Crowning the dragon: Chinese GDP PPP will exceed America's by year's end.

[Josquius]

Checking up...I see I was wrong. China is indeed number one until round about 1890.
1890 numbers (millions)-
China: 205,379
USA: 214,713
UK: 150,269
Germany: 115,580
India: 163,341
France: 95,073

I think it was per capita figures and India overtaking China there that I had stuck in my head.

[Sheilbh]

I find that surprising given the disastrous Manchu policies of the 18th century.  And yes I would imagine the Taiping rebellion would cause some precipitous decline.  I just find it hard to believe that a de-industrialized peasant economy hammered by civil strife and war would be larger than India+Britain+everything which were industrializing and thriving.  I mean damn.

The 18th century may have been bad, but Britain's wasn't actually that amazing. It set the scene for 19th century industrialisation - establishing Britain as the only global commercial power, devastation of Europe (especially France) and the beginnings of industry - but really there was more similarity between Britain in 1800 and 1700 than, say the 1850s.

Also India was being deindustrialised as well. India was one of the largest manufacturers of cloth in the 18th century, those cottage industries were destroyed so India would be more purely agricultural to supply British industry and to provide a market for British-made cloth. The early phase of imperial expansion was often about finished products after all, by the 19th century it was as much about raw materials.

Edit: Incidentally this seems to be the source:
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/4198131E.PDF

[Valmy]

Checking up...I see I was wrong. China is indeed number one until round about 1890.
1890 numbers (millions)-
China: 205,379
USA: 214,713
UK: 150,269
Germany: 115,580
India: 163,341
France: 95,073

I think it was per capita figures and India overtaking China there that I had stuck in my head.

Ok maybe I do not understand how nations work but why is India listed separately from the UK?  It seems like this claim only holds up if you take the British Empire, split it up and THEN compare it to China.

[Sheilbh]

Ok maybe I do not understand how nations work but why is India listed separately from the UK?  It seems like this claim only holds up if you take the British Empire, split it up and THEN compare it to China.

Empires were always distinct from nations. That was one of the odd features of Algeria that it wasn't just part of the French Empire but part of France.

[mongers]

Checking up...I see I was wrong. China is indeed number one until round about 1890.
1890 numbers (millions)-
China: 205,379
USA: 214,713
UK: 150,269
Germany: 115,580
India: 163,341
France: 95,073

I think it was per capita figures and India overtaking China there that I had stuck in my head.

Ok maybe I do not understand how nations work but why is India listed separately from the UK?  It seems like this claim only holds up if you take the British Empire, split it up and THEN compare it to China.

Because it's wasn't part of the UK?

Tim mentioned Britain in the OP, others talked about the UK with regard to population, you're the first person to talk about the British Empire.

[Monoriu]

Even when HK was a British colony, our numbers were always listed separately from the UK ones.

[Valmy]

Also India was being deindustrialised as well. India was one of the largest manufacturers of cloth in the 18th century, those cottage industries were destroyed so India would be more purely agricultural to supply British industry and to provide a market for British-made cloth. The early phase of imperial expansion was often about finished products after all, by the 19th century it was as much about raw materials.

Color me skeptical.  This is the Eric Hobsbawm Marxist interpretation and it is not that they are necessarily incorrect, but in the past whenever I just go along with whatever they say I tend to find out later they were just making shit up.  Like 'how can we make this complicated and long process very simple and all about economics?'  So yeah perhaps the British Empire was this organized and systematic and focused that they were destroying massive industries.  Nehru certainly thought this was the case.  But I would be interested in a more modern approach to confirm this story, or at least give a more detailed account of how it came about.

[Valmy]

Because it's wasn't part of the UK?

Tim mentioned Britain in the OP, others talked about the UK with regard to population, you're the first person to talk about the British Empire.

Because when I think of a country I think of all the territory it controls and the population within.

[Valmy]

Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

It is not preposterous so much as telling.  China had been devastated by mismanagement and a massive and devastating Taiping rebellion and it was STILL larger than...at least the UK part of the British Empire (which is not quite as impressive).  That being the case it is not a big deal at all they are passing us, probably more of a surprise it took them that long.

[jimmy olsen]

Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

It is not preposterous so much as telling.  China had been devastated by mismanagement and a massive and devastating Taiping rebellion and it was STILL larger than...at least the UK part of the British Empire (which is not quite as impressive).  That being the case it is not a big deal at all they are passing us, probably more of a surprise it took them that long.

It also shows how meaningless that number is since Britain could have destroyed the Chinese state in 1890 with ease.

[Warspite]

Why is it so preposterous that China had a larger economy than the UK in the nineteenth century?

It is not preposterous so much as telling.  China had been devastated by mismanagement and a massive and devastating Taiping rebellion and it was STILL larger than...at least the UK part of the British Empire (which is not quite as impressive).  That being the case it is not a big deal at all they are passing us, probably more of a surprise it took them that long.

It also shows how meaningless that number is since Britain could have destroyed the Chinese state in 1890 with ease.

How so?

[Valmy]

How so?

I guess he figures since they won the Opium Wars so easily they could have...but I don't know that seems like a big manpower commitment for the British, even with the Indian Army.  Unless of course they would win solely with their fleet and seize the coastal cities.

[Eddie Teach]

Britain could have conquered about as much of China as was within reach of their ship's cannons.

[Josquius]

I'd believe it, given a few years later China failed so miserably to even beat the Japanese.
If Britain had decided to be a bit evil, and the international community decided to be unrealistically uninterested, it wouldn't take too much to wipe out the Chinese government and encourage a civil war or two.

[Sheilbh]

How so?

And does it matter? Do people look at GDP PPP figures for military top trumps?