Key Takeaways
Spain fucked up. They mistook the gold for something more valuable than Labor. The Merino sheep of Spain were a better bet, in the long term.
The Spanish gold disappeared into economies with a better sense of what value is.
being on this forum for a decade I see people consistently get caught up in the latter, at the expense of noticing the opportunities the same people are here for
selling people a better understanding of why they find things valuable, is worth a lot!
Arab states could get into the same trap
https://www.history.com/articles/slavery-profitable-southern...
Now look at the region.
TIL.
Does anyone have any good recommendations for a (relatively) good social/economic history of the Southern US states? (because I guess that that type of history book would cover this type of information).
But our damn national motto on R&D was "Que inventen otros" (Let the -foreign- ones invent).
Transcontinental fleet of ships regularly circumventing the globe and transporting cargo requires lots of technology. Why marine industry didn't stimulate manufacturing and industrialization?
kind of funny to think they still have trouble to actually extract that gas due to activism around earthquakes and ppl not eager to move away from these places. also now the climate push.
it kinda looks (from an uneducated perspective) they suffered this disease for nothing.
It's extremely convenient to have coal, iron, and waterways in the region where you wish to achieve that early industrialization.
There's a map somewhere showing where those happened - England, France/Germany, eastern/great lakes US.
Value is ultimately always in the eye of the beholder.
But the value of the watch is not reducible to its value as a timekeeping device. (Even here, you could argue that the mechanical watch has more instrumental value as a timekeeping device where batteries are unavailable.)
A mechanical watch has greater value as a mechanical watch; it is mechanically more sophisticated, even if not electronically. It can have greater value as a product of superb craftsmanship or as an object of art. (And here, while tastes vary, I would reject the reduction of beauty to taste.)
Note that this cannot work as a theory of value; everything has infinite value if you define value as "the ability of a thing to be itself".
W.r.t. your imputed definition, there is a sense in which everything is irreplaceable, because the identity of two things that are otherwise entirely identical is never the same; that X is never this X.
But I was not making the claim that the value of something is its “ability be itself”. I was claiming that a thing x of kind A is more valuable as an A than a thing y of kind B as an A, where A is not B. This is trivially true.
Consider the utilitarian value of a pencil as an object for writing and consider a particle accelerator. It should be clear that the utility of a pencil as a writing instrument is greater than the utility of a particle accelerator as a writing instrument. The particle accelerator is more complex as a piece of technology, but so what? It has no value as an instrument for writing down your grocery list.
In any case, I was not proposing a comprehensive basis for a theory of value on this notion alone, so I’m not sure how you managed to selectively read that into my comment. It was only listed as one way in which one could say that a mechanical watch is more valuable than a Casio.
On any objective measurement axis a $15 Casio is more sophisticated than a $10_000 Rolex. I think what we value is the human scale of the Rolex, it operates and is manufactured at a scale we intuitively understand as humans, and we(or at least some people) value the sacrifices and effort needed to run at that scale.
Consider this, on your cheap Casio, the manufacturing tolerances are so tight and the parts are so complex and fine the only way to manufacture them are fully automated lines requiring a staggering capital investment of many millions, however because these lines have to be fully automated the economy of scale applies hard and the final product is very inexpensive.
All it takes to make a fine mechanical watch is a good watchmaker and several hundred thousand dollars of tooling.
One of my favorite watch repair videos is of a guy who rescues a smashed Casio, It has this fun combination of. it's a Casio, not worth even looking at. It is not designed to be serviced. Everything in it is super tiny, I mean watchmaking is already an exercise in frustration with how small everything is, which is why I enjoy watching them work but I have no real desire to do it myself, however in this Casio they were absurdly small. But this madlad did it. What a heroic fix.
You’re forgetting lead, but the point is all the same.
If you mean value per se, not at all. There are difference kinds of value (intrinsic, instrumental).
A piece of bread has objective nutritional value, for example. It doesn’t matter whether you personally dislike bread.
As a trivial example, someone with celiac’s disease is not going to value your gluten ridden bread very high.
This still allows for significant price swings because there vast quantities of gold sitting around in vaults, but unlike say bitcoin it does have high intrinsic value.
I agree that industry use creates a price floor, but that might be much lower than what the price is today. I.e if suddenly everyone lost faith in gold as a carrier of value, so everyone who keeps gold just as a passive keeper of value started selling it off, then we would get a new market clearing price which represents golds 'real value'. I have no clue what this would be, but it is certainly not obvious to me that it's close to today's price.
I’m talking orders of magnitude here. Supply and demand curves generally have a slope. As in the demand for goods by industry increases as the price decreases.
A significantly larger portion of minded gold is used for jewelry than any other use, but a price drop would also reduce the amount mined.
And if they could get gold at a fraction of the cost of other countries and exchange it for useful goods, isn’t that more rational than building the goods yourself?
The Spanish were not stupid and were not acting irrationally — except perhaps thinking on too short of a time frame. The gold trade was a total moral abomination, but it was a good trade economically for hundreds of years.
The main problem was that it was basically an arbitrage play and once the margin got erased from inflation, they had let the rest of their economy atrophy.
This is one of the reasons the Saudis invest so much money in tech companies and other industries.
The Spanish Empire was, more than anything else, a product of the reconquista. The major institutions of Spain were all directed towards the taking and holding of new lands. When granada finally surrendered in 1492, the monarchy turned towards conquering the canaries and then the new world to avoid the large scale structural changes needed to go from a militaristic, medieval nation to a peacetime state in the early modern. The systems of repartimiento and encomienda were more or less borrowed wholesale from the reconquista. The conquistadors and chroniclers all saw the Americas through the lens of the chivalric literature they loved. The name "California" was borrowed from one of those books, about a fictional island of Amazons who aided the moors.
Precious metals were a solution to the problems Spanish monarchs had in organizing Spanish society. It paid for soldiers in the monarchy's constant wars. It paid off loans to italian and dutch financiers, and it was something that could much more easily be controlled by a distant monarch than import duties or taxation (which nobility were largely exempt from). It also gave them some limited control over their inflation issues by devaluing and revaluing the coinage as financial pressures required. This eventually caused other problems, but the point is that Spain was never really an arbitrage play. They didn't have to be, since they controlled some 30% of the world's gold supply and >90% of its silver at points.
More like the opposite. The Golden Age of Spain was all about making fun on the knight from the "New Man" making wealth from the Americas.
Heck, it's the main theme from Don Quixote. The old, idealistic, outdated, Medieval wannabe-knight (hidalgo meant hijo-de-algo, son of something, hereditary titles) vs the simpleton but grounded peasant from the New World era.
It's like finding New York policemen devouring dime novels around the Far West and believing themselves as lonely, macho gunslingers...
In the end the 70's cop movies aren't that different to a Western movie, but they still look a bit rusty compared to a Charles Bronson movie with slight detective skills where a bit of slow pace and thinkering it's needed and most of the old rural tropes wouldn't apply to a big city.
A similar thing would be comparing the Medieval Spain tactics against the medieval ones where guns are becoming to be the norm.
The modern view would be that investing the money can product long term economic benefits. The Saudis are trying to turn the temporary oil wealth into more permanent economic strength, so they'll remain wealthy when the oil is gone.
The massive Spanish purchases of weapons and other manufactured goods from other countries in the 16th and 17th centuries played a large role in jump-starting the capitalist economic revolution in Europe.
It just happened that the British industrial revolution steamrolled everyone. You can't compete aganst the steam engine and the railway making communications and sharing of goods and raw materials something ridiculously cheap compared to the previous times, even by boat in both UK and Spain where the big rivers like Douro and Tagus could sustain a lot of transport. But, still, the train allowed to reach anyone in the country.
Which cheap transportation you can connect industrial powerhouses (and competent engineers and scientists) and the rest it's history. Addthe telegraph on top of that and it's game over for any outdated empire. When knowledge sharing can be reduced hours and maybe a day or two instead of weeks or months, it's like upgrading from having a 486 based computer with DOS to a Ryzen one with multiparallel processing. Literally.
Did you actually read the wiki you linked?
Spain transferred the gold to Moscow who liquidated it on Spain's behalf to buy guns, fund the civil war, and deposit in banks.
There's mixed views whether Moscow took too much of a margin, but they melted down gold after selling it and the gold is still in circulation.
If you melt down gold, how are you not staring at the same gold?
Moscow didn't steal anything either.
Cherrypicking a quote from Stalin who was using sarcastic humor at a banquet when the gold arrived also doesn't refute my point or answer my question.
I guess Russia has always been a shitty country.
1. National treasures (ex gold) were returned in '35 and '56.
2. Romania intervened against the Bolsheviks in Bessarabia.
#2 seems like FAFO to me.
1. They never returned 92tons of gold. The vast majority of the national treasure is still in Moscow. I hope the EU ties this to the current Russian assets frozen in the EU.
2. Bolsheviks ? Russia collapsed in 1917 and Bassarabia voted to join Romania. There was no Russian control in Bassarabia, no war, no fight.
Nobody forced them, true, they were in dire circumstances, but it proves even more how much Russians can be trusted. 0. Shitty country since forever.
I expressly said "ex gold."
>Bolsheviks ?
Lmao. Where are you getting these falses premises?
1. Who rose to power after Russia collapsed in 2017?
2. There was no Bolshevik fighting or presence in Bessarabia?
3. Romania didn't intervene to fight Bolsheviks in Bessarabia?
You must be hallucinating to think otherwise.[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_military_intervention...
Which is what I responded to.
Gold was part bars and part rare historical coins.
Also still unreturned, which is extremely valuable:
Queen Marie’s jewels were not returned The Romanian Crown Jewels were not returned Royal and dynastic archives Private deposits of Romanian citizens Orthodox Church treasures
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0171...
2. Who were these Bolsheviks ? There was no government, they weren't Russian / Soviet - what were they ? Give me some source that shows Romania was fighting Tsarist Russia / URSS / Russia (?). Your article doesn't clarify that at all. I wonder why.
Romania entrusted Tsarist Russia with its national treasure.
Do you deny there's state continuity from before 1918 ?
This claim is wrong.
You meant to say "ex." is common, noting the period for the abbreviation. Whereas ex is commonly used (See "ex dividend".) as I did above.
I'm skipping the rest of your reply because it's a waste of time after you loaded up with a "you don't know what you're talking about" only to be wrong.
Eight hundred years is time enough to perfect it.
ELI5, please!
Also, to quote Jastram [0], "In spite of the romanticism of the Spanish Main and treasure ships, the supply of gold from the New World was just a trickle by later standards. Less than 1% of what was to be 1930 world production was produced in each of the years from 1500 to 1520." Over the next 80 years, it never got much above 1.3%.
[0] Roy W. Jastram, The Golden Constant (1977), pg. 41.
Or maybe currently RAM. You found pile of money somewhere. You buy big amount of RAM. RAM prices go up, you do not care you have money. In a few years DDR6 comes out. The RAM you bought is not that expensive anymore. You do not really have either money or something currently expensive.
Wealth is owning the land, the machines, the buildings, the knowledge(more so now). Being rich is owning lot of what can buy those things. But if you keep spending liquid wealth, eventually it is gone and you are not wealthy anymore.
There’s a lot more to “wealth” than just having a bunch of stuff. Especially in the long term, since most “stuff” will wear out or otherwise decay over time.
It's close to ideal for a loaf of bread, or a bag of nails. I can hop on my bike and turn my money into either of those things in a few minutes. Turning money into a house is further from that ideal of course.
That is what is being discussed.
It would be interesting to learn about the technological developments Spain failed to make compared to some of their European neighbours. Merchant banking is one of them.
Where just giving away food or money, especially on large scales distorts and ruins economies. Likewise introducing significant export markets when a local economy isn't ready.
> Early data from a sub-district pilot showed sharp reductions in extreme poverty and improved wellbeing with minimal inflation, showing direct cash is a scalable tool to accelerating the end of extreme poverty.
https://www.givedirectly.org/district-scale/
Perhaps things are different in Malawi?
And if you measure poverty by how much money someone has and then give them money saying you've fixed poverty is tautology.
If your plan is to build a client state on perpetual welfare, well sure it's easy to be successful. But you can never leave and it's very possible that if you do leave things will be worse than if you had done nothing at all.
Whereas if you distribute a bunch of goats and chickens among a community and spread some education about raising goats and chickens, there's a good chance you've made a one shot permanent improvement to the quality of life of a community.
The criticism for giving direct aid in food and cash isn't that things are worse for the people you're giving them to while you're giving it to them... it's that you wreck the local economy for food and everything else because nobody can sell food when food is free and you can't price things correctly when money is pouring in. The money always stops and the aftermath is a disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
You can imagine every year the price per bushel of the wheat you grow drops and your mortgage stays the same. When your whole economy is like that no one wants to borrow or lend money and investment slows.
If you don't have a mechanism for productivity increase matching your inflation it's just making whoever is creating the new money temporarily proportionally wealthier until the money spreads everywhere.
A ship for transatlantic shipping might have first cost 100,000 maravedí to build and equip before the treasure fleet expeditions, but afterwards with so much gold flowing into the economy and lots of competition for a limited ship building industry, the costs would inflate to 1 million maravedí (number roughly from memory). Same with the canons and shot, animals and sailor salaries, and so on.
Repeat this process across the whole economy and it throws everything into chaos. Some people here and there get rich, but its economy wide it could be a total wash.
- The COVID free-money needed to be less and to end sooner
- The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner
The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change.
We needed restrictions ONLY during spikes and more consideration needed to be given to the long term economic effects of COVID policies.
An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader
https://wgntv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/01/tuedeat...
The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition.
We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
I won’t claim to know what the appropriate response level should have been back then. But it is very clear that the whole affair has hurt and damaged people and society irreparably. The only winners are the wealthy who scooped up assets at never-before seen interest rates.
I don't know if it was worth it or necessary but tbh I just try to forget the whole phase ever happened. For me it was a few lost life years and I'm still trying to get back to where I was mentally.
I do feel those things were really overlooked back in the day. But I'm also glad I'm not the one making such decisions which can't be easy.
> The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner
What would we have been optimizing for here? GDP? Deaths? ICU Capacity? Lifestyle? Or would we weight them? If so would we take 2nd and 3rd order effects into consideration?
> An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader
I lived in a country/state that did this during the pandemic. It wasn't a case of restrictions on, restrictions off. It was more a dialing back or ramping up of restrictions. If you look at other countries that did this you will still find the wave pattern. If I had to guess that is related to immunity after exposure. What would change however is the height of the peaks. With it's political/media landscape I don't know if the approach you suggest could have been applied effectively in the USA. Ultimately what drives cases/deaths is human behavior and the virus itself. Those who thought covid was an issue were taking precautions regardless of the restrictions.
> The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change.
This is a gross simplification of the whole pandemic. If I was to narrativize it I would say that over time as exposure to the virus increased it became less deadly so the vast majority of the people who were already prone to dying via covid had done so already.
> The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition.
This is more a comment on the political/media landscape than the response to covid itself. People have to operate within the system. If they present any sort of nuanced idea then they are persecuted by roughly 50% of the population whose narrative it infringes upon.
> We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
The WHO was very clear at the beginning of the pandemic about the risks of the virus. For wealthy countries whose hospitals were "lean and mean" a high number of cases would cause immense pressure on these hospitals resulting in otherwise avoidable deaths not just from covid but from other things that would result from a limited ICU capacity. By this I mean life saving operations getting cancelled because there was no capacity in the ICU. It's also worth mentioning the restrictions pared with the financial aid allowed people to stay at home and not engage in any risk taking activities.
To summarize I think it's easy to arm chair quarterback the response to the pandemic. It's like most of politics. We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem. The "masks are ineffective" narrative at the beginning of the pandemic was a classic example of this.
I wrote the following July 2020:
>And with all of this money being injected into the economy, we are absolutely going to get an enormous amount of inflation... eventually. You could see it as already happening with the valuation of the stock market.
And in January 2022:
>It’s time to admit defeat and plan for what that looks like and stop pretending like anything at this point is going to make this virus go away. It’s here, it’s going to kill about one person in a thousand of those left, and if you choose to not get vaccinated that’s your choice and if you’re not young you’re taking a significantly higher risk of death.
Not so much hindsight as "what I've been saying all along".
>We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem.
This is a bunch of nonsense. What was happening was quite transparent. The science was out in the open in papers and government statistics for anyone with scientific training to read. Politicians were caving to polarized public opinions on both sides to take advantage of and encourage their chosen pole.
Those of us talking about moderation and common sense reactions were demonize by one side or usually both depending on the venue. Nobody in leadership had the balls to lead and try to make people understand a middle path based on reason.
People STILL fall into their previously chosen polar opinion and refuse to accept that moderation was the correct and untaken path.
It was a dynamic situation and it sounds like the only things that you were optimizing for in your mind was inflation and covid deaths whiles ignoring second order effects and data that likely wasn't available to the public.
You are like a person who kept telling everyone it was 12:00am but it wasn't, then when it finally became 12:00am and everyone agreed you jumped up and said "See guys it's 12:00am why didn't anyone listen to me! I was right all along!".
It's a bit rich to blame all the inflation on the financial response to the pandemic without taking into consideration the effect the pandemic had on logistics or considering what would have happened if the government didn't spend enough. Also it's probably worth mentioning that the Fed operates independently and is tasked with only financial functions.
> The science was out in the open in papers and government statistics for anyone with scientific training to read. Politicians were caving to polarized public opinions on both sides to take advantage of and encourage their chosen pole.
No argument here except to say it's one thing to know the science and it's another thing to act on the science.
> Those of us talking about moderation and common sense reactions were demonize by one side or usually both depending on the venue. Nobody in leadership had the balls to lead and try to make people understand a middle path based on reason.
If there is one thing I know it's that common sense only exists when people share the same values and assumptions. Why for example was it acceptable to you that 1 out of 1000 people died of covid? Why not more? Why not less?
The treasury spent an extra $2 trillion which the Fed facilitated the creation of and your response is "what about logistics??", hindsight isn't 20/20 for you and sky isn't blue it's a ham sandwich. It is pointless discussing this with people like you, this is why we can't have nice things.
Home still got ass-busting inflation
The timescale you are looking at is very small. The federal reserve has a dual mandate to have maximum employment and stable prices. What would have happened on a longer timeframe to employment and prices if every other country effectively backstopped their economy but the USA didn't?
It's like you don't know why the fed even came to exist or have any knowledge about the great depression or just fail to recognize how catastrophic that the pandemic was to the USA economy or the world economy as a whole.
These sorts of statements are far too often as a justification to dodge responsibility used by those who at the time just poured more virgins into the volcano in a obviously vain attempt to change the weather (or whatever metaphor for "clearly not gonna work but ideologically convenient" you want to use).
I just want to add that there is always a latent chaos / anarchy in people ready to jump at any oportunity to convince others to follow them. Doomsayers introducing themselves as messiahs. They are any combination of pseudoscience, religion and conspiracy. All this in addition of the normal political power struggles.
> Any wealth created for the state mostly just went into paying for wars because the inflation worked its way up through salaries.
Wealth created for the state just went into paying for wars because that what mattered to the early modern aristocracy and that's what they wanted to pay with their additional money. From the point of view of the Spanish elite of the time, their “wealth” increased dramatically during that period, it's just that this don't fit your or my criteria for wealth.
People just like having things handed to them I guess.
I took it to mean something like, "I won't understand an abstruse Ph.D.-level explanation of what happened. I need an explanation geared toward the layperson."
In fact, I think that's closer to the essence of ELI5--as opposed to literally explaining something at the 5 year old level.
I suppose you can quibble about using the initialism, ELI, but only if you're advocating for people who might be unfamiliar with its use. Otherwise, I don't understand your complaint.
Consider sustainability.
But backwards people like Ferdinand the 7th cut down the modernisation of Spain which could boost us up to the level of France if not more. I'm no kidding. Just look at the Cádiz constitution from 1812.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_VII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1812
Not bad for its time at all.
More directly from the trade itself and the silver it brought permanently altered the demographics, flora and fauna of the region. Southern Chinese traders migrated in greater numbers throughout the region, new world fruits and vegetables such as sweet potato and pineapple are introduced. Chinese merchants in the region are producing Christian religious art for export back to the old world, giving rise to a unique hybrid artistic style.[0] The region as a whole becomes more attractive for the Dutch and the British, which had its own set of downstream consequences …
I’m sorry I don’t have a single source that pulls this all together, you would probably need to pick an area and start reading!
[0] https://artsandculture.google.com/story/ivories-from-macau-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_silver_trade_from_the_1...
--------------
World silver production during the 16th century was around 23 thousand tons[1]. Silver was closer in value to gold back then too, at around one tenth the value per weight. The economic impact of new world gold was a rounding error compared to the impact of silver.
If you have a mental image of Spanish conquistadors sparking global inflation purely by looting Inca gold, erase it. The real culprit was silver extracted from Potosi and a few other New world mines.
[1]https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40312/m2/1/...
That is when labors start to flood to Netherlands.
Nace en las Indias honrado, // donde el mundo le acompaña; // viene a morir en España // y es en Génova enterrado.
(Mr. Money) is born in the Indies an honest man, with the world on his side; he comes to Spain to die, and is buried in Genoa.
Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.