You aren't characterizing either of my posts in a way that I recognize as anything like what I'm asserting. I'll boil it down: - Britain is not "inherently sui

You aren't characterizing either of my posts in a way that I recognize as anything like what I'm asserting. I'll boil it down: - Britain is not "inherently suited" to providing financial services, it built that suitability through violence and extracting wealth through colonialism and racist systems like slavery (which, though abolished in britain itself, it still remained a central figure in financially supporting the trade long after). - Countries "suited to" resource extraction are so suited because of brutal campaigns by colonial systems. The character of how this campaign was undertaken is somewhat different in Africa, the Americas, and the middle and far easts, but the overall nature of it was roughly the same. - Capitalism emerged in the aftermath and continued exploitation of this relationship, through to today, for its entire existence. I do not say that "capitalism explains" anything. I say that "capitalism was born from these things, and they are inextricably intertwined". Not necessarily in a causal relationship (though in many complicated ways there's plenty of blame to be leveled), but simply because it has never existed without the existence of classes considered, in some way, to be sub-human (though the ways we degrade people to this state now are more nuanced than they were in the explicit chattel slavery days).