Final answer:
It was largely true that being poor in the eighteenth-century middle colonies was better when compared to England and Europe due to the even distribution of wealth and higher standard of living. The term 'best poor man's country' particularly refers to this phenomenon in Pennsylvania. However, the idea that colonists did not need to import goods from Britain is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that it was better to be poor in the colonies than in England and the rest of Europe can be considered largely true, especially in reference to the middle colonies like Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware during the eighteenth century. This period saw the middle colonies achieve a relatively even distribution of wealth, a standard of living higher than in other English colonies, and a common cultural core despite diversity. Consequently, some have referred to Pennsylvania as the 'best poor man's country' at that time. However, as far as self-sufficiency and the importation of consumer goods are concerned, the notion that most colonists in eighteenth-century North America did not need to import consumer goods from Britain is false. The colonial economic system was heavily tied to the mercantilist system, and thus colonists did indeed rely on imports for certain goods.