[Pants-of-dog]

Lots of colonies vs no colonies?

Because they do not test the hypothesis. If you want to find out if men or women make better parents, you don't look at people with no kids, and if you want to find out what makes countries rich, you don't look at poor countries. Not rocket science.

If you want to find out what makes people good parents, then you need to look at good parents and bad parents.

Similarly if you want to know why countries are rich, it makes sense to compare them with poor ones.

So if you want to look at the difference between a current first world country and a third world country, as I was originally asked, it would make sense to look at the UK versus Jamaica, for example.

[Unthinking Majority]

I don't believe this part is true from your statements.

Cities are experiencing a kind of a reverse of white flight now. Those with money are moving into the cities, and those without are going to the suburbs. Here in Austin, there are more Latinos in the surrounding suburbs than the city itself. Same with black people. They have been kicked out of their traditional neighborhood inside the city core due to gentrification.

Austin's east side was the poor part of the city. Now it's one of the wealthiest.

I didn't mean "urban" in that sense I guess as in the urban core, I meant immigrants tend to flock to the larger cities rather than small towns or smaller cities. That's what's happening in Canada.

They're starting to move to neighbouring medium sized cities though because the housing is cheaper, so in that sense the market is working, but the cities are still crazy expensive. I believe Canada has the highest housing price to income ratio in G7 or G20 or something like that, and the highest immigration to population ratio in the G20 or something like that. We have 40 million people total and let in around 1.2 million immigrants last year, and that's all legal immigration, we get some illegals but that's not counted in those numbers. If you're only building 250k new housing units a year that's a problem.

It's affected other things too. People can't find a family doctor, ER wait times even in big cities are insane, they can typically be 10 to 18 hours unless you're having an active heart attack or other high risk of death issue.

[late]

Being dominant is not prosperity, and the reserve currency was gold, not sterling.

As with every other empire. But Britain wasn't prosperous in the inter-war years, despite having the most colonies of any empire ever.

During the interwar years, the British empire was a dead man that hadn't fallen down yet.

The costs of empire eventually undermine a country, but it had a couple centuries of empire before that. There are different ways of looking at that, but Trafalgar was 1805, and England became the reserve currency in 1815.

But they were doing colonies long before that era.

[Unthinking Majority]

Why compare the UK to SK?

Why not Jamaica?

Or India?

Or Zimbabwe?

Much of Europe became dominant and able to have colonialism in the Americas, Africa, and Eastern Asia in the first place because of more advanced technology. They developed boats strong enough to sail to the Americas, and circumvent Africa. European boats couldn't get further south than around the shore of west africa around where the Sahara desert ends until the 1400's. Plus military technology.

Had the indigenous people in the Americas or Africans developed such technology first no doubt they would have sailed to other continents and conquered them just as they did to each other within their own continents.

[Pants-of-dog]

Much of Europe became dominant and able to have colonialism in the Americas, Africa, and Eastern Asia in the first place because of more advanced technology. They developed boats strong enough to sail to the Americas, and circumvent Africa. European boats couldn't get further south than around the shore of west africa around where the Sahara desert ends until the 1400's. Plus military technology.

Had the indigenous people in the Americas or Africans developed such technology first no doubt they would have sailed to other continents and conquered them just as they did to each other within their own continents.

This does not contradict the claim that colonialism was probably the most significant factor in determining which countries are now developing and which are developed.

[Unthinking Majority]

This does not contradict the claim that colonialism was probably the most significant factor in determining which countries are now developing and which are developed.

I don't quite agree. Colonialism is obviously a significant factor, but it ignores the thousands of years of development prior to European colonialism. If you look at the economic, political, educational, and technological development of countries/regions as they existed around 1492 compared to now the differences between regions are pretty similar. There's obvious exceptions like the Americas which advanced tremendously as regions in different ways because of colonialism.

Around 1492, Western Europe was the most advanced, followed by the more advanced parts of Asia like China and Japan, Eastern Europe falls in there something, and parts of the middle-east, followed by Sub-saharan Africa since it was quite isolated from Eurasia due to the Sahara desert and malaria, and the least developed were the most isolated from Eurasia such as the indigenous peoples of Australia/New Zealand/Oceania and especially the Americas. The best explanation for this is the "guns, germs, steel" argument.

I think how advanced a society was around 1492 had a tremendous impact on how they were going to do development-wise over the next 500 years. In fact the least developed regions around 1492 were the ones that were least able to resist colonialism, the the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, parts of Asia, and Africa was only able to resist settler colonialsm inland for so long because Europeans and horses were susceptible to malaria until the medicines were invented in the 1800's. Japan and China were developed and strong enough to resist Europeans as were many parts of the middle east via the Ottoman Empire until it fell. And of course european countries themselves were advanced enough to resist many incursions of each other, though not all.

[paeng]

Those are also the effects of late capitalism. In which case, welcome to that.

[Unthinking Majority]

Those are also the effects of late capitalism. In which case, welcome to that.

If capitalism fell, like a deep worldwide depression, what would replace it? I think a market economy would still remain but it would change, we'd get a New Deal type transformation and maybe limits of the sizes or conglomeration of companies. Maybe the corporation as an entity would be banned. Stock markets may stick around, though more regulated.

[late]

If capitalism fell, like a deep worldwide depression, what would replace it? I think a market economy would still remain but it would change, we'd get a New Deal type transformation and maybe limits of the sizes or conglomeration of companies. Maybe the corporation as an entity would be banned. Stock markets may stick around, though more regulated.

AI is going to increase productivity dramatically.

Which means fewer workers which means fewer people with the money to buy the products they are making.

We get to pick our future.

But it's going to be different, economies that can't consume simply don't work.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't quite agree. Colonialism is obviously a significant factor, but it ignores the thousands of years of development prior to European colonialism. If you look at the economic, political, educational, and technological development of countries/regions as they existed around 1492 compared to now the differences between regions are pretty similar. There's obvious exceptions like the Americas which advanced tremendously as regions in different ways because of colonialism.

Around 1492, Western Europe was the most advanced, followed by the more advanced parts of Asia like China and Japan, Eastern Europe falls in there something, and parts of the middle-east, followed by Sub-saharan Africa since it was quite isolated from Eurasia due to the Sahara desert and malaria, and the least developed were the most isolated from Eurasia such as the indigenous peoples of Australia/New Zealand/Oceania and especially the Americas. The best explanation for this is the "guns, germs, steel" argument.

I think how advanced a society was around 1492 had a tremendous impact on how they were going to do development-wise over the next 500 years. In fact the least developed regions around 1492 were the ones that were least able to resist colonialism, the the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, parts of Asia, and Africa was only able to resist settler colonialsm inland for so long because Europeans and horses were susceptible to malaria until the medicines were invented in the 1800's. Japan and China were developed and strong enough to resist Europeans as were many parts of the middle east via the Ottoman Empire until it fell. And of course european countries themselves were advanced enough to resist many incursions of each other, though not all.

“Advanced” is an unverifiable and subjective term.

You mentioned British boat building before. That was less a measure of how advanced the technology was and more to so with the abundance of good trees and the relative peace of living on an island.

More importantly, the differences that were around in Shakespeare’s time do not have nearly as much an impact on today”s global context as colonialism. More like they had an effect on colonialism which then had an effect on us today.

[Truth To Power]

During the interwar years, the British empire was a dead man that hadn't fallen down yet.

So colonialism does not cause prosperity. Compare Spain, which was a very dynamic and prosperous society at the time it conquered its American colonies, but then quickly reverted to a stagnant hidalgo culture thanks to the influx of American silver and gold undermining its productive economy.

There are different ways of looking at that, but Trafalgar was 1805, and England became the reserve currency in 1815.

What do you mean, "England became the reserve currency in 1815"? The reserve currency in the 19th century was typically gold, not sterling.

[Truth To Power]

If you want to find out what makes people good parents, then you need to look at good parents and bad parents.

And develop statistical profiles to see how they differ. Not just compare one good parent to one bad one.

Similarly if you want to know why countries are rich, it makes sense to compare them with poor ones.

Only if you compare statistical profiles of representative samples of the rich ones and poor ones.

So if you want to look at the difference between a current first world country and a third world country, as I was originally asked, it would make sense to look at the UK versus Jamaica, for example.

No, because that would not be a representative sample of either population. You are proposing to generalize based on one or fewer data pairs. That is nonscience.

[late]

So colonialism does not cause prosperity. Compare Spain, which was a very dynamic and prosperous society at the time it conquered its American colonies, but then quickly reverted to a stagnant hidalgo culture thanks to the influx of American silver and gold undermining its productive economy.

What do you mean, "England became the reserve currency in 1815"? The reserve currency in the 19th century was typically gold, not sterling.

You are the reserve currency when foreign banks hold a large sum of your money as a reserve. Btw, before the Brits were the Spaniards, and they used silver, as well. Wiki says the Spaniards had the first true reserve currency.

In a sense, you are right, the Italians in the Renaissance got rich doing trade, not colonialism. But it didn't take long to figure out you could send an army and steal everything that would fit in a boat.

One last thing, the Spanish economy became prosperous, but they had all manner of problems. All that silver from America set off a punishing inflation. Their wealth was sapped by nearly constant warfare, their version of capitalism was quite restrictive, and they got hit by plagues. So dynamic may not be the best descriptor..

[Pants-of-dog]

And develop statistical profiles to see how they differ. Not just compare one good parent to one bad one.

Only if you compare statistical profiles of representative samples of the rich ones and poor ones.

No, because that would not be a representative sample of either population. You are proposing to generalize based on one or fewer data pairs. That is nonscience.

If you are merely pointing out that my one word answer was too simple to include a set of possible reasons, then yes, you are correct.

Please note that I said as much prior to making my one word answer

[Rancid]

Time to buy out some apartment blocks and kick everyone out.

[Pants-of-dog]

Time to buy out some apartment blocks and kick everyone out.

While I chuckled at your joke, this is a common enough business practice that it has a name: renoviction.

[Rancid]

While I chuckled at your joke, this is a common enough business practice that it has a name: renoviction.

I know it's a real practice. I've heard of stories where people buy buildings, intentionally infest them with bedbugs, so they can get everyone out, and redevelop the land.

[Pants-of-dog]

And if the system is set up so that people who do that make millions, then the system needs change.

[Unthinking Majority]

“Advanced” is an unverifiable and subjective term.

No different than measure a country's development today. A country's economic wealth, political stability, education levels, health outcomes, and technological advancement can be measured and compared.

You mentioned British boat building before. That was less a measure of how advanced the technology was and more to so with the abundance of good trees and the relative peace of living on an island.

I mentioned boat building but never mentioned British boat building. The Spanish had the most advanced navy in the world in the late 1400's and were the first at the time to travel to the Americas and explore further around the African coastline that had ever happened before by ship.

More importantly, the differences that were around in Shakespeare’s time do not have nearly as much an impact on today”s global context as colonialism. More like they had an effect on colonialism which then had an effect on us today.

Progress in terms economic wealth, political stability, education, health technology and outcomes, and technological advancement

Advancement in terms economic wealth, political stability, education, health technology and outcomes, and technological advancement etc of each society in the world didn't start in 1492. Colonialism definitely changed some things but also largely continued, entrenched, or even deepened power discrepancies that already existed prior to that point. If colonialism by European and Asian states over the last 500 years never happened you could make the argument that the sub-Saharan African societies or indigenous societies of the Americas might be better off today but it seems very unlikely that they would have caught up to Western Europe or the more advanced Asian nations given the very large head start Europe and Asia had. Indigenous people of the Americas weren't even literate and didn't have an alphabet/writing system in 1492 and were essentially still in the Stone Age and hunter-gatherer stage for various reasons, like a lack of access to domesticated animals for food or land travel (i.e. no horses).

[Unthinking Majority]

Time to buy out some apartment blocks and kick everyone out.

Happened to me once. The landlord by law has to give you a months rent as compensation. I was planning to move out anyways since he was clearly a slumlord piece of shit taking advantage of new immigrants so I got a free wad of cash out of him

He was a real estate agent too, he knew exactly what he was doing. But unlike the new immigrant renters I knew the law and would hound him for the law he was breaking and trying to screw me and the other renters on. The landlord even tried tp get us to mow the grass and shovel the snow on the property