| Yep. Britain controlled the largest empire in history, yet most of its own population lived in dire poverty. I don’t believe this was accidental. Imperial profits flowed almost entirely to a small propertied class (the landed gentry). The working classes.. who provided the soldiers, sailors, and labour.. saw virtually none of it whilst living in squalor. Before 1918, most British men couldn’t vote at all; franchise was tied to property ownership. When we discuss ‘the British Empire,’ we’re largely describing the actions and enrichment of perhaps 3-5% of the British population. Most Britons today can trace their ancestry back through generations of poverty and disenfranchisement, not imperial beneficiaries. It’s an important distinction that’s often lost in broader discussions of imperial responsibility, as if those who are generationally impoverished should share guilt. |
| |
| ▲ | asdff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Was that due to the british empire, or was that broadly happening across the western world during that same time period? | | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's instructive to compare the wealthiest nations in Europe, with the largest colonial-era European empires. There is not much overlap. Wealthiest countries in Europe: Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, San Marino, Sweden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu... Largest European colonial empires: Britain, Russia, Spain, France, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Belgium... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#Empire... Some historians believe that once you account for the costs of subjugation and development, empire is not usually net profitable for the sovereign. Basically just a gigantic monument to the ruler's ego. As Carl Sagan put it: Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. | | |
| ▲ | chrisco255 an hour ago | parent [-] | | How is that instructive? The British empire was mostly gone by the 1950s and a hell of a lot happened after that. It would be more instructive to look at Britain just before WW1 compared to the other countries. At their peak, virtually all of the aforementioned empires brought enormous wealth to the homeland. It might not be profitable in the long run, but the long run can mean centuries before it becomes a net negative. Also, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were part of a Danish empire at one point. | | |
| ▲ | veqq 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Empire was always a net negative financially. The British empire was big because Great Britain was rich enough to fund it. | | |
| ▲ | defrost a minute ago | parent [-] | | The British East India Company didn't create "billionaires" with vast estates? The Dutch East Indies weren't returning home with spices of greater value than gold? Spain didn't plunder so much gold and silver it devalued to the floor? Belgium went broke under the crushing cost of exploiting the Congo? I'll go with all empires eventually fall - but many grow on the inflow of wealth from their colonies. Perhaps you mean "true" accounting - no resources are created, they just move from those that have them to the seat of Empire which wanted them - no net gain, just added costs of transport and military forces. Historically, though, that's never been how wealth was counted by those that ran ledgers on everything they wanted. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | dijit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You’ve rather missed my point. I’m not saying nothing improved. I’m saying the imperial profits didn’t go to the people doing the dying for empire. 50% wage growth over fifty years whilst Britain’s running the largest empire in history? Compare that to the United States over the same period. The US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever. If imperial profits were trickling down, you’d expect Britain to outpace non-imperial industrialising nations. It didn’t, if anything it was worse. The literacy and life expectancy gains you’re citing came from industrialisation and public health reforms, not imperial dividends. Meanwhile the landed gentry who actually controlled the imperial trade were getting obscenely wealthy. Life expectancy of 50 in 1900 still meant working-class Londoners in overcrowded tenements with open sewers, whilst their supposed countrymen lived in townhouses with servants. The Victorian poor saw industrial revolution gains, not imperial ones. | | |
| ▲ | dijit 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve done more digging now because even though its apples to oranges, the UK itself is now no longer an empire, and we have a 50 year window on when it wasn’t… So just for additional context on how wage growth compares across different periods (I’ve average across decades): Victorian Britain (with empire): - 50% real wage growth over 50 years (1800-1850) Modern Britain (post-empire): - 1970s-1980s: 2.9% annual real wage growth - 1990s: 1.5% annual growth - 2000s: 1.2% annual growth - 2010s-2020s: essentially zero growth Real wages grew by roughly 33% per decade from 1970 to 2007, then completely stagnated. By 2020, median disposable income was only 1% higher than in 2007; less than 1% growth over 13 years. The really depressing bit? Workers actually did far better in the post-imperial period (1970-2005) than they ever did during the height of empire. Which tells you everything you need to know about who was actually pocketing the imperial profits. And the post-2008 wage stagnation shows the same pattern's still alive and well, just without colonies to extract from. Capital finds new ways to capture the gains; financialisation, asset inflation, whatever: whilst labour still gets the scraps. Different methods, same fucking result. The Victorian poor weren't sharing in empire's spoils, and modern workers aren't sharing in productivity gains either. I guess mechanisms change, but the outcome doesn't. | | |
| ▲ | kiba 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Asset inflation going into non-productive assets like land or monopoly privileges. Tech monopolies are famous example of this, which is why they're large percentage of the SP500. Most loans are for land, which mean your banking system isn't directing loans toward productive assets which increase economic activity. So, no, the mechanism didn't change FMPOV. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever I understand what you mean. But also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny You are right that common people in Britain didn't get as much out of Pax Brittanica as America's did during its own period of expansion. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner an hour ago | parent [-] | | Quite a different situation. An empire is when you go to a populated place and extract wealth from the people who live there. That’s not what manifest destiny was. America expanded into land that was sparsely populated by natives americans and mexico who had no wealth to extract. | | |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re absolutely correct. The UK built an empire because it industrialized early and had the money and technology to do so. But the empire isn’t what made it rich in the first place. |
| |
| ▲ | saalweachter 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wasn't the literacy rate in New England substantially higher than the literacy rate in Old England, both in 1800 and in the years prior to its declaration of independence? | | |
| ▲ | Steven_Vellon 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | New England had a male literacy rate of around 70% compared to Britain's 60% in 1800. But New England was one of the most literate regions in America around the time of the founding, including the other American regions into the literacy rate would bring the literacy rate down (even more so when if one includes the enslaved population). Comparing the literacy rate one specific region of one country, to the national average of another country is comparing apples to oranges. But the important thing is, the 1900 Britain's male literacy rate was 97%. Illiteracy went from something that was fairly common to exceptionally rare. |
|
|
