nicks comments on Agree, Retort, or Ignore? A Post From the Future - Less Wrong

35 Post author: Wei_Dai 24 November 2009 10:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (84)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 28 November 2009 05:00:18PM 3 points [-]

A major thesis of Clark is that China at one time or another apparently had every condition or feature advanced to explain the sui generis Industrial Revolution, or that the advanced explanation fails on other grounds.

While neither you nor I can really speak to how much the Emperors respected debts in general, respecting debts and obligations in general is definitely in keeping with Confucian thought, and it's not as if English kings were all that respecting, even in those early times when the king was weakest:

"1290: King Edward I (1272-1307) invaded Scotland and would put John de Balliol (1292-1296) on the Scottish throne. The Exchequer of the Jews, a small Jewish Community in England earned its living by lending money and lived under Royal protection. A large number of Knights is in debt to the Jews. The Jews foreclosed on the Knights land for failure to pay and sold it to recover their money. The King feared land would thereby accumulate in too few hands and challenge the Kings power base. Using this pretext the Jews in London and York are massacred and the Jewish ghettos sacked during the Baron wars. The remaining Jews are forced to France after being relieved of their possessions."

Considering China's long history of commercial expansion and innovation and great merchant fortunes, with financial instruments and arrangements not exceeded until the 1500s in Europe, if even then, it's hard to think that China really suffered much from arbitrary and unjust laws.

Anyway, to this day, the English-speaking countries, which, with the exception of India (which you can almost regard as a medium-sized English-speaking country inside a much larger country) are the only countries using common-law judicial systems, are better at creating wealth than any other countries, even thoroughly Westernized ones like France.

Even including the Confucian countries like China & South Korea & Japan? Keep in mind that before the Lost Decade, Japan had a higher per capita than France (by almost $1000). And then there are other non-English-controlled countries like Argentina:

"Not so long ago Argentina really did seem ''doomed to success,'' to use a favorite rallying cry of Eduardo Duhalde, the country's fifth president since December. Early in the 20th century this was the seventh richest country in the world, with a per capita income ahead of those of Canada, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan and Spain and not far behind that of the United States."

Comment author: nicks 04 December 2009 09:18:58AM 0 points [-]

gwern, do you have reference(s) for Chinese "financial instruments and arrangements not exceeded until the 1500s in Europe"? Thanks in advance.

Comment author: gwern 19 March 2010 06:47:59PM *  0 points [-]

Not up to your scholarly level, I don't think. I'm largely going on the reading/research I did using De Roover and others to write http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_Bank , where I was struck by the wretched subterfuges that merchants had to resort to and the general lack of sophistication, which struck me as quite different from Chinese systems with genuine fiat currency, undisguised interest, and general sophistication (there may've been Chinese insurance in there too, but I've forgotten any details of that).

Comment author: SilasBarta 19 March 2010 07:28:53PM *  0 points [-]

Well, I've read a paper that supports a different perspective: usury laws were historically circumvented in the West and Middle East through clever use of (what we now call) the Put-Call Parity Theorem: any bonds that were issued were converted into a combination of puts, calls, and possibly rental contracts. This retains the substance of an interest-bearing loan, but without any explicit "interest payment" While the law might have been sophisticated, the resulting use of derivatives contracts was not.

The paper discusses the origin of mortgages in medieval England and the Middle East. It's been a while since I read it, so I can't summarize it, but I was shocked by their rather early trading of derivatives and options.

Comment author: Larks 19 March 2010 07:09:45PM 0 points [-]

If it's any good, interest (or ursary) was only legalised in England in 1571, up to a value of 10%.

Citation: Praise and Paradox; Merchants and craftsmen in Elizabethan popular literature, Laura Caroline Stevenson.