I see no reason why China cannot converge up to the same per capita GDP as Taiwan or South Korea.

I do. Remember that South Korea and Taiwan got to that point by having far more stable and free property rights than mainland China has had since 1949. The single greatest driver of prosperity is, and has always been, property rights – basically, you get to keep what you earn. In China, and in Russia and several other former Communist countries, this is not the case. The data and analysis on the subject are pretty unequivocal.

I have come to the conclusion that while they gave India certain things, they took a lot. Hence, the British Raj was a wash to a slight negative.

I disagree, but then you would know that from reading my articles on the subject. From what I can see, the administration of the British Raj was a huge net benefit for the countries under imperial British control overall.

There is a strong case to be made that South Asia of 2019 is about where it would have been had the British never been there. There might be different nations with different borders, but the prosperity of the region would be about the same.

Again, I disagree. The best counterexamples that you can have come from the formerly French and Dutch colonies in SE Asia. The British-administered former colonies have leapfrogged well ahead of those of other European nations.

Why? Because the Brits left behind their famed administrative civil service bureaucracy, system of education, judicial and legal infrastructure, and transport networks. They actually invested huge amounts of time, effort, energy, and money into the Raj territories, to an extent that the French and especially the Dutch never, ever bothered with.

The British took a very great deal from the Raj territories – there is no debate about this. They did terrible things to destroy native resistance to their conquests. They were brutal oppressors and did a lot of horrible stuff to Indians, in particular, in the aftermath of the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. The British from those times can, and should, be held accountable for their actions.

None of that changes the fact that the nations of the former Raj are, on balance, in better condition relative to their peers because of the Brits.

i) I see no reason why China cannot converge up to the same per capita GDP as Taiwan or South Korea. It is true that such a large country cannot boost GDP with exports for nearly as long, but at the same time, huge size leads to scale advantages. China's per capita GDP in 2019 is about where South Korea was in 1998 or so.

ii) I have read a ton about the British Raj in India. I have read your articles, watched Shashi Tharoor's speeches, and everything in between. I really have tried to assess whether the British raj was a net good or net negative for India.

I have come to the conclusion that while they gave India certain things, they took a lot. Hence, the British Raj was a wash to a slight negative.

HOWEVER,

There is conceivable reason that India of 2019 can still blame the British for not being further along than they are. Even if, after 1947, there was an overhag of low self-esteem or capital shortage or whatever, none of that can possibly still be an excuse for 2019. There is a strong case to be made that South Asia of 2019 is about where it would have been had the British never been there. There might be different nations with different borders, but the prosperity of the region would be about the same.

Thoughts?