The long answer is that coming up with reasonable estimates of these things (even “easy” things like how far goods traveled or the amount of money in circulation) is a nontrivial task. Moreover, the very act of choosing metrics imposes modern interpretations and values upon past societies.
For example, let’s take the amount of money in circulation. That’s important today, because most of our commercial transactions are impersonal, conducted with people whom we don’t know and may never see again. But historically, that wasn’t the case. In older societies, with small tight-knit communities, the amount of cash in circulation didn’t matter very much. The vast majority of economic transactions took place on a credit basis, with people keeping tabs on who owed whom what, and settling tabs on a periodic basis with goods, rather than cash. In this world, commercial relations are inseparable from social relations, and, as a result cash is far less important. Fixating on the amount of cash in circulation therefore risks imposing severe distortions on one’s view of the level and sophistication of commercial transactions in historical economies.
I think these are the wrong types of questions to forecast for history, you want to ask much loower resolution questions like: Who will end up with more resources after this war? What country will be dominant in 20 years time, etc.
These questions are subjective obviously, but you can still do a decent job at figuring out how good you are at predicting the future form the past. One way you could resolve them is ask someone who’s analysis of history you respect.
The short answer is no.
The long answer is that coming up with reasonable estimates of these things (even “easy” things like how far goods traveled or the amount of money in circulation) is a nontrivial task. Moreover, the very act of choosing metrics imposes modern interpretations and values upon past societies.
For example, let’s take the amount of money in circulation. That’s important today, because most of our commercial transactions are impersonal, conducted with people whom we don’t know and may never see again. But historically, that wasn’t the case. In older societies, with small tight-knit communities, the amount of cash in circulation didn’t matter very much. The vast majority of economic transactions took place on a credit basis, with people keeping tabs on who owed whom what, and settling tabs on a periodic basis with goods, rather than cash. In this world, commercial relations are inseparable from social relations, and, as a result cash is far less important. Fixating on the amount of cash in circulation therefore risks imposing severe distortions on one’s view of the level and sophistication of commercial transactions in historical economies.
I think these are the wrong types of questions to forecast for history, you want to ask much loower resolution questions like: Who will end up with more resources after this war? What country will be dominant in 20 years time, etc.
These questions are subjective obviously, but you can still do a decent job at figuring out how good you are at predicting the future form the past. One way you could resolve them is ask someone who’s analysis of history you respect.
They’re what the OP is looking to forecast, though. I pulled “money in circulation” example straight from the OP’s post.
Well, I would be happy with whatever I can get. I’m not attached to those particular metrics.