Nations don't get rich by plundering other nations

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/nations-dont-get-rich-by-plundering

by mooreds • 3 years ago

19 48 3 years ago

behnamoh• 3 years ago

What this means is that whatever today’s rich countries did to get rich, they weren’t doing it in 1820. Imperialism is very old — the Romans, the Persians, the Mongols, and many other empires all pillaged and plundered plenty of wealth. But despite all of that plunder, no country in the world was getting particularly rich, by modern standards, until the latter half of the 20th century.

I don't agree with this statement. The author is using today's metric for wealth (GDP per capita) to compare post-renaissance world to ancient empires, concluding that they were not rich enough.

In ancient times, the idea of GDP/capita was unheard of. What mattered was whether you could create an army (and pay them a decent amount) to attack other nations, plundering them so you could have even more money to raise an even bigger army. The examples the author mentions (Romans, Persians, Mongols) had this initial money to begin with.

j7ake2• 3 years ago

Yeah it’s a statement deliberately crafted to obfuscate and misrepresent in order to carry a false narrative.

If no country was particularly rich compared to today’s standard, then it is not convincing to conclude that plundering did not help. Because then you could conclude any other activity (eg trading, innovating, discovering) also was not helping.

A proper analysis needs to compare different countries within the same period, and ask whether countries that plundered are ranked higher than those that did not.

helij2• 3 years ago

The usual trap when people apply today's way and thinking to history. Thanks for pointing it out. Historians fight this every day.

DonsDiscountGas3• 3 years ago

It's not a trap in this context. Somebody who dies from malaria in 1500 is just as dead as somebody who dies from malaria today. Their friends and family are likely to react differently due to different culture, and they will assign different causality, but dead is dead. The whole point of this article is to compare material conditions today to the past. Which isn't the only thing that matters, but it absolutely does matter, and comparisons can be made.

Remnant442• 3 years ago

The evidence produced is definitely addressing a different argument than the one he actually starts with.

Comparing ancient empires to modern living standards is nonsensical for the purposes of determining if plunder was the basis for empire. And indeed, we know plenty of cases where plunder made wealthy and then ravished entire nations such as the Spanish conquest of Middle America.

His fundamental point is accurate though - there is not a fixed pot of wealth in the world, and the increased wealth of our modern age is due to technology and efficiency, not simply taking things from others.

s1artibartfast5• 3 years ago

The data is relevant to the other central point. If you compared the standard of living between 1AD Rome and 2024 US, the difference isn't because the US is better at plundering.

It is hands down technological innovation.

AtlasBarfed• 3 years ago

Yeah um, the British Empire? Anybody?

A small island off the coast of Europe got VERY RICH off of imperialism.

inglor_cz6• 3 years ago

A small societal elite of that small island got very rich off imperialism, much like in Spain or Portugal.

The broader enrichment of the British people was kicked off by something different, namely the industrial revolution. Spain and Portugal didn't have those and the average person there remained bitterly poor until deep into the 20th century.

DonsDiscountGas3• 3 years ago

The height of the British empire was ~1500-1800.

Here is a graph of their GDP per capita: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-...

There is definitely some increase, but it really kicks up in 1800s and 1900s, with the industrial revolution.

scotty794• 3 years ago

Wealth of Russian empire came exactly from plunder. They wre exploiting far east for valuable furs, then sold to the west. That was their whole schtick for a long time.

CrzyLngPwd• 3 years ago

It's the same for Great Britain. We plundered the wealth of countless countries.

inglor_cz6• 3 years ago

While I don't doubt that you (you?) plundered a lot of wealth such as the Koh-i-Noor, you made a lot more money by selling industrial products to willing customers. This is what set you apart from, say, Russia of the 1800s, which was unable to produce any sophisticated stuff for the nascent world market.

helij2• 3 years ago

I mean that was the schtick for pretty much all empires. Why single out Russia?

scotty794• 3 years ago

Because when people talk about empires and colonization they usually forget Russia.

justsomehnguy• 3 years ago

to steal goods violently from a place, especially during a war:

Those evil Russkies! Plundered the poor animals for their furs, instead of delivering them to civilization!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22The_White_Man%27s_Burd...

scotty794• 3 years ago

They didn't plunder animals. They were too lazy for that. They plundered local Asian hunters and their communities.

inglor_cz6• 3 years ago

The author is speaking about nations, though. As in huge collectives of people.

If a tiny sliver of the elite rolls around in gold, but the average person is poor (and Russian peasants were very poor, indeed until today, the average Russian is among the poorest people of European ancestry), I would argue that the nation isn't wealthy.

scotty794• 3 years ago

Well, plunder might not serve the nation. But it's not the nation who makes the decisions. Wealthy elites always do (except meaybe one time in France, possibly).

So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars.

Although I understand that it might be culturally relevant in times where entire nations are expected to pay reparations for what wealthy elites of their country used to do.

Showing that the nations didn't benefit might be a counterargument to that.

bgnn• 3 years ago

Well, average person is poor because they were exploited subjects. This was the innovative idea of those days: exploit more of tge population. It didn't change much till French revolution. All the welfare in the west is achieved thanks to fear of communism.

blackoil4• 3 years ago

The article is so stupid it is funny.

Remnant442• 3 years ago

It might be helpful if you explain why you think it's stupid instead of writing a one sentence dismissal. Otherwise why make a comment?

bllguo2• 3 years ago

funnily enough, their username alone suffices.

products require raw inputs. where do we think these resources came from? there is no better example than oil, which the west violently plunders to this day

__loam• 3 years ago

We can just gesture vaguely to the entire western industrial apparatus. Do you think it was a coincidence that the industrial revolution began in imperial Britain?

imtringued• 3 years ago

Counterargument:

China got rich by plundering, ahem, technological transfer.

The IMF tells developing countries to respect western intellectual property, but when you think about it. If you truly cared about your country and it's people, why exactly would you let this straightjacket stop you? Only a fool would proudly wear it.

aldonius• 3 years ago

IIRC, the early stage US didn't respect European IP either...

bllguo2• 3 years ago

person A starts with 1k and B starts with 100k. B successfully turns it into 100m, A turns theirs into 1m.

B laughs at A. "It's my advanced technology and industry, nothing else, that led me to this great success."

hulitu• 3 years ago

Nations don't get rich by plundering other nations

Maybe he needs some history lessons.

throwaway568• 3 years ago

Today’s richer nation plunder poorer nations through skilled migration. You may have heard of it as “brain drain” - the plunder of people who know modern science, and the techniques of industrial production.

Industrialised nations maintain their place in the world by having other, poorer, countries subsidise the raising and training of doctors, nurses, engineers and accountants.

xg15• 3 years ago

What this means is that whatever today’s rich countries did to get rich, they weren’t doing it in 1820.

Did he just ignore the entire British empire?

diogenescynic• 3 years ago

For proof, compare Spain's GDP to Netherland's GDP in the 1600s. Spain at the time controlled the most valuable mines in South America, but Netherlands invented the stock market and that eventually surpassed the value of the mines Spain held in South America. It makes me think about all the cyber criminals who if they channeled the same effort they do to commit crime into some kind of entrepreneurial business would do much better.

Nations don't get rich by plundering other nations

Related Stories