ewe2 posted:

Gotta wipe out that reminder that we're being governed by emotional 13yo's fast, let's talk about punching on instead.

Anidav posted:

If you get involved in online debates about economic history, it won't be long before someone tells you that the West is rich because it stole the resources of the regions it colonized. This stolen-wealth theory is cited as the reason Britain and France are rich today, while Ethiopia and Burundi are poor. It also is sometimes used to argue that global capitalism is inherently unjust and that wealth must be radically redistributed between nations as compensation.

The problem is, the stolen-wealth theory is wrong.

Oh, it's absolutely true that colonial powers stole natural resources from the lands they conquered. No one disputes that. And at the time, this definitely made the colonized regions a lot poorer. Britain, for example, caused repeated famines in India by raising taxes on farmers and by encouraging the cultivation of cash crops instead of subsistence crops. That is a pretty stark example of destructive resource extraction.

It's also probably true that this stolen wealth helped much of the West get rich. Of course, Western countries didn't simply consume the resources they plundered -- the global economy isn't just a lump of wealth that gets divvied up, but rather relies on the productive efforts of individuals, companies and governments. The U.K., for example, was able to industrialize not by consuming spices confiscated from India, but because its citizens invented power looms and steam engines and other technologies, and because its people worked very hard at factories and plants that used those technologies.

But steam engines and power looms and other industrial machinery required raw materials like coal and rubber as inputs. When those materials became less expensive, it became cheaper to substitute machines for human labor. That means that some of the resources stolen from colonies probably did give Britain and France part of the boost they needed to jump-start the industrialization that eventually made them wealthy.

So if the West did steal resources from colonized nations, and if this theft did help them get rich, why do I say that the stolen-wealth theory is wrong? I say that because the theory doesn't explain the global distribution of income today. It is no longer a significant reason why rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor. The easiest way to see this is to observe all the rich countries that never had the chance to plunder colonies. Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark and Japan had colonial empires for only the very briefest of moments, and their greatest eras of development came before and after those colonial episodes. Switzerland, Finland, and Austria never had colonies. And South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong were themselves colonies of other powers. Yet today they are very rich. They did it not by theft, but by working hard, being creative, and having good institutions.

Meanwhile, poor countries have long since taken control of their natural resources. State-controlled oil companies in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran and Russia own far more of the world's oil than do giant Western corporations like Exxon or BP. African countries control their own mines, and Latin American countries their own crop land. The era of resource theft by rich countries is over and done.

Yet still, somehow, these countries are not very rich. Only a small handful of tiny nations whose economies are based on natural resources -- Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar among others -- are actually rich. Most are poor, despite controlling all of their own wealth. This sad fact is known as the resource curse. So it's unlikely that resource-rich countries would have become industrialized but for the depredations of colonialism. And it seems quite possible that colonial nations such as France and the U.K. would have gotten rich without their resource plunder, as did Germany, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan.

Does that mean colonialism was a benign institution? Definitely not. At a bare minimum, the tens of millions killed by colonial conquests and famines leave an indelible stain on the West. And while colonialism had benefits in some places, in many others it left a nasty legacy that is felt to this day. Many economic studies show that regions where colonizers focused on extracting resources were later cursed with pernicious political institutions. Those regions, even today, exhibit poor economic performance.

So colonializing nations did steal resources, and it did hurt colonies by doing it. But the real tragedy is how unnecessary that all was. Britain and France would have gotten rich without plundering Africa, India and Southeast Asia. All of that violence and conquest was probably for nothing.

Cartoon posted:

As a specialist retailer I want you to come into my shop for what ever reason you may have even if it is to try before buying online. Once I have you in my shopping environment I might be able to tempt you with any number of other items that you couldn't be arsed buying online. You may also come to me to service your online purchases. Footfall is everything in bricks and mortar retail and if we present a more welcoming and less 'scary' environment than online vendors who get shirty about comments we will steer your business back off line.

Unfortunately most online purchasers seem to embrace the 'never leaving home again' side of the online world and once lost to the convenience of home shopping never return to bricks and mortar, even to try before online purchase.

Sports bet odds on Dutton making it to the next election as a minister? Now that could be a sound investment!

tithin posted:

Is your store online?

Cartoon posted:

In a word no. I have a facebook page but there isn't much point in me trying to compete with the online guys directly as freight costs will always defeat me. I'm also only in retail as an adjunct to my main business which is education. If I was a motivated capitalist I'd spend the time and money to overcome my geographic issues but

Graic Gabtar posted:

DSE used to sell stuff to make cool stuff.



Now they just sell poo poo to the ignorant consumer fooled by their '80s credibility.

Graic Gabtar posted:

Now they just sell poo poo to the ignorant consumer fooled by their '80s credibility.

Vladimir Poutine posted:

A lot of people younger than that also like him because he briefly sold a line of matches called Dickheads in the late 90's.

Vladimir Poutine posted:

A lot of people younger than that also like him because he briefly sold a line of matches called Dickheads in the late 90's.

gay picnic defence posted:

There is this too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7y6iE0aB5s

asio posted:

Anidav are you the type who goes through every bottle of milk to make sure you got the one with the most life left? Because lol if you can't negotiate a price in Brisbane retail stores that compare with dodgy.biz and their rock-bottom prices. Just talk to the retailer haha maybe if you lived in charleville or something you'd need to go online otherwise theres no reason to send money away from Brisbane.

Anidav posted:

Most retail stores don't price match with online, except officeworks.

Anidav posted:

It's true. I use a blender.

My girlfriend swears by A2 milk though which is a shame because A2 is a marketing gimmick.

Anidav posted:

Bartering culture is non existent in Australia

Anidav posted:

ACA supports reserving breeding for the rich and powerful and letting the poorer humans die out.

Anidav posted:

*goes to the manager and demands $1 milk*
*gets arrested by security for disturbing the peace*

asio posted:

*goes home and gets milk from the internet*

Anidav posted:

aussiefarmers.com.au/Default.asp

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Chris Kenny account spotted.

Laserface posted:

They should make Contraception compulsory for all negative gearers, just to see the shock and loving awe on the faces of the middle-upper class people getting tax breaks who dont understand why the cops are holding them down and forcing them to swallow a Plan B pill.

Ler posted: