> Just like Australia is country in itself in the Commonwealth.

That’s really not even close. Greenland isn’t even remotely self sustainable without Danish funding. It also has MPs in the Danish parliament. So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony

> So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony

Being self sufficient or not isn't part of the definition of a colony

I’m just trying to explain how absurd the proposition is seen from a Danish perspective, and why we from Danish side will continue to say no, as and refer to the same thing as our PM’s have said again and again: this is for Greenlandic people to decide. They would have to vote for it, but all the parties in Greenland are against joining the US.

So whatever proposal or threat of breaking down NATO that Trump will come up with will be met with a no from Danish politicians. It is simply not for them to decide. His only option seen from a Danish perspective is to use the military.

> expanded into land that was sparsely populated

Yes, that’s exactly the situation that results in highest income/wealth per capita. As long as that land can be utilized productively.

That last sentence is doing all the work though. North American indians lived on the largest continuous region of agricultural land in the world, connected with perhaps the best river network, and never had above subsistence levels of wealth per capita.

It's hard to farm all that land when there are no horses to pull a plow, or pigs, cows, or sheep to raise for meat and milk and wool and manure. They didn't have all the crops that colonists crossed over with either: wheat, rice, and soybeans. The only crop of comparable productivity was corn, which was domesticated in South and Central America and had to be adapted to North America over many generations.

After they crossed the Bering Strait they also didn't receive any of the subsequent Old World advances in metallurgy, agriculture, chemistry, societal organization and so forth.

It's asking quite a lot of a relatively small population base to invent all those things independently while also lacking everything necessary to have comparable agricultural yields.

There was no Silk Road bringing gunpowder and paper and the Black Death to these societies. That means the native populations colonists encountered were the survivors of utterly cataclysmic epidemics. It's like if aliens brought a virus to Earth that killed 95% of the population and then they went "Hmm...these earthlings, they're not terribly productive are they?"

I'm not an anthropologist or an economist or a historian so there are many other factors I missed.

> Which tells you everything you need to know about who was actually pocketing the imperial profits

No, not really. Britain did not exist in isolation. Economic growth was generally very slow in the 1800s.

So you need to compare Britain with its peers like France or Germany in both periods.

> US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever

Yes, having infinite farmland in a still mostly agrarian economy gives you a massive head start.

Before the 20th century the link between the population and the amount of productive land was very direct.

Everyone bringing this up is missing the point entirely.

I thought people would be able to “get” it on their own so I didn’t bother replying but you’re the fourth person, so let me help you understand.

Britain had 1/3rd of the fucking planet, including an active workforce and their accumulated generational assets.

The US had: barely arable farmland, the trials and tribulations of european settlers are well documented.

Yet wages went up more in one of these, and not the one that was controlling 1/3rd of the planet.

Yes, the poor European settlers out there raping and a pillaging, burning and a looting,destroying cultures and entire people's to build their shiny palace on the hill. Remove the beam from your eye septic

I'm discussing wealth distribution, not defending genocide. If you can't tell the difference, that's your problem.

Wages were higher in the North American colonies even before their insubordination.

Britain was much richer per capita than every other major European country and almost all smaller ones. Whether that was because of its much bigger industrial sector or its enpire is debatable.

If you had land yes. For a landless laborer in a rural area the conditions weren’t necessarily that great either. Of course population growth played a significant factor too.

> a poc RAG pipeline

Why would that be any harder than a React app? At least for me having an LMM produce a decent and consistent UI layout is not that straightforward

You seem to be talking about a small subset of Europe. I’m sure people in New York have rather different lifestyles than many other Americans.

> In Europe

Isn’t a monolithic place. I don’t think there is a non micro-state country in Europe where the absolute majority of people don’t commute by car.

Living outside of dense urban areas without a car is still generally tricky. In quite a few cities there are no large supermarkets in the densest parts and you have to drive further from the center to find one. So not having a car might be tricky

British government using 1984 as a guidebook is playing into that quite well, though