Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 252 posts

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#191

Post by jogjayr »

jalayir wrote: post #122
cryptonector wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other resource-rich countries haven't fared as well. Indeed, it is a truism that the more natural resources, the worse a country performs economically. Some of the wealthiest countries are deprived of natural resources (Israel, Singapore, Monaco, and others) while a bunch of resource-rich countries have done poorly or terribly (Brazil, Argentina, all of Africa, India, Russia, and others). It's what you do with the st…

India is hardly resource rich. Especially not per-capita.

And, all things considered, India's hardly done "terribly".

It's a remarkable achievement to maintain a united, democratic, mostly peaceful nation for 70 years straight (and counting). Most former colonies collapsed into destructive civil war, then military rule, within decades of independence. India has so far avoided that fate. Heck, most developed European countries have barely managed to avoid it in the past century.

India has as much (probably more than) linguistic, cultural, ethnic and religious variety as the European continent, far lower levels of education, absurd amounts of competition for resources, education, and jobs due to population pressure. All of those things are potential triggers for conflict and civil war.

I can't comment about other countries that may or may not have lived up to their economic potential (Brazil, Argentina, Russia etc) because I know next to nothing about them. But India is doing terrifically well, considering the hand we were dealt.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#192

Post by jogjayr »

chrisco255 wrote: post #170
agumonkey wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tbh, and not trying to dismiss USA in anyway. I find their situation in time and space pretty exceptional. They had no aggressive neighbors and half a continent. At a time where new knowledge was popping out, having such a playground was very timely.

Then why did the U.S. fare so well compared with Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, etc. India, Russia and China had close to the same landmass for several hundred to thousand years prior but they didn't achieve what U.S. did despite a huge head start.

> India, Russia and China had close to the same landmass for several hundred to thousand years prior but they didn't achieve what U.S. did despite a huge head start.

Uh they did.

"The Mughal Empire began a period of proto-industrialization, and Mughal India became the world's largest economic power, with 24.4% of world GDP, and the world leader in manufacturing, producing 25% of global industrial output up until the 18th century. The Mughal Empire is considered "India's last golden age" and one of the three Islamic Gunpowder Empires (along with the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Persia)." [1]

Can't find a similar citation for China but before colonialism, India and China were the world's two largest economies. It's telling that European explorers were searching for a sea route to India and not the other way around. Europeans wanted silk and spices from India and China. But Europe had nothing India or China wanted. Or at least, knew they wanted. Arguably they could've used the superior maritime knowledge[2] and gun manufacturing techniques Europeans possessed.

I guess if there's anything that history teaches us, it's that attaining a lead is no guarantee of maintaining it.

There's a whole Wikipedia article exploring why these two nations fell behind the Western World in the 18th and 19th centuries. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence#Possible_fact...) I'd argue that colonialism was certainly a major factor for India. Being treated for 150+ years as a source of cheap raw materials and captive market for exports will do terrible things to a country's industry and economy.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volta_do_mar

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#193

Post by churchill1944 »

eighthnate wrote: post #181

The US became the world's biggest economy in the late 1890s. So how did we become the largest economy? Stealing a large landmass blessed with abundant resources and fertile arable land. Growing the population immensely via high birth rates and immigration. Industrious population and business friendly laws helped. But it was mostly OIL. The US was the saudi arabia of oil for nearly 100 years from mid 1800s to ww2. Sta…

Oil was but one strong American industry. And oil itself didn't turn out to be in such high demand until the mass production of the automobile, which was another American thing.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#194

Post by churchill1944 »

eropple wrote: post #167
chrisco255 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, Churchill was fighting the most horrific forces of fascism and evil that the planet has ever seen, a war in which nearly all of Europe fell to the Nazis and nearly all of Asia fell to the Japanese empire... London was enduring daily bombings and you're going to blame him for a famine halfway around the globe?

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." When Churchill actively refused to allow food aid to come from external sources during the war, yes, he and his government bear an even greater portion of responsibility than the colonization of India, in the "you break it, you bought it" sense of responsibility, already merited. Similarly, C…

"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.

I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help." -Churchill to FDR

War is hell. Thank goodness we had leaders like Churchill. And thank goodness the Allied forces won.

Source: https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-t...

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#195

Post by kamaal »

chrisco255 wrote: post #162
kamaal wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It kept the south rural, whereas the north was far wealthier without slaves because it industrialized. I feel for you. Those evil slaves didn't work hard enough till their deaths to make their rightful masters win. >>It’s just not right to say that so few people should get to control the entire continent just because they were there first. This is so Winston Churchill'esque, dog in the manger analogy where there ar…

Dude, Churchill was fighting the most horrific forces of fascism and evil that the planet has ever seen, a war in which nearly all of Europe fell to the Nazis and nearly all of Asia fell to the Japanese empire... London was enduring daily bombings and you're going to blame him for a famine halfway around the globe?

>>Dude, Churchill was fighting the most horrific forces of fascism and evil that the planet has ever seen

He did no such thing. He was simply protecting the United Kingdom from getting invaded by Germany. As far as political ideologies are concerned, Britain was no saint. They had their own 'We are superior to other races' projects going on in other parts of the globe.

>>you're going to blame him for a famine halfway around the globe?

Yes, because he was responsible for it.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#196

Post by kamaal »

churchill1944 wrote: post #194
eropple wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits." When Churchill actively refused to allow food aid to come from external sources during the war, yes, he and his government bear an even greater portion of responsibility than the colonization of India, in the "you break it, you bought it" sense of responsibility, already merited. Similarly, C…

"I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia…

Yeah, Britain did want to feed a few farmers and peasants, that is because they wanted the next generation of slave labor to be ready from whom they could grow, snatch and tax heavily to build awesome infrastructure and quality of life for people in Britain. So please this whole facade of a benevolent imperialistic power is just pointless.

>>Thank goodness we had leaders like Churchill

Thank him for him for considering the entire Indian subcontinent as some kind of lesser people and race compared to whites? What exactly is the difference between this and the race superiority theories of Adolf Hitler?

>>And thank goodness the Allied forces won.

Oh please. Europe created an untenable political situation in Germany by imposing upon them harsh punishment in forms of war reparations of WW1. Then you create a vacuum for a dangerous political ideology to rise, and then try to stop their imperialistic ambitions.

Beyond all this, why does Churchill expect Indian people pay the price for whatever political blunders any party in Europe had committed.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#197

Post by boomboomsubban »

cryptonector wrote: post #101
zizek23 wrote: post #34

Let's call it as it is, an entire continent was usurped, a gigantic fertile landmass rich in resources was stolen along with unlimited slave labour and IP from Europe. The consequence is predictable. Using jingoism to spin this into some sort of exceptionalism celebrates the loot and plunder without a hint of self consciousness or remorse, and cements a barbaric ideology that fuels more indiscriminate global plunder…

Other resource-rich countries haven't fared as well. Indeed, it is a truism that the more natural resources, the worse a country performs economically. Some of the wealthiest countries are deprived of natural resources (Israel, Singapore, Monaco, and others) while a bunch of resource-rich countries have done poorly or terribly (Brazil, Argentina, all of Africa, India, Russia, and others). It's what you do with the st…

>Some of the wealthiest countries are deprived of natural resources (Israel, Singapore, Monaco, and others)

Not exactly great examples. All three contain excellent natural resources, ports on major trading routes, that drive or drove their economy.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#198

Post by aaron-lebo »

enraged_camel wrote: post #185
aaron-lebo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong, like every American interested in history, I'm well aware of the sins of the United States. Hell, Texas was colonized by slaveholders who were illegal immigrants before it was stolen from Mexico. On the other hand, Mexico itself is a land full of people who are the offspring of the conquerors and the conquered. There's really no winning and nobody with a clean record. What I object to is someone w…

>>What I object to is someone who's bitter because he's not American launching into an irrelevant tirade and acting like they are somehow better when 60 years ago Europeans were exterminating each other. 75 years ago Europeans were exterminating each other. Today, they are united and peaceful for the most part, and their union is one of the largest and most successful economies in the world. 75 years ago America ente…

If we want to talk about perspective, it's ironic that "zizek" is very possibly Russian or Eastern European, and if so lives in a country that has a far bigger issue with Neo-Nazis than the US, they just don't have the same media exposure.

I think it's delusional to believe that the prejudices that led to literal genocide in Europe within living memory (more recent than that even, see the Balkans) have faded more than the prejudices of slavery in the US which show up at events like Charlottesville. The hatred is alive and well in European societies like it is anywhere else. You're citing a single counterprotester getting run over (horrible, yes) when in the Ukraine there is an ongoing invasion and throughout Europe, Islamic terrorism (due to divided societies) will last for a generation.

Your perspective (which sees as a vice the suggestion that both sides of any conflict might have some realistic grievances) is a myopic, tribal one which too often parades around in places like HN and sees itself as diverse and open minded when it is anything but. You don't realize how: "Today, they are united and peaceful for the most part, and their union is one of the largest and most successful economies in the world." is just as applicable to the US and such an optimistic view of Europe is an incomplete portrayal. If that's not how you intend for it to come off, I apologize, but it has a very strong undercurrent of bias.

All I'm saying is Americans are humans, descendants of the same Europeans, Africans, Asians, and native Americans that came before them, so it's not shocking that we'd have the same flaws as every other society, and in fact, historically, the actions of the US have at times been no more or less deplorable or laudable than any other people.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#199

Post by aaron-lebo »

eighthnate wrote: post #183
aaron-lebo wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no "excuse" of American sins, only a response to a tirade which makes very targeted and laughable statements like "unlimited slave labour and IP from Europe". Who established the Atlantic slave trade if not Europeans? Only pointing out the sins of others because some dick decided to turn a fun historical thread into smug hate the US thread. Any educated American is aware of this stuff. The most voted response i…

> I see no "excuse" of American sins, only a response to a tirade which makes very targeted and laughable statements like "unlimited slave labour and IP from Europe". Okay. I can see you are passionate about this but you need to calm down. The guy offered his opinion. It wasn't a tirade. > Who established the Atlantic slave trade if not Europeans? Sure. And britain was the largest slave trading nation and they were t…

Sorry, I just have a real problem with ignorant hatred and prejudice, which this thread is dripping with.

Just because they don't use words like dick doesn't mean they aren't using vulgar ad hominems. The mistake is believing that people can distort history but as long as they're being nice about it, it's cool. The US is no more the beneficiary than any other country, so acting like the US is what it is only because of 400 years of loot and plunder (OP's phrasing) is ignoring that the Germans, French, and Russians would have looted and plundered each other and others (and did) for centuries. Therefore, the loot and plunder can't be the sole or even main reason behind American success, which is what the article was talking about.

If an African-American was to wander into a thread with similar sentiments about African-Americans, it'd be recognized for the prejudice it is, and ironically most of the posters here would recognize it there, too.

Re: A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

#200

Post by Mithaldu »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #171
Mithaldu wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to your logic, undocumented immigrants are “usurping” America According to your logic integrating successfully into a different society and culture, is the same as arriving with superior weaponry and slaughtering the natives over 149 years. (1775-1924) Your attempt at comparison and equivalence is pitiful and cruel.

The immigrants over the course of 149 years weren't offloading from the boats with rifles in their hands The vast majority of them faced major discrimination themselves. That's why their descendants (who often are also the descendants of natives) object to such biased portrayals.

Individual people may not be guilty of this, and even major parts of the USA may not have been guilty of it, but as an entity, this is what "the USA" did. If that makes people angry, they should search themselves to see where such anger should be directed.
Post reply on HN