2 ms·
And thus an online expert has declared it is so, drawn a line in the sand and will defend their position until the end of time.
by mint2 3y ago
And thus an online expert has declared it is so, drawn a line in the sand and will defend their position until the end of time.
- astrange 3y agoIf you like the classics, there were two guys named Karl Marx and Adam Smith who wrote books on how England became (relatively) wealthy, and neither of them thought it was colonialism. In the modern age you can see nobody thinks it's a good idea because nobody does it.
- defrost 3y agoMarx specifically wrote about English colonisation of Ireland - and apparently had a whole other set of 20,000 print page long notebooks on such matters that never made it into the standard "Big Books of Marx". At least according to a Marx scholar: https://developingeconomics.org/2022/10/13/marx-and-colonialism/ https://developingeconomics.org/2022/10/13/marx-and-colonial... Many other British historians are happy to go on at length about the wealth England extracted from India and elsewhere making the trading classes and adventurers the (relative) uber billionaires of their day with vast estates and fabulous gardens, etc.
- astrange 3y agoMaking the trading classes rich did not make the country or the median person rich. That was, like, the problem. (Or if it did make the country rich, you'll notice it wasn't good for anything, as they aren't any richer now.)
- defrost 3y ago> it wasn't good for anything, as they aren't any richer now. No such thing as a pendulum because they swing back? Seems a very flawed position given the well documented wealth and power of the British Empire upon which once the sun never set. Like the USofA and every other country peak positions never last, but we don't therefore claim that they never existed, and the wealth is never evenly distributed, what varies are parameters of the curve of wealth distribtion.
- astrange 3y ago> No such thing as a pendulum because they swing back? Wouldn't call it swinging back when nobody went back. They weren't replaced by another empire and didn't become poorer. Everyone instead became richer so fast that various bad ideas of the past were simply irrelevant. > Seems a very flawed position given the well documented wealth and power of the British Empire upon which once the sun never set. It's like "history is written by the victors"; don't believe them just because they liked to talk about it. Where do you see it here? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPFCUKA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPFCUKA Note, most things they'd like to claim are wealth end up being a drag economically because of capitol depreciation - ie, if you can afford to pay for a giant mansion, now you have to pay to maintain it forever. > the wealth is never evenly distributed, what varies are parameters of the curve of wealth distribtion. No, my point is total wealth matters. You can grow your way out of inequality, and you will, that's why creating more inequality is a waste of time.
- mint2 3y agoThanks for the corrections, It’s nice to know the English were starving the Irish and subjugating India purely for fun and games not for any material gain.
- astrange 3y agoPretty common! Did you know economics is called "the dismal science" because slaveowners were mad the economists kept telling them slavery isn't profitable either? In the end they had to admit they were owning slaves for fun too. Or to civilize them and teach them good Christian lifestyles as they'd say.
- mint2 3y agoOdd to profess to be an expert on Britain but not acknowledge sarcasm, one of their main national pastimes.