Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (51285)	6/13/2009 6:28:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219794

India stole all that capital and then did nothing for half a century but whine about the English. Luckily for India, they also got English though they stupidly tried to do away with that and go native. China has had the sense to not treat English as cultural imperialism but nothing more than a lingua franca tool to be used. A balance sheet and physics equations are as much cultural imperialism as English but people easily recognize the value of those and adopt them without bigotry. It's currently fashionable to denigrate the great benefits of the British Empire but there are few places which did better after the British left than before. Hong Kong is doing okay but that's largely because it's an entry to the vast economic boom in China right over the fence. Singapore has done really well, thanks to Lee Kwan Yew. But look across the sorry states of Africa and other countries previously of the British Empire. Mqurice

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (51285)	6/13/2009 8:15:18 PM
From: Webster Groves	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219794

<Capital sharing led to poverty> There was no poverty in England after the war, at least for those of proper status. Where did you get this crap about exporting capital to India ? I suppose Germany also exported all its capital to India, because it too had poverty (and more equitably shared) after the war. Britain was always dependent on its colonies for its wealth and power. Without them - well that's evident now isn't it. Try reading Gandhi to get a different point of view on the Raj. wg