Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

China forced to trade at gunpoint wasn't it?

Do you think Britain will return the Kohinoor diamond to India? Stolen by the East India Company wasn't it?

I think your efforts on this thread are largely pointless... More the effort of an old British bloke defending his country's legacy, than someone prepared to accept a more balanced view of its history...

No one could really argue that the British Empire was 'evil incarnate'... It was an Empire and empires sometimes (or often) commit crimes against those they rule by force or by guile... That's just the way of empires.

Awww, come on...Don't throw teddy in the dirt!

All this defending of your ex-pat sense of superiority is making you petulant. You don't have to fight so hard for the old Empire...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 1:41pm:


I've told this story before....dunno whether here.  On a trip to India, we toured through the Pink Fort at Agra.

http://railtourismindia.com/ttrs/railtourism/images/Agra-Fort-And-Taj-Mahal-SER0...

Then, it was still being used as a military barracks, so there were many parts off limits.  But.....there was this huge tiled area, maybe the size of a football field and the tiles were quite large, at least a metre squared.  In every tile, there were holes (like hail dents) on each corner, thousands of such holes.  The Guide was asked what was the story with those holes.

"They did contain gems stones, all removed and taken by the British when they left."

A couple of years later, we were looking through Windsor Castle, and there was a large display of fine gem stones, all marked 'Acquired from India by King (whatever the name was.)'  The Indian Bride was pissed off, and it did leave a lousy taste in the Aussie mouth.

Bloody thieving Poms!

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:


Now, now Walter, play nicely or I'll get your Nanny to take you back to the Nursery.  No toys either.

I toured a stateley house in UK many years ago. The guide was pointing out Flemish tapestries, French furniture, Spanish fireplaces and Dutch Master paintings. I remarked loudly to my friend "the bloody poms had no culture at all. They stole everything."

Laugh till you cry wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:


... and across the ditch on the European continent guides in a score of stately homes and castles were telling their tourist visitors ...

"Herren und Damen! Hier ist ein ... Constable oil painting ... und ober dere ein Turner oil painting ... und heir ist ein page von Shakespeare's original 'Hamlet' ... und Isaac Newton's calculations are unter dis glass panel ... und mein Gott! dar ist zum priceless dinnerware by Wedgewood ... und dare ist ein prototype off Baird's television invention ... und ... Gott in Himmel! ve haff ein Rolls Royce ober dere in its original condition ... und ... "  

Why Nations Fail (by Acemoglu and Robinson) is a book I am currently reading that attempts to explain the enormous variations in wealth seen in the world today. It attributes these differences to economic institutions, which are largely dictated by political institutions. Institutions is intended in the broad meaning - eg property rights, democracy etc. It highlights how both the patterns in wealth and the patterns in these institutions have been very (though not entirely) stable over the last 150 years, and argues an institutional inertia (my term) that goes beyond the influence of the powerful individuals involved. It suggests why it is so hard to break the mold, and how to break it (not up to that part yet).

It also rejects some of the conventional arguments - eg:

* Culture - that Protestant, Judea-Christian, European or Roman culture is what makes the west so rich, while attempting to disentangle the various meanings of culture. Culture is part of the economic and political institutions that make countries rich or poor. He even argues that the middle east is not poor because of Islam, though I suspect he has never met anyone like Abu.

* Geography - that people in hot countries are lazy, or the soil is less fertile, and various more complicated version of this theory. It addresses the "Guns, Germs and Steel" hypothesis of Jared Diamond and puts it in it's place as an explanation for why the west was able to dominate the world, while highlighting the inability of this theory to explain vast differences in wealth seen in those countries colonised or settled by Europeans.

* Ignorance - that leaders or people in poor countries do not understand how to get rich. This is the explanation favoured by many modern economists. It highlights that even when they do understand, the people in power usually don't want to. Even when they are forced to or try to make the change, it is fraught with danger, because the problems are institutionalised within the economy and the politics. The idiotic economic policies of various tinpot dictators are not determined out of ignorance of economics, but by the economic and political institutions that for the tinpot dictators are an unchangeable reality they must work within.

The causes of wealth and poverty are economic and political freedoms and rights that are closely linked or interact. For example - secure property rights, including patents, economic freedom, democracy and a broad distribution (separation) of political power.

In historical terms, it largely attributes these differences to "accidents of history".