Bad analogy Arun <Very similar to the Enron top management. As long as the going was good, make the big money. And then dump the stakeholders and run.>
When one is turfed out, one isn't "dumping the stakeholders". It's a doubly bad analogy because the Enron managers were not just turfed out, they were arrested and imprisoned. What you are really trying to do is impute criminality to the British.
<Both of these cases are justifiable in the ethical sense. But difficult to carry out practically.>
Hilarious racist absurdity Arun. You probably can't see that you are a racist, but that is a racist argument [I like to accuse people of racism early in an argument because that's considered a winning argument these days - pathetic though that is. Calling somebody a racist is a winner. I thought I'd better beat you to it because that's the direction you are going].
Your argument is that the sins of the father shall be visited on the son. Christians even forgive the father, let alone the son, and especially the great great great great grandson. Racists like to blame genes. They are silly because genes mix around at each new birth. You would need to DNA test everybody to look for the particular gene you are wanting to blame.
You might find that there aren't many descendants at all, or none, of those original slave buyers who brought the slaves from Africa. Then where does your racist repayment plan go?
Your racist ideology, to really lay it on thick, means that Obama and Condoleezza [one of them with no slave ancestors in the USA] would collect cash from some Jewish immigrant whose family was killed in Dachau and from some poor Vietnamese immigrant who lost their family to napalm in Vietnam.
No ethics there at all. Slavery ended hundreds of years ago in the USA, not decades. The descendants of the slaves have enjoyed vast benefits resulting from their ancestors being sold down the river by their tribes in Africa. Their lives were probably even better in the USA as slaves than in Africa as slaves, not that either would be a lifestyle I'd aspire to.
<It can take a long time, more than a lifetime, to bring hundreds of millions forward.>
No, it only takes that long if socialist kleptocratic bureaucratic ideas as in India remain as a noose around the necks of the productive. It takes barely 20 years to come right if private property is fully protected and capital can flow freely and thieving governments keep their paws off the loot. Especially these days when there are literally $trillions looking for a place to go to make even more.
<No comparison. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, and Germany are all beneficiaries of US Marshall plan or similar policies. China had it its revolution in 1910s. It struggled for 60-70 years. And again it has developed fast partly due to deliberate US trade polices. >
Excuses, excuses. What they did was worked hard. Their governments didn't steal all the money or tie people up with red tape. They had policies which allowed capital to flow in AND OUT!! Talented energetic people were not dragged down by the socialist mob.
India voted itself poor. The ruling class were far worse than the British. The silly Indians booted out the British but kept the British bureaucracy, red tape, added kleptocracy and corruption. They even tried to get rid of English language, which would have been awful as you wouldn't have been able to receive my amazing words of wisdom. The Indian rulers are not all that popular as the assassinations showed. Rulers are rulers and having particular genes doesn't make them more suitable for the local yokels. That idea is just racism [to super heavily belabour the point].
Alcoholics and wife-beaters first have to admit that the problem is THEM, not their booze supplier, the stress of the job, their wife's lippy mouth. Blaming the British is wearing a bit thin. Maybe in 300 years India will get over it.
My ancestors were refugees and had other problems, but my father used to say looking forwards is the only place to go. Life was tough everywhere 100 years ago, for a LOT of people.
Suppose the British did deliberately starve people in Bengal, which they didn't, so what? The Germans rounded up Jews by the million and Japanese rampaged all over the place. Bulk murder was popular in those days. Those who did the crimes are dead. Winston Churchill died as an old man when I was a child.
Friends from India had to decide when returning after time making good money in Belgium whether to take their money back because India was like a black hole - things could go in, but couldn't leave. Capital is a very nervous creature, fearful of confiscation by clueless thieving local yokels.
I invest in the USA because the USA has traditionally protected capital. Most places like to steal capital. Russia has been doing a spot of nationalisation again lately. BP [my alma mater] has had a problem in that regard recently. Venezuela likes to nationalize. Iran nationalized their oil facilities and now can't keep their own country in petrol despite vast reserves.
India could be well off in 20 years if they ditched all the nonsense. They are still at it. Look at the government shenanigans in spectrum. The USA does spectrally dopey things too, and do the Europeans, but they do enough other stuff right to be wealthy.
BTW, China didn't have its revolution in 1910s. My grandparents were having babies in China and working happily there. They stayed until 1923 when things hotted up. The Japanese came rampaging through.
If China had ganged up with the capitalists of Britain and the USA, and provided a united front against Japanese invasion, China might have avoided a great deal of carnage and Pearl Harbour and the rest been avoided. I realize rehashing history is pointless, but booting Gorby out of Afghanistan led to Osama and the Taleban taking over. The USA backed Islamic Jihad instead of the civilized Gorby. Bad move! China opened the door for Japan and they came rushing in, armed to the teeth.
China's revolution was 1948 [an excellent year in that I was born but not so excellent in that Mao took over]. The communist carnage in China got going in a big way then. When they ditched their anti-capitalist ideology a few decades later, they made rapid progress. But they are still far from free. Despite that, they are continuing to do well. They could do a LOT better.
Blaming US trade policies is the new excuse? The British are long gone, so another scapegoat is needed. Let's blame the USA for India's deficiencies. There are only 5% of the population are American. There are plenty of other people to sell to if Americans don't want to buy the best stuff at the best price.
The USA cuts off New Zealand trade too. So NZ sells to China, Japan, Singapore and everywhere else what they would have sold to the USA. No worries.
Ditch the blaming and excuses. Personal responsibility goes a long way.
India is in charge of India and Indians decide what happens. Winston Churchill doesn't have much to do with it. He can't even vote! He's dead!
I found this quote the other day, which I liked. <<'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you're the easiest person to fool.' Richard Feynman via Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway. > > While the government is a real pain in the neck, and I love to blame them, I notice that most of my problems come when I make bad decisions which result from me having fooled myself about what is causing what and what will happen.
Maybe if I took up blaming somebody who died 100 years ago I could shift blame for my Globalstar losses from me [and the management of the company].
So, please, no more racism [I think after using that splendid argument a few times we should declare me the winner].
Whatever causes resulted in the Bengal famine 64 years ago, it's long ago; a couple of generations ago. A 10 year old then would be 74 now. Given the life expectancy in Bengal over the last 70 years, I doubt that there are very many who remember being hungry in the famine. Most of the people in the famine died. Those who hoarded benefited and they are the ones alive, perhaps even feeling a bit guilty.
It would be a bit silly for Winston Churchill's great grandchildren to pay money to the Bengalis who hoarded grain and caused the famine. It would be even sillier for descendants of poor immigrants to Britain to pay said taxes to the greedy Bengalis who starved their own people.
Mqurice |
