5 ms·
Wrong. If this were true, then when the colonists from "core" countries left a colonized area, then that area should have seen an increase in wealth because th
by lupatus 14y ago
Wrong.
If this were true, then when the colonists from "core" countries left a colonized area, then that area should have seen an increase in wealth because those rent monies would have remained in the colony. The history of numerous areas, such as Haiti, Kinshasa, and Zimbabwe say that this did not happen.
The wealth of the upper class comes from courage, determination, intelligence, organization, and productive use of time.
Furthermore, following your rule, Mark Zuckerberg, who is formerly a long time renter, should be less rich than his former landlords.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoActually, in most cases, former colonists immediately stuck the decolonized nation with massive debts conjured up for the "theft" of the national assets. That's why Haiti is still poor: they've been in debt to France for the "theft" of "French" assets in colonial Haiti ever since their revolution.
- lupatus 14y agoSorry for the late rebuttal... Actually, according to Wikipedia, Haiti paid off their debt to France that resulted from the Haitian Revolution in 1883: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti. Free of their French "landlords" the Haitian "renters" should have seen increasing prosperity since they were sitting on one of the most agriculturally productive (in terms of sale price for crops grown, not total amount of all products grown) regions of the New World. So, what went wrong?