I am having a discussion with u/Trystiane about the source of economic growth in Europe and the U.S. Here is the full conversation for context. https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/x93gr5/slouching_towards_utopia_why_the_years_from_1870/inye6v3/?context=3 They were arguing per this collection of books and papers https://sites.nd.edu/western-european-history-at-und/bibliography-colonialism-and-imperialism/ that colonialism was core to the creation of the modern economy. I was arguing, per Joel Mokyr https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-europe-become-the-richest-part-of-the-world That technological change was core to Europe's economic growth. They told me to ask r/AskHistorians if technology drives economic growth, then later said that neither of us is qualified to debate the specifics and that is why I should contact a historian. So, I have elected to ask this sub-reddit which one of us is right. Did Europe become rich because of technological change or because of colonialism? Or is the entire question non-sense because one caused the other? if so, which caused which? Did colonialism cause technological change or did technological change cause colonialism? if both contributed to Europe's growth, then did one contribute more than the other? if so, then which was the greater contributor? technological change or colonialism?