If you look at the state of the world now, some countries are poor while others are rich, etc, it makes me wonder how much of it was inevitable.
Let's say, Germany. People don't think much about its current standing in the world, one of the premier economic powers and the 4th largest economy in the world competing with India for total size despite being a lot smaller in population. "Yea, it's Germany. Of course they're rich…" But 80 or so years ago, Germany was leveled in a destructive war that killed over 10% of its population and destroyed 70% of all residential areas. It's probably conceivable a timeline wherein it never recovers from such damage.
Meanwhile, you have countries like Brazil that have a lot of potential, large land area, and natural resources, that for some reason never make it off the ground.
I wonder how much of this was "inevitable". Say, is it possible that a lot of this could have been changed if someone at the top simply made some different decisions? Or would it require massive cultural, political changes that are unlikely to have ever occurred?
Economic history, how much of it was inevitable?
byu/roon_bismarck inAskEconomics
Posted by roon_bismarck
1 Comment
This isn’t purely an econ question to be fair, but interesting nonetheless.
For the case of Brazil, it’s genuinely baffling to me that it never turned into an economic behemoth. It has everything going for it, to the extent that its productive potential in terms of natural resources, population, political foundations, and crucially geography, is in my reading higher than the United States’