You must be looking at different numbers to me Gandalf. It looks to me like it all turned around around the year zero.

The peak came at the turn of the millenium, which was less than 50 years after Caesar became dictator. It is hard to imagine the results matching the theory more closely.

Rome's standard of living was rising rapidly as a republic. As soon as it became a dictatorship, it stagnated (actually, fell slowly), followed by a rapid fall.

Again, it could not match the theory more closely.

You fail to see what is right in front of you.

From this: The wealth of Rome started to fall as soon as it became a dictatorship.
To this: As soon as it became a dictatorship, it stagnated (actually, fell slowly)

Is restating the same thing Gandalf. You are getting desperate.

Quote:


I am not sure what you think the theory says, but this in no way contradicts it. It supports it. Dictatorship put the brakes on Roman economic growth and lead to the demise of the empire. The growth went from the highest in recorded history and still growing, accelerating even, to falling.

The author actually cites modern examples of dictatorships causing societies to go from stagnation to rapid growth, and explains how it is consistent with his theory. If you want simplistic evidence against the theory, there is plenty, though greater familiarity with the details will render your arguments even more absurd.

Do you have an alternative theory Gandalf, to explain the "alleged" relationship between freedom, democracy and wealth?

Quote:


The data does not actually show this. It only has 100 year resolution. Furthermore, you are basically creating a strawman of the argument. Money does not evaporate the minute a dictator takes over. A significant lag is entirely consistent with the mechanisms involved. Despite that, the results for Rome match the theory extraordinarily well. Stagnation and fall where the was previously rapid growth is a change in fortune. If our own society stopped making scientific and economic advances and improvements to our quality of life, I would count that as a failure.

Quote:


Your own numbers show that it did - this alone is a significant change from the meteoric rise that preceded it.

Quote:


Both are adequate descriptions.

Quote:


The lurch towards dictatorship can be an ultimate cause for probably most of the reasons he gives. The authors do go over some of the alternative reasons (eg blaming it on the various invaders) and explain how it is more a symptom than a cause. For example, suppose America became a dictatorship and it's GDP actually fell for the next few centuries, until one day Mexico or China or Afghanistan invaded. A simplistic analysis would blame it on the invasions. That would not actually be incorrect, as the invasion would be a proximate cause of something, but it would entirely miss the point and the lesson of history.

The same patterns are repeated throughout history, and the theory has great predictive power for what will happen in the future, as well as instructive power for how to achieve change. You do not need 100 reasons to explain 1 event. It is one reason that can explain 100 events.

Quote:


My bad. I thought there was a slight fall to 100 AD. 

Quote:


Of course. It was a response to a specific point you made, not an attempt to restate the case made by the authors.

Quote:


Economic inclusiveness and the one child policy. The authors do cite other examples of the relationship between population and living standard in situations approaching Malthusian (most notably the black plague and it's aftermath), but it does not form part of the main thesis. China is liberalising their economy at a rapid rate (I have a European friend running businesses in Beijing). The theory does make some predictions at the consequences of this on the political situation. It will inevitably lead to pressure for political inclusiveness, and make such demands more likely to be fruitful. Furthermore, China's politics is already far more inclusive than most countries. The communist party is a very large organisation, apparently open to all comers. The political manouvering within the party to change from socialism towards capitalism looks much like any political party, except for the occasional jailing. I expect political inclusiveness to come about in the first instance through more transparency and democracy within the party before transitioning to a real democracy - more along the lines of the UK's slow change rather than the French Revolution. If the Chinese government clamps down and succeeds in reversing these changes, China's economy will slide, notwithstanding the effects of their population control.

... bad government following the ideas put forward by aquascoot, longie and a few other fringe dwellers with no solid idea?

Just asking...  every man advances himself by being a positive user etc of everyone else, and every man advances himself by exploiting and dominating every other man..... and then they start chopping off the tits of the women who might breed the 'lesser' beings... and then they figure there is a better way... and they build the camps....