4 ms·

"We plundered billions upon billions in wealth from you, but it's old now, tainted by magic history and colonial ownership dust, so it would be wrong for you to

"We plundered billions upon billions in wealth from you, but it's old now, tainted by magic history and colonial ownership dust, so it would be wrong for you to have any of it back" is by far my favorite dispute claim between civilizations.

astrange 3y ago
It doesn't appear any plundering happened in this case, but remember, gold coins are not useful, you can't eat them and they don't actually make a country rich. Colonialism and imperialism are and were not profitable. This one was on the way to being plundered by Spanish imperialism - you'll note Spain is not a rich country. This happened because of a variant of the "resource curse"; it's hard to develop a country if it's too based on natural resources, whether they're yours or your colonies'. Also, there were straight up no rich countries before 1900, so we know nothing anyone did before that works for becoming rich. (There are probably a few exceptions; the biggest one is land, which can't be replaced and so actually is valuable to steal, and that is part of how the US and Australia became rich countries.)
- j7ake 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on why you think colonialism is not profitable? The English and Dutch seemed to have benefited tremendously from their overseas colonies. Eg estimate is 45 trillion wealth transfer from India to England https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britai...
  - tacticalturtle 3y ago
    That “conservative” assumption of a continuous, uninterrupted 5% interest rate over hundreds of years seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in that 45 trillion figure.
  - astrange 3y ago
    What amount of wealth could a Victorian Englishman have stolen from India that would allow them to purchase a single transistor or flu vaccine? Are English people obviously much richer than the colonized Irish or Finns, or the neutral Swiss? (Also Hickel is a degrowther, which means he thinks being rich is bad, so I don't know why he's complaining here.)
    - j7ake 3y ago
      The transistor or vaccine argument is a poor argument because no one during Victorian era was able to purchase that. One looks instead relative to other countries in the same time frame, to ask if a country is richer or poorer. In this case, England was an absolute super power at the height of having India as a colony. They were much richer than the Irish, Finns, and Swiss when India was part of the English empire. Moreover, Englands wealth was directly increased by owning major colonies around the world. You cannot eat gold, but you can reliably exchange it for goods and services.
      - astrange 3y ago
        > The transistor or vaccine argument is a poor argument because no one during Victorian era was able to purchase that. Yes, in other words they were all miserably poor and nothing they invented was capable of changing that. If you can't purchase a $1 2023 product with your colony that's an enormous opportunity cost that could've been spent staying home and inventing it. > In this case, England was an absolute super power at the height of having India as a colony. And they were all poorer than the poorest modern person alive. > You cannot eat gold, but you can reliably exchange it for goods and services. If you discover more gold you can't reliably exchange it; you may just get inflation because its value relies on there being a fixed amount of it. England got a little rich through trade networks, but it's the ability to trade that makes you rich, and notably going to another country and taking all their gold and leaving is not trading with them and doesn't develop your economy. Funny enough, the reason Scotland is part of the UK is that they bankrupted themselves doing colonialism and sold themselves to England. And now neither of them are richer than countries that never tried it.

astrange 3y ago

It doesn't appear any plundering happened in this case, but remember, gold coins are not useful, you can't eat them and they don't actually make a country rich. Colonialism and imperialism are and were not profitable. This one was on the way to being plundered by Spanish imperialism - you'll note Spain is not a rich country. This happened because of a variant of the "resource curse"; it's hard to develop a country if it's too based on natural resources, whether they're yours or your colonies'. Also, there were straight up no rich countries before 1900, so we know nothing anyone did before that works for becoming rich. (There are probably a few exceptions; the biggest one is land, which can't be replaced and so actually is valuable to steal, and that is part of how the US and Australia became rich countries.)

j7ake 3y ago
Can you elaborate on why you think colonialism is not profitable? The English and Dutch seemed to have benefited tremendously from their overseas colonies. Eg estimate is 45 trillion wealth transfer from India to England https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britai...
- tacticalturtle 3y ago
  That “conservative” assumption of a continuous, uninterrupted 5% interest rate over hundreds of years seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in that 45 trillion figure.
- astrange 3y ago
  What amount of wealth could a Victorian Englishman have stolen from India that would allow them to purchase a single transistor or flu vaccine? Are English people obviously much richer than the colonized Irish or Finns, or the neutral Swiss? (Also Hickel is a degrowther, which means he thinks being rich is bad, so I don't know why he's complaining here.)
  - j7ake 3y ago
    The transistor or vaccine argument is a poor argument because no one during Victorian era was able to purchase that. One looks instead relative to other countries in the same time frame, to ask if a country is richer or poorer. In this case, England was an absolute super power at the height of having India as a colony. They were much richer than the Irish, Finns, and Swiss when India was part of the English empire. Moreover, Englands wealth was directly increased by owning major colonies around the world. You cannot eat gold, but you can reliably exchange it for goods and services.
    - astrange 3y ago
      > The transistor or vaccine argument is a poor argument because no one during Victorian era was able to purchase that. Yes, in other words they were all miserably poor and nothing they invented was capable of changing that. If you can't purchase a $1 2023 product with your colony that's an enormous opportunity cost that could've been spent staying home and inventing it. > In this case, England was an absolute super power at the height of having India as a colony. And they were all poorer than the poorest modern person alive. > You cannot eat gold, but you can reliably exchange it for goods and services. If you discover more gold you can't reliably exchange it; you may just get inflation because its value relies on there being a fixed amount of it. England got a little rich through trade networks, but it's the ability to trade that makes you rich, and notably going to another country and taking all their gold and leaving is not trading with them and doesn't develop your economy. Funny enough, the reason Scotland is part of the UK is that they bankrupted themselves doing colonialism and sold themselves to England. And now neither of them are richer than countries that never tried it.