4 ms·

Doesn't this line of reasoning apply equally to the Swiss? They had no colonies, and are richer than Britain today. Probably were in 1952 as well.

• gumby 8y ago
  Actually by 1952, probably not. Switzerland's economy was pretty much agricultural up to the second world war (remittence payments from the Vatican were a noticeable source of foreign income into the early 20th century!). WWII offered a source of capital (people stashing their money into a neutral state, and many never asking for it back) and some industrialization, but the Switzerland we think of today is really a product of the late 50s/1960s.
  • iguy 8y ago
    Indeed. But German industrialisation didn't seem to need much from tropical colonies. And conversely, all those fabulous silver mines didn't exactly leave the Spaniards with a head-start in modernisation.
  • graeme 8y ago
    Most places were pretty agricultural in 1952 :) This dataset has Switzerland at #2 in 1950, and a comment says UK would have been #7. Economic growth in europe only really took off to levels we think of as "today" after 30+ years of intense postwar growth. It was rich before that, but still very rural. Movies of the era are quite revealing. I an genuinely curious if there is an argument against Switzerland et al being counterexamples to the colonialism/wealth argument. The strongest one I can think of would be that Switzerland et al benefitted from proximity to capital and to the new techniques discovered by capital. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950 https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-...