4 ms·

> That’s the culture that built the greatest empire in history. Which created the 3rd world via colonialism. For reference the Mughal empire that generated 25%

> That’s the culture that built the greatest empire in history. Which created the 3rd world via colonialism. For reference the Mughal empire that generated 25% of the worlds GDP, or any of the great Chinese empires definitely didn't involve colonialism, famines and death and the creation of the poorest colonial economies in the world to demonstrate their greatness.

rayiner 5y ago
> Which created the 3rd world via colonialism. For reference the Mughal empire that generated 25% of the worlds GDP C’mon, you know why people formulate this point like that, and not like, “Mughal empire GDP decreased 50% after colonialism.” Between 1000 AD and 1600 AD, British GDP per capita doubled. During that time, Indian GDP per capita increased only 20%. Before European contact, India, China, etc., were stuck at pre-industrial revolution levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... By the time the Brits got there, Indian GDP per capita was only half as much as Britain’s. The odds that India would have entered an industrial revolution around that same time after centuries of being stuck in the same place is low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...
- random314 5y ago
  Your own links show Mughal GDP per capita at 700$+ in 1600, china at 800$+, a level that wasn't approached by UK until late 1800s and most of Europe until 1900s. Britain started dominating India in the 1700s and got almost complete domination by 1819 by finishing off the last Indian hold out - the maratha kingdom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Maratha_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Maratha_War India's economic decline coincides with colonialism and does not precede it, the opposite of what you suggest. If you are going to disagree with virtually every economist that colonialism destroyed the economies of virtually every colony while siphoning off a lot of wealth to Europe, you will have to do better than post links that contradict your own statements. By any dimension of comparison the Mughal and contemporaneous Chinese empires were superior to any colonial empires that followed - be it economic output, lack of hunger and famine, or colonial deindustrialization. The British empire was one of the largest setbacks to World GDP ever, as demonstrated by the information you yourself posted.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > Your own links show Mughal GDP per capita at 700$+ in 1600, china at 800$+, a level that wasn't approached by UK until late 1800s and most of Europe until 1900s. Which one are you looking at? I’m looking at the 1–2008 AD chart, which shows Britain at 975 in 1600 and India and China at 550 and 600. India and China were clearly stalled at a pre-industrial level of development before the British came, while the British were on a sharp upward trajectory. You’re also overlooking the counterfactual. What would’ve been India’s level of development if the British had never went there? It might still be pre-industrial.

rayiner 5y ago

> Which created the 3rd world via colonialism. For reference the Mughal empire that generated 25% of the worlds GDP C’mon, you know why people formulate this point like that, and not like, “Mughal empire GDP decreased 50% after colonialism.” Between 1000 AD and 1600 AD, British GDP per capita doubled. During that time, Indian GDP per capita increased only 20%. Before European contact, India, China, etc., were stuck at pre-industrial revolution levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... By the time the Brits got there, Indian GDP per capita was only half as much as Britain’s. The odds that India would have entered an industrial revolution around that same time after centuries of being stuck in the same place is low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P...

random314 5y ago
Your own links show Mughal GDP per capita at 700$+ in 1600, china at 800$+, a level that wasn't approached by UK until late 1800s and most of Europe until 1900s. Britain started dominating India in the 1700s and got almost complete domination by 1819 by finishing off the last Indian hold out - the maratha kingdom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Maratha_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Maratha_War India's economic decline coincides with colonialism and does not precede it, the opposite of what you suggest. If you are going to disagree with virtually every economist that colonialism destroyed the economies of virtually every colony while siphoning off a lot of wealth to Europe, you will have to do better than post links that contradict your own statements. By any dimension of comparison the Mughal and contemporaneous Chinese empires were superior to any colonial empires that followed - be it economic output, lack of hunger and famine, or colonial deindustrialization. The British empire was one of the largest setbacks to World GDP ever, as demonstrated by the information you yourself posted.
- rayiner 5y ago
  > Your own links show Mughal GDP per capita at 700$+ in 1600, china at 800$+, a level that wasn't approached by UK until late 1800s and most of Europe until 1900s. Which one are you looking at? I’m looking at the 1–2008 AD chart, which shows Britain at 975 in 1600 and India and China at 550 and 600. India and China were clearly stalled at a pre-industrial level of development before the British came, while the British were on a sharp upward trajectory. You’re also overlooking the counterfactual. What would’ve been India’s level of development if the British had never went there? It might still be pre-industrial.