6 ms·

>British Empire has contributed more net good to humanity than any other nation in history. Thats complete bullshit 1)In 1650 the Indian per capita GDP was mo

by samyzee 15y ago

>British Empire has contributed more net good to humanity than any other nation in history. Thats complete bullshit 1)In 1650 the Indian per capita GDP was more than 80 per cent of the British level, by 1871 it had fallen to less than 15 per cent.They did this by completely destryoing the indian cottage industries by westernized machinery. http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=8007 http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=8007 2)So they were not just content with taking all the money....they also wanted to starve people to death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India 3)The british rule was very racist too.Indians were not allowed to travel or dine in the same places as the British.They called us "dirty kaffirs". 4)Even when these motherfuckers were leaving coz they got fucked in WW2 and did not have any more money to rule India(by then the british had sucked all the money from India anyways) they seperated the country into India and Pakistan based on religion."Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Perspectives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Perspectives

learc83 15y ago
>Very soon they will pay for all this!! Are you a Bond villain?
- samyzee 15y ago
  haha ....I got a little too emotional over there(edited) that part...but dont tell me you dont know about the gradual shift of power and revenue from the western to the asian markets....watch the documentary two million minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niU1E3SSTAM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niU1E3SSTAM
- learc83 15y ago
  @samyzee Stack level went to deep so I'm replying to my own post. I agree that Asians are underrepresented in terms of global GDP, and with time their share of the pie will grow much larger in keeping with their share of the population. However economics is not a zero sum game. I'm not adversely affected if Asia's economies grow. In fact, I'd love to see them succeed. More wealth anywhere is good for free people everywhere; it give's me more people to trade with.
- samyzee 15y ago
  i agree tht it is not a zero sum game...the world economy is larger than it was 30 years ago....and yes you will be able to trade more since there will be more consumers....but standards of living and of most economies will definitely decline...the stuff that you bought from china for really cheap wont be so cheap anymore....which means tht the average westerner will be no better than the average asian in terms of healthcare,education,food cars etc....(the average asian right now lives on less than $1 a day)...so far so good...we are all happy rite...wrong!!....the asian countries still have a huge advantage in such a scenario...population!!...when everyone has the same standard of living ...it is population which will decide who has more power!!
- learc83 15y ago
  >but standards of living and of most economies will definitely decline...the stuff that you bought from china for really cheap wont be so cheap anymore You've completely forgotten about automation. Within a generation robotics will make low cost labor obsolete. We won't need factories of Chinese workers to build our products; We'll have factories full of robots. Also, I don't really care who has the most power. I don't care if America has the largest military in the world. I only want our military to protect our borders and police shipping lanes. If China becomes more powerful than the west and my standard of living increases thanks to technology, I don't care. The only thing to worry about is chinese military intervention, but even if they have a significantly more powerful military our nuclear deterrents will prevent them from directly harming us.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nagrom 15y ago
Wow, are you angry. 1) The British GDP increased dramatically with the (British-led) industrial revolution, regardless of any effect the British had on India. Comparing the two and claiming that it is entirely due to Britain's involvement with India is ridiculous. 2) Famines have a long history in India. During the British-led period, they were particularly bad. However, the strong system of government instilled by the British did pave the way for an organised, united Indian government that heaped resources into agricultural research in the post-war period. 3) It's not just British people that are racist. That's a feature of almost every culture and society. This is pretty much beyond dispute - take a look at the Indian caste system, for example. 4) This was done pretty much at the insistence of contemporary Muslims and Hindus. That it was done poorly is not disputed - that it is entirely the fault of Brits is a ridiculous proposition. India and Pakistan have been free from British rule for decades - there doesn't seem to have been any increased tendency for detente and diplomatic relations now that the British are inconsequential, does there? You are also completely ignoring any effect that British rule had outside of the Indian region, aren't you? British ships were instrumental in stopping the slave trade in Europe, and British rule brought all kinds of scientific, engineering and medical progress to countries that, at the time of arrival, were still practising human sacrifice and had life expectancies in their mid-30s or younger. I think that you have a rather one-sided view on the matter.
- chakde 15y ago
  A few points 1. There is a much bigger correlation with India than you suppose. You can a. build universities and schools to train people b. create favorable tax and corporate structures to foster industry c. capture markets to make a and b and c into a positive feedback loop that makes rapid advancement possible. Guess which of these is the hardest. It is c - having a captive market. The british captured the Indian market through money and cunning and proceded to systematically weaken then denude native industry then force export their own goods under the pretext of governance. The ratio of manufactures turned from something like 4:1 in India's favor in 1800 to 1:4 by 1900. This entire period was the one of greatest growth for the industrial revolution and it was in fact financed by India. As a french guy wrote, even if the french lost the war to the brits, it was beneficial for europe as this arrangement reduced the cost of development for all of europe. There was no capitalism or industrialism in the west before the Brits came to India. 2. There is no simply comparison between famines under the British, where supplies were not sent out even though they had control of them, and instead levies on starving peasants were increased 10% year over year and famines before and after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770 3. It has become standard practice in the west to use the caste system to whitewash British exploitation. Fact is British rule made the situation for the poorest in India much worse than it had ever historically been economically. Poor people could'nt even buy salt which was monopolized by the British for almost 200 years. This salt tax which Gandhi nonviolently protested against was not repealed until the British were kicked out of the country. 4.There was a popular election in 1939 which Jinnah lost even in muslim majority provinces in India. When Nehru tried to pressure the British to leave, Jinnah took the opportunity to get the Queen's support to launch a party which never got even the Muslim popular vote for a new country in the name of Islam. Hindu-muslim is kind of a false label for what actually happened. Nothing against the British really - they took advantage of history when it was in their favor. It's just the false propaganda that they were somehow hugely beneficial for India that needs to be called out, something which has become truth by sheer repetition.

by samyzee 15y ago

learc83 15y ago

>Very soon they will pay for all this!! Are you a Bond villain?

samyzee 15y ago
haha ....I got a little too emotional over there(edited) that part...but dont tell me you dont know about the gradual shift of power and revenue from the western to the asian markets....watch the documentary two million minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niU1E3SSTAM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niU1E3SSTAM
learc83 15y ago
@samyzee Stack level went to deep so I'm replying to my own post. I agree that Asians are underrepresented in terms of global GDP, and with time their share of the pie will grow much larger in keeping with their share of the population. However economics is not a zero sum game. I'm not adversely affected if Asia's economies grow. In fact, I'd love to see them succeed. More wealth anywhere is good for free people everywhere; it give's me more people to trade with.
samyzee 15y ago
i agree tht it is not a zero sum game...the world economy is larger than it was 30 years ago....and yes you will be able to trade more since there will be more consumers....but standards of living and of most economies will definitely decline...the stuff that you bought from china for really cheap wont be so cheap anymore....which means tht the average westerner will be no better than the average asian in terms of healthcare,education,food cars etc....(the average asian right now lives on less than $1 a day)...so far so good...we are all happy rite...wrong!!....the asian countries still have a huge advantage in such a scenario...population!!...when everyone has the same standard of living ...it is population which will decide who has more power!!
learc83 15y ago
>but standards of living and of most economies will definitely decline...the stuff that you bought from china for really cheap wont be so cheap anymore You've completely forgotten about automation. Within a generation robotics will make low cost labor obsolete. We won't need factories of Chinese workers to build our products; We'll have factories full of robots. Also, I don't really care who has the most power. I don't care if America has the largest military in the world. I only want our military to protect our borders and police shipping lanes. If China becomes more powerful than the west and my standard of living increases thanks to technology, I don't care. The only thing to worry about is chinese military intervention, but even if they have a significantly more powerful military our nuclear deterrents will prevent them from directly harming us.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nagrom 15y ago

Wow, are you angry. 1) The British GDP increased dramatically with the (British-led) industrial revolution, regardless of any effect the British had on India. Comparing the two and claiming that it is entirely due to Britain's involvement with India is ridiculous. 2) Famines have a long history in India. During the British-led period, they were particularly bad. However, the strong system of government instilled by the British did pave the way for an organised, united Indian government that heaped resources into agricultural research in the post-war period. 3) It's not just British people that are racist. That's a feature of almost every culture and society. This is pretty much beyond dispute - take a look at the Indian caste system, for example. 4) This was done pretty much at the insistence of contemporary Muslims and Hindus. That it was done poorly is not disputed - that it is entirely the fault of Brits is a ridiculous proposition. India and Pakistan have been free from British rule for decades - there doesn't seem to have been any increased tendency for detente and diplomatic relations now that the British are inconsequential, does there? You are also completely ignoring any effect that British rule had outside of the Indian region, aren't you? British ships were instrumental in stopping the slave trade in Europe, and British rule brought all kinds of scientific, engineering and medical progress to countries that, at the time of arrival, were still practising human sacrifice and had life expectancies in their mid-30s or younger. I think that you have a rather one-sided view on the matter.

chakde 15y ago
A few points 1. There is a much bigger correlation with India than you suppose. You can a. build universities and schools to train people b. create favorable tax and corporate structures to foster industry c. capture markets to make a and b and c into a positive feedback loop that makes rapid advancement possible. Guess which of these is the hardest. It is c - having a captive market. The british captured the Indian market through money and cunning and proceded to systematically weaken then denude native industry then force export their own goods under the pretext of governance. The ratio of manufactures turned from something like 4:1 in India's favor in 1800 to 1:4 by 1900. This entire period was the one of greatest growth for the industrial revolution and it was in fact financed by India. As a french guy wrote, even if the french lost the war to the brits, it was beneficial for europe as this arrangement reduced the cost of development for all of europe. There was no capitalism or industrialism in the west before the Brits came to India. 2. There is no simply comparison between famines under the British, where supplies were not sent out even though they had control of them, and instead levies on starving peasants were increased 10% year over year and famines before and after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770 3. It has become standard practice in the west to use the caste system to whitewash British exploitation. Fact is British rule made the situation for the poorest in India much worse than it had ever historically been economically. Poor people could'nt even buy salt which was monopolized by the British for almost 200 years. This salt tax which Gandhi nonviolently protested against was not repealed until the British were kicked out of the country. 4.There was a popular election in 1939 which Jinnah lost even in muslim majority provinces in India. When Nehru tried to pressure the British to leave, Jinnah took the opportunity to get the Queen's support to launch a party which never got even the Muslim popular vote for a new country in the name of Islam. Hindu-muslim is kind of a false label for what actually happened. Nothing against the British really - they took advantage of history when it was in their favor. It's just the false propaganda that they were somehow hugely beneficial for India that needs to be called out, something which has become truth by sheer repetition.