Who is the most Evil individual from the 20th century ?

Most evil of the 20th Century

  • Mao Zedong

    Votes: 19 14.7%
  • Joseph Stalin

    Votes: 12 9.3%
  • Adolf Hitler

    Votes: 26 20.2%
  • Winston Churchill

    Votes: 46 35.7%
  • Henry Kissinger

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • Hirohito

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Jinnah

    Votes: 11 8.5%
  • Pol Pot

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • Idi Amin

    Votes: 2 1.6%
  • Yahya Khan

    Votes: 2 1.6%

  • Total voters
    129

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Anyway, you seem to have a poor knowledge of economics, like most online Brits. You cannot shake off the idea that it is "either-or" - either "spend money on the poor", or "spend money on space". Firstly, "spend money on the poor" is the most silly thing I have ever heard, from an economic standpoint.
That's because Britain used to be a capitalist country. NOw socialism prevails. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, businessmen are looked down upon as they earn a lot for the skills they have. Otoh footballers and celebrities who have no brains can earn as much as they wish. You work hard and make a million you are infinitesimally worse than who earns a million by winning a lottery: sad but true.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
I doubt how much trains and ports would have been built by our local kings. We were a declining civilization and British just happened to be here at the opportune time. If it was not for British, we probably would have been some Rajputana, Bengal, Marathwada etc. now. As far as illiteracy is concerned our caste system had made it impossible for common people to learn anything. So, no point in blaming for illiteracy on the British. As far as industries are concerned we were a handicraft nation, would have lost to world competition in any case. The British did not put the infrastructure in place to help us but it definitely has helped us in one way or the other. Another case where the invisible hand of Adam Smith seems to be at work.

And 60 years is good enough period to turn around a nation, we have not yet prospered thanks to our socialist ideals and dreams. I doubt if their impact lingers around till today(except the English language of-course!).
Please read more on the history of India. I find your statements quite disturbing. Though I don't blame all of current ills on Brits I sure do pose this question to you , on what basis did Britain end up with so much wealth that they could afford the zenith of socialism fOr over 60 years.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Why would it be worse? Have you seen the map of Europe? Do you know how well nation states thrive?

How many schools exactly did the British setup to drive literacy? They we governing the country right?

I think you must not try to build a hypothesis that assumes that things would have been worse as you have no way of determining that. However if we went by statistical evidence, for 2000 years upto the Briitish coming to India, we contributed nothing less than 25% of the worlds output. At the end of 200 years of British rule, that number went down to less than 1%. Go figure.
I did not lectured on how well or pathetically nation states thrive. I meant the concept of one political India that we see today has as much British contribution as the rise of nationalism under British rule.

British set up as many schools as they needed to run the country. I am not defending them, but our caste system was much worse and inward looking on the educational front. Literacy in India had always been bad historically due to sanskritisation of education. So no point just blaming the British.

Everyone knows that it is difficult to build counterfactuals. But to put things in perspective, we had 25% of world's GDP but it would have declined in any case(British or no British). Industrialization happened in Britain and not in India. The artisan and handicraft industry had no space in a modern world. And our GDP as a % percentage of world GDP continued to declined further till 1990, not because British left us exploited but because we had flawed economic policies for 40 years. To put things in perspective, look at the literacy or industrialization rate of Nepal or other kingdoms during British India and you will know they did no better than the regions under British rule.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Please read more on the history of India. I find your statements quite disturbing. Though I don't blame all of current ills on Brits I sure do pose this question to you , on what basis did Britain end up with so much wealth that they could afford the zenith of socialism fOr over 60 years.
Britain was a nation of free individuals. They were the first to industrialize, first to open trade barriers, first to adopt constitution and the list goes on. They were at the frontier of research and inventions. USA copied and maintained their economic model with a considerably larger population than UK and everyone has the result in front of their eyes. USA too amassed wealth following those principles of free men.

You cannot amass enough wealth just by looting. The Raj was profitable till it was run by the enterprise called East India Company. By the end of the century, it was more of a liability and less an asset. Look at the later 30-40 years of British Raj, most resources raised from India were spent on maintaining the army and civil services in India.

We need to realize that wealth can be created and British were good at that. It would be unjustified to say that all their wealth came from plundering India or other colonies. I have read enough history to avoid bashing of Brits for every evil of ours. Also, I do not call them any angels.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Everyone knows that it is difficult to build counterfactuals. But to put things in perspective, we had 25% of world's GDP but it would have declined in any case(British or no British). Industrialization happened in Britain and not in India. The artisan and handicraft industry had no space in a modern world. And our GDP as a % percentage of world GDP continued to declined further till 1990, not because British left us exploited but because we had flawed economic policies for 40 years. To put things in perspective, look at the literacy or industrialization rate of Nepal or other kingdoms during British India and you will know they did no better than the regions under British rule.
The reason why India did not industrialize was precisely because of British rule. We were a colony, and as such we were economically exploited for the sake of the mother country (Britain).

Japan, Thailand, Turkey, and Iran are all examples of Asian countries that maintained their independence throughout the age of imperialism despite considerable European influence, and all of them are today more developed than India on a per-capita basis. They all successfully reformed their countries and developed railroads, modern ports, and factories without having to be colonized and exploited. It would be ignorant to say that Indian states would not have done the same had they been given the opportunity. India in the 18th century had all the required factors for a full-scale industrialization, including a large workforce of skilled and semi-skilled workers, vast cottage industries, abundant supplies of coal, and plenty of rivers for powering early factories. It were these same factors which spurred industrialization in Britain and America, and a few reforms along with adoption of technical know-how could have easily produced similar results in India. If there is one thing that is constant throughout Indian history, it is that we were always quick to adopt new ideas and technologies and integrate them into the native culture.
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311
Britain was a nation of free individuals. They were the first to industrialize, first to open trade barriers, first to adopt constitution and the list goes on. They were at the frontier of research and inventions. USA copied and maintained their economic model with a considerably larger population than UK and everyone has the result in front of their eyes. USA too amassed wealth following those principles of free men.

You cannot amass enough wealth just by looting. The Raj was profitable till it was run by the enterprise called East India Company. By the end of the century, it was more of a liability and less an asset. Look at the later 30-40 years of British Raj, most resources raised from India were spent on maintaining the army and civil services in India.

We need to realize that wealth can be created and British were good at that. It would be unjustified to say that all their wealth came from plundering India or other colonies. I have read enough history to avoid bashing of Brits for every evil of ours. Also, I do not call them any angels.
You seem to have an unhealthy love affair with the British Empire. Yes you quote Amartya Sen and the like and allude to having done much research, but at best you seem to have your head buried in details and cannot see the wood for the trees; or at worst you care little for counter-facts and stubbornly remain an Empire sympathiser for whatever reason.

I am not going to get into a debate about who invented democracy, whether Americans or British or whomever. But I do dispute the fact that Britain got wealthy just because it was the first to Industrialise. Germany, parts of Europe and America all went through the Industrial revolution at roughly the same time but did not do as well initially as Britain. The key differentiator was India. India provided the wealth to loot, the captive market for manufactured goods, and the manpower for troops to conquer the world. Try to see Jeremy Paxman's series 'Empire' if you can - This is a Brit telling you this, so why do you argue against it?

The Raj was profitable till it was run by the enterprise called East India Company. By the end of the century, it was more of a liability and less an asset. Look at the later 30-40 years of British Raj, most resources raised from India were spent on maintaining the army and civil services in India.
What are you talking about? The East India Company came first and then the Raj. India was paying 'reparations' for the 1857 war of independence right till the end. Cash was going from India to Britain - even ignoring the fact that India was forced to buy goods it could make itself and buy at above market prices because other countries were excluded from supplying. India could not even use this cash to buy food during the Bengal famine, which is what this thread and debate about Churchill is all about.

As far as illiteracy is concerned our caste system had made it impossible for common people to learn anything. So, no point in blaming for illiteracy on the British
Listen pal. Every country had its caste system. Britain had its feudal system, Japan had its system – samurai etc. But the key difference is that these countries were free to get rid of their inequalities in their own way, in their own time. With India, the British colonials froze the caste system and put themselves right at the top of the pyramid. Stop pandering to the right wing British obsession with the caste system – next thing you know you will start lecturing us on their obsession with toilets.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
You seem to have an unhealthy love affair with the British Empire. Yes you quote Amartya Sen and the like and allude to having done much research, but at best you seem to have your head buried in details and cannot see the wood for the trees; or at worst you care little for counter-facts and stubbornly remain an Empire sympathiser for whatever reason.

I am not going to get into a debate about who invented democracy, whether Americans or British or whomever. But I do dispute the fact that Britain got wealthy just because it was the first to Industrialise. Germany, parts of Europe and America all went through the Industrial revolution at roughly the same time but did not do as well initially as Britain. The key differentiator was India. India provided the wealth to loot, the captive market for manufactured goods, and the manpower for troops to conquer the world. Try to see Jeremy Paxman's series 'Empire' if you can - This is a Brit telling you this, so why do you argue against it?
I am not in love affair with anyone. Just pointed you to the facts and arguments. I do not want to write the whole history here but for elucidation Germany was not even a nation state till late 19th century(thanks to Bismarck for the vision). Britain was much industrialized before anyone else. And East India Company had no relation with the crown till 1857, it was just another company paying dividends like many others in UK at that time. I am still surprised how many people buy the idea that economic affluence can be achieved through looting. Ofcourse we were looted, but that is not the only reason which explains the economic and military powerhouse that Britain was.

What are you talking about? The East India Company came first and then the Raj. India was paying 'reparations' for the 1857 war of independence right till the end. Cash was going from India to Britain - even ignoring the fact that India was forced to buy goods it could make itself and buy at above market prices because other countries were excluded from supplying. India could not even use this cash to buy food during the Bengal famine, which is what this thread and debate about Churchill is all about.
There was a small goof-up on my part. I meant the British rule was profitable under the Company and once the charge went to the crown, it slowly turned into a liability. The profitable colony ceased to be profitable post WW1 as most money raised here was needed for maintenance of army and other services. This was the time when Indian ventures took up the charge and you see Gujarati and Marwari industrialists coming into picture. And they were free to import and export. Look at the history of Tatas how they started with American technology. As far as govt. expenditures are concerned, they are always always political in nature and the expenditures of Raj were no different.

Listen pal. Every country had its caste system. Britain had its feudal system, Japan had its system – samurai etc. But the key difference is that these countries were free to get rid of their inequalities in their own way, in their own time. With India, the British colonials froze the caste system and put themselves right at the top of the pyramid. Stop pandering to the right wing British obsession with the caste system – next thing you know you will start lecturing us on their obsession with toilets.
Again this is a counterfactual involving comparison of apples with oranges. The societies you are talking about and India are vastly different in size and other factors. And if British froze the caste system, who did put it on freeze for 3000 years? There is no point in going deeper into the distinction between the above systems and caste system. All I can say in this case- might be we could have dealt better with caste system minus the British. But the odds seem very low.
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
462
^^ Yeah, sakal does appear to be a gushing admirer of the British empire, inspite of being an Indian , whose ancestors were exploited and tortured by the British. A rather disturbing observation. Appears to be an example of Stockholm syndrome.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
^^ Yeah, sakal does appear to be a gushing admirer of the British empire, inspite of being an Indian , whose ancestors were exploited and tortured by the British. A rather disturbing observation. Appears to be an example of Stockholm syndrome.
Emotions should not blind your judgements today. I admire not the Raj but the individuals who worked hard to create wealth. In hatred for the Raj, do not blindly criticize the other accomplishments of the British.
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311
^^ Yeah, sakal does appear to be a gushing admirer of the British empire, inspite of being an Indian , whose ancestors were exploited and tortured by the British. A rather disturbing observation. Appears to be an example of Stockholm syndrome.
He liked your post, therefore your diagnosis must be correct ;)
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
462
From gandhian dharmapal's A BEAUTIFUL TREE,

For this reason, the quantitative nature of the data presented should be read with great caution. The increase in the numbers of schools in England may not necessarily have been a good thing, as it merely signified the arrival of factory schooling. On the other hand, the decline in the numbers of traditional educational institutions is to be intensely deplored, since this meant quality education was being replaced by a substandard substitute. These aspects must always be kept at the back of our minds when we commence analysing the data for significance. Before we do that, the highlights first.
The most well-known and controversial point which emerged from the educational surveys lies in an observation made by William Adam. In his first report, he observed that there exist about 1,00,000 village schools in Bengal and Bihar around the 1830s.32 This statement appears to have been founded on the impressions of various high British officials and others who had known the different areas rather intimately and over long periods; it had no known backing of official records. Similar statements had been made, much before W. Adam, for areas of the Madras Presidency. Men like Thomas Munro, had observed that 'every village had a school.'33 For areas of the newly extended Presidency of Bombay around 1820, senior officials like G.L. Prendergast noted 'that there is hardly a vil-lage, great or small, throughout our territories, in which there is not at least one school, and in larger villages more.'34 Ob-servations made by Dr G.W. Leitner in 1882 show that the spread of education in the Punjab around 1850 was of a similar extent
Adam's first report is a general statement of the situation and a presentation of the data which he could derive from post-1800 official and other sources. His conclusions: first, every village had at least one school and in all probability in Bengal and Bihar with 1,50,748 villages, 'there will still be 1,00,000' villages that have these schools.59 Second, on the basis of personal observation and what he had learnt from other evidence, he inferred that on an average there were around 100 institutions of higher learning in each district of Bengal. Consequently, he concluded that the 18 districts of Bengal had about 1,800 such institutions. Computing the number studying in these latter at the lowest figure of six scholars in each, he also computed that some 10,800 scholars should be studying in them. He further observed that while the elementary schools 'are generally held in the homes of some of the most respectable native inhabitants or very near them', the institutions of higher learning had buildings generally of clay with 'sometimes three or five rooms' and 'in others nine or eleven rooms', with a reading-room which is also of clay. These latter places were also used for the residence of the scholars; and the scholars were usually fed and clothed by the teachers, and where required, were assisted by the local people. After describing the method of teaching in both types of institutions and going into their daily routine, Adam then presented and examined the post-1800 data on the subject, district by district.
Adam divided the period spent in elementary schools into four stages. According to him these were: the first stage, seldom exceeding ten days, during which the young scholar was taught 'to form the letters of the alphabet on the ground with a small stick or slip of bamboo', or on a sandboard. The second stage, extending from two and a half to four years, was 'distinguished by the use of the palm leaf as the material on which writing is performed', and the scholar was 'taught to write and read', and commit 'to memory the Cowrie Table, the Numeration Table as far as 100, the Katha Table (a land measure Table), and the Ser Table', etc. The third stage extended 'from two to three years, which are employed in writing on the plantain-leaf.' Addition, subtraction, and other arithmet¬ical rules were additionally taught during this period. In the fourth, and last stage, of up to two years, writing was done on paper. The scholar was expected to be able to read the Ra¬mayana, Mansa Mangal, etc., at home, as well as be qualified in accounts, and the writing
Source:http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CH4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arvindguptatoys.com%2Farvindgupta%2Fbeautifultree.pdf&ei=VX-zT8igJoa4rAfw-IyZBg&usg=AFQjCNG-T7blGB2uYthq6mlE9GxYf0JLHg&sig2=xw4DUDAxM7KzccxUZd_3YQ A beautiful tree.
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311
I don't see anything you said below that justifies British rule over India. The argument that India would have been far better off economically and socially without them still stands. See my comments inline below.

I am not in love affair with anyone. Just pointed you to the facts and arguments. I do not want to write the whole history here but for elucidation Germany was not even a nation state till late 19th century(thanks to Bismarck for the vision) An economic confederation since early 19th century when industrialization was going on - unlike in India where it was prevented. Britain was much industrialized before anyone else. And East India Company had no relation with the crown till 1857, it was just another company paying dividends like many others in UK at that time no dispute here. I am still surprised how many people buy the idea that economic affluence can be achieved through lootingbecause it is obvious. Ofcourse we were looted, but that is not the only reason which explains the economic and military powerhouse that Britain was exactly Paxman's point - India provided Britain with the military power to further colonise, rule, and loot the world. But I take your point you can only loot so much, which is why Britain started falling behind America and Germany eventually..



There was a small goof-up on my part. I meant the British rule was profitable under the Company and once the charge went to the crown, it slowly turned into a liability You can only rape a country so much - remember how they started with the 1770 Bengal famine. The profitable colony ceased to be profitable post WW1 as most money raised here was needed for maintenance of army and other servicesMilitary for their campaigns outside of India, also India was still paying reparations from 1857. This was the time when Indian ventures took up the charge and you see Gujarati and Marwari industrialists coming into picture. And they were free to import and export. Look at the history of Tatas how they started with American technologyYes, you prove my point. We had the brains and the initiative to have bettered ourselves had we had the freedom. As far as govt. expenditures are concerned, they are always always political in nature and the expenditures of Raj were no different Again, concurs with my argument. They exploited us and we would have been better off without them..



Again this is a counterfactual involving comparison of apples with oranges. The societies you are talking about and India are vastly different in size and other factors Disagree. There is a broad movement across all nations away from feudalism. And caste system is India's form of feudalism. We would have got rid of it on our own - as we are doing so right now, arguably not quickly enough, but we will get there. And if British froze the caste system, who did put it on freeze for 3000 years? As I said Britain had its own caste system, remants of which are still there - the Queen, House of Lords, the toffs in the Tory party (although I did vote for them) There is no point in going deeper into the distinction between the above systems and caste system. All I can say in this case- might be we could have dealt better with caste system minus the British. But the odds seem very low Why do you say this when the caste system is already being tackled by ourselves on our own - why do you have so little faith and pander to the prejudices of the British colonialists?.
 

LalTopi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
583
Likes
311
My mother, a bright girl from a poor rural Indian family described how, growing up in the early 1930s she used to receive a stipend from the village thakors to go to school. This facility was available to all people regardless of caste, was entirely indigenous, and had probably been in place as per your article for centuries. She only went for a while as she had to help out in the fields, but this is how she learnt to read and write.
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
462
Its not an article, its a book. Please download it. It is one the greatest books on the history of Indian indigenous education system I have ever read.
 
Last edited:

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
^^ I did not justify British rule anywhere above.

Paragraph 1: UK declined due to its socialistic policies and not because they stopped looting. While US and Germany were pre-dominantly capitalistic, Britain took up socialism. Read more about post war Britain and Thatcherism which arose to counter socialism. Also, not to forget the population parameter. US is much bigger than UK in terms of population, so an open and free economy with more people would be more stronger. Although, there is not much difference in per capita income of individuals in these nations. If India and China continue to progress the way we are doing right now and achieve western standards of living, we would be four times bigger than US economically. So look at population figures of these nations and do not forget they copied the British model.

Paragraph 2: The common man was looted by emperors before the dawn of British. For some reason we tend to forget their looting. The different kingdoms during British India were much more depressed and anti-industrialization as British India. So, I have not challenged our ingenuity or business acumen but I have challenged the notion that we would have industrialized better under Rajputana or Nizam. Read about the plight of subjects under these kings.

Paragraph 3: Read more about caste system and then compare these systems. Caste system is much more than mere feudalism and finds its support in scriptures. I mentioned caste to point about how it contributed to illiteracy in pre-British India. But I would not compare completely different cultures and population to build a counterfactual. Nepal, which was independent and caste ridden till now can be a much close counterfactual than Japan or any other country. Also, I did not say British helped eradicate it or anything. I brought it up to say we were illiterate even without British and so no need to blame them for our illiteracy. So please follow the thread and the reasons why I brought in specific arguments. How we would have dealt with caste system in case of no British influence is better left for another debate.

P.S. This thread reflects how much some of us still believe in the theory that wealth can only be looted or appropriated.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,883
Likes
8,137
Country flag
Oh dear, you're not reeling out that tired old adage about how India had 20% (or was it 25%?) of the worlds trade in 1700 are you?

Okay, a few points:

India didn't exist. The Indian sub continent was divided up by a number of rulers. Have a look at Tipu Sultan if you wish
Still, this doesn't change the fact that Indian subcontinent's GDP was 25-30% of the world's total.

Indian subcontinent has cycled between centralized empires and warring states. The Westphalian idea of a "nation state" is new concept anyways.



Yes, Britain used India's resources same as all of the other colonial powers used theirs.
When the Mughals (Mongols) conquered India, did they act like that?
Mughal Empire was not a colonial power. It was based in India and the subcontinents wealth was not siphoned off to foreigners.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,883
Likes
8,137
Country flag
Paragraph 3: Read more about caste system and then compare these systems. Caste system is much more than mere feudalism and finds its support in scriptures. I mentioned caste to point about how it contributed to illiteracy in pre-British India. But I would not compare completely different cultures and population to build a counterfactual. Nepal, which was independent and caste ridden till now can be a much close counterfactual than Japan or any other country. Also, I did not say British helped eradicate it or anything. I brought it up to say we were illiterate even without British and so no need to blame them for our illiteracy.
Err... Japan also had a caste system with 4 divisions and untouchables Burakumin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Unlike the Chinese, Japan's system wasn't meritocratic.


P.S. This thread reflects how much some of us still believe in the theory that wealth can only be looted or appropriated.
Wealth is a vague term, "currency" has to be either backed by oil/gold/silver/military power. Brits stole a lot of gold and silver
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
Emotions should not blind your judgements today. I admire not the Raj but the individuals who worked hard to create wealth. In hatred for the Raj, do not blindly criticize the other accomplishments of the British.
And which one of those which made our lives better?
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,883
Likes
8,137
Country flag
Here is a good article on the Opium Wars, some excerpts:


Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.


Mercantilist governments resented the perpetual drain of silver from West to East in payment for Oriental goods (tea, silk, porcelain) that were in high demand in the Occident, while facing low demand in the Orient for Occidental goods. From the mid-17th century, more than 9 billion Troy ounces, or 290 thousand tonnes, of silver was absorbed by China from European countries in exchange for Chinese goods.

The British introduced opium along with tobacco as an export item to China in order to reduce the trade deficit.
Under the disguise of free trade, the British, the Spanish and the French, with the tacit approval of the Americans, continued sending their contraband to China through legitimate as well as illegitimate trade channels even after the Chinese dynasty put an embargo on opium imports.

Because of its strong appeal to the Chinese masses, and because of its highly addictive nature, opium appeared to be the ideal solution to the West's trade problem. And, indeed, the flow of silver was first stopped, and then reversed. China was forced to pay silver for her addiction to opium smoking that was artificially induced by the pusher - the British.

The role of opium in the current dispute is played by paper. Paper dollars, to be precise.

In 1971, an atrocity was made that I call the Nixon-Friedman conspiracy.
To cover up the shame and disgrace of the default of the US on its international gold obligations, Milton Friedman (following an earlier failed attempt of John Maynard Keynes) concocted a spurious and idiotic theory of floating exchange rates. It suggests that falling foreign exchange value of the domestic currency makes it stronger when in actual fact the opposite is true: it is made weaker as the terms of trade of the devaluing country deteriorates and that of its trading partners improves.

President Richard Nixon was quick to embrace the false theory of Friedman. No public debate of the plan was permitted then, or ever after. Under the new dispensation, the irredeemable dollar was to play the role of the ultimate extinguisher of debt, a preposterous idea. The scheme was imposed on the world under duress as part of the "new millennium", shaking off the "tyranny of gold", that "barbarous relic", the last remnant of superstition, the only remaining "anachronism of the Modern Age".

The ploy was played up and celebrated as a great scientific breakthrough, making it possible for man to shape his own destiny rationally, free of superstition, for the first time ever. Yet all it was a cheap trick to elevate the dishonored paper of an insolvent banker (the US) from scum to the holy of holies: international currency. The fact that fiat paper money has a history of 100% mortality was neatly side-stepped. Any questioning of the wisdom of experimenting with it in spite of logic and historical evidence was declared foggy-bottom reactionary thinking.

The amazing thing about this episode of the history of human folly was the ease with which it could be pushed down the throat of the rest of the world, including those nations that were directly hurt by it, such as the ones running a trade surplus with the US. Their savings went up in smoke.

The explanation for this self-destructing behavior is the addictive, debilitating and mind-corrosive nature of paper money, in direct analogy with that of opium. The high caused by administering the opium pipe to the patient (read: administering quantitative easing, or QE) had to be repeated when the effect faded by a fresh administration of more opium (read: QE2).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top