The empire was almost always a waste of money. Very few, if any, colonies created enough money for the treasury to justify the cost of maintaining them.
There was a TV show made in the 1980s called The End of Empire [0] which is (mostly) available on YouTube. It chronicles what happened in India, Palestine, Iran, Egypt, Cyprus, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Singapore etc. and may be of interest to those musing about Britain's decline.
Like with every colonial power, the empire wasn't there to enrich the entire country or the average people, it was enriching the crown and wealthy business magnates involved in the trade, basically the top 1%, the rest were left to wallow in poverty and hard labor.
I definitely agree there were some individuals who made money from the imperial project, but it wasn't rational at the level of the British state/monarch.
> Like with every colonial power...
Some colonial powers may have genuinely increased the wealth of the imperial state. The Spanish and Mongol empires stand out in my mind here, although I don't have a precise source of accounting.
Yes a bunch of individuals got rich, but my position is that their tax payments (and wider economic contributions) never justified the cost of maintaining the colonies.
It would have probably been better if the government just gave the upper class money directly, rather than indirectly by paying for navies to acquire land for them.
I think people are downvoting you because, on a surface level reading of your comment, it could sound to an ungenerous reader like you're saying colonialism was a good thing. I read you as making an economic argument against it, which does not preclude (and indeed complements) the moral one your downvoters are so coupled to.
It's frankly sickening that some people think the empire was an exercise in us helping the third world develop purely out of the goodness of our hearts.
Maybe if China was willing to buy anything else but opium, that never would have happened. China's exports were in hot demand and they would only transact in silver but wouldn't buy anything to return that silver supply to global markets. It was causing massive problems in the silver market with over 40% of the yearly global supply going directly to purchasing Chinese exports.
Trade imbalances like that always lead to war. historically.
The British people certainly didn't make a lot of money from that. One person did.
But blaming whole countries for the actions of single entrepreneurs has been the MO for a very long time now, so I can see how you feel correct making that statement
What benefit did the British people - or the British state - get out of this at any point? Jardine Matheson didn't exactly pay many taxes at the time or employ many people in the UK.
The number 1 (and super easy to debunk) BS narrative that the English (mainly) say on the topic of "we never stole from others" or "it was a trade-off for modernizing them", etc. is how about you give back _all_ the things you 'didn't steal'. All Gemstones from all crowns/staves/etc, everything in the "British" (cough-stolen-cough) Museum. And _then_ your argument will have half a leg to stand on.
So until you return what is stolen from every country around the planet, keep the BS to yourselves because it only angers the rest of us, you pathetic thieves. Totally deserving what is going on in the UK. And I fear it is too late to turn that ship around in the next couple of decades. Especially with the politicians that are running the show and the younger ones in the pipeline.
And it is a great pity because I have lived and worked in the UK and I loved the people and the place. But hold your tongues and stop biting your own tails (you snakes) and perhaps you will have a better life in 20-30 years. :)
It's frankly sickening that some people heap scorn upon the Britain of their ancestors, especially considering they're the only ones that actually you know, abolished slavery and had the seeds of thought in its WEIRD Protestantism that evolved into the strain of progressivism that you masochistic westerners hold dear.
Unless you can explain Frank feodalism, Chinese legalism or frankly, any system before colonialism and cheptel slavery, and explain how cheptel slavery was somehow better, I will take your comment with a chunk of salt.
Do you mean chattel slavery? "Cheptel" is a word I'm not familiar with and apparently refers to livestock. "Cheptel slavery" doesn't appear in any search results.
