> No, of course not. But relative income positions in the world haven't changed all that much over the last 100 years - and in a lot of cases they've diverged. >
China , India and Indonesia became independent about 50 years ago. It's last 50 years that matter. That's when the capital accumulation really begins on a significant scale. That's too short period to draw any conclusions. Anyway, the point was about the denial of growth in absolute terms, not the relative ranking. India's GDP today is 7 t0 8 times its GDP in 1950. That's hardly a picture of stagnation and decline.
> According to Maddison, aveage incomes in India were 113% of Western Europe's in 1000 (whatever that means). They were 114% of US incomes in 1700. That eroded steadily to 13% in 1913, and 5% in 1973. They've picked up to 6% of the US average in 1998. The World Bank has India's per cap income at 6% of the US in 1975, and 7% in 2002.>
What's the impact of rapid population growth the developing world in the recent years on per capita income? Population of US and Europe is not growing at that pace. Isn't the demographic cycle relevant to per capitat GDP?
>> You could consider per capita income on PPP basis.
> The stats above are on that basis.>
Per capita income in India now is $3000 on PPP basis, not $300. Fairy tales about $1 per day should be buried.
>> How much of that China owes to Imperialism? Visitors returning from US say that American shopping malls are full of goods from China, unlike other developing nations.
> Sure. So? Imperialism, like capitalism, is a complex and contradictory thing.>
That partly explains differential decline in poverty between China and India. It's my impression that economic growth in East and South East Asia is export led. Growth in India is largely driven domestic market. That's one reason why Indian growth rates are less impressive. China is a darling of Imperialism.
>> > And Cuba is quite poor. They've done a good job with what they've gotten, but they haven't gotten much.>
>>
>> Why Cuba is led by the same person for 45 years? How long the current regimes in China and Cuba will survive?
> Who knows? How's that relevant?
What we knew as socialism in the 20 Century is dead. Nobody wants to discuss the crisis of socialism. The regimes like PRC are anachronisms.
> All I claimed was that it's very difficult for poor countries to become less poor.>
Why it is more difficult than it was for Europe and US? Are the developed countries the real barrier to growth in poor countries like China, India and Indonesia?
Ulhas