In fact, capital flowed OUTWARDS, not to the centre. The profits flowed back but much remained as reinvestment for further development and profit.
The results show in places such as Mysore where British capital funded many buildings and across India with rail galore.
Unfortunately for both the Indians and the British, the local barbarians wanted to take control to grab the loot for themselves and that process happened via "nationalisation" across the world. Venezuela is still "nationalizing" and the result will be the same.
After the British left, India entered a socialist malaise for half a century and is still suffering kleptocratic suffocatocracy. Not to be outdone by India, Britain too entered socialist malaise, with the trend slowed for a while by Margaret Thatcher.
Fortunately for Indians, they largely retained english language to their great advantage, but they even tried for a while to snuff out that advantage until young people pointed out that to get good jobs and money they had to be capable in english, or american if not english.
Now, as you correctly point out, the money is sloshing in all directions, but the profits of control head back to HQ and the USA government takes a heavy tithe.
As ElM is showing, first, capital is invested in some poor place - in his case fibre across Angola funded by capital from China. Afterwards, the local yokels can get into global contention for profits using that and other capital investments. They can earn money and return profits to the fibre owners. Everyone wins except the local bosses who liked having people working for them for next to nothing. Now the locals will prefer to work for far away Chinese companies, perhaps doing software development for $5 a day, which beats the local boss's $1 a day pay rate.
Mqurice |
