5 ms·

>Regardless, countries that largely operate without protectionism or colonialism have become the wealthiest in the history of the world, without any real compet

>Regardless, countries that largely operate without protectionism or colonialism have become the wealthiest in the history of the world, without any real competition. There's not much argument remaining. The wealthiest economies now are those of China and US. And both used colonialism and protectionism. The further we look in history, the more we see most powerful economies practicing both colonialism and protectionism. From British Empire to Roman Empire.

mmooss 2y ago
> The wealthiest economies now are those of China and US. China is not, unless you just add up the large number of people and their bank accounts (those who have any savings). Per capita, the "countries that largely operate without protectionism or colonialism have become the wealthiest in the history of the world, without any real competition.", as I said. > both used colonialism and protectionism Could you give examples? I mean, they used some, but not substantially. Unless you mean the distant past. Note how this discussion is framed - for countries. I'm concerned with, and I think we should be concerned with, people. > The further we look in history, the more we see most powerful economies practicing both colonialism and protectionism. If you look at history, we are overwhelmingly nomadic hunter-gathers with stone tools - ~190,000 of 200,000 years of Homo sapiens. We are well beyond that history, and the history you name. Our economies far outstrip those empires, as well as our freedom and human rights and the benefit our economies provide to those outside aristrocracy. Why do you keep trying to go backward to a relatively poor, oppressive time.