4 ms·

Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery), and this countries include USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Some ar

Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery), and this countries include USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Some are really poor because they've been exploited by the countries mentioned above (Africa and former German, British, Belgian, French colonies). Some are poorer because they've been destroyed by war multiple times (Poland).

throwaway8591 9y ago
> Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery), and this countries include USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, etc Don't stop there. Throw in Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungry, etc. > Some are really poor because they've been exploited by the countries mentioned above (Africa and former German, British, Belgian, French colonies Including Ethiopia, right? > Some are poorer because they've been destroyed by war multiple times (Poland). Poland is poorer, but not poor. It's in the top 50 of countries ranked by GDP adjusted for PPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#IMF_estimates_between_2010_and_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_...
- kbart 9y ago
  Please, make your facts straight. It's not the first time in this thread you blame countries for their colonial past that have never had any colonies: Switzerland, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia -- none of them had colonies. "Hungry" That's not even a country (though can't argue that it would be a fun name).
  - tormeh 9y ago
    Poe's law in action.
Supernaut 9y ago
This is an absurd generalisation. The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA, and even that period is over a hundred and fifty years ago. Furthermore, the civil war that was waged to end slavery ultimately brought economic ruin to the southern States that had relied on slave labour. In the post-WWII era, the countries that have prospered have done so because they have enjoyed stable government and long periods of peaceful relations with their neighbours. This allows for an educated populace, fruitful use of their natural resources and human ingenuity, and remunerative trade with other nations.
- JPLeRouzic 9y ago
  >> The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA I do not know for other countries but in France what is told in schools and in media is that France had abolished slavery in 1794. However it had slavery inscribed in its legal system for West Africa up until the beginning of the 20th century. Even in metropolitan France, slavery was reinstated by Napoleon in 1802 and was not abolished for good until 1848 (in metropolitan France!). In west Africa it was only in the beginning of the XX century that an end of slavery was declared by the colonial French administration ( 1905 in Mauritania). In African states like Mali that are still controlled by France, at least by its military forces and its financial system (CFA/West African Franc), slavery was only legally forbidden in 2003.
- eesmith 9y ago
  You write: "The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_... : > By the 18th century, the slave trade became a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, engaged in the so-called "Triangular trade". Further details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade : > Bristol and Liverpool merchants became increasingly involved in the trade.[92] By the late 17th century, one out of every four ships that left Liverpool harbour was a slave trading ship.[93] Much of the wealth on which the city of Manchester, and surrounding towns, was built in the late 18th century, and for much of the 19th century, was based on the processing of slave-picked cotton and manufacture of cloth.[94] Other British cities also profited from the slave trade. Birmingham, the largest gun-producing town in Britain at the time, supplied guns to be traded for slaves.[95] 75% of all sugar produced in the plantations was sent to London, and much of it was consumed in the highly lucrative coffee houses there. ... > By far the most financially profitable West Indian colonies in 1800 belonged to the United Kingdom. ... > It has been estimated that the profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations created up to one-in-twenty of every pound circulating in the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 18th century
tpeo 9y ago
Assume that all these countries have had different levels of exposure to slavery, meaning the total amount of GDP can be attributed to slavery, and that would be thus lost if they abolished slavery and refused to trade with companies or individuals which use slavery (e.g. place an embargo on American cotton unless it's certified). I mean, it's a fair assumption: slavery was abolished in France in 1794, in the United Kingdom in 1833 and in the United States in 1865. Germany mainly traded with it's European neighbors, which didn't use slave labor in their territories. Then how can all these different countries have similar levels of GDP per capita and similar growth paths, despite their different levels of exposure? Furthermore, there currently poor countries which relied on slave labor for much longer. Brazil only abolished slavery in 1888. Morocco, in 1922. And if we include serfdom, Russia, in 1861. Unless you mean metaphorical slavery. I grant that it would take much more sophisticated analysis in order to properly exclude any confounding factors, but that's kinda the point, really. I don't think you really thought this through.
nostromo123 9y ago
Well in the USA you can thank the Democrats for that: the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, was passed with 100% Republican support and only 23% Democrat support :-) Kind of ironic to hear the Democrats wringing their hands now out of "compassion" for the oppressed people...

throwaway8591 9y ago

> Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery), and this countries include USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, etc Don't stop there. Throw in Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungry, etc. > Some are really poor because they've been exploited by the countries mentioned above (Africa and former German, British, Belgian, French colonies Including Ethiopia, right? > Some are poorer because they've been destroyed by war multiple times (Poland). Poland is poorer, but not poor. It's in the top 50 of countries ranked by GDP adjusted for PPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#IMF_estimates_between_2010_and_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_...

kbart 9y ago
Please, make your facts straight. It's not the first time in this thread you blame countries for their colonial past that have never had any colonies: Switzerland, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia -- none of them had colonies. "Hungry" That's not even a country (though can't argue that it would be a fun name).
- tormeh 9y ago
  Poe's law in action.

Supernaut 9y ago

This is an absurd generalisation. The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA, and even that period is over a hundred and fifty years ago. Furthermore, the civil war that was waged to end slavery ultimately brought economic ruin to the southern States that had relied on slave labour. In the post-WWII era, the countries that have prospered have done so because they have enjoyed stable government and long periods of peaceful relations with their neighbours. This allows for an educated populace, fruitful use of their natural resources and human ingenuity, and remunerative trade with other nations.

JPLeRouzic 9y ago
>> The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA I do not know for other countries but in France what is told in schools and in media is that France had abolished slavery in 1794. However it had slavery inscribed in its legal system for West Africa up until the beginning of the 20th century. Even in metropolitan France, slavery was reinstated by Napoleon in 1802 and was not abolished for good until 1848 (in metropolitan France!). In west Africa it was only in the beginning of the XX century that an end of slavery was declared by the colonial French administration ( 1905 in Mauritania). In African states like Mali that are still controlled by France, at least by its military forces and its financial system (CFA/West African Franc), slavery was only legally forbidden in 2003.
eesmith 9y ago
You write: "The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_... : > By the 18th century, the slave trade became a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, engaged in the so-called "Triangular trade". Further details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade : > Bristol and Liverpool merchants became increasingly involved in the trade.[92] By the late 17th century, one out of every four ships that left Liverpool harbour was a slave trading ship.[93] Much of the wealth on which the city of Manchester, and surrounding towns, was built in the late 18th century, and for much of the 19th century, was based on the processing of slave-picked cotton and manufacture of cloth.[94] Other British cities also profited from the slave trade. Birmingham, the largest gun-producing town in Britain at the time, supplied guns to be traded for slaves.[95] 75% of all sugar produced in the plantations was sent to London, and much of it was consumed in the highly lucrative coffee houses there. ... > By far the most financially profitable West Indian colonies in 1800 belonged to the United Kingdom. ... > It has been estimated that the profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations created up to one-in-twenty of every pound circulating in the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 18th century

tpeo 9y ago

Assume that all these countries have had different levels of exposure to slavery, meaning the total amount of GDP can be attributed to slavery, and that would be thus lost if they abolished slavery and refused to trade with companies or individuals which use slavery (e.g. place an embargo on American cotton unless it's certified). I mean, it's a fair assumption: slavery was abolished in France in 1794, in the United Kingdom in 1833 and in the United States in 1865. Germany mainly traded with it's European neighbors, which didn't use slave labor in their territories. Then how can all these different countries have similar levels of GDP per capita and similar growth paths, despite their different levels of exposure? Furthermore, there currently poor countries which relied on slave labor for much longer. Brazil only abolished slavery in 1888. Morocco, in 1922. And if we include serfdom, Russia, in 1861. Unless you mean metaphorical slavery. I grant that it would take much more sophisticated analysis in order to properly exclude any confounding factors, but that's kinda the point, really. I don't think you really thought this through.

nostromo123 9y ago

Well in the USA you can thank the Democrats for that: the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, was passed with 100% Republican support and only 23% Democrat support :-) Kind of ironic to hear the Democrats wringing their hands now out of "compassion" for the oppressed people...