 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 21, 2011, 01:00:16 PM
Yeah, if living standards are the benchmark, almost every part of earth is in its golden age (maybe even North Korea). If the golden age of a continent is instead the period it reached its height of cultural and political power relative to the rest of the world, then 1890 - 1914 would seem like a good choice.
I'd probably put it a bit earlier. They were rapidly losing ground to the US and Japan in that period.
The US, yes. Japan? That is debatable (Japan was not occupied until 1945, and to the extent it was gaining power, it was doing so with the advice of Europeans--it also had a limited influence beyond its borders).
The problem is that if you move the date earlier, you lose much of the race for Africa and increasing influence in the far east (esp. China) and India. You also lose economic influence within latin america (though obviously pre ~1810 european influence was much greater there).
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 08:05:19 PM
You guys don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.
We have his relics. They grant miracles.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 08:20:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 21, 2011, 08:05:19 PM
You guys don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.
We have his relics. They grant miracles.
The relics of Watergate gave us Iran-Contra, yellow cake uranium, and Bernie Kerik.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:50:36 PM
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.
Really, I thought the US was closer to Germany and GB during this period. What does "National income mean"?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2011, 04:00:01 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 22, 2011, 02:59:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 07:50:36 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2011, 06:41:39 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2011, 08:38:12 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2011, 12:57:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
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
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 21, 2011, 07:46:35 PMJapan 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2011, 10:57:27 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 22, 2011, 12:22:38 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2011, 01:29:54 PM
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.
QuoteBy 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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 22, 2011, 12:22:38 PMFor 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.
QuoteAlthough 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.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 22, 2011, 02:08:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2011, 01:29:54 PM
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.
QuoteBy 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.
Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.
Hence if you want to enter a golden age, a good start is to get wrecked by Nazis, or start a Ukrainian famine or cultural revolution.
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2011, 02:24:56 PMI 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?
The elite had just drawn a line under the past and didn't discuss it on a personal or political level.
How many local Mayors or police chiefs were former Nazi Party officials or collaborators? Basically every authority figure over the age of, say, 40 was, more probably than not, a Nazi or had to make serious comprimises to survive. That eroded trust between the youth who weren't really tainted by the past and the governing elite who just wanted everything kept quiet.
One of the reasons Willy Brandt was so popular was that he was a German politician with clean hands. In France de Gaulle basically validated the myth that France resisted, France never surrendered. While, of course, his opponent was a former Vichy collaborator.
I think in Europe there was that sense that you have in the US in the 50s that everything looks very good and shiney but, to an extent, society's been anaesthetised and there's just these areas of discourse where you're not allowed to go. For example asking that authority figure 'what did you do during the war?'
Plus Euros got excited by civil rights and were anti-war protesting too. Additionally it's the period that started of the environmental and peace movements in much of Europe.
The violence in France was largely after-effects of Algeria. The 68ers were generally peaceful. But the RAF and the BR and the rest were a shower to be honest. Again one of the points Judt makes in Postwar is the contrast between Western European youth movements which were often rather self-involved (see Godard's superb 'La Chinoise') while in Eastern Europe you had Stasiland and the Prague Spring.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.
Hence if you want to enter a golden age, a good start is to get wrecked by Nazis, or start a Ukrainian famine or cultural revolution.
I dunno. You can wreck ordinary life with just a bunch a guys on horses with bows.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2011, 02:46:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.
Hence if you want to enter a golden age, a good start is to get wrecked by Nazis, or start a Ukrainian famine or cultural revolution.
I dunno. You can wreck ordinary life with just a bunch a guys on horses with bows.
But you can be so much more effective with tanks and machine guns.
Most effective of all is the B-29. It even gives you a wide range of options: fire, and nuclear fire.
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2011, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
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?
You didn't :Embarrass:
You said "losing ground". And it wasn't you. It was P. Wiggin.
Are there any periods/places in history which are more or less agreed to be "Golden Ages"?
The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2011, 04:44:33 PM
Are there any periods/places in history which are more or less agreed to be "Golden Ages"?
The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.
Tang and Song dynasty China?
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2011, 04:44:33 PM
Are there any periods/places in history which are more or less agreed to be "Golden Ages"?
The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.
Yeah, but there was no want.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.
There is a bias but it is a justified one. Modern technology enables the potential to improve peoples lives in a manner that far exceeds that available at any other time in history.
But I disagree with the claim that modern tech makes it possible to wreck ordinary life in a unique way. Old fashioned tech was perfectly capable of facilitating the total wipe out of major civilizations, and acts of brutality that would make Beria turn away.
It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless. It's everybody's golden age right now. Or nobody's has come yet.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2011, 03:43:16 PM
You didn't :Embarrass:
You said "losing ground". And it wasn't you. It was P. Wiggin.
Well if you look at Japan's military record there appears to be a steady rise in relative capability between 1860 and 1940.
ESSEX RUSH kekekeke
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2011, 07:58:43 PMWell if you look at Japan's military record there appears to be a steady rise in relative capability between 1860 and 1940.
Yeah sure, but I don't think military capability in and of itself qualifies, or relative changes in military capability, is a good measure of whether a culture is experiencing a golden age. The Japanese may have modernized and gotten more capable militarily, but while it may be setting the stage for the punctuation of a putative European golden age, it's not really a factor in determining whether Europe was experiencing a golden age at that time. Once Japan acted to end European thoughts of being the masters of the globe, yes then clearly any European golden age is over; but simply getting ready for a scrap and getting your house in order is not enough invalidate arguments of someone's golden age.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 22, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless. It's everybody's golden age right now. Or nobody's has come yet.
If I were to offer my thoughts of what a golden age is, it has several of these characteristics:
- A spike in cultural expression in various branches of the arts and sciences that not only influences neighbours, but also has significant impact on how descendants of that culture view themselves.
- General economic affluence compared to what went before and what came after.
- Generally well functioning social structures.
- A general sense of optimism about the country/ culture can achieve and its destiny.
Obviously, that's fairly abstract. In many cases I suppose it comes down to whether you can construct a narrative that supports those sort of points and minimizes tension, conflict and counterpoints (or incorporates them into the narrative somehow).
As with most of those kind of things, whether you label something a "golden age" or not will probably show as much about your values and perceptions than it does about that particular period in history.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 22, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless. It's everybody's golden age right now. Or nobody's has come yet.
I was thinking along the lines of of the peak of power and influence along with a flowering of cultural expression. Reading the stuff from the time period I was talking about there was a great deal of optimism and self-confidence. I am struck how so much of that Disappeared in Flanders fields and Verdun. I keep feeling that the Europeans were certainly far from perfect before the war, but they sure as hell didn't deserve that.
I think we should not confuse Hegemony with Golden Age.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2011, 08:07:29 PM
Yeah sure, but I don't think military capability in and of itself qualifies, or relative changes in military capability, is a good measure of whether a culture is experiencing a golden age. The Japanese may have modernized and gotten more capable militarily, but while it may be setting the stage for the punctuation of a putative European golden age, it's not really a factor in determining whether Europe was experiencing a golden age at that time. Once Japan acted to end European thoughts of being the masters of the globe, yes then clearly any European golden age is over; but simply getting ready for a scrap and getting your house in order is not enough invalidate arguments of someone's golden age.
AR's definition was "the height of its political and cultural power". Relative military capabilities are quite relevant when trying to ascertain this point. The Americas were increasing their share of power throughout the 19th century, though that shortfall could be made up elsewhere. Asia was clearly declining vs Europe in the first half of the century, but Japan at least and possibly China as well was playing catch up by the 1870s. Africa was as weak and helpless as ever. Only the Mideast and India were really losing ground substantially vs. Europe in this period. It may just be my Americentric world view, but I think Europe was stronger in 1860 than 1900.
Quote from: Richard HakluykThis 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?
Or, cynically it could be looked at that European governments quit trying to distract their populations with foreign adventures and decided to start buying them off with bread and circuses instead.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2011, 08:07:29 PM
Yeah sure, but I don't think military capability in and of itself qualifies, or relative changes in military capability, is a good measure of whether a culture is experiencing a golden age. The Japanese may have modernized and gotten more capable militarily, but while it may be setting the stage for the punctuation of a putative European golden age, it's not really a factor in determining whether Europe was experiencing a golden age at that time. Once Japan acted to end European thoughts of being the masters of the globe, yes then clearly any European golden age is over; but simply getting ready for a scrap and getting your house in order is not enough invalidate arguments of someone's golden age.
AR's definition was "the height of its political and cultural power". Relative military capabilities are quite relevant when trying to ascertain this point. The Americas were increasing their share of power throughout the 19th century, though that shortfall could be made up elsewhere. Asia was clearly declining vs Europe in the first half of the century, but Japan at least and possibly China as well was playing catch up by the 1870s. Africa was as weak and helpless as ever. Only the Mideast and India were really losing ground substantially vs. Europe in this period. It may just be my Americentric world view, but I think Europe was stronger in 1860 than 1900.
Well, it we're talking about the "height of... ...political and cultural power", then military power certainly enters into the political power part of it. And from between the ACW and the Spanish-American War and beyond that, America's military power was negligible. A weak military plus a lot of isolationism meant that the US wasn't considered a world power, and barely a regional power. The lack of military/political power tends to obscure America's economic power in the period.
QuoteThe Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.
Greek love of simplicity blinded them to endemic disease and poverty of the Peloponnesean hinterland. The Athenians were wealthy enough to import grain from the Black Sea and Sicily, and were generally smart enough to have excessive urban population leave for colonies. I'm willing to bet the average Athenian had it about as well as anyone in the Greek world.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 22, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless.
As already alluded to, the original concept of a Golden Age was entirely mythical - the notion that sometime in the past, our ancestors were better and wiser but that we have since degenerated.
But in reality, all of human history prior to the late 19th century/20th centuries involved the vast majority of people ("the 99%") living short average lifespans and enjoying a standard of living at or just above subsistence. The modern era is such a profound break with that past that anything before cannot be compared to anything after.
:rolleyes:
If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 23, 2011, 11:17:53 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 22, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless.
As already alluded to, the original concept of a Golden Age was entirely mythical - the notion that sometime in the past, our ancestors were better and wiser but that we have since degenerated.
But in reality, all of human history prior to the late 19th century/20th centuries involved the vast majority of people ("the 99%") living short average lifespans and enjoying a standard of living at or just above subsistence. The modern era is such a profound break with that past that anything before cannot be compared to anything after.
You are focused on things in materialistic terms. You would make a good propaganda minister in a Player Piano world. I'm not saying that is an invalid, but it isn't the only way to look at things.