Should America ditch Pakistan for India?

[Drake Tungsten]

Colonialism was a bit different back then than US military adventurism is today. They largely lived off the land they controlled, you ignoramus.

Jesus Christ, you don't even know the history of your own empire. Britain invested large amounts of capital overseas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (by far the most of any country), with the idea of building up markets for its manufactured goods. Unfortunately for them, this capital investment actually created new competitors and allowed the US and Germany to blow past Britain, which neglected investment in its domestic industrial base.

Seriously, go do some research. We'll talk again when you have a ****ing clue about the subject.

[KrazyHorse]

Jesus Christ, you don't even know the history of your own empire. Britain invested large amounts of capital overseas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (by far the most of any country), with the idea of building up markets for its manufactured goods. Unfortunately for them, this capital investment actually created new competitors and allowed the US and Germany to blow past Britain, which neglected investment in its domestic industrial base.

Yes, investing capital in higher-yielding sectors of the Empire was certainly a bad idea.



You ****ing mercantilist moron.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, investing capital in higher-yielding sectors of the Empire was certainly a bad idea.

It's not clear that investment in the Empire was higher-yielding after 1880, you ignorant ******. That didn't stop Britain from investing increasing amounts of capital overseas in the following decades, however.

[KrazyHorse]

"It's not clear that it was higher-yielding"?



That's what you're reduced to? The British obviously committed suicide because they invested in places that weren't obviously higher-yielding than domestic markets?



The Brits had reached the level of severely diminishing returns. Given the technology, macroeconomic conditions, level of education, etc. of the time, additional capital deepening would not have significantly helped them in terms of industrial production, GDP etc. when compared to what capitalization was doing for the US and Germany (which were previously severely undercapitalized). This is standard Solow growth model stuff. Chapter 3 of any good intro macro book.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Brits had reached the level of severely diminishing returns. Given the technology, macroeconomic conditions, level of education, etc. of the time, additional capital deepening would not have significantly helped them in terms of industrial production, GDP etc. when compared to what capitalization was doing for the US and Germany (which were previously severely undercapitalized).

No respected economic historian who has written on this subject agrees with this BAM. You're ****ing embarrassing yourself, dude...

[KrazyHorse]

Right, the British of the latter half of the 19th century were for some reason not subject to the same limitations that everybody else is. I understand, Drake.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's sad to see you reduced to using Econ 101 arguments (which aren't even applicable to the circumstances of British industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) to cover for the fact that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about on this subject.

I can't even call you a **** now. I feel too bad for you.

[Felch]

The historical consensus agrees with Drake. I never studied the British Empire in detail, but I've heard that overall the colonies cost more to maintain than they provided the Brits in return.

[KrazyHorse]

Econ 101 arguments (which aren't even applicable to the circumstances of British industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries)

[KrazyHorse]

I've heard that overall the colonies cost more to maintain than they provided the Brits in return.

I've never disputed that, Felch.

Please do try to keep up.

[KrazyHorse]

Drake, you might want to just consider committing suicide at this point. Your family's honour demands no less.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, you might want to just consider committing suicide at this point. Your family's honour demands no less.

All the bluster in the world isn't going to save you from this embarrassment.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm quite satisfied with how it turned out, sweetheart. If you can say the same, then I envy how low you're willing to set the bar for yourself.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm quite happy with how things turned out. I wasn't the one arguing that Britain was facing "severely diminishing returns" on capital in an era of rapid technological advancement and less than full unemployment.

[Felch]

Those articles about Indian foreign relations would pull a little more weight if they weren't written by Brits and Australians. Indian and Chinese publications tell a slightly different story.

Chinese publications are controlled by the government. If you trust them to tell the truth, then you're gullible as hell.

Here are some Indian publications talking about the tensions.

India, China resume border talks amid rising tension

Tension over India-China border

Dalai Lama visit highlights India-China tensions

That second one is China Post, but the authors have Indian names, so I threw it in. Whatever you might want to think, this is not a Western media hallucination. Nobody contests that India moved thousands of troops to the border and that China is beefing up its supply network on the frontier. That is not "fairly cozy" by any means.