The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
It's just a statement of fact with a lot more reality behind it than your silly Calvinist notion that the Bangladeshi could construct a comprehensive levee system to keep the sea out if only they were as disciplined as the good old Dutch.
The coastline of the Netherlands is 451 kilometres, the coastline of Bangladesh is 710 kilometres. The Rhine/Meuse delta makes up about a third of the Dutch coastline, whereas the Ganges/Brahmaputra delta makes up most of the Bangladeshi coastline, and stretches into the neigbouring state of West Bengal in India. The peak discharge of the Rhine and Meuse combined is 16,000 cumecs, the combined peak discharge of the Ganges and Brahmaputra is 106,000 cumecs (the Missisippi has 56,000). Those are averages. The Netherlands had a per capita income of $6000 in 1950, when it was just rebounding from WWII, going up to $26000 in 1997, when the Delta Works were completed (estimates using y 2000 dollars). Bangladesh has a per capita income right now of somewhere around $450 using the same measure.
Claiming that the West is rich because of colonialism flies in the face of the facts, given that the colonies were money losers and that lots of western nations never had colonies
The difference between the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries.
In other words, the Bengal famine of 1770 was a consequence of the policies of the East India Company, and not because the Bengalis couldn't get their shit together.
Also the fact that subtropical and tropical climates and a comparatively straight coastline (or absence of coast) do not facilitate the kinds of urbanised, agrarian societies that have historically been able to subjugate empires and engage in large-scale engineering works.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But Bangladesh has a far greater population as well. Total real GDP is the thing (PPP if there is lots of manual labour involved I guess), not GDP per capita. And as I mentioned, the Bangladeshis have a far greater incentive of getting it done.
Claiming that the West is rich because of colonialism flies in the face of the facts, given that the colonies were money losers and that lots of western nations never had colonies. But I guess the wealth of Sweden is built on the backs of the poor sods of St. Barth...
Sweden built its initial 19th century wealth on selling timber and iron, necessary ingredients for ships and cannons.
You do not have to rob people to get rich, selling weapons or other stuff to robbers also works. Does not change that you would not have it if there had been not robbery. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
But to return from Godwin territory, do you seriously question that the countries in Europe that traded with the colonial powers did not benefit from the latters access to cheap resources? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
No matter what, the effect is marginal compared to all the things that actually did make Sweden (and other western countries) rich. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
We can argue about how and where to assign blame until we go blue in the face, but that does not detract from the fact that Sweden had a privileged position relative to Bangladesh. If for no other reason then because it had enough rifles and gunpowder to stop other European powers from bashing it over the head, dismantling its political structure and stealing its stuff.
Similarly, we can argue about the economic benefits (or not) of having colonies in general, or specific colonies in particular. But this does not detract from the fact that whatever hypothetical net burden upon European countries the colonies might have been, it does not compare - not even within an order of magnitude - to the burden imposed on the colonies by having their social, political and economic system deliberately demolished.
If you recall, wages were low in Sweden as well, and having a greater labour pool to compete with might not have been a positive thing.
Anyway, it was to even the balance of trade that the opium trade began, to stem the outflow of bullion. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And history just keeps repeating itself... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by gmoke - Jun 6
by Oui - Jun 158 comments
by Oui - Jun 14
by Oui - Jun 13
by Oui - Jun 12
by Oui - Jun 11
by Oui - Jun 104 comments
by Oui - Jun 101 comment
by Oui - Jun 99 comments
by Oui - Jun 93 comments
by Oui - Jun 86 comments
by Oui - Jun 717 comments
by Oui - Jun 62 comments
by Oui - Jun 58 comments
by Oui - Jun 421 comments