4 ms·

The height of the British empire was ~1500-1800. Here is a graph of their GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-127

The height of the British empire was ~1500-1800. Here is a graph of their GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270?yScale=log https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-... There is definitely some increase, but it really kicks up in 1800s and 1900s, with the industrial revolution.

j7ake 3y ago
The increase in slope at 1850 onwards corresponds to the start of the British Raj rule, when about a trillion dollars of wealth was transferred. India went from 23% of global GDP to under 3% during this period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_Bri...
- DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
  Except that the slope stays the same (in the UK) after the end of the Raj in 1947. The growth rate of India's economy stayed pre-industrial until the end of WWII (probably not coincidentally), that's why the relative GDP shrunk. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?tab=chart&yScale=log&time=1800..latest&country=IND~OWID_WRL~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?t... So maybe England was keeping India poor but that wasn't what made England rich.
chmod775 3y ago
If Britain plunders a quadrillion worth of stuff and ships it home, their GDP does not have to change at all. It's just not what GDP measures. The only way GDP is can be useful if we say that by wealth we mean GDP, but then we've just made the word wealth as useless as the GDP metric. In the case of countries, our modern intuitive understanding of wealth is pretty much "how hard does a person in this country have to work in relation to how well they live" - at least that's what countries nowadays are optimizing for. A country in which <40 hour work-weeks are the norm, in which almost everyone can afford yearly week-long vacations, which has good infrastructure, as well as affordable high-quality services, food and goods, you'd probably call rich. That's just not something GDP tells you in a vacuum. Often when looking back at the time of empires, our understanding of wealth becomes "how much actual wealth have the rulers of this country managed to accumulate", which is also not something GDP measures very well.

j7ake 3y ago

The increase in slope at 1850 onwards corresponds to the start of the British Raj rule, when about a trillion dollars of wealth was transferred. India went from 23% of global GDP to under 3% during this period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_Bri...

DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
Except that the slope stays the same (in the UK) after the end of the Raj in 1947. The growth rate of India's economy stayed pre-industrial until the end of WWII (probably not coincidentally), that's why the relative GDP shrunk. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?tab=chart&yScale=log&time=1800..latest&country=IND~OWID_WRL~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?t... So maybe England was keeping India poor but that wasn't what made England rich.

chmod775 3y ago

If Britain plunders a quadrillion worth of stuff and ships it home, their GDP does not have to change at all. It's just not what GDP measures. The only way GDP is can be useful if we say that by wealth we mean GDP, but then we've just made the word wealth as useless as the GDP metric. In the case of countries, our modern intuitive understanding of wealth is pretty much "how hard does a person in this country have to work in relation to how well they live" - at least that's what countries nowadays are optimizing for. A country in which <40 hour work-weeks are the norm, in which almost everyone can afford yearly week-long vacations, which has good infrastructure, as well as affordable high-quality services, food and goods, you'd probably call rich. That's just not something GDP tells you in a vacuum. Often when looking back at the time of empires, our understanding of wealth becomes "how much actual wealth have the rulers of this country managed to accumulate", which is also not something GDP measures very well.