Talk:Economy of the Mughal Empire

Europe GDP per person was higher than both China and India, India and China had a larger total GDP because of massive population difference before machine power. But if you go by GDP per person Italy is the richest country in the world and Britain is still above India and China, European industrial revolution included automated machine, combustion motors and electricity, none of which was included in this so called proto industrialization that didn't contribute anything to the modern world. Even in economics banks were started in the Netherlands and the per person GDP clearly shows only a small elite held all the wealth, the British took over mugul India with a corporation alone. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-19577-13|~2026-19577-13]] ([[User talk:~2026-19577-13|talk]]) 17:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Europe GDP per person was higher than both China and India, India and China had a larger total GDP because of massive population difference before machine power. But if you go by GDP per person Italy is the richest country in the world and Britain is still above India and China, European industrial revolution included automated machine, combustion motors and electricity, none of which was included in this so called proto industrialization that didn't contribute anything to the modern world. Even in economics banks were started in the Netherlands and the per person GDP clearly shows only a small elite held all the wealth, the British took over mugul India with a corporation alone. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-19577-13|~2026-19577-13]] ([[User talk:~2026-19577-13|talk]]) 17:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

:: A few thoughts, since I've been working on a larger revamp of this article and this is relevant.

:: I agree, the per-capita versus aggregate distinction is real and should be mentioned in the lead. Maddison's own numbers show Mughal India producing roughly a quarter of world GDP while per-capita output was well below north-west Europe by the 17th century. Both facts are true.

:: On "proto-industrialisation", that's a technical category from Tirthankar Roy and Prasannan Parthasarathi, not a claim of equivalence with factories, steam power, combustion engines or electricity. It refers specifically to dispersed rural household production for distant markets using pre-mechanical technology, which Mughal India had, same as 18th-century Flanders, Lancashire, and Silesia. Nobody in the economic history literature conflates it with the Industrial Revolution.

:: On "didn't contribute anything to the modern world", Parthasarathi's ''Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not'' (CUP 2011) argues the opposite at length, that Britain's early industrialisation was largely driven by import-substitution against Indian cotton textiles. This is a mainstream position amongst historians.

:: On the Company taking over "with a corporation alone", the Bengal conquest was actually financed in large part by indigenous Mughal-era bankers, principally the [[Jagat Seth]]s of Murshidabad. If anything that demonstrates how developed Mughal-era credit markets were rather than the opposite. Bayly's ''Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars'' (CUP 1983) covers this.

:: Agreed with you on elite wealth concentration.

:[[User:NoseFaceButt|NoseFaceButt]] ([[User talk:NoseFaceButt|talk]]) 17:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)