Is it true that west is rich because we stole all of wealth from an other countries...

And yet it developed out of capitalist theories that developed out of Protestantism

Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain. Korea partially modeled its system on Japan while primarily being influenced by the United States. It isn't a meme. Early Capitalism, particularly the early international mercantilism which Europe used to dovetail into industrialism, came out of Protestantism.

>claims "Diamond posters" make same claim but poorly
>proceeds to say exactly what "Diamond posters" say, verbatim
You need to work on your attempt to avoid anti-Diamond shitposting.

I do not think that we are rich because we stole all resources (instead of wealth). Well partly.

But I do think that now that we are rich, we are using most of the resources that other countries could potentially use but because they are poor do not have use for or at least not the capability.

The rich are the main consumers, no?

Does that means that we basically stole from the poor native people and that how europe become The Europe?

>Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain.
Modeled what system on Protestant Britain? What the fuck do you mean Protestant Britain anyway, protestant work ethics was about calvinism mostly. Britain was never in the slightest way calvinist.

The real world isn't a zero sum game

>Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain.
What?

If anything, East Asian work mentality is fucking Confucian-based.

Don't you know that work ethic was invented by Protestants?

Confucianism is pretty much the anti progress religion

Well Europeans didn't become the majority on 3 non-European continents by being completely nice people.

Here's a thought. Religion fucking doesn't matter as much as you think it is, i.e. determinative of everything.

The only nice people in recent history were the Moriori.
Things didn't work out for them

The poor native people would have done exactly the same to Europe if conditions allowed, and they actually had done the same to previous native societies without any interference from The White Man.
How do people forget that the Aztecs were basically Spartans living off a grotesque and bloody slave-empire of corn-eating helots?

Essentially.

The economy isn't zero-sum, but at the same time, it's a fact that Africa and the developing world send wealth, net, to the developed world. The developed world is actually supported by charity from the developing world, not the other way around. If the relationship between the developed and developing world ended tomorrow, the developed world would collapse.

It isn't. If anything it is more progressive than abrahamic religions.

>if trade stopped tomorrow the world would collapse
what a revelation

If trade stopped it would be worse for the developed world than the developing world.

We benefit from the arrangement right now, they don't. If the arrangement ended, they'd be better off.

In some ways it is and other ways it isn't.

Forcing Andes peoples to mine silver and mercury until they died and then shipping 100% of the silver away with the natives not seeing a single real for their trouble is theft. So is conquering African kingdoms to exploit their resources instead of simply trading for said resources like Europeans had done during the Triangle Trade.

> If the arrangement ended, they'd be better off.
No
they would feel fewer repercussions but they would also be worse off

>Protestant ethics is just dumb. Shinto Japan and Confucian Korea became as wealthy in far less time.

Japan and Korea have good cultural work ethics too. What's your point?

We would be effected more, but alot of the development projects in developing countries would stop. It would not be good for them

>If trade stopped it would be worse for the developed world than the developing world.
Of course, this however doesn't mean that:
>We benefit from the arrangement right now, they don't.
Yes they do.

Africa would be worse than it is if it were not for trade. And then we have more promising examples such as Nigeria who is doing "relatively" well and has been making progress in getting past ethnic tension. While still doing global trade.

...

Most third world countries would starve since most food production is actually made in the west, we would be worse off of course but they would lose both food and manufactured goods

>passive resistance has never worked because I have one example of when it didn't work
Nice meme.

Not that user. You are correct, but let's not allow one bad deed to excuse another.

Nordic countries and Germany barely did any colonization, how do you explain their wealth then especially compared to Spain/portugal?

Germany colonized Eastern Europe. Most of what was Germany in its heyday was former slavic lands.

Ask them how Rome, Greece and Macedonia were so wealthy.

Are you implying that Gandhi and other civil disobedience types accomplished their goals because of civil disobedience? Because that is hilariously wrong and you are retarded for thinking so.

Yes, but not by as much. The developed world relies on exploiting the charity of the developing world to survive, they don't rely on our charity for survival, but for 'development'.

Which development projects are these? 90% of the time, they belong to western firms, and if the nation tries to regulate them, they get couped.

Everyone is worse off without trade.

Well, I mean can you give an example of passive resistance working against a direct military threat or warfare?

One assumes they'd stop producing cash crops for export if there was nowhere buying them and advising their countries to focus on them over food crops.

>there aren't any other examples because they got wiped off way before recent history
I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.
I'm not saying we should be assholes all the time, i'm saying that being nice only works when you're dealing with other nice people.

>i'm saying that being nice only works when you're dealing with other nice people.

example?

except that without modern methods agriculture isn't very productive and most poor countries also have very inflated populations.

This happened in the middle ages it has no relevance today, when Germany started its industrialization it was already long time ago.

It is industrialization that made the west rich not colonization, on a long run it even costed more than it benefited European countries. That being said, it is true that the west worked to be sure that third world nations would never be developed much

gandhi

Sure, but without oil modern agriculture doesn't work at all. Developed world is worse off without the deal again.

And they use modern methods as much as they can; it's just that the IMF tells them they must grow cash crops.

This tangent is getting increasingly non-relevant.

The other user used an example of one peaceful people getting wiped out by a violent people presumably as proof positive that Europeans were in the right for exploiting weaker peoples, as if to imply that if Europeans weren't dicks that they would be eradicated or some shit.

Finland especially.

Finland did not receive Marshall aid, had to industrialize from barebones infrastructure and had lost 2/3 of that infrastructure in WW2 and arguably suffered from a degree of "colonization" (resources taken from Finland used to build up infrastructure from Sweden).
Also the only country that paid it's post-WW1 debt back to the U.S fully.

Some of it. Most of the West's wealth today comes from its investments in their own infrastructure and education while maintaining policies that benefit their companies within these highly developed and educated regions. But a lot of old money that went on to form the banks and financial institutions of today came directly from exploitation of foreign countries.

>other factors played a role in India gaining independence therefore this one factor that I don't like because I'm probably an edgelord had nothing to do with it
wew

it would take years for them to adapt to the new situation, and as user said they have an exponentially rising pop leading to massive starvation

And Gandhi won without any threat of violence from other Indian independence groups?

The British were saving face in India. We have to remember that they promised Indian independence during World War One as well as during World War Two, if they hadn't left, it would have been a war for independence that the British would have lost.

The main difference between the British Empire and all others: we read about all of them from the perspective of British historians.

Massive starvation would hurt them less than a massive drop in standard of living would hurt developed countries, simply because of where you start from.

without oil the 1st would countries would use something else instead of oil, which would make them poorer, while the 3rd world countries.
would have famine.

Came here to post this. Europe/the west is better off than the developing world because they have a headstart in education, infrastructure, and capital development (i.e. building factories).

Western institutions are also better suited to economic development, and again those countries just got their shit together earlier than those in asia/africa. Florence issued a stable currency and created a European banking network in the 1400's. King Mugababoo still prints money for his bodyguards, destabilizing the economy and hindering economic growth.

Britain and America's early growth was almost entirely from textile production. Now who makes t-shirts? The burmese/thai/vietmanese. Low wage sweatshops are a necessary step in the transition from agricultural to developing to developed economies. In 15 years they'll be making cars and more advanced goods like machine tools or phones. Another 15 and they'll be making computers.

The real difference is in how fast you can progress through the necessary steps of industrialization. Hong kong, south korea, singapore, and turkey are all good examples of this. Heavy investment in education, coupled with a limited, stable government and monetary system really go a long way to promote growth and wealth.

-t. libertarian

The same would happen in the developed world. But worse.

>other factors played a far more prominent role in India gaining independence therefore the role of Gandhi is overstated because that is the reality of the situation
FTFY

More importantly: Is their exploitation caused by them submitting to it? Is underdevelopment really a state of mind?

>1st would countries would use something else instead of oil

Like what?

>would have famine.

Everywhere would have famine. The developed world would be in a famine of no resources, but the developing world would just lack capital; without the developed world taking it all the time, they'll build it up.

>, they belong to western firms

Yes because they have the cash and technical know how to do them. Are you implying that foreign investment has no positive aspects?

The link between countries that have developed is that they reject international debt, they nationalize existing industry, they enact protectionist measures, and they do this until they can float on the world market. There are no places in the world that developed industry under different conditions.

muh work ethic has less to do with protestantism and more to do with German and Scandinavian culture.

I'm saying it benefits the developed world greatly, and the developing world slightly.

> Like what?
Elecricity

Does a certain amount of Western wealth tie back directly to exploitation of developing nations? Certainly. Is it the majority of current wealth? Absolutely not, in fact I would probably estimate it is a very small proportion of current wealth. I think it's the same argument that idiots make about the US being "built on slavery." Certainly in the antebellum South you can make the argument slavery built their entire economy, and to a lesser extent the cheaper cotton contributed to Northern industrial profits, but to pretend if the US never had slavery they would never be the global superpower is absolutely ludicrous. Industrialization was antithetical to a slave state and the US became the manufacturing superpower on Earth due to its ability to industrialize as quickly as it did.

I think the worst part of that image is suggesting that South America and Africa are now "bereft of resources" because they were stolen by the West. It's nonsense. Africa is STILL the most resource-rich region on planet Earth. It's not like diamonds are gone, it's not like precious metals are all gone, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria and Angola all still have vast oil depositories. These countries simply cannot do anything with these resources so they are smart to trade them to countries that can turn them into economic profit.

...

let's use some abstract values
say the welfare level of a 1st world county is 1000 and the welfare level of a 3rd world country is a 50.
The 1st would country's welfare might drop by say 95% and end up as 50, while the 3rd would country might drop by only 40% and end up as 30
The 1st world might suffer a lot worse but the level is so high that it would still end up on top

>factors
Yeah, like the continuing to shine was a factor. If the sun died then there couldn't have been Indian independence, amirite? Therefore the Sun was the primary factor for Indian indpendence... Your argument is flawed because you are including all of the shit that led up to the situation and shit instead of focussing on the situation itself. There is no end to how far off you can follow the causality of it all and the dependencies.

Indian resistance and protest was a huge part of India gaining independence.

*the sun continuing...

>Millions of people dying of hunger is less worse than taking the bus instead of having your own car
ok user

no why? the west is self sufficient is term of food production, we would loose some exotic fruits but that is it

batteries, coal, alcohool etc

I guess falling from a 20-story building would hurt way less than falling from a 40-story building. Yes.

Weak punchline

the Indian resistance and protest getting a lot of media coverage was just as important

You think the world is "oil dependent" because of necessity? Nah. Oil is replaceable. Electricity being the most obvious option.

Electricity comes from burned oil, user.

mostly from coal

Correct.

It's oil dependent RIGHT NOW. Cutting off the supply does not result in a soft landing.

Assuming the developed and developing world split off and could not trade, the developing world would have the soft landing.

They already have regular famines. One more wouldn't even be noticed.

or coal, or nuclear power or even burning wood kek, oil is cheap and convenient but it is replaceable

And natural gas.

The West is richer because it has better infrastructure, better education, better healthcare, more activity in high level sectors like engineering, technology, finance, media, etc. That's because all of those things were created in the West in the first place.This in turn is due to something unique that happened in the West and nowhere else called the Scientific Revolution. This isn't a consequence of colonialism, it's what made colonialism possible in the first place.

What soft landing?
It's like saying that if Bill Gates lost all his money except for a couple million dollars he'd be worse of than a bum who couldn't find anything to eat that day

A soft landing from oil is having an economy that will not collapse when oil is a thousand dollars a barrel. We may get it if we keep developing, we won't get it if most of the oil disappears tomorrow.

The Americas were colonized before the scientific revolution.

>the Scientific Revolution had nothing to do with colonialism
No one is going to pay some weak wristed pansies to sit in a room all day thinking unless there were buku bucks rolling in from somewhere.

And what do you think would happen to oil exporting countries if they can't export any more oil?

The West would have a rough time before adapting and replacing oil with other things. Oil countries would be fucked back into the stone age forever.

their economy would collapse without food

They'd use the oil in their own farm machinery.

It would suffer. It wouldn't take more than a year to get people farming food crops again. It's not like the IMF would be imposing sanctions on states that didn't cooperate with their plan.

Not really, the Scientific Revolution actually started in the 14th century. But regardless, how would colonising America have helped it at all?

What are you even talking about? None of the early scientists were doing anything for money, and they sure as hell weren't getting money from colonies.

The point is, it's not a bad deed. It's just optimal civilizations interaction. If you act like two unequal things are equal, you're fucking yourself up by distorting your reasonings, and you'll end up making mistakes.

Coal, nuclear, hydro, solar

You don't know what you are talking about.

you're either trolling or retarded

They can steal native inventions, thats how.

Yeah, they're going to turn Saudi Arabia into a green paradise, lmao. And then what? Agriculture based economy, literally Neolithic tier.

the word you are looking for is imperialism.

Not sure if awful bait or just sarcasm.