Jim Devine wrote:
the empirical validity of the concept of "hysteresis" or "path dependence" tells us that concrete short-run accidents can have longer-run effects. That is, the world is _not_ tending toward some (unique) predetermined long-run equilibrium (as, say G.A. Cohen's theory of history would imply) but is instead always at a crossroads, where slight differences in the balance of power and even minor accidents can have major long-term effects. (What if the US hadn't been able to figure out the Japanese military's secret code and then had lost the battle of Midway?)
Under which conditions a nation with a significantly lower productive force of labor can retain their military supremacy over nations with a higher productive force? I imagine that only under very extreme conditions. A couple of "fortunate" historical accidents wouldn't suffice to keep things on that track. You'd need a long series of short-run accidents (a highly unlikely scenario) for that to situation to perpetuate. Since I don't have a teleological view of history, I have no problem accepting the *possibility* of a nation with an economy in ruins dominating the rest of the world forever, while the rest of the world has a booming peaceful economy; all as a result of sequence of accidents. But, would I consider that a likely event? Not really. That's what I mean by my referring to the longer-run rule, as opposed to the shorter-run accidents.
