2 ms·
> Indeed, but [India and SE Asia] have a short history of wealth Er, quite the opposite. In the grand scheme of things, India has a relatively short history of
by chimeracoder 11y ago
> Indeed, but [India and SE Asia] have a short history of wealth
Er, quite the opposite. In the grand scheme of things, India has a relatively short history of poverty, compared with a much longer history of wealth.
Modern nation-state boundaries make no sense more than a couple of centuries in the past, but the Economist did an extrapolation of what that would have looked like, and the result was that China was the richest "country" for most of recorded history, and India was second.
- moultano 11y agoFor purposes of metabolism, I'm defining subsistence farming to be poverty regardless of other quality of life issues. Yes India has been relatively a land of plenty for most of its history. But the modern trend of sedentary desk jobs that accompany increases in wealth is hitting India later than much of the world.