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.
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.
So you are comparing India to a GDP in 1947 to a GDP in 1970? There are other issues at hand besides socialism.
There are a lot of asumptions you made. What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in others. It takes more than fertile land and ppl to lead in GDP. There are no reliable records that state India's population in Ancient times. If you take a look at the diagram, it clearly shows Indian leading for centuries. I don't know which graph you are looking at.
As for the system brought to India by the British, that's arguable, since it involved exploiting cheap labour, rather than promoting domestic growth. And that, too, is a form of "wealth" plundering that doesn't directly involve shiny things.
The bad institutional framework the British set in India that lead to economic stagnation and not simple taxation of income.
Last edited by Mistertee; 05-16-2014 at 10:56 AM..
The railways, roads, telegraph, were built by the British with revenues seized from India, by British to facilitathe transport of raw material to their home land, nad finished goods and troops back to India.
The few eduactional institutes/schools were set up for the same reason, to create a class of english speaking servants.
The so called British Indian army was the same, raised with revenue from India, to colonize India, and fight the British wars in India and abroad, paid for by revenue from India.
The legal institutions, and system of justice replaced the indigenious sytem. The revenue system was replaced by the british system, and the legal system of the british was there, only, to enforce it.
The land revenue system in which the farner could pay his taxes in kind, a share of the produce, was replaced by cash. The british needed cash, and they sold future collection to collectors and local money lenders. When the farner could not pay, his lands were seized and sold to the money lender, and the british legal sytem gave it legal cover.
Villages would previously set aside lands to finance the local schools. They could not continue the practice under the British. The school system was destroyed.
Under the old system, the local councils, the panchayats would settle disputes. The decision of the lower panchayats couldbe appealed to the higher Panchayats/councils. They would make law.
This system was run in paraleel to the feudal system.
The new legal system was there for the benefit of the British.
Tragically it still exists today and many Indian Laws are holder overs from British rule, and are designed to oppress the population, not serve it.
Only recently in some areas was the law reformed to serve th common man. The Punjab Land Alienation act of the 1930's introduced by Sir Chotu ram, or the Abolitin of Zamindari in the 1950s by Charan Singh.
But what is it like per capita? No doubt that China would have a large gdp due to its historically large population though.
I am willing to bet that the calculations for the years 1 and 1000 are based on percentage of the world's population. I can't believe someone thinks they could actually come up with a PPP factor for that far back in history.
So you are comparing India to a GDP in 1947 to a GDP in 1970? There are other issues at hand besides socialism.
Why not? If UK is what is holding India back then I expect India to develop. It is not hard to develop when your GDP is 600.
Quote:
There are a lot of asumptions you made. What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in others. It takes more than fertile land and ppl to lead in GDP. There are no reliable records that state India's population in Ancient times. If you take a look at the diagram, it clearly shows Indian leading for centuries. I don't know which graph you are looking at.
According to my sources the GDP per capita of India in 1000 was 450 and it was 427 in western europe. So if the gdp per capita is not too different, then it is due to a larger population.
Quote:
As for the system brought to India by the British, that's arguable, since it involved exploiting cheap labour, rather than promoting domestic growth. And that, too, is a form of "wealth" plundering that doesn't directly involve shiny things.
The bad institutional framework the British set in India that lead to economic stagnation and not simple taxation of income.
But you are comparing UK before 1945 with UK after 1945. UK changed a lot in that period. After the war they would have started to build up the institutions in India and that would have promoted growth. Also, India wouldn't have flirted with socialism.
I'm guessing this is for only production within the specific part of the territory as it doesn't seem to fluctuate much with the growth and receding of empire and India is listed on its own even during colonization by the British. Also, for an attempt at a historical overview over such a long period of time, it seems necessary to include Spain, Portugal, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkey
Italy has been the richest "country" for most of post 1 AD history on a per capita basis. Revenues from Roman Empire and the dominance of Mediterranean trade by certain city-states during the Medieval era brought in/created a lot of wealth. This all started to change when Portuguese traders(and later Dutch and British) traders started bypassing the old trade routes and the industrial revolution created an enormous amount of wealth and productivity in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, the and the US(and to a lesser extent: Italy, Japan, and Austria-Hungary).
How on earth would they even measure gdp in the year 1000?
So America had probably a million starving people in 1000 AD and China and India had 100 million starving people a piece. Europe had 50 million starving people. How exactly can you say which place is richer?
How on earth would they even measure gdp in the year 1000?
So America had probably a million starving people in 1000 AD and China and India had 100 million starving people a piece. Europe had 50 million starving people. How exactly can you say which place is richer?
To my knowledge and according to historical accounts I've read, India was richer than European countries when the Portuguese arrived there in the late 15th century. They called Bengal the "golden country" and said it could only be compared with ancient rich empires they read about in their history books (such as Egypt).
This is not an exact science, but it makes sense that European colonists were so attracted to India and presumably also China because they were both richer countries at the time. This is stuff you don't seem to learn in western history books today.
Italy has been the richest "country" for most of post 1 AD history on a per capita basis. Revenues from Roman Empire and the dominance of Mediterranean trade by certain city-states during the Medieval era brought in/created a lot of wealth. This all started to change when Portuguese traders(and later Dutch and British) traders started bypassing the old trade routes and the industrial revolution created an enormous amount of wealth and productivity in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, the and the US(and to a lesser extent: Italy, Japan, and Austria-Hungary).
By the time of Augustus up to 120 ships were setting sail every year from Myos Hormos to India. So much gold was used for this trade, and apparently recycled by the Kushan Empire (Kushans) for their own coinage, that Pliny the Elder complained about the drain of specie to India:
"minimaque computatione miliens centena milia sestertium annis omnibus India et Seres et paeninsula illa imperio nostro adimunt: tanti nobis deliciae et feminae constant. quota enim portio ex illis ad deos, quaeso, iam vel ad inferos pertinet?
India, China and the Arabian peninsula take one hundred million sesterces from our empire per annum at a conservative estimate: that is what our luxuries and women cost us. For what fraction of these imports is intended for sacrifices to the gods or the spirits of the dead?
—Pliny, Historia Naturae 12.41.84.
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.
