Hacker News Reader

This doesn't explain at all why industrialization happened in the US and not in South America.

The answer is free markets. The industrial revolution happened in free market countries.

BTW, gold and silver extracted from the New World doesn't explain it.

1. Gold and silver are not economic wealth - Spain (the main recipient of it) experienced inflation.

2. Spain did not become the dominant power in Europe, though it should have if exploiting the New World was the key.

3. The IR happpened in the US starting around 1800. The US was not extracting gold/silver from elsewhere, had no empire, had no banking system to speak of, was a nation of subsistence farmers, had no great cities, etc.

Maybe the answer isn't so much free market as a lack of alternatives. Note that the US did not industrialize equally - notably, consider the part where slavery-based agriculture was profitable, and the resulting civil war.

In a similar vein, I was quite surprised to learn how industrial early 19th century Peru was, until they decided to screw development and just exploit the land.

(Though I think the internal comparison of different parts of the US is more relevant, since they operated under the same political and economic frameworks, yet developed quite differently. Maybe a relatively free market is a necessary condition for industrial revolution, but it sure as hell isn't sufficient.)

> Note that the US did not industrialize equally - notably, consider the part where slavery-based agriculture was profitable

That's an astute observation. The slave based southern economy did not industrialize. Slavery is not a free market. I do not know of a free market economy that failed to industrialize.

As for slavery being profitable, one of the big drivers of the Civil War was it was becoming unprofitable, and the South needed to protect its inefficient economy. Separating itself from the North meant it could enact protectionist trade barriers (which were not allowed by the Constitution).

Like so many things in human history, the end of slavery came about less because of a moral awakening, and more because it didn't pay anymore.

That's an equally inadequate summary of some revisionist takeaways.

Fundamentally, the Chinese were in a box. Japan was in isolation, and surrounding countries were no threat to the kingdom. China's problems were all internal, which made looking beyond their boundaries for solutions counterproductive.

Spain from the 15th century onwards is a counter-example to your theory.

Because they had accumulated so much wealth from plundering the New World, they became lazy and dependent for goods on poorer, and more industious nations, (the English for example). On the other hand, the English, which didn't have all that wealth were forced to produce real-value;

Around the 17th century, they overcame Spain to become a dominant power in Europe; The role of colonialism was secondary in the wealth production of modern European nations.

"the English, which didn't have all that wealth"

What? The British mastered the slave trade and its Caribbean slave colonies were perhaps the most productive of the era.

More industrious nations? In what, in pillage, piracy? slave trade?

Spain not only exploited South America, but also administered it and gave it a lot of wealth and education to those places.

In fact, some places in South America went sour after independence because it was much better administered before. In places like Argentina, genocide to the native population happened after independence, not before.

Once and again people project England situation today to the past, but you have to look at the England of the past, that was certainly not more industrious.

Industry in England is copied and improved from the Netherlands from a political plan like the Meiji period in Japan. Before that it was a very poor country and certainly not harder working than the rest.

This comment reflects a worrying trend I keep seeing, which I'll summarize as: the answer to all history is that Europeans are evil. Whatever the question or the circumstance or the evidence, we have to contort them to confirm our pre-determined narrative that Europeans are evil. This, of course, is nonsense. The Chinese were equally as greedy as everyone else at the time. The idea that China didn't capitalize on its expeditions (to any location) for humanitarian reasons is patently absurd and easily disproven. It begs the obvious question - why did they finance expeditions if not for greed? Were the Chinese the pre-TV model for Star Trek - boldly exploring the seas for the benefit of all mankind? Get real. See Lim Hong[1], the 16th century Chinese pirate who ruthlessly slaughtered half of Southeast Asia.

This comment reflects a highly selective and ethnically targeted historical ignorance and misattribution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_Hong_(pirate)

It's hard to study the 30 years war in such a way as to conclude that the movers and shakers of Europe were all angels

I believe his point is that Europeans don't occupy a unique point on the moral spectrum, either positive or negative.

They certainly weren't angels, but neither were the Chinese or Arabs or Africans or Aztecs or any other large group of humans at the time. Though maybe we can grant exceptions to small, isolated groups.

I totally agree with your observation regarding this trend to find Europeans/Americans evil for doing what nearly every other civilization has done and continues to do. I also think the best solution to this trend is to just answer this comments with opposing arguments with evidence just as you have done. And to do my part I will leave this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

Don't be so sensitive that any hint of criticism as taken as a condemnation of your culture. I don't see how "opposing arguments" add anything to the conversation. I know very well that the reconquista was just finishing when Columbus set sail and that Spain had been dominated by an Islamic caliphate for centuries. I don't think that excuses his atrocities.

I neither wrote not implied that Europeans are evil -- you assumed that. The fact is that colonialism and the slave trade, despite creating massive amounts of wealth for some, were horrific for its subjects. And Western Europeans were the first to scale both colonialism and the slave trade globally. This isn't debatable, it's plain fact.

Unfortunately, people like the interviewee explain away early western economic domination by referring to Western European intellect and culture, and ignoring the dark side. This has been the case since the beginning of economic history. Adam Smith didn't even bother to discuss slavery in The Wealth of Nations even though he knew how critical it was to the development of capitalism.

It's time to be honest about how we got here. If the ugly truth offends you, I don't know what to tell you.

> The short answer is that the Europeans...were greedier than the Chinese. It's likely that the Chinese empire reached the New World before Columbus...But the thought of enslaving an entire population and stealing all their natural resources didn't even occur to the Chinese explorers.

...

> I neither wrote not implied that Europeans are evil

I explained very clearly why the circumstances surrounding the expeditions pushed the Europeans to be more greedy than their Chinese counterparts. The fact is that the Europeans pillaged the New World and the Chinese didn't. I believe mainly economic considerations led this to be the case. I don't know what your explanation is.

Your phrase "the short answer" seems to imply that this is the whole explanation for why the industrial revolution happened in the West and not China. Perhaps that is not what you meant.

It's quite true that the Europeans colonialists were tremendously cruel and greedy, and extracted enormous wealth. The question, which is what the link addressed, is why they didn't just spend this wealth, but, unlike all other civilizations, produced the industrial revolution.