> I think it’s tremendously important for academia to study what factors have allowed certain countries to develop stable, prosperous democracies. It's no myst

> I think it’s tremendously important for academia to study what factors have allowed certain countries to develop stable, prosperous democracies. It's no mystery. You need a politically united elite. You need political stability/authoritarianism. You need a nationalistic elite that take a nation's wealth and develop it rather than fly to europe and waste it there. And you need to become rich before you become a democracy. Democracy is a luxury for the wealthy. It's not something you want as a poor or developing country. The british celebrate democracy in india/etc not because they love india. But because they hate/fear them. The relationship between britain and india has always been that of a master and a slave. Ask yourself, why do the british malign china, which has developed immensely, but praise india which has 300 million without electricity? They praise india because india is undeveloped and weak and they malign china because they are developing and getting stronger. The master never wants their slaves to usurp them. The easiest way to tell if india is on the right path is if britain and the west start denouncing india. Like we did after india developed nuclears. > It chalks up the differences in development between countries to “geography” giving some countries a “head start.” It's true. Geography is destiny. It's why britain was of no importance until the americas was "discovered". When mediterranean trade was dominant, it was mediterranean countries ( rome/greece/egypt/etc ) that was wealthy. When the new world became the focus, spain/britain/france/etc became the wealthiest empires for a reason compared to italy/greece/poland/etc. There are other factors involved for sure, but geography is absolutely significant. > Yet by the time the British East India company came to India, Britain was more than twice as rich per capita as India That's because britain had the colonies to offload most of their people. Also the british was the largest atlantic slave traders for 100 years before they arrived in south asia. > The British will never write a $42 trillion check for what they allegedly siphoned off from India. Not unless india conquers britain and takes it back. If you look at opportunity cost, then they siphoned far more than $42 trillion. If india was free to develop/industrialize like say japan did in the late 1800s, India today would be a $60+ trillion economy. It's mindboggling that india still hasn't gone full-throttle with their industrialization like America or Europe did in the early 1800s, japan did in the late 1800s or china did in the 80s. What is india waiting for? It seems like the indian elite prefers pat on their heads for being a democracy by the west rather than industrializing their country. > But understanding how the British (themselves the victims of repeated invasions) came to have the economic and military advantage that allowed them to do that would be valuable. It's not rocket science. Imagine if bangladesh finds a piece of land that is 100000000X the size of bangladesh and has infinite more resources. Imagine if bangladesh was able to send 80% of its population to that land and transport the resources of that land to bangladesh. How do you think that would affects its per capita GDP? Geography made britain ( aka its proximity to north america ). I don't think bangladesh is going to find such luck. They should look at how japan, south korea, singapore, etc developed. Bangladesh needs a united nationalistic elite because a nation is developed by the elite. The rise of china lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and represents the greatest humanitarian achievement to date. If south asia ( which has nearly 2 billion people, far more than china ) can get its act together, it would be the greatest humanitarian achievement for all time. No region could surpass it because no region has that many people.