| OK I tracked down that claim to Michael Cembalest of JP Morgan, in a 2012 article https://archive.is/kQNT4#selection-1577.155-1581.525 https://archive.is/Z2qEu Although there are problems with the analysis that are mentioned in both articles: A major caveat: If you looked at the chart in any depth, you probably noticed a big problem with it. The time periods between data points aren't equal -- in fact they are not close at all --- So, one way to read the graph, very broadly speaking, is that everything to the left of 1800 is an approximation of population distribution around the world and everything to the right of 1800 is a demonstration of productivity divergences around the world But the analysis for China is equally flimsy, so I edited my comment to say "China and India" and "likely" --- TBH now that I see this data, I think both claims are a little flimsy. I was more referring to Dalio's analysis, which covers the last 500 years only, and probably got a few claims mixed up. For some reason Dalio does not include India much in his analysis -- it is mostly focused on China, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the USA. That could be his bias, or perhaps a definitional issue with what counts as "India" (and similarly what counts as "China"), which is a difficult question over 500-1000 year time frames |