4 ms·
Well, plunder might not serve the nation. But it's not the nation who makes the decisions. Wealthy elites always do (except meaybe one time in France, possibly)
by scotty79 3y ago
Well, plunder might not serve the nation. But it's not the nation who makes the decisions. Wealthy elites always do (except meaybe one time in France, possibly).
So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars.
Although I understand that it might be culturally relevant in times where entire nations are expected to pay reparations for what wealthy elites of their country used to do.
Showing that the nations didn't benefit might be a counterargument to that.
- inglor_cz 3y ago"So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars." It nevertheless makes sense to study the exceptions, because these exceptions made a difference.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThat is the entire premise of the article, that people are missing. If you want a prosperous nation (of people), you achieve that through investment in technology, efficient systems, and the future. No country is richer in 2024 than 1 AD because they have gotten 1000x better at plundering.
- blackoil 3y agoThe basic fallacy of the article is that the plunder did not become "the investment". Yes plunder is not sufficient but in all the history it is the necessary condition. No country has ever become rich by methods we now consider just.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThat simply isn't true. You have tons of examples in either direction. Lot of countries that didnt plunder are rich, and lots that did, arent. Plus the timing is wrong.