Really makes you think...

>>2752994
Post the same GDP per capita of Britain itself for contrast.

>>2752994
Yes the point of colonialism wasn't to .ale the colonies rich. It was to make the mother countries rich.

Wonder what India would have looked like if they followed China's path.

>>2752994
you see that trend in all developing counties no matter who controlled them

>>2753004

Different anon, here's a couple more countries on the same graph.

File: GDP.png (789KB, 9606x6112px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 9606x6112px

>>2753014
Fuck me I'm stupid.

>>2753013
Good goy

>>2752994
>make u think.
Why did it take them 50 years to make any meaningful economic progress?

>>2753018
>>>/pol/

>>2753034
Yes, yes, that's right, do your bidding to your masters! Colonialism is good for you, goy! It happens to all countries!

>>2753036
take your strawmans back to >>>/pol/ with you

>>2753028
Yes, I'm sure increasing your GDP per Capita by 8x in the space of 50 years isn't meaningful

File: RealGDPperCapita-650x450.png (100KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 650x450px

>>2753017

What are the sources on those numbers? They disagree with most charts I've seen.

>>2753061
1990 dollars.

>>2752994
Oh wow! It's almost like technology in the world has advanced?

>>2753107

I don't mean the actual quantity. I mean that in the chart >>2753017, the developed economies were growing at a steady rate until Keynesian policies kicked in, after which they kicked into overdrive and blew their previous performance away. Note that all the developed economies have a kink in their lines.

In the figures I'm used to, like >>2753061, you get a fairly smooth exponential over the entire twentieth century. There are blips for the great depression and whatnot, and a slow down in the end, but postwar economies do not grow more rapidly than prewar economies.

>>2753017
>2008

>>2753148
Not an argument.

>>2753158
Yeah it's almost like the developing countries grow slower after they are developed?

>>2753169
It wasn't. I don't argue with bait.

>>2753166

1990 dollar or the 2000 dollar is a common unit to use for historical purposes. There's a lot of historical data available in 1990 dollars, which means that to show adjusted for inflation value, it's often better to convert everything to 1990 or 2000 dollars. even data from post 1990/2000.

File: gdp per capita.png (23KB, 615x406px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 615x406px

>>2752994
Look how great they did under Mughal rule.

Not really.

>>2753279

Well, they outperformed the Qing.

>>2753310
Considering they decided that the right course to take when their population quadrupled was to kill off as much commerce as they could the Qing got by 'okay'.

File: india-3249921.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>tfw india will surpass britain's gdp in your lifetime

>>2753255
You don't know what you are talking about

>>2753322
>1.4 billion "people"
>65 million people
>71 years after independence
>still lower GDP than former master

>>2753331
Still no porcelain either... really makes you think

File: indiachartfix.png (22KB, 10000x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 10000x400px

>>2752994
They didn't have modern technology before 1950.

1950: $600
1990: $1500

150% growth over 40 years = 2.3%

Pretty dismal by postwar standards, independence was a mistake.

>>2753034
>>Reddit

>>2753325

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary%E2%80%93Khamis_dollar

>>2753279
The numbers for China are pretty suspect. The Song had good technology, and economy, but it's not overall better than Ming, and Qing losing some 25% of their per capita productivity between 1700 and 1750 strikes me as odd, since that period sits smack in the middle of the Qing golden age.

Japan having higher numbers for 1800 over 1700-1750 is suspect as well. Japan was suffering from a currency shortage during the mid-late 1700's, which would have had an effect on average productivity.

File: Chinese ex post facto abortion.png (103KB, 522x281px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 522x281px

>>2753573
Qing saw a population boom with little economic growth to show for it, hence GDP per capita dropping. Period sources also emphasize the poverty was which growing, parents to had to kill or sell their children into slavery often as they couldn't feed them. Europeans noted the low price of a Chinese slave in those days. On top of that you see the Qing issue some downright hilarious laws which only hurt their economy.

>>2753508
>hur dur if i ignore every year after 1990 then my point makes sense

Legit kill yourself

>>2753148
>technology didn't advance from 1820 to 1950

>>2752994
im pretty sure you dont have ppp data before the 50's

Reminder to the Indian nationalist who keeps spamming these threads that the only reason India even has a common language is thanks to British rule.

>>2752994
1990 onwards is when they opened the call centers.

>>2753934
india doesn't have a common language.

>>2753994
It would have even less of a common language had they been left in isolation, and if there had been one it would likely have been Persian or Arabic