Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
China's GDP share peaked around 1820, which is toward the end of Qian Long empire. After that it was going downhill. So Qian Long is actually the emperor to blame for China's decline
How do you blames someone for being a product of his time/culture and experience? There is nothing and no one to blame, as China's history is driven by its cultural, environmental and social factors. For a leader of a bunch of Manchu barbarians, I think Qianlong Di did quite well.
As for this pointless measurement of the size of the GDP...is it a guy thing? Plenty of people have determined that the size of the GDP does not measure anything. China is still poor and backward in many ways, period.
Does it include the British Empire? Hard to believe China's GDP was still higher than Britain's in 1870.
Of course not. India was part of the British empire, but got their own bar. Also, a lot of the countries did not exist in 1000. There was no India, China was not unified, US did not exist, etc.
I am quite sure it is the historic GDP of the land borders today.
How do you blames someone for being a product of his time/culture and experience? There is nothing and no one to blame, as China's history is driven by its cultural, environmental and social factors. For a leader of a bunch of Manchu barbarians, I think Qianlong Di did quite well.
As for this pointless measurement of the size of the GDP...is it a guy thing? Plenty of people have determined that the size of the GDP does not measure anything. China is still poor and backward in many ways, period.
Certainly not a guy thing, since many women are interested in this as well. This is GDP, not GDP per capita. China is still poor and backwards in many ways because the GDP per capita (ppp) is not even 10000. To give you a perspective on the number, Mexico has a gdp per capita of 15K, and they are still trying to cross the border to the US.
But it is true that GDP is not a perfect indicator. There are two reasons for that.
1. Money is not always used as an exchange mechanism. GDP do not measure things you create yourself or something the community create together.
2. In poor economies there is often little control over the production and some of the production is missing.
Still GDP is one of the best indicators we have. As long as you don't have a good replacement for GDP (that measures the same) then we should keep using GDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen2010
China's GDP share peaked around 1820, which is toward the end of Qian Long empire. After that it was going downhill. So Qian Long is actually the emperor to blame for China's decline
Not really, there is not much he could have done. China was not even aware of the technology that could lead to increased production.
The main responsible factor for the decline was the Kuomintang government. In 1912 china had a gdp per capita of 552, in 1937 when the Japanese invasion started it was 580. In the same period Japan went from 1387 to 2315 and South Korea from 869 to 1561. Had the Kuomintang government developed the economy then they would have easily fought off the Japanese invasion and there would be no communist revolution.
If the Kuomintang government had been more responsible, then China could be almost at South Korea/Taiwanese level tdday, and the cities on the east coast would have been much better.
Of course not. India was part of the British empire, but got their own bar. Also, a lot of the countries did not exist in 1000. There was no India, China was not unified, US did not exist, etc.
I am quite sure it is the historic GDP of the land borders today.
India's GDP was crushed because of the British policies in place. Incredible to see India leading the pack for centuries.
India's GDP was crushed because of the British policies in place. Incredible to see India leading the pack for centuries.
Not really. When India got its independence in 1947 then it had a gdp per capita of 618. In 1970 the country had a gdp per capita of 868. Why? Because like many other developing countries it choose to flirt with socialism and did not build up its public institutions.
India would have benefited greatly if they never left UK (assuming they peacefully stayed with the UK). UK would have build up the public institutions for them, and they would not try to impose socialism. In fact India could have been richer than China if they stayed with the UK.
Also, India was not leading the pack in the past. It just had more people because the land in India is very fertile.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
