News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New research on the cost of colonization to India by dsfyu404ed on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:23PM (#18684335)
>To add to that: India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952.[1]

Industrialization happened in this time period. India did not industrialize as rapidly or to the same extent as Europe and the US.

Share of world income is a zero sum game. Some of that decline is made up for by increased income elsewhere. The absolute income in India certainly did not decrease from 1700 to 1952.

These numbers would be more useful with a comparison to China, Russia and Japan over the same time period (all of which industrialized later than Europe and the US).

Re:New research on the cost of colonization to India by newyankee on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:32PM (#18684421)
Where did the British get a lot of raw materials for their industrialization. Where did they dump a lot of their products ?
Re:New research on the cost of colonization to India by graeme on Friday December 14, 2018 @04:16PM (#18684865)
Doesn't this line of reasoning apply equally to the Swiss? They had no colonies, and are richer than Britain today. Probably were in 1952 as well.
Re:New research on the cost of colonization to India by gumby on Friday December 14, 2018 @05:13PM (#18685355)
Actually by 1952, probably not. Switzerland's economy was pretty much agricultural up to the second world war (remittence payments from the Vatican were a noticeable source of foreign income into the early 20th century!).

WWII offered a source of capital (people stashing their money into a neutral state, and many never asking for it back) and some industrialization, but the Switzerland we think of today is really a product of the late 50s/1960s.

Re:New research on the cost of colonization to India by graeme on Friday December 14, 2018 @06:08PM (#18685754)
Most places were pretty agricultural in 1952 :) This dataset has Switzerland at #2 in 1950, and a comment says UK would have been #7.

Economic growth in europe only really took off to levels we think of as "today" after 30+ years of intense postwar growth. It was rich before that, but still very rural. Movies of the era are quite revealing.

I an genuinely curious if there is an argument against Switzerland et al being counterexamples to the colonialism/wealth argument. The strongest one I can think of would be that Switzerland et al benefitted from proximity to capital and to the new techniques discovered by capital.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-...

Re:New research on the cost of colonization to India by iguy on Friday December 14, 2018 @05:49PM (#18685617)
Indeed. But German industrialisation didn't seem to need much from tropical colonies.

And conversely, all those fabulous silver mines didn't exactly leave the Spaniards with a head-start in modernisation.