Finance, Forex and Investments

Up until the 1600s, didn't Asia always retain huge amounts of wealth?

China and India represented 30% and 15% of the global economy respectively prior to British colonization (murdering and looting of Ind/Chi). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_11_08_2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf The riches in Asia were incomparably greater than in European states. In matters of credit, transfer of funds, insurance, and cartels, neither India nor China had anything to learn from Europe. Yes, Europe became increasingly successful during the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s, but that's a mere 300 years vs India's and China's 2000+ years of vast wealth. Asia has always retained huge amounts of wealth, prior to British colonization. Why are, then, most people surprised to see the shift in power from the West to the East? Equilibrium has always belonged in Asia. Please keep this discussion professional. I will report any arrogant/racist comments.

Public Comments

1. I think you already did all the discussin'... professional or otherwise.
2. Yes. If China hadn't closed itself down for business in the early 15th century. It would probably have been the greatest power on Earth a long time ago. The government systems in the west seem to negate the accumulation of wealth by the government of the day. They are paranoid about losing government a simply leaving money for the next government to spend.
3. I like that you pretend that Asia has a monopoly on all things wonderful and then warn us that you'll report arrogance or racism. You're being arrogant and racist. Asia had a HUGE head start on Europe when it came to wealth and technology. But in the course of 200 years, the Europeans were able to completely surpass the civilizations of the East in their technological sophistication. It says a lot about the complete failure of Chinese and Indian civilizations to grow and develop, doesn't it? They had such a massive head start, but because of stagnation they failed to capitalize on that head start. The Romans nearly bankrupted themselves buying spices from India, but what did India do with that wealth? What did they make that was new? Being ancient, by itself, isn't worth anything. You must grow, you must improve, or someone faster and hungrier will surpass you. If we think about the current surge in India and China, even this is built on the inventions of the West. Neither India nor China invented any of the technologies that now underpin both of their economies. And Justin: the Chinese were massive imperialists. They conquered or destroyed every one of their neighboring ethnic groups. They have committed and continue to commit genocide against conquered peoples living within their own empires. So let's not play the innocent game on this one.
4. 'murdering and looting of Ind/Chi', you mean like the Mogul empire? You have a very one sided view of history - Didn't the Mongols murder and loot both areas as well? (1200s -1300s) plus Europe to.
5. adam, i believe the original poster did recognize the "catching up" of europe in 300 years due to technological advancements aka industrial revolution period. i believe he also implied that india's and china's wealth started to diminish during british imperialism, hence the "prior to...." indians and chinese have had a head start because of early civilization settlement. and grains, spices, wheat, all kinds of things grew there, which boosted their exports and in turn strengthened their economies. the only difference is: they did not go around invading the world like britain or france. had they built a solid army to combat british imperialism, today's world would be different. PS adam shouldn't discredit india or china, especially if he's from the UK. your country's standard of living depends on the success of MY country, alright? if we fall, so will you.
6. Yes you are correct it was from Africa to Asia to the Middle east and again to the Middle east then after the dark ages it was to the middle east then Europe
7. Western domination of the globe is a blip in world history. China will eventually return to its natural place as top dog.
8. Mr J,You speak for Asia,let me speak for Europe:WE have passed to Europe our civilisation,which is longer and greater than yours, and many of our traits and protected Europe for over 3000 years against the arrogance and venality of Asia who wanted to conquer us, until,first Rome and then the rest of Europe was strong enough to protect itself from you.We achieved what we achieved not with abundance of resources which you have,and we don,t but with few resources and a lot of ingenuity and courage,never ceasing the desire to inquire and progress,developing trade,arts,culture,laws,technology,banking and finance,and above all the art of war,and all that we passed to the rest of Europe;when central and western Europe stood on its feet searched for new resources and in the West,not the East which was then closed to them;they acquired riches,became strong,and you had supplied them with some of the means to subdue you;the Gunpowder.BUT it was their ingenuity that invented Firearms and Guns and,naturally,after the war between Spain and England you fell on the English lap saw you lived still in the times of Alexander,no progress,rather regressed and since they had bypassed the Arabs you were the natural target;you didnt care about your people(life was never so cheap as in India and China-only means of obtaining wealth by the rulers) and that is the foundamental difference about our civilization and yours,ours is totally "anthropocentric"and gives great value to human life and dignity,very few had great wealth(rulers) millions lived with two handfuls of rice a day,and that is why you speak about wealth in Asia;it was enough to maintain a medieval army to terrorize locals;if you had trully cared about your people,you would have a modern army and navy,a modern economy(not an agricultural one) and naturally progress,and you didn't think mr J that there is RETRIBUTION time,did you? well mr J,"Woo to the vanquished"(Brennus)
9. The hugely more numerous people of Asia have alway able to muster greater gross productivity that the relatively few people to be found in Europe. Individual productivity has not varied much between the two, each was willing to adopt new technologies from the other. The last 300 years have been odd; Europe devised the means to increase individual agricultural & industrial productivity to new heights, design new & integrating older technologies in a way that was previously unheard of. A lack of an repressive, monolithic central govt. ensured that competition was rife & resources were squandered in vast acts of sovereign aggrandisement or vast, yet unproductive, military adventures. The East's decline was purely relative; they stood still why Europe race ahead... Also remember that Europe previous to recent centuries was very small indeed but now has moulded the New World in it's own image; the imbalance will, as a result, never be retured to its pre-1600 level. Furthermore Europe gained a level of cultural variety & sophistication unlike any before it; to this day there is no Asian Mozart, Skakespeare or Rubens, nor their modern equivalent - the West remains culturally alone at the front and this may be critical. Long term success in the modern world is dependant on a society that throws up outspoken individuals of genius; the likes of Derby, Watte, Edison or Gates can very much be seen as phenomina of liberal, western societies. If Eastern societies cannot produce the creative mellieu to turn out such people & ideas they are destined to forever to be the mimics of the West. In this respect India may be the better placed of the Eastern nations in future decades.