[wahern]

The Justinian Plague was as bad or worse, but rather than result in flourishing it ushered in the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire and the start of the so-called Dark Ages. So maybe the Black Plague was an important element, but if so also had to have happened at the confluence of other critical events.

[johngossman]

According to William Rosen in "Justinian's Flea," this plague also led to an agricultural revolution and population explosion in Western Europe.

<quote> One cannot, of course, “know” this in the same way that one can know the date of the battle of Poitiers; applying economic analysis to the spotty record of commerce during late antiquity is a tricky business. However, as can be seen in a subtly reasoned 2003 paper by two development economists, Ronald Findlay of Columbia and Mats Lundahl of the University of Stockholm, it is compelling, as well, despite its reliance on a number of simplifications. </quote>

[cortesoft]

If we are limiting causes to things that would lead to an event every time no matter what other conditions exist, then we aren't going to ever have any causes.

This would be like saying "well drunk driving doesn't cause accidents because I drive drunk once and didn't get in a crash"

[jmalicki]

That's a super interesting question and I agree! I am only saying the modern period of compound economic growth clearly started at the black plague with good explanations as to why.

Why other events did not have the same effects are very interesting questions for economic history.