World's biggest economies throughout Wooden skyscrapers could be the future 4 weeks ago   01:06

The Economist
Time is money: An animated infographic showing the top three economies throughout history. Does China have the world's largest economy? Is China's economy bigger than America's?

Time is money–the world's largest economies throughout history. At the start of the Common Era, India was the world’s largest economy, followed by China. The far-flung Roman Empire came a distant third.
A thousand years later, it looked almost the same. But third place shifted to Byzantium, in modern-day Turkey.
Five hundred years after that, Italy returned, rich from renaissance trade.
Over several centuries, other European powers vied for third: initially France, and then Britain. China and India swapped places.
After the industrial revolution, the top three economies accounted for less than half of global output.
In the 20th century, America dominated. China temporarily fell away. Russia made the top three. As did Japan. Britain dropped down.
Now the modern world resembles the distant past: China and India are back, along with a single Western economy. And America’s preeminence is over.
China overtakes US as the world's largest economy.

For more multimedia content from The Economist visit our website:

Comments 545 Comments

Winston Wei
They should show B.C. it's all China.
Jimmy Choo
India was the central of civilisation for 3000 years. This magnificent civilisation spreads to China and Persia. But the British destroyed and looted all it's wealth. India will rise again and will remain as a superpower for a long time.
update me
India was rich and technicaly advanced of that time please search or watch on youtube or google how magnificent and great india was ,in the maths , science,arts ,culture,or most you can see the wonderfull architectural designs temple s , buildings stone crafting, jewellery , clothes agricultural products etc.
For some people in comment section -columbus travelled for search to where the richest india is for tarde purpose but he found america with thousend of tribes nothing more.
AND ALSO THE CHANNEL "THE ECONOMIST" IS THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL OF 172 YEARS OLD PUBLISHER COMPANY FOUNDED IN 1843 IN LONDON. The research is also done with the help of imf you can see in video bellow the statistics.
jjj 1
ungu bungu
Tianzheng Zhuang
china and india are the dominant economical powers in the ancient world, in the future I bid india will become the next china.
This video is telling a lie. In 1 AD the Romans were richer than indians. But Rome was a city state. India is so much larger.
Ryan Rodrigues
USA is only 200 years but China and India is 2000 years. That's a big difference and big deal.
Ryan Rodrigues
India and China we're in the top 3 economies for most past of 2000 years except for 150 and 40 years respectively.
Kenny T
Anybody who is saying they only took italy part of the roman empire are prejudiced and should look themselves in the mirror....the video clearly says roman empire not italy part of roman is marked as italy because that was the hotbed of the empire and that is the current country....same with byzantum empire it is marked as turkey because constinapole was its capital which is currently located in turkey as istanbul....honestly speaking from what i have read from historians, most of europe for at least 1500 years was a huge swamp....sorry to break your bubble guys.....
Abhijit Zimare
Romans are to Indians what 3rd world country is to Europe at present.
Creating Experiments
India shifted from 1st to 2nd and back to 1st in 1700 years in richest countries.
The British made them shift from 1st richest in 1700 to 1st in hunger struck countries in 100 years.Remarkable.Hope that they teach them about this in British schools.
So why does Indians, Chinese always want to move to Britain and USA?? They try so hard! Why if china and India are so amazing! Clearly the west is the best, no matter the retarded size of the economy! Dumb fucks stay in India or china!
Aryan Darsh
the brits may be begging to the US if they doesnot colonize india.....btw the scenario are changing The india will create a world for peace where the west Who became powerful bcoz the blood bath of asians screaming to the Asia
Roy Smith
Why isn't the growth in the total world economy not shown here?
CoD RocKz # Wild gaming
Hate us or love us u fetishers and americunts pls accept the fact that u all are the major reason of terrorism in middle East and Asia. If u people didn't invade any of those countries people would have gr8 lives there
CoD RocKz # Wild gaming
Those morons saying brits did good to India pls fuck off u fetishers looted every resource u got from India but by bit . If we had all those resources by money we could have brought many modern machines and all. Look saudi Arab was a poor country but how it got rich # oil r8 . Fuck u all pls assholes change ur mind .
Ritika Dubey
History will repeat & India will rise again. That inglorious empire from an island nation left us with nothing. Today we are 6th largest economy of thre world, we are soon going to hit $3.5 trillion economy by 2020.
The gold from india or India Pakistan and Bangladesh is still running the global banking system. Wealth transfer from from India to Britain happened during their 200 yrs of misrule and then to USA happened during ww1 and ww2. US earned it fairly then by supplying goods to Britain but not sure if Britain earned it fairly. Industrial revolution in Britain was definitely funded by india.
Giacc S
World GDP Growth and Forecast, from 1960 to 2099. China will be No.1 no doubt.
INDIA=Dark Green
Level Cap
"Byzantine,modern turkey" fucking imbasols..
Add Reply

Wooden skyscrapers could be the future World's biggest economies throughout 4 weeks ago   06:26

Wooden skyscrapers are an ambitious and innovative solution to the problems posed by urbanisation. Not only are they faster to build, they have smaller carbon footprints than high-rises made of concrete and steel.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist on YouTube:

By 2050 the world’s population is expected to soar to almost 10 billion people and two-thirds of us will live in cities.

Space will be at a premium.

High-rise offers a solution. But concrete and steel – the materials we currently use to build high – have a large carbon footprint.

An answer might lie in a natural material we’ve used for millennia.

Throughout history buildings have been made of wood.

But it has one major drawback. It acts as kindling.

Fire destroyed large swathes of some of the world’s great cities.

But by the early twentieth century, the era of modern steelmaking had arrived.

Steel was strong, could be moulded into any shape and used to reinforce concrete. It allowed architects to build higher than ever before.

So why, after more than a century of concrete and steel, are some architects proposing a return to wood?

Concrete and steel are costly to produce and heavy to transport.

Wood however can be grown sustainably and it’s lighter than concrete.

And crucially, as trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the air, locking it into the timber.

One study showed that using wood to construct a 125-metre skyscraper could reduce a building’s carbon footprint by up to 75%

Regular timber isn’t malleable like steel or concrete, and isn’t strong enough to build high.

But engineers have come up with a solution. It’s called cross-laminated timber, or CLT for short.

CLT is light and it’s comparable in strength to concrete and steel.

But how does it cope when burnt with a high heat source?

London architects Waugh Thistleton are already designing buildings with this new kind of timber.

Andrew and his colleagues designed Britain’s first high-rise wooden apartment block and have recently completed the world’s largest timber-based building.

Behind these bricks is a timber core, made from more than 2000 trees, sourced from sustainable forests.

And this London practice is not alone in advocating the use of CLT.

Ambitious wooden high-rise buildings are also being constructed in Scandinavia, central Europe and North America.

As yet, nobody has used CLT to build beyond 55 metres.

But Michael Ramage’s research centre in Cambridge, working with another London practice, has proposed a concept design of a 300-metre tower, that could be built on top of one of London’s most iconic concrete structures – the Barbican.

Making that jump in height will be a difficult sell.

The cost of building wooden skyscrapers is largely unknown, but those costs could be reduced by prefabricating large sections of buildings in factories.

And city-dwellers will need to be persuaded that CLT does not burn like ordinary wood.

As an attractive, natural material, wood is already popular for use in low buildings.

If planners approve, it could rise to new heights.

Daily Watch: mind-stretching short films throughout the working week.

For more from Economist Films visit:
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue:
Like The Economist on Facebook:
Follow The Economist on Twitter:
Follow us on Instagram:
Follow us on LINE:
Follow us on Medium: