*greatly improves the living conditions of your nation*

>Thanks dad, we'll take it from here

*greatly improves the living conditions of your nation*

>The Irish potato famine is Britain's fault
The UK introduced potatoes, stubby Celtic papist gremlins love'm. Given Ireland's history I can completely understand why relief wasn't the UK's first and foremost priority.

and now ireland is rich

ur welcome sweetie ;)

They did offer the Americans representation even though it was extremely impractical.
Knox and Hutchinson believe that the colonists knew the representation issue was unrealistic and that they were using it as an excuse. It's more likely the Americans wanted to expand westward faster and pay less taxes (however low or nominal they already were).

believed*

Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Canada, USA, Hong Kong and New Zealand all have higher HDI than the UK.

Singapore, Ireland, Hong Kong, USA, Australia, Canada all have a higher GDP per capita than the UK.

I'm sure all of these countries were better off British lmao

yeah and where would they be now if not for the british?

Excellent logic, pal. That's like saying if your son is more successful than you, there would have been no need to conceive him in the first place because according to your reasoning, he would have been smart enough to figure out a way to just grow from the ground on his own.

>These trading cities with under 40 million people living in them all have a higher gdp per capita than the 4th most populated country in Europe

Wow....

Japan has a lower GDP per capita than Saudi Arabia.

Which do you think is nicer to live in as an average person?

>ireland
>rich

JUST

>bong is mad that the colonies BTFO them and still do.

this

Aye, no bother lad. That comparison is literally the most stupid thing I've ever came across.

Expand?

So you're implying 's post was stupid as well.

In principle it was, but in practice it was really because the colonists wanted to expand Westward and didn't want to pay for European Wars (Which would be inevitable under a policy of Pax Britannia).

>*greatly improves the living conditions of your nation*
genocided 2 continents namely north america and oceania
>*presents you with countless opportunities*
anglo have the most surpressive government of any age
>*teaches you about the Holy Scripture*
so fucking socialist, fascist, and meme frogged it destroys any notion of family, community, truth, justice
>*frees your brothers who are being traded as slaves*
got out competed in a market so made up new rules to abolish slavery like the autism dummy spat that they is

you are the reason why britcucks are hated.

>Singapore
>Hong Kong

MUH HDI

Who the would actually want to live there though?

Hong Kong is only good if you're a millionaire banker with a business credit card otherwise you're living in a fucking closet.

Singapore is the same. I've been to both places, it's grim.

Those places are pretty great to live in.
Westerners just like shitting on them to mitigate the fact that non-white state has a pretty damn good standard of living.

This

I can imagine resentment is hard to live with pablo

They are much better than fucking living in Bongastan

>Hong Kong
>Good to live in
Lmbo this goddamn board

>t. never stepped foot in uk

Stop doing this to yourself.

You lost. You lost harder, in a shorter span of time, than even makes the most remote amount of sense.

You were trashed on every front, failed to maintain any of your possessions, and were spanked back in your own borders like a bitch and everyone on the planet is delighted and laughing about it.

I know that failure of this cosmic magnitude, on this truly Soviets in the 80's level, is hard to deal with, but buck up. Either you eventually get over it, or we find you hung from a ceiling fan in a one bedroom apartment with '2 reasons why' tapes made out to The Republic of Scotland and A United Ireland.

There is no losing friend.

i can just imagine the seedy irish american writing this while jerking off

Correct. The USA is well known for being a small trading city with no significant landmass and a population lower than Britain's

Most racists respect East Asians though

The average US citizen however lives far worse than the average English citizen. There is a huge wealth divide in the USA. What is considered wirking class living standards in London are middle class in New York.

Fucking kek

>countries that adopt British institutions are very successful

wrong.

wow nice argument

econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/touristic_bias.html

Sorta true, but there's still a decent quality of life for middle America. You're right that New York is shit to live if you're poor, but in most flyover states/regional areas you can earn a working class wage and still have a decent life.

"The Housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit)."
www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-poverty-america

>greatly improves the living conditions of your nation

The world share of GDP of India dropped drastically during British occupation.

>presents you with countless opportunities

Vague and silly.

>teaches you about the Holy Scripture

Because 'knowing' about magic and wizards is really useful.

>frees your brothers who are being traded as slaves

Britain was the dominant country in the Transatlantic Slave Trade until it decided it was economically useful anymore.

No they don't. Only when they act subservient. The moment they show aggression like japan in ww2, china today or north korea suddenly they are not so cute anymore.

I have been around the USA. Lots of space and cheap gas doesn't mean a good quality of life.

I'm from a working class family in Gloucestershire, my dad was a plumber. I still had a more than decent life. You can live a working class life comfortably in most first world countries.

Space doesn't dictate quality of life, otherwise western chinese would live like kings.

>world share of GDP
>other countries grow rapidly wealthy while the British controlled India while India stayed largely the same
>Britain was the dominant country in the Transatlantic Slave Trade until it decided it was Please explain what exactly about the economics of slavery changed in 1833.

No only when they play their "role". Act in any way "threatening" they crackdown on Asians.

Also Asians still had a lot of nasty stereotypes thrown at them

>point out two specific areas where american quality of life is better
>person who has pointed no specific areas where europe is better still insists europe is better.

>other countries grow rapidly wealthy while the British controlled India while India stayed largely the same

Thank you for your agreement.

>Britain was the dominant country in the Transatlantic Slave Trade until it decided it was Please explain what exactly about the economics of slavery changed in 1833.

Oh right, you've never heard of the Industrial Revolution and think the Transatlantic slave trade was abolished in one go in 1833. Fascinating stuff.

Read the whole thing. "Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."

Kindly explain how industrialization reduced the demand for sugar, the main thing slaves in the British empire were producing at the time.

Not him but it was better to have underpaid poor non-whites buying stuff from you rather then enslaving them and having to maintain the costs of caring for them. Instead of keeping some Black slaves and giving them home,shelter and food you just only pay a salary that is much less then the cost of upkeep for slaves.

Other forms of extracting labour for cheap included contracted/indentured labour, debt bondage, forced labour and others more because they all got labour for cheap but avoid the costs of slavery+you get more out of it.

Debt bondage can be essentially extended forever easily, indentured labour had very shitty rights with the payoff of being free in the end (but still poor and high chance you enter the same or similar job with ass pay in poverty), forced labour you can make them work under duress, shit pay, and under horrendous conditions in many parts of the world (see prison labour for a similar comparison).

Try the living standards in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, and Denmark.

You can't unironically say it is better to live in the USA than these countries.

In all these countries, the life expectancy is higher, healthcare is nationalized, IQ is higher and people are happier on average. Lower crime rates, higher pay and better wifi too.

'muh taxes, gas and land' is the shitty argument here.

There were multiple attempt to abolish in in Britain but they failed several times over the decades until it finally stuck.

All these standards except living space apply to western europe too, outside Iberia.

It turns out Europe has 2x the population and is a third of the size of the USA, go figure.

>The world share of GDP of India dropped drastically during British occupation.
>GDP is proportional to standard of living
India's GDP is far larger than Austria's, but where would you rather live?

>Vague and silly.
Use your imagination

>Because 'knowing' about magic and wizards is really useful.
xD

>Britain was the dominant country in the Transatlantic Slave Trade until it decided it was economically useful anymore.
That's only because Britain was the wealthiest nation and controlled the largest proportion of trade in the Atlantic. That's kind of expected when slavery is still legal. They were the first to ban it, however. And if their reasons for banning it were purely economical, why did they go out of their way to arrest slave traders, even those from different countries? In fact, they ended the Arab-controlled slave trade in Africa.

"The air of England is too pure for any slave to breathe."
- Lord Mansfield

Sorry for reposting. I make a mistake.

>Use your imagination

The onus on you to elaborate on it.

>life expectancy is higher,
Life expectancy is almost entirely dictated by genetics and lifestyle choices not access to healthcare.
>healthcare is nationalized,
See above.
>IQ is higher
Not true when racial differences in population are taken into account. American blacks outscore people in Africa, American hispanics outscore people in Latin America, American whites outscore Europeans and so forth.
>people are happier on average.
All happiness surveys coming out of Scandinavia are to be disregarded.
>Lower crime rates
True of homicide, not of other categories of crime.
>higher pay
lol not true
>better wifi too.
lol but having to bike to work in the rain is no big deal, okay man

The British financed the construction of mines, railways, and factories and other infrastructure in their colonies. That means more jobs for the natives.

Many of the early universities in South Africa and India, such as the University of South Africa and the University of Delhi, were built from British funding.

>That's only because Britain was the wealthiest nation and controlled the largest proportion of trade in the Atlantic. That's kind of expected when slavery is still legal. They were the first to ban it, however. And if their reasons for banning it were purely economical, why did they go out of their way to arrest slave traders, even those from different countries? In fact, they ended the Arab-controlled slave trade in Africa.
>"The air of England is too pure for any slave to breathe."
>- Lord Mansfield

Why are you just randomly mishmashing centuries of history together?

>The British financed the construction of mines, railways, and factories and other infrastructure in their colonies. That means more jobs for the natives.

So you have relative GDP stats to back this?

Answer his questions.

Wow, you're clever. You were almost forced to come up with a counter-argument.

and non-whites could not attend the former and for the latter educating Indians the education in those places were dedicated SOLELY to pumping out governemnt workers and nothing else.

That industry was meant to propel the Bristle economy not the colonies itself so the people did not reap the benefits that much at all.

Lord Mansfield never said that quote though. Even then in the case he did rule over it was about the rule that no authority has any power over the slave that reached Wales or English soil to extract them form those places. IT wasn't about saying no to slavery.

Mansfield's case was absolutely about saying "No" to slavery just not saying "NO!" to slavery

Most of that wealth went back to Britain, so only British GDP figures apply. However, it still doesn't disprove my point.

But here's some evidence,
"During the British Raj, massive railway projects were begun in earnest and government jobs and guaranteed pensions attracted a large number of upper caste Hindus into the civil service for the first time."

"British investors built a modern railway system in the late 19th century—it was the fourth largest in the world and was renowned for quality of construction and service. The government was supportive, realising its value for military use in case of another rebellion, as well as its value for economic growth. All the funding and management came from private British companies. The railways at first were privately owned and operated, and run by British administrators, engineers and skilled craftsmen. At first, only the unskilled workers were Indians."

"The University of Delhi was established in 1922 as a unitary, teaching and residential university by an Act of the then Central Legislative Assembly of the British India."

"Founded in 1873 as the University of the Cape of Good Hope, the University of South Africa (or Unisa as it is commonly known) spent most of its early history as an examining agency for Oxford and Cambridge universities and as an incubator from which most other universities in South Africa are descended."

"At the end of the 18th century, the British annexed the colony. This led to the Great Trek, spreading farming deeper into the mainland, as well as the establishment of the independent Boer Republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In 1870 diamonds were discovered in Kimberley, while in 1886 some of the world's largest gold deposits were discovered in the Witwatersrand region of Transvaal, quickly transforming the economy into a resource-dominated one."

>and non-whites could not attend the former and for the latter educating Indians the education in those places were dedicated SOLELY to pumping out governemnt workers and nothing else.
But they can now. That doesn't change the fact the British built it and laid the cornerstones for the development of high education in the coming years for those colonies.

>That industry was meant to propel the Bristle economy not the colonies itself so the people did not reap the benefits that much at all.
If those industries were Indian-owned, the Indian general public still would have seen the same amount of wealth come out of it. Just because the economy is good doesn't mean the masses are living well, and you don't need a good economy to have a good life.

This map is retarded

I kek'd

>doesn't even use a Westminster parliamentary system

Disappointing!

The UK outside of London is the most depressing place in the world. Dull place with no nature outside of very poor regions,shit weather,smells like Curry and the ugliest women on earth. No wonder the UK has the highest autism rates in the world

>on this truly Soviets in the 80's level
The Soviets were winning in Afghanistan actually.

Those resource benefited British industry and companies. Britain basically had to artificially depress Black wages to make the mines function turn a profit.

I seriously hope whoever posted this gets absolutely fucked. You rape entire continents and are directoy responsible for the death of millions, which you are somehow proud of??????
Aplologists for the british raj and what the rape of africa should be shot. Get fucked, imperialist scum

t.LeShawn LePaki

T. Henry Angloscum

Yes i know the jpeg is exaggerated and attributes ww2 to the british (?).

That jpg is retarded. There were never 150 million natives Americans. That would have made pre Columbian America more populous than India at the time. You Paki lying piece of shit

Are you stupid? Native american doesnt just mean in the current united states, but in the carribean, canada and central america. Holy shit its like talking to an infant. White genocide is a good thing

*cripples empire cucking germany
*does it again
>pshh, nothing personnel, jerry

kek I love this image so much
>10 million Boers (???)
>Indians get counted three times, Chinese and Irish twice
>54 million "Communists" (wat)
>"Enemies in War"
>Atomic bombing of Japan included for some reason, figure inflated by ten times
The best part is that your average Veeky Forums poster would post it unironically

>taking pride in things you had no part in

What a pathetic life you must lead.

If you were older than uhhhh 4 you might have deduced that counting indians three times indicates three seperate events. Im pretty sure the "communists" are refering to soviet war deaths and the genocide by suharto in indonesia, which is obviously not fair. But i didnt make the jpeg

>Native american doesnt just mean in the current united states, but in the carribean, canada and central america. Holy shit its like talking to an infant. White genocide is a good thing
Exactly there were never more than 30 million native americans you absolute retard.All those huge numbers come from De las Casas tha tried to inflate everything to push his political agenda.For example De las Casas said that there were 2 million Tainos in Jamaica when in reality there were less than 30 thousand

>He starts unironically defending it
Please keep going

Are you stupid? Its a debated figure, you fucking idiot, we dont know how many native americans there were. Doesnt excuse that ancesoters raped them, murdered them and stole their land.
Again, white genocide is a good thing.

>this entire post

150 M of death native americans would mean that the Inca,Aztec and Mayan regions of influence had like 100M inhabitants and North America 50M which is absurd.Not even the most optimistic approach would give you that number

fun fact: the first potato famine was actually averted by providing grain to the Irish poor. It was only at the time of the second famine, after the Liberals took power, that laissez-faire policies were employed which resulted in the widespread starvation etc

oh boy it's almost as if there's been over 50 years of economic growth and technological improvement since they gained independence and they were able to take advantage of these due to the British legal systems and institutions that made the basis of their government

>*greatly improves the living conditions of your nation*

*crushes your textile and steel production*

>Britain's former colonies are now mostly developed and wealthy 1st world nations (poo in loo and Africa notwithstanding)
>Britain even stopped Malaysia from becoming a commie shithole
>America's former colonies either went commie or are 3rd world islands of trash
>Spain's former colonies either went commie or hate them with a passion
>Frances' former colonies are either meme-tier African shitholes or Vietnam, which defeated their far superior armed forces and then went commie

rely makes u think

>biggest two colonies are not good
>let's ignore them and focus on meme city states and sparsely populated american client states.
bravo.

America is the second biggest former British colony
India will have first world standards of living for most of its people within 20 years.