This series is great -- looking forward to the remaining parts. It's interesting that you focus on "European ancestry" as the deep determinant of interest, as the main factor that we need to understand.
-
-
-
Of course this is a huge long-run predictor of average differences between rich and poor in 2000.
-
But it is throwing away useful variation. Why was China so rich for so long? The last 50 years in China (and the last 1000) suggest that it had some of the same potential for long-run exponential growth and industrialization, but no European ancestry. Japan and Korea likewise.
-
It seems like a good answer to the question of what permits industrialization should carry weight on these other places as well. Because the question of why Europeans did so well is inevitably going to be overdetermined by the data.
-
Agreed. Post focused on Euro-pop diffs to make clear pops matter, not borders, and to point out these pops did not evolve alone (e.g. colonization). But right on that can study deep roots w/o ref to Euro - could spend months just on varied dev across East Asia alone.
-
Euro-descent isn't the deep determinant of interest here per se. But roots of a place like U.S. or Argentina today are in large part found in Europe, similar to how roots of a place like Malaysia are partly found in China. Should have used that last example in the post, actually.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.