From: sibiriensis	Date: July 6th, 2010 06:32 am (UTC)		(Link)

6% в год без надрыва и социального каннибализма экспериментаторов.
Такой громадный потенциал стерли в труху.

	From: ganfayter	Date: July 6th, 2010 10:02 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Пожелание.

Материал очень интересный, но не всегда удается внимательно уделить внимание и посидеть над ним. Не могли бы Вы, все что Вами представлено, скомпилировать в единый файл цикла статей с графиками и т.д.? Всегда удобно иметь под рукой такой материал.

	From: unknown128	Date: July 8th, 2010 12:07 am (UTC)		(Link)

Thanks for the grafics.
But all this applies only to factorys and the growth (6% a year) would be smaller if handicraft is included? (Do the statistics of France, Germany, USA, UK include handicraft???). Lev Kafengauz speaks abouth an growt rate of 6.65% if we follow Goldsmiths calculations that if handicraft is included one must remove 0,5% from the growth rate this would conclude a growth rate of 6,15%, but if one does that with your rate of 6% than the growth rate will only be 5,5% anualy which is very near to Goldsmiths own rate of 5,1% and while not bad still quiet slow for a country with such potential. Please answer me.

	From: unknown128	Date: July 8th, 2010 07:56 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I dont believe that 6% for haevy Industry is such an achivment, especialy if at the beginning of the period their wasnt much haevy industry.

Mashine building is not included, while Кафенгауз included it and featured two third of factory production (Kafengauz indicated that this index of the physical volume of production embraced 66% of the value of output of factories surveyed by the Factory Inspectorate. 34% were left out because the data was lacking indicators of physical output.) Gregorys extended Кафенгауз Index allso includes mettalworking and wood industry and so features around 80-90% of factory production (and not only heavy Industry production). Mashine building is a very important part of russias industry at this time and 1913 it was larger than that of france. So the incurtion that a statistic that features only heavy industry shows smaller growth than a statistic that allso features light industry is rather strange. Is poland included in this statistic?
а Франция медленнее, чем Англия
Strang, I have thought differently, so UKs part of world industrial production in 1880 was 26,6% while frances was 8,6% this is UKs industry was 3,09 times larger, in 1900 it was 19,5% for UK and 7,1% for france means 2,74 times diffrence, 1913 UK produced 14% while france produced 6,4%, Uk is now just 2,18 times stronger, conclusion: frances industry grew faster than UKs which is not surprising if one concideres how much industrialised the UK allready was at the beginning of this period and how agrian france was.

	From: unknown128	Date: July 8th, 2010 09:40 pm (UTC)		(Link)

How much do you believe overall growth was?

You yourself said Насколько я понимаю, в этих графиках даже не вся крупная промышленность включена. А мелкая (но еще промышленность) не включена вовсе. So even in the textile sector only the large factorys are included. If "крупная промышленность" grew with 6% (if one includes mashine building and electrycity it surley will be more) than overall industrial growth will not be much diffrent from Goldsmiths calculations, or what do you think?
Sadly I cant show you Gregorys calculations because they are in restricted papers that I can only accsess from my university, but I believe that he had around 90% of the industry overseen by the factory inspectorat included.

Once again the question from before: is Poland included in your numbers?

	From: unknown128	Date: July 8th, 2010 11:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

"Да, сильно выше - не может"
Do you believe overall growth could be around 6% like Borodkin stated as an example in his interview on "Radio Svoboda" or is it to much?
If growth was only around 5,5% its around that of the USA (and the USA didnt grow from zero like Russia)

	From: unknown128	Date: July 8th, 2010 11:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Oh and I believe this is the text: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2951113
Gregory has added some other factors to Kafengauz calculations.
Kafengauzs data aplies only to the USSR of pre 1939 borders but since Polang grew even quicker, the Baltic grew fast too and western Ukraine and Belorussia were as backward as the rest of the RI this changes little.

From: thinker8086	Date: July 9th, 2010 02:51 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Прекрасный график, он был бы еще показательнее, если бы цифры занятых были бы выражены не в миллионах человек, а в процентах от населения.

Понятно, имеет смысл такие графики сопоставить с активно прогрессирующей Германией и США, а также с "медленно развивавшимися" Англией и Францией - сравнить показатель industrial production per capita в этот период, скажем.

PS: Внушает тотальное превалирование трех отраслей - текстиль, металлургия и топливной промышленности.

PPS: Кстати, если в графиках сравнения стран сделать еще и куб по отраслям - будет вообще кандидатская работа фактически. Но это уже анализировать сложнее, само собой. Хотя, полагаю, опять же интересные моменты будут проявлены.

	From: unknown128	Date: July 9th, 2010 06:33 pm (UTC)		(Link)

каких-то новых аргументов я там не нашел.
Could you please place his output per worker growth grafic on your site, I would like to see it again.
The most interesting argument of his was his combination of Kaffengaus data with his own, I think it is the fullest overwiew I have seen of Russias industrial growth.

	From: unknown128	Date: July 11th, 2010 09:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

My senciere thanks and keep up the good work.

From: thinker8086	Date: July 13th, 2010 05:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

По поводу последнего графика - а то же самое в абсолютных цифрах есть?

	From: unknown128	Date: July 15th, 2010 09:52 am (UTC)		(Link)

Strange I have thought that there were about 5 million workers in 1913 (not counting the seisonal), but one must not forget that only a part of industry is counted here (no mashinebuilding for example). So the part of workers in the country is about 5%.

If one counts citys that didnt get city status, like Ivanovo or Guljajpole (listed as vileges despite having 80000, 40000 inhabitants, librarys electrostations ectera.) than in 1913 about 20% (1917 about 22%) of the population lived in towns (Zubovs history of Russia in the 20th century has good calculations about this)

Такой график без упоминания абсолютных величин - чистая манипуляция

Of cours, thats why Japan now has one of the most effective Industrys in the world while in 1913 they were even less effective than Russia and why, because they grew faster, for even if you are very week, if you grow substantiatly faster than your rivals you will somdays overcome them.

Stalins SSSR couldnt achieve such per worker growth during the whole pre war time and achived economic growth only by transfering people from agriculture to industry en masses (quantity without quality). When in the 70s most people lived in citys and worked in factorys (there was no one to transfer any more) economic growth slowed down massivly. The RI with its slower transfer from "farm to factory" but much higher qualitative growth would have evaided this dead end after which the SSSR could go nowhere.

	From: unknown128	Date: July 17th, 2010 09:54 am (UTC)		(Link)

К вопросу процентов от мировой промышленности: возможно, что в статсборнике 1913 года опечатка и РИ занимает не 5.3%, а 5.5 (with or without Poland?)

The problem with this is that if industry truly grew at the speed of 6% per year and 1885 Russia produced 3,4% of the worlds industry it couldnt be 5,5% at 1913 (try to calculate it yourself), it must be around 6%

	From: unknown128	Date: December 7th, 2010 05:06 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I have read that Mashine-Building employed around 10% of the workforce between 1900 and 1913 (and grew very fast), but its not included in any of the indexes (parts are included into the Kaffenhaus index). Do you know anything about the growth rate for it?

You have calculated the growth rate between 1897 and 1913 as one of 6%,
what is the growth rate between 1887 and 1913?

If handycraft is included into the calculations for other countrys it has to be included into the Russian index too, acording to Goldsmith this means a slowing down of the growth rate around 0,5-1%. As far as I know only the Goldsmith index (and thus the extended Goldsmith index) have such "removal" (dont know about Nutter though).

	From: nikital2014	Date: August 24th, 2014 09:21 am (UTC)		(Link)

А вы писали где-нибудь про ВНП Российской империи? А то везде только такие цитаты:
"При характеристике уровня жизни населения внимание обращается прежде всего на такой показатель, как национальный доход на душу населения.

По подсчетам Н.А. Рубакина, в Европейской России, бывшей, как известно, самой развитой частью Российской империи, годовой доход на душу населения в 1900 г. составлял 63 рубля, в то время как в США — 346, в Англии — 273, во Франции — 233, в Германии — 184, в Австрии — 127, в Италии — 104, Балканских государствах — 101 рубль. Европейская Россия, делает заключение Рубакин, «сравнительно с другими странами — страна полунищая. Если 63 р. представляют сумму, приходящуюся круглым счетом на одного жителя, это значит, что у многих миллионов русских людей не выходит в год и этой суммы»[15]."
http://scepsis.net/library/id_2163.html

Хотелось бы ваше мнение узнать.