I haven't finished listening, so apologies if this is answered later, but isn't the 51% vs. 64% of spending thing conditional on the size of the whole pie?
So the argument for empires being great would be, sure, you spend more on upkeep. But that 13% differential is totally worth it because without the empire you have $100 of pie while with the empire you have $500 worth of pie.
It’s complicated. Britain’s economy was big primarily because they were first entrant to Industrial Revolution. However, data suggests the empire actually held Britain back and diverted capital abroad that allowed for competitors to gain and advance past British by turn to 20th century.
I haven't finished listening, so apologies if this is answered later, but isn't the 51% vs. 64% of spending thing conditional on the size of the whole pie?
So the argument for empires being great would be, sure, you spend more on upkeep. But that 13% differential is totally worth it because without the empire you have $100 of pie while with the empire you have $500 worth of pie.
It’s complicated. Britain’s economy was big primarily because they were first entrant to Industrial Revolution. However, data suggests the empire actually held Britain back and diverted capital abroad that allowed for competitors to gain and advance past British by turn to 20th century.
Thanks