The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph

Define "India"!??


There never was "an India" as a state as it is understoon in modern terms.

The sub-continent was always a place and a space where many kingdoms and dynasties lived, and where none of those dynasties ever regarded or treated any of the rest as their "nationality". It was always a battle. The Mughal rule provided the sub-continent with a political framework for it to grow. Upon which the British later on brought some industrialisation but only to extract resources, kind of a one-way road to England.

The British Raj established the very idea of "India" as an entity and "Indian" as an identity. So much so that without the English language itself, many "Indians" would not even understand or be able to speak to each other.
 
Define "India"!??


There never was "an India" as a state as it is understoon in modern terms.

The sub-continent was always a place and a space where many kingdoms and dynasties lived, and where none of those dynasties ever regarded or treated any of the rest as their "nationality". It was always a battle. The Mughal rule provided the sub-continent with a political framework for it to grow. Upon which the British later on brought some industrialisation but only to extract resources, kind of a one-way road to England.

The British Raj established the very idea of "India" as an entity and "Indian" as an identity. So much so that without the English language itself, many "Indians" would not even understand or be able to speak to each other.

In your post, I only understand India, the English name of Bharat/Hindustan, as it's found in Indian Ocean also ...
I mean, in Hindi you call it Bharat/ Hindustan, and in English writing you spell India...
Here, Mr Modi is trying to spell it Bharat in BRICS held in 2023 and on his aircraft for private/ professional use 👍
 
In your post, I only understand India, the English name of Bharat/Hindustan, as it's found in Indian Ocean also ...
I mean, in Hindi you call it Bharat/ Hindustan, and in English writing you spell India...
Here, Mr Modi is trying to spell it Bharat in BRICS held in 2023 and on his aircraft for private/ professional use 👍
Re-read my post, this time slowly.
 
Re-read my post, this time slowly.

I would clear, we are from " Republic of India/Bharat". This is not time of either Mughal or British rule... 🙂
As per my last post, what's Identity of Indian Ocean, does this mean, either India or English own it???
We, in Hindi, call it "Hind Mahasagar" . You call it whatever your business..
 
In your post, I only understand India, the English name of Bharat/Hindustan, as it's found in Indian Ocean also ...
I mean, in Hindi you call it Bharat/ Hindustan, and in English writing you spell India...
Here, Mr Modi is trying to spell it Bharat in BRICS held in 2023 and on his aircraft for private/ professional use 👍

The thing is that Bharat was never a name for a State. But a name for a region. Just like Africa is the modern name of a region, and not a united African realm.

Even during the Mughal high tide, there was never a united Subcontinent. The brits actually managed something unique in that regard; uniting all of south asia into a single polity.
 
The thing is that Bharat was never a name for a State. But a name for a region. Just like Africa is the modern name of a region, and not a united African realm.

Even during the Mughal high tide, there was never a united Subcontinent. The brits actually managed something unique in that regard; uniting all of south asia into a single polity.

Further to my last#49, world call "Indian" ocean and we call "Hind Mahasagar".
Similarly, in schools we call "jai hind" for nation. We never heard jai India or jai Bharat....🙂
We had Azad Hind Fauj led by Mr SC Bose, I guess, none might have said "Azad Bharat Fauj"...👍
Further to post#49, we are from "Bharat Gararajya" in Hindi, the mother language. Which means for "Republic of India/Bharat"t in English
 
The thing is that Bharat was never a name for a State. But a name for a region. Just like Africa is the modern name of a region, and not a united African realm.

Even during the Mughal high tide, there was never a united Subcontinent. The brits actually managed something unique in that regard; uniting all of south asia into a single polity.

We were talking about the movie "jodha-akbar". Regional kings used to come with zaziya tax and Rhitik roshan- the Akbar organise royal food for them, the " Delhi" Saltanat, which was the central government on Mughal rule.
We discussed, so many languages in Indian subcontinent that the Urdu sleeping Mughal's won't be doing jobs of Regional kings. Which was a scene in Jodha-akbar movie, as said above 👍
 
Most think tanks have been suggesting for two decades that this century 21st will see Asia rose again and overtake the west as economic dominance

Not sure it will happen as they say but yes the brics nations and others are growing much faster now

Everybody expected china to overtake USA and in the last five years the gap has widened again in favour of USA again so we just don't know for sure

How the hell did old India get enslaved by tiny Britain and before that the mughals etc when they were so rich in gdp
 
Most think tanks have been suggesting for two decades that this century 21st will see Asia rose again and overtake the west as economic dominance

Not sure it will happen as they say but yes the brics nations and others are growing much faster now

Everybody expected china to overtake USA and in the last five years the gap has widened again in favour of USA again so we just don't know for sure

How the hell did old India get enslaved by tiny Britain and before that the mughals etc when they were so rich in gdp

Even right now, can you put military on border of South Asia and fight a long run war? I believe, even LDC countries like Burma/ Bangladesh won't let you win 🙂
 
Re-read my post, this time slowly.

How's going? Long time no see?
How forum members measure my post#51?
I, little slowly, answered your question in post#51. I'm from schooling of "Jai Hind" for the Nation. 👍
We even throw Jai Bharat to bin, and, we never heard Jai India, as per your quarry#48, "Jai India/Indian" is too poor, the answer to your post#46....
 
Last edited:
we have been discussing in India, "Did Mr Jinnah ever been to Jail till becoming Governor of Pakistan, a dominion of Britain during period of governor Jinnah?"

as mentioned in my last post#36, British government was seen less successful in collecting Taxes from Indian subcontinent till Rule of Congress till Independence, before birth of 'dominion' Pakistan by 1947 led by 'governor' Jinnah.....
if you can't have taxes from Congress Ruled Indian Subcontinent, little bit seen on few areas of Undivided India, then how you say India, "a colony"?
the Congress which was led, as President, by Mr Gandhi and Mr SC Bose both till 1947 as mentioned in my last post#36.....

similarly, we discussed the same about "Afghanistan", how many cities you had for Tax Collection under President Rule of USA? they answered, it was visible only in Kabul, remaining Afghan never paid taxes to US Tax Payers, who spent a lot in Afghan stay.... :coffee:

 

More 2,000 years in a single graphic​

Did JP Morgan's striking chart on 2,000 years of economic history bungle the x-axis? Why yes, it did.

AAAGGGGHHHH! How could Michael Cembalest of JP Morgan do it? Did he really produce a stunning chart of global economic history—but compress the time-series on the x-axis in horrid, improper ways?

Why yes, he really did.

Wipe away the tears from your eyes if you're an economist, or the frothy-mouthed rage from your face if you're an infographic designer. As the chart below shows, the first increment of time is 1,000 years. The next, same-sized increment is compressed into 500 years. This is followed by increments of some 100 years, 80, 30, 20, even one of 13 years and 27 years. It ends with a few decades and an eight-year increment.

2econhist-jpmorgan-june12[1].jpg



If hauled before the infographics court of law, Mr Cembalest would surely be sentenced to many years of studying Edward Tufte's works on the dos and don'ts of visualising quantitative information. There are few strict rules of infographics. But Mr Cembalest somehow smashed into one of the biggest and most obvious of them.
How does Mr Cembalest plea? In a quick email exchange, he writes:

Graphic detail sentences him guilty as charged. We are dismayed on two counts.

First, the information contained in the chart is extraordinary and deserves to be presented in its full flavour. As the compressed time series from his report on June 18th highlights, at the start of the common era, Asia represented around three-fourths of global output (measured in gross domestic product). Its dominance lasted until as recently as 1860, when the industrial revolution in the Europe and America pumped up those economies. At their zenith around 1950, they accounted for four-fifths of output and have since been on relative decline. :)

In other words, the current hand-wringing over the ascent of Asia needs to be seen in historical context: as the restoration of Asian economic supremacy after a small blip. As Derek Thompson at The Atlantic rightly simplifies it in a blog post, "everything to the left of 1800 is an approximation of population distribution around the world and everything to the right of 1800 is a demonstration of productivity divergences around the world."

Second, we lament our ruling because we are huge fans of Mr Cembalest's work, especially his delightful chart last year to explain the Eurozone crisis by way of Lego figurines (available here, from Wired).

As for giving credit where it is due, the figures underlying the chart come from the late Angus Maddison, who pioneered the retrospective quantification of economic measurement (as described in our tribute to him). Many people are familiar with the data as the basis of the famous TEDTalk by Hans Rosling of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who presented the information as an animated infographic using Gapminder software.

The Economist has developed its own infographics of 2,000 years of economic history with Mr Maddison's data. One in 2010, nicknamed "GDP since Jesus" charts just that (below, with commentary here). We encountered the same layout difficulties as Mr Cembalest, so chose a bar chart to distinguish specific years, and fiddled with the spacing of increments on the x-axis to designate missing chunks of time. The result is imperfect, but we did as much as possible to disclose, not camouflage, the imperfections. (In retrospect, we should have done more on the right-hand side of the chart, such as perhaps making the bar widths proportionately thinner….)
22-201034nac119[1].jpg

:)

A second chart from last year (below, and with a commentary here) is both simple and startling. Among the points it presents is that in the first decade of the 21st century, the population of the world produced more economic output than in the first 19 centuries of the common era combined.

More 2,000 years in a single graphic

Did JP Morgan's striking chart on 2,000 years of economic history bungle the x-axis? Why yes, it did.
www.economist.com
www.economist.com
 

The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph​

That headline is a big promise. But here it is: The economic history of the world going back to Year 1 showing the major powers' share of world GDP, from a research letter written by Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy at JP Morgan.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/business/Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 9.37.55 AM.png

Screen%20Shot%202012-06-20%20at%209.37.55%20AM-thumb-615x284-90639[1].png


In Year 1, India and China were home to one-third and one-quarter of the world's population, respectively. It's hardly surprising, then, that they also commanded one-third and one-quarter of the world's economy, respectively.

Before the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't really any such thing as lasting income growth from productivity. In the thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, civilization was stuck in the Malthusian Trap. If lots of people died, incomes tended to go up, as fewer workers benefited from a stable supply of crops. If lots of people were born, however, incomes would fall, which often led to more deaths. That explains the "trap," and it also explains why populations so closely approximated GDP around the world.

 
Columbus was looking for a land called .....There goes the joke.
 
Columbus was looking for a land called .....There goes the joke.

i would say i have also read that story..... its India :)
by mistake he reached America
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Latest Posts

Back
Top