How Britain Stole $45 Trillion from Pakistan, Bangladesh & India with Trains

[Mista]

If you look in to the world economy now. And look at a country which controls 25% of that world economy, how much was it would be worth!!

Turn that in to that era , India holding 25% of world economy/wealth, that would be in hundreds of trillions in today's money.

45 Trillion might be exaggerated but once India was one of the richest place on earth contributed large portion of world GDP . Britain rip it off

Indian subcontinent was the hub of economics s at that time and was considered an economic powerhouse. After British came they systematically dismantled the home grown industry while promoting their own country at the expense of Indian traders and industrialists . They transferred the raw materials at bare minimum price while selling their goods at a premium price.One example is the apparel industry. It was famous worldwide but the Britishers systematically destroyed it by making the raw materials' price sky high so that normal native traders can't buy also they levied huge taxes on the goods they export as a result it became way expensive in comparison to the British products. Unlike other invaders who conquered but the system remained unchanged Britsihers overhauled the system in a pretty negative way.

Absolutely nonsensical way of calculating it, and you are stupid if you believe in that.

The world economy expanded rapidly because of advancement in science and technology in the West, and the rising educational levels across the populace translated to more productive workers. Both China's and India's share of world GDP fell as the West races forward.

Saying Britain stole 'hundreds of trillions' from India is like saying billions of dollars was stolen from me because I used to be as rich as Bill Gates before he founded Microsoft.

I don't see China blaming other colonial powers for their backwardness in the late Qing dynasty.

The Chinese blame themselves for their ignorance of the world at that time, and are determined today to correct their past mistakes by learning from the rest of the world. The Indians on the other hand love to blame the British and talk about how they can otherwise make up 25% of world's GDP today lmao.

 

[Figaro]

Absolutely nonsensical way of calculating it, and you are stupid if you believe in that.

The world economy expanded rapidly because of advancement in science and technology in the West, and the rising educational levels across the populace translated to more productive workers. Both China's and India's share of world GDP fell as the West races forward.

Saying Britain stole 'hundreds of trillions' from India is like saying billions of dollars was stolen from me because I used to be as rich as Bill Gates before he founded Microsoft.

I don't see China blaming other colonial powers for their backwardness in the late Qing dynasty.

The Chinese blame themselves for their ignorance of the world at that time, and are determined today to correct their past mistakes by learning from the rest of the world. The Indians on the other hand love to blame the British and talk about how they can otherwise make up 25% of world's GDP today lmao.

India as a country epitomizes failure on a national level. As such, it tries to blame others for this outcome without actively finding the root cause (which is itself) and rectifying these problems to improve their country.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

more like a hub of death and destruction with sikhs running rampant everywhere.

risked what? 3 thousand banyas and explorers who overcame 50k bong elite troops without much fighting? them soldiers who were sent to expel them what did they end up doing? instead of sticking with the gau-powered superpower, they help create a new fairer and more just one

I have not expected such comments from you. Read history I would suggest and tell me the reasons why there are so many east India company in European subcontinent formed ?

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam


Britain conquered India. They didn't send master thieves who stole the treasure at night or something.

The world has had people conquer and conquered.

There were countless empires and kingdoms within the Indian subcontinent that waged war against each other and probably took loot. Who pays whom what?

 

[crankthatskunk]

Absolutely nonsensical way of calculating it, and you are stupid if you believe in that.

The world economy expanded rapidly because of advancement in science and technology in the West, and the rising educational levels across the populace translated to more productive workers. Both China's and India's share of world GDP fell as the West races forward.

Saying Britain stole 'hundreds of trillions' from India is like saying billions of dollars was stolen from me because I used to be as rich as Bill Gates before he founded Microsoft.

I don't see China blaming other colonial powers for their backwardness in the late Qing dynasty.

The Chinese blame themselves for their ignorance of the world at that time, and are determined today to correct their past mistakes by learning from the rest of the world. The Indians on the other hand love to blame the British and talk about how they can otherwise make up 25% of world's GDP today lmao.

We can turn your comments on its head and say you are stupid to think that it happened because of Science and Technology alone.

Something happened in 1970 which changed the things and the inflation lead progress and expansion of the world GDP happened at a brisk pace.

President Richard Nixon ended international convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold on August 15, 1971.

In 1970 US GDP was just over $1.073 trillion with GDP growth of .2%. After Bretton Woods in August 1971.

In 1980 it turned in to $2.85 trillion

By 1980 the US economy was $2.85 Trillion, almost triple of 1971. By 2013 it was over 20 Trillion.

Small thanks to end of the link to the Gold Standards. Rise of the Petro Dollars as reserve currency of the world.

When the table turns, we will see the reversal, but for that to come, the human history is going to go through another bleak period with millions dead.

All these nuclear arms, devastating capacity is not acquired for showcase, it had been used, continuously through out the history.
Those who have not learned from the history are not there to regret it.

 

[Mista]

We can turn your comments on its head and say you are stupid to think that it happened because of Science and Technology alone.

Something happened in 1970 which changed the things and the inflation lead progress and expansion of the world GDP happened at a brisk pace.

President Richard Nixon ended international convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold on August 15, 1971.

In 1970 US GDP was just over $1.073 trillion with GDP growth of .2%. After Bretton Woods in August 1971.

In 1980 it turned in to $2.85 trillion

View attachment 662850

By 1980 the US economy was $2.85 Trillion, almost triple of 1971. By 2013 it was over 20 Trillion.

Small thanks to end of the link to the Gold Standards. Rise of the Petro Dollars as reserve currency of the world.

When the table turns, we will see the reversal, but for that to come, the human history is going to go through another bleak period with millions dead.

All these nuclear arms, devastating capacity is not acquired for showcase, it had been used, continuously through out the history.
Those who have not learned from the history are not there to regret it.

Don't be dumb. There's something called real GDP growth.

Hint: US real GDP growth has little to do with India.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Bhai Jaan, what he is rightfully questioning is, what India?
There was never a country called India before 1947, it's a modern creation.

There were various kingdoms just like Europe and other parts of the world.
There was a Mughal empire.
There was a British empire.

India as a historical entity is a fantasy created in modern, present-day mindset.

So yes, India?

The most reasonable and appropriate expression of "India" at that time was in fact Mughal India. There is no doubt that Mughal India was an economic powerhouse. Add in the hoarded wealth in temples and adjust for modern inflation, and trillions of dollars seems to be the correct order of wealth.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Absolutely nonsensical way of calculating it, and you are stupid if you believe in that.

The world economy expanded rapidly because of advancement in science and technology in the West, and the rising educational levels across the populace translated to more productive workers. Both China's and India's share of world GDP fell as the West races forward.

Saying Britain stole 'hundreds of trillions' from India is like saying billions of dollars was stolen from me because I used to be as rich as Bill Gates before he founded Microsoft.

I don't see China blaming other colonial powers for their backwardness in the late Qing dynasty.

The Chinese blame themselves for their ignorance of the world at that time, and are determined today to correct their past mistakes by learning from the rest of the world. The Indians on the other hand love to blame the British and talk about how they can otherwise make up 25% of world's GDP today lmao.

Nothing nonsensical about it. It is giving an equivalent in modern terms. Many historical wealth calculations do exactly this, to allow a modern reference point.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Shouldn’t this more accurately state, “How the British stole $45 Trillion from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India”?

Or at least use South Asia instead of just India.

 

[Mista]

Many historical wealth calculations do exactly this, to allow a modern reference point.

They do so by adjusting for inflation, not real economic growth brought by an improvement in productivity in the rest of the world.

Just because the Indian subcontinent once made up 25% of the world's economy doesn't mean that Britain stole 'hundreds of trillions' from India.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

They do so by adjusting for inflation, not real economic growth brought by an improvement in productivity in the rest of the world.

So if the calculation takes inflation into account, what is wrong in representing the value in modern equivalent terms, so the reader can understand the value in modern terms? The improvement in the rest of the world after said episode is irrelevant because what matters is the equivalent value of what was taken at the time.

Together with the slave trade, the looting of the subcontinent has very much created a financial legacy for Anglo-America.

 

[Mista]

So if the calculation takes inflation into account, what is wrong in representing the value in modern equivalent terms

That's because the world's economy is not even worth $45 trillion at that time, even after adjusting for inflation. Using 25% share of world's GDP at that time and extrapolate it to today is just plain dishonesty. It's like saying billions of dollars was stolen from me because I used to be as rich as Bill Gates before he founded Microsoft.

 

[Mista]

The improvement in the rest of the world after said episode is irrelevant because what matters is the equivalent value of what was taken at the time.

Exactly, it should be irrelevant. So how did they derive the figure of $45 trillion again?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

That's because the world's economy is not even worth $45 trillion at that time, even after adjusting for inflation. Using 25% share of world's GDP at that time and extrapolate it to today is just plain dishonesty. It's like saying billions of dollars was stolen from me because I used to be as rich as Bill Gates before he founded Microsoft.

Exactly, it should be irrelevant. So how did they derive the figure of $45 trillion again?

I understand your point and tbh I don't know how the calculation worked. However, you are not factoring in the direct impact of looted wealth on the economies of Anglo-America.

You say the 45trillion ignores the growth of the Western economy however those economies didn't grow in a vacuum but at least partly from a foundation of looted wealth, piracy and slavery.

It's actually a very hard calculation to make accurately but it must be very high in real terms.

 

[peagle]

The most reasonable and appropriate expression of "India" at that time was in fact Mughal India. There is no doubt that Mughal India was an economic powerhouse. Add in the hoarded wealth in temples and adjust for modern inflation, and trillions of dollars seems to be the correct order of wealth.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I think we do an injustice by calling it Mughal India, it was the Mughal empire, plus the region had other independent kingdoms, as well as those that were under the protection of the Mughals, but independent never-the-less.

These nuances and differentiation are important, otherwise, we keep feeding their fantasies of ancient India. I've used the term myself and still do out of habit. I stopped using it when I looking it to it, the history says otherwise. If they had adopted the term Bharat or Hindustan for their country then we could use the term India, because they have taken the India name to describe their country, intellectually speaking they have mudded our history, so how we use the term India historically has to be accurately used, otherwise, my/our history gets maligned.

In terms of the amount of money taken, it is mainly used to trump up the Indian nationalism and hard to justify historically. They have also left behind a legacy, and it is a bit pointless to cry about it to drum up nationalism. And, for sake of fair historical analysis, that has not been done as yet.

Ripe apart the Indian railway system and see how much it would cost to build, that's value. There are also various arguments there, but the point I am trying to make is that the Indians look at it too simplistically to drum up sense of nationhood, which is shallow and unfair.

Then which nations lost how much, Bengalis were the most to suffer, that's not India, it was Bengal. Other areas lost not so much, so again it goes back to the points that this is an unfair assessment, purely designed for sake of modern Indian nationalism.