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 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Empire was always a net negative financially. The British empire was big because Great Britain was rich enough to fund it.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]