How does Europe still have a lot of money?

  • News
  • Thread starter chound
  • Start date
  • #1
158
0
European nations were colonial powers hence plundered a lot of countries and became rich.

But now that they are no longer in power, how are they still so rich ?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,411
6,675
they work and produce things.
 
  • #3
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
European nations were colonial powers hence plundered a lot of countries and became rich.
This is such an oversimplification of a continent that has been populated for over 30,000 years that it's unreal. Admittedly the more recent millennia have had more of an effect on the present but to write Europe off as purely an old imperial power and incorrectly suggest that its wealth was totally a product of theft is monstrously incorrect.
But now that they are no longer in power, how are they still so rich ?
The history of European economics is incredibly long. Helpfully there was a series of huge disruptions in the first half of the last century that provide a good backdrop for what we see in the present day: two huge wars (IIRC the British Empire, the biggest ever known, was nearly bankrupted in just a handful of years by those activities, amongst an even more complex history of course). That somewhat simplifies matters because preventing war in Europe ever again was one of the driving ideologies behind the establishment of the organisation that has evolved into the modern European Union. So if you want to learn more, start here and here.
 
  • #4
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
European nations were colonial powers hence plundered a lot of countries and became rich.

But now that they are no longer in power, how are they still so rich ?
Historian Niall Ferguson has a book (Civilization) and a Ted talk on this subject and spends a bit of time rebutting the West got rich through imperialism and plunder idea. Yes the West did imperialism, but that is not what made it rick. He points out that practically *everyone* tried empire - Chinese Dynasties (Ming, Qing), Ottomans, Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, Czarist and Soviet Russians, Nippon Japan, and so on, but only the West got rich, until recently when Asia and others have joined in. He makes a good case that the reasons for success lie elsewhere: competition, scientific revolution, rule of law and democracy, medicine, consumerism, work ethic

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf....,cf.osb&fp=356e729b7a15c7f0&biw=1280&bih=899
 
  • #5
Jasongreat
They have printing presses! Debt does not make one rich, no matter how one spins it, neither does inflation. The day is approaching fast when all this will come to a head, then we will see western governments are only as rich as they are capable of plundering their own people. When those people say hell no, governments will start to default, I only hope we see this during our lifetime! Future generations wil be working from the womb to the grave paying for our careless ways if something doesn't change.
 
  • #6
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,411
6,675
They have printing presses! Debt does not make one rich, no matter how one spins it, neither does inflation. The day is approaching fast when all this will come to a head, then we will see western governments are only as rich as they are capable of plundering their own people. When those people say hell no, governments will start to default, I only hope we see this during our lifetime! Future generations wil be working from the womb to the grave paying for our careless ways if something doesn't change.
If you actually think that a default is preferable to a more moderated recovery from our stupidity, I can only suggest that you read some economics.

If Greece, as the most likely example, defaults, how do you suppose they will feed themselves? They only produce 60% of the food they consume and no one is going to sell them anything for worthless Drachmas, and that's just ONE example of how they will descend into chaos.
 
  • #7
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
19,855
6,276
...people buy. :wink:
 
  • #9
207
30
Well, first you must realize what wealth actually means.

Does it mean having a lot of money? No, because if it did, all you had to do would be to print more money and you would be rich. This is obviously wrong. No, what having wealth actually comes from is: what can you do with the money that you have.

The answer to that question is that it depends on the quality of the services that are available. If with your money you can buy everything you want, both basic necessities, like good food/health care/houses and luxuries like technology/good cars/vacations, then you must by all definitions be considered wealthy. As such, what makes a whole region rich, is that it has very good living standards, such that as many services as possible are available to as many people as possible.

Note however, that the wealth is not the same throughout europe, some countries are a lot better off than ofthers. I think you will find a good correlation between countries that are considered rich and countries that have good scores on democracy and stability, such that high living standards can be achieved.
 
  • #10
129
28
European nations were colonial powers hence plundered a lot of countries and became rich.

But now that they are no longer in power, how are they still so rich ?
Nice xenophobic way of starting a topic. What makes a country rich is its GDP, which measures production of goods and services. Europe has high GDP/capita, which means European countries are productive countries.

I think you're confounding 'wealth' with 'variation of wealth', which is something I see a lot of people do nowadays because of the crisis.

Even though Europe went through an economic depression, that only made GDP go down a few %, so it's still a rich area. Even in the case of countries who have deficits problems, that doesn't make them poor, it only makes them lose a part of the wealth (because of the inevitable downfall of GDP caused by austerity measures).
Even if a government of a country goes bankrupt, the country can still continue to be rich, although it'll lose a great part of its GDP. Look at Iceland, they went bankrupt but they kept on being a rich country. A country doesn't stop producing all the things it produced all of a sudden.
 
  • #11
vici10
In my opinion, the main change that led to increased wealth was industrialization, the transition of society from subsistent agricaltural to modern industrial one.
Once such transformation happened it seems to me that it is easier to continue to support it and generate increased wealth based on existing infrastructure.

Transition from agricultural to modern society needs a lot of capital. It is difficult to talk about all Western Europian countries since they have different histories, but speaking roughly western europian countries patrtly took capital from colonies. In other words, colonies provided important part of capital needed for industrialization.

Countries that did not have colonies or were late in the game had much more difficult time to industrialize. Some are still not fully industrialized with high numbers of subsistent farmers.Such countries had to take loans from richer countries, under those rich countries conditions that there not always in the interests of the countries taking loans.

This maybe one of the reasons why India is not as rich as England.
 
  • #12
158
0
But, does that mean there has been no change in the wealth of European nations after giving independence to asian and African countries ?
 
  • #13
vici10
But, does that mean there has been no change in the wealth of European nations after giving independence to asian and African countries ?
You should look on existing research about impact of loss of the colonies on Europe. I do not have all materials ready at the moment. In some sense yes, it did have impact, for example England was a world power when it had colonies, and it lost world dominance when it lost its colonies.

But it seems to me that the main transition from agricultural society to an industrial was more important one, and after loosing colonies, countries did not return back to preindustrial societies. They already have necesary infrastracture to go forward and did not need colonies that much since industrial production by its nature is exponential one, comparing to previous modes of production.
 
  • #14
129
28
But, does that mean there has been no change in the wealth of European nations after giving independence to asian and African countries ?
There was a change, the GDP has been rising consistently.
 
  • #15
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
In my opinion, the main change that led to increased wealth was industrialization, the transition of society from subsistent agricaltural to modern industrial one.
Once such transformation happened it seems to me that it is easier to continue to support it and generate increased wealth based on existing infrastructure.

Transition from agricultural to modern society needs a lot of capital. It is difficult to talk about all Western Europian countries since they have different histories, but speaking roughly western europian countries patrtly took capital from colonies. In other words, colonies provided important part of capital needed for industrialization.

Countries that did not have colonies or were late in the game had much more difficult time to industrialize. Some are still not fully industrialized with high numbers of subsistent farmers.Such countries had to take loans from richer countries, under those rich countries conditions that there not always in the interests of the countries taking loans.

This maybe one of the reasons why India is not as rich as England.
Counter examples of wealthy or rapidly becoming wealthy countries without colonies: Japan, United States, all of Western Europe a decade or so after WWII, China since 1980. Try this reasoning instead:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3912899&postcount=4
 
  • #16
vici10
Counter examples of wealthy or rapidly becoming wealthy countries without colonies: Japan, United States, all of Western Europe a decade or so after WWII, China since 1980. Try this reasoning instead:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3912899&postcount=4

Regarding United States, it had much more effective thing, it had slavery. According to University of Houston digital history page, slavery was indispensable in US industrialization.

Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor. Moreover, slave labor did produce the major consumer goods that were the basis of world trade during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: coffee, cotton, rum, sugar, and tobacco.
In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/con_economic.cfm [Broken]

Regarding Japan, it is a factual mistake to claim that Japan did not have colonies during its industrialization at the turn of the 19-20 century. Japan is an interesting case, since it is a rare example of Asian country that was not invaded and devastated by western countries. Seeing rapid European expansion, they decided to imitate it. That included colonial expansion of Japan and extraction of resources from its colonies for industrial development.

According to encyclopedia Britannica :

Japan was the only Asian country to escape colonization from the West. European nations and the United States tried to “open the door,” and to some extent they succeeded; but Japan was able to shake off the kind of subjugation, informal or formal, to which the rest of Asia succumbed. Even more important, it moved onto the same road of industrialization as did Europe and the United States. And instead of being colonized it became one of the colonial powers.
http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-25929 [Broken]

So an argument can be made that success of Japan was a result of copying western way of industrialization through colonial expansion.

Regarding Western European countries after WWII, most of them were already highly industrialized countries with highly trained industrial workforce and not landless peasants. And they become so during their colonial times. So it is a poor example of industrialization from agricultural to modern industrial without colonies. Germany was so industrialized that it could conquer almost all Europe. Of course, a lot of infrastructure was destroyed, but a lot also survived, such as trained industrial workforce for example. Of course help of US (being afraid of communists taking over Europe) in the form of Marshal plan also helped.

Regarding China, it is still in the process of industrial development and it still did not become fully industrial country. Time will tell if China will succeed in it.

Interesting fact regarding China is that prior european and american opium wars on China (first opium war 1839 to 1842 and the second opium war from 1856 to 1860), in 1820 GDP of China accounted for about 32.4% of the world GDP. GDP per capita before european invasion was about 89% of world average. And at 2011 with all its great economic growth China is still around only 10% of world GDP.

Modern China's industrialization is mainly based on foreign multinationals. China does not have yet significant national industry on par with developed industrial countries. It may be dangerous, since if something will happen, (for example Chinese workers will want the same compensation for their work as American ones) and foreign multinationals will pull off China, the Chinese may have little more than what they started with.

EDIT:
Regarding your reference to Niall Ferguson, it seems he is a great fun of counterfactual history and his argumentation, according to some historians, in his Civilization book is quite odd.
From wikipedia:
In a 2011 review of Ferguson's book Civilization: The West and the Rest, Noel Malcolm (a Senior Research Fellow in History at All Souls College at Oxford University) stated (without mentioning counterfactuals) that: "Students may find this an intriguing introduction to a wide range of human history; but they will get an odd idea of how historical argument is to be conducted, if they learn it from this book."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
378
2
Transition from agricultural to modern society needs a lot of capital. It is difficult to talk about all Western Europian countries since they have different histories, but speaking roughly western europian countries patrtly took capital from colonies. In other words, colonies provided important part of capital needed for industrialization.
I disagree. It's the people self desires to move away from rural areas towards cities. This is the reason why industrialization takes over agricultural. I doubt you need a lot of capital.


It's easy to come with theories that might appear to explain how countries get rich. However, they rarely work IMO. There are few models like Solow–Swan growth model that try to explain the growth by looking at t productivity, capital accumulation, population growth and technological progress but with very limited accuracy.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
378
2
Historian Niall Ferguson has a book (Civilization) and a Ted talk on this subject and spends a bit of time rebutting the West got rich through imperialism and plunder idea. Yes the West did imperialism, but that is not what made it rick. He points out that practically *everyone* tried empire - Chinese Dynasties (Ming, Qing), Ottomans, Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, Czarist and Soviet Russians, Nippon Japan, and so on, but only the West got rich, until recently when Asia and others have joined in. He makes a good case that the reasons for success lie elsewhere: competition, scientific revolution, rule of law and democracy, medicine, consumerism, work ethic

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf....,cf.osb&fp=356e729b7a15c7f0&biw=1280&bih=899
I haven't looked at Niall Ferguson work. But, you are wrong in saying that only west got rich. You simply cannot compare Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, and West etc. These are civilizations of different times that enjoyed their golden times. West is just one of them. It will eventually collapse like all others did and get replaced by some other at some time in future IMO
 
  • #19
vici10
It's the people self desires to move away from rural areas towards cities.
History of English industrialization contradicts it. English industrialization was a very long process, since England was the first country to do it and it started with enclosures. Future industry will need landless peasants, that their land was taken from them and therefore they would be forced to move to the cities to work on newly open factories.
So peasants were forced by aristocrates from their common lands that they worked on for centuries and were considered theirs by common law.

Also one should remember that most workers in Manchester, the heart of industrial Revolution, were Irish and Jewish. Irish were forced to Manchester because of potato famines. Despite the famine and potato crops failure it was exported from Ireland when the population was dying from starvation.
Records show Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–1783, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests. No such export ban happened in the 1840s.[64]

Cecil Woodham-Smith, an authority on the Irish Famine, wrote in The Great Hunger; Ireland 1845–1849 that no issue has provoked so much anger and embittered relations between England and Ireland as "the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation." Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine.[fn 4]

Christine Kinealy writes that Irish exports of calves, livestock (except pigs), bacon and ham actually increased during the famine. The food was shipped under guard from the most famine-stricken parts of Ireland. However, the poor had no money to buy food and the government then did not ban exports.[66]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

But you are right in a sense that industrialization is a complicated social process that involves many components and it is difficult to talk about it all in the forum context.
 
  • #20
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Recall that the point at hand is your proposal that countries "that did not have colonies or were late in the game had much more difficult time to industrialize", in the context of this thread which is about how Europe has a lot of wealth. The many possible tangents about imperialism do not provide support to that point.

Regarding Japan, it is a factual mistake to claim that Japan did not have colonies during its industrialization at the turn of the 19-20 century.
Prior to Korea in 1910? No I do not think so.

According to encyclopedia Britannica :

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-25929 [Broken]
Yes of course *Imperial* Japan annexed a large share of China and the Pacific in the 20th century, starting with Korean, until Imperial Japan was destroyed. Do you not concede the Japan was *already* an industrial power by this point? Recall that Japan fought Russia in an even match in 1904.


So an argument can be made that success of Japan was a result of copying western way of industrialization through colonial expansion.
Fallacy. Japan may or may not have copied others in the 20th century via imperialism, but it was <i>already</i> an industrial power.

Regarding Western European countries after WWII, most of them were already highly industrialized countries with highly trained industrial workforce and not landless peasants.
True, and true to a similar degree in Eastern Europe and also to a degree in the USSR.
And they become so during their colonial times.

So it is a poor example of industrialization from agricultural to modern industrial without colonies. Germany was so industrialized that it could conquer almost all Europe. Of course, a lot of infrastructure was destroyed, but a lot also survived, such as trained industrial workforce for example. Of course help of US (being afraid of communists taking over Europe) in the form of Marshal plan also helped.
The point is most of Europe and the USSR was severely impoverished after the war, yet W. Europe became relatively wealthy within several decades after the war, and not E. Europe and not the USSR. That point is relative to anyone looking for answer to the OP's question. BTW, I believe the post WWII generation of W. Europe deserves great credit for that reconstruction.

Regarding China, it is still in the process of industrial development and it still did not become fully industrial country. Time will tell if China will succeed in it.
Irrelevant. China has the second largest GDP in the world. The amount of agricultural based, non industrial society remaining out in the provinces is irrelevant to the fact that China's $6 trillion highly industrial economy that currently is in place was built without colonies.

Interesting fact regarding China is that prior european and american opium wars on China (first opium war 1839 to 1842 and the second opium war from 1856 to 1860), in 1820 GDP of China accounted for about 32.4% of the world GDP. GDP per capita before european invasion was about 89% of world average. And at 2011 with all its great economic growth China is still around only 10% of world GDP.
Irrelevant. Chinese per capita GDP was about the same from 1500 all the way through 1950. China opened to a market economy in the late 1970s. Then, and only then, the Chinese economy took off.

From Maddison, the primary source for all the pre-industrial era GDP figures. GDP per capita:
512px-Maddison_GDP_per_capita_1500-1950.svg.png



EDIT:
Regarding your reference to Niall Ferguson, it seems he is a great fun of counterfactual history
So?

and his argumentation, according to some historians, in his Civilization book is quite odd.
Which means what? If you are interested, what about his arguments (competition, science, work ethic, ...).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
158
0
Would it be safe to say that, Europeans colonised the world because of industrialisation. As only then they had to get raw materials for new industries and create artificial markets in the colonies by taxing local production? So now that they don't have those colonies how are they still able to support industries?
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
19,855
6,276
Would it be safe to say that, Europeans colonised the world because of industrialisation.
No. Colonization started hundreds of years before the industrial revolution.
 
  • #23
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
I think above the term used in various places above was meant to be imperialism, not colonization. Colonization has likely been going on since the beginning of homo sapiens.
 
  • #24
vici10
Recall that the point at hand is your proposal that countries "that did not have colonies or were late in the game had much more difficult time to industrialize", in the context of this thread which is about how Europe has a lot of wealth. The many possible tangents about imperialism do not provide support to that point.
No, you recall wrongly. My observation, if you read carefully previous posts, was that one of the most important things in the wealth generation was a transition from agricultural mode of production to modern industrial one. Such transition requires a lot of capital that was not available in the agricultural societies. This capital usually has to come from outside. In the case of Europe this capital came from colonies. Such a transition also requires a complete change in the way of life of the people, one needs to force people from the land to become industrial workers. One needs to train them. There is a need for new kind of infrastructure. In other words, society should come through a very deep transformation.

Once such transformation happened, the new industrial methods allow a society to generate wealth much easier, in other words productivity is increasing exponentially and people are used to the new industrial way of living. One does not need to use the same colonial methods as were used before and during this transformation. The new industrial methods can generate so much wealth that agricultural societies could not dream about. That is why Europeans do not need colonies any more. They can control industrial production and their former colonies through modern technology and finance.

Most poor countries in the world did not yet complete this transformation. They still have large agricultural population that is involved in subsistence farming. Unlike Europeans, they do not have colonies to drain resources from. That is why it is extremely difficult for them to complete industrialization. So the only way is to ask for loans from the rich guys, their former masters. This creates another level of control of europeans over their former colonies. And loans of course are given on conditions that are beneficial to rih countries not necessary poor ones.

That is why examples of mheslep are not only irrelevant, but support my observation. US had slavery. Japan was imperial power during its industrialization. Europeans after WWII were definitely already industrial nations not agricultural ones. The Europeans also had great help from the US (since US was afraid of spread of communism) and was therefore for this reason and its past were able to rebuild. Rebuilding is easier than to move from an agricultural society to industrial without external help. And China is not yet fully an industrial state. It does not have an independent national industry, most of the industry is controlled by foreign companies who are attracted by very cheap labour. The whole point of industrialization is not just the generation of wealth but increased level of standard of living. As soon as standard of living will start to converge to a European one, there will be no point for foreign companies to stay there. And China will remain with little more that it started with.


Prior to Korea in 1910? No I do not think so.


Yes of course *Imperial* Japan annexed a large share of China and the Pacific in the 20th century, starting with Korean, until Imperial Japan was destroyed. Do you not concede the Japan was *already* an industrial power by this point? Recall that Japan fought Russia in an even match in 1904.
First, Japanese expansion started prior to 1910. The Japanese colonial period is generally recognized as 1895-1945. http://histories.cambridge.org/extract?id=chol9780521223577_CHOL9780521223577A006

Second, Japan was not yet industrial country at 1910, since majority of its population were not industrial workers but peasants. It started the process of industrialization, but it needed a lot of capital to continue.

The fact that Japan fought Russia in 1904-1905 is irrelevant. Russia also was not an industrial country at that time. 80% percent of its population were peasants, most of which were illiterate.


Fallacy. Japan may or may not have copied others in the 20th century via imperialism, but it was <i>already</i> an industrial power.
Wrong, country with most of its population being still peasants cannot be considered industrialized country.

True, and true to a similar degree in Eastern Europe and also to a degree in the USSR.
The point is most of Europe and the USSR was severely impoverished after the war, yet W. Europe became relatively wealthy within several decades after the war, and not E. Europe and not the USSR. That point is relative to anyone looking for answer to the OP's question. BTW, I believe the post WWII generation of W. Europe deserves great credit for that reconstruction.
See the beginning of the my post. To say that USSR was not be able to rebuild itself after WWII is a factual mistake.

From wikioedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
Starting in 1928, the five-year plans began building a heavy industrial base at once in an underdeveloped economy without waiting years for capital to accumulate through the expansion of light industry, and without reliance on external financing. The country now became industrialized at a hitherto unprecedented pace, surpassing Germany's pace of industrialization in the 19th century and Japan's earlier in the 20th century.
This is truly remarkable and probably the only example of successful industrialization without external help and in such short period of time. Now regarding reconstruction:

In the 1950s the Soviet Union, having reconstructed the ruins left by the war, experienced a decade of prosperous, undisturbed, and rapid economic growth, with significant technological achievements most notably the first earth satellite. The nation ranked in the top 15 most prosperous countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion#Soviet_Union


So? Which means what?
It mean that his methods and arguments are considered controversial by historians.
 
  • #25
vici10
Would it be safe to say that, Europeans colonised the world because of industrialisation. As only then they had to get raw materials for new industries and create artificial markets in the colonies by taxing local production? So now that they don't have those colonies how are they still able to support industries?
Chound, it is a bit more complicated. I just do not have time for the long reply, I will be out of town. Part of the answer is in my previous post. The rest I will try to write than I can.
 

Related Threads on How does Europe still have a lot of money?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
50
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
59
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
179
Views
7K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Top