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.
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.
Yet it was already the richest place per capita in the 1700s. At least in the Northeast the average British colonist was earned more money, was healthier, lived significantly longer and was even actually taller than the average person who remained in Britain.
All because they had more land per capita.
> active workforce and their accumulated generational assets
Yes, its just that per capita (across the entire empire) that workforce wasn’t very productive.