I don't get it, if colonialism made western countries so rich, then why is Finland doing so good?

I don't get it, if colonialism made western countries so rich, then why is Finland doing so good?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because colonialism doesn't make you rich, it's entirely short term gains

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      t. moorberian

      france and britain are still prosperous because they invested the money instead of shit their economy up with it

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Britain was only prospering because of the EU and when it broke off the economy tanked and still hasn't recovered.
        >muh France
        Was rich before colonialism and remained rich because they weren't moronic with money

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >remained rich because they weren't moronic with money
          Lmao their government throws money allover they place on top of having an extremely bloated government and public sector.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Seems to work just fine for them lmao

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn't because a lot of things that should get funded get left out on top of tax rates climbing higher and higher for the middle class. All the French elite/many rich folk just store their wealth abroad to dodge taxes.

            It's really is not sustainable at all. A lot of academic institutions that were famous in France are losing more and more funding as their ability to compete globally is declining.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Academia is not profitable

            Seethe

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    all east asian countries do well

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Natural resources particularly industrial minerals combined with a mixed economy and around 90% of the workforce covered by union contracts, one of the highest rates in the world. The country invests in its people.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >For starters, the Finnish government owns nearly one-third of the nation’s wealth. For the United States to match that amount, the US government would need to move about $35 trillion of assets into public ownership.

    >The Finns also have a large public sector, meaning that it’s not just wealth that is much more socialized but also production. Around one-fourth of Finnish workers are employed in general government services like child care, education, and health care. Another 7 percent are employed in state-owned enterprises like the country’s nationalized airliner, Finnair.

    >The United States would need to shift 24.7 million workers out of the private sector and into the public sector to match Finland. It would also need to expand its state-owned enterprise portfolio beyond the postal service, Amtrak, and the Tennessee Valley Authority to include things like American Airlines, Exxon Mobil, and Verizon.

    >Outside of the explicitly socialized areas of public ownership and public production, Finland also has a large and powerful labor movement that clearly gives Finnish workers significant power over the economy. Around 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract. To get America up to Finnish levels, it would need to unionize an additional 119 million workers.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because MANUFACTURING is what makes you rich not digging shit out of dirt in Africa
    This is why Switzerland Sweden Finland and other countries that never had an impressive colonial empire are doing well
    This is also why Portugal and Spain were and still are shitholes despite their vast colonial possessions
    This whole bullshit is just Black person morons trying to take credit for western wealth

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You're not wrong, but adding to that, there's a dynamic where manufacturing creates value on raw resources. Colonized countries become the sellers of cheap, raw resources and other nations can manufacture expensive goods with which they enrich themselves. It's a very unequal dynamic, and it'll change the more the former colonies begin to a) take control of their resources and make sure they get the most profit out of them (and not some international company) and b) start manufacturing high-value commodities themselves.

      Countries like Finland and Norway are rich now, in an era of globalization, and much less so in the past.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Sweden had a nice empire in Europe. Also Switzerland has a lot of companies headquarterd in it that did have properties and assets in other countries.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >ethnically and culturally homogenous
    >sat on top of an oil well
    You tell me OP I just can't figure it out

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Finland
      >oil

      I know it's bait but it's so tasty

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because Finland played both sides during the Cold War and benefited massively.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Please elaborate. As a Finn there is no talks of such gains, more having to be extra careful in implementing policies because soviets could have a fit any time and glowies sabotaging high-end manufacturing with possible military applications because of the risk of soviets getting their hands on it.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    is it?

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Finns = Eskimos? Am I wrong? They look all the same.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      no, Finns, Estonians, and Hungarians are Uralic people who ruled Scandinavia and Western Russia before Germanics and Slavs invaded from the south.
      They are called Uralic people they lived near the Ural mountains had intermarriages with various nomadic people like the Hunns

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty much every single "Finnish" accomplishment was actually accomplished by Swedes.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    how come only White colonies and East Asian colonies became wealthy?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >East Asian colonies

      Do you mean Japanese colonies? I suppose South Korea and Taiwan did pretty well.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Spurdo is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Uninterrupted era of peace and stability since the end of WW2.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    because that is a meme and most wealth in the modern world 50 years after decolonization is due to modern technology and industry

    the meme is spread around to promote racial hatred towards white people

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    commies will respond that it got rich from other European colonialism.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    that is just third worlders coping

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    this shithole country is poor and fricked
    putting finland together with the likes of sweden or norway is preposterous

  18. 2 years ago
    Dirk

    >I don't get it. If bread makes people so full, why am I full even though I ate rice?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit a decent Dirk post

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Being rich in the first place gave European nations the resources they needed to colonize, not the other way around.
    Finland wasn't as rich prior to the end of the era and was poorly placed geographically to become a colonial power.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Being rich in the first place gave European nations the resources they needed to colonize
      Not exactly rich. More like Euro markets were already super crowded and need expansion hence funding for these expeditions being a thing to gain an edge. Also the Ottoman's cornering the ME due to being at a major trade crossroad was presenting issues.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Why Europeans colonized is not the same as how Europeans were able to colonize.
        If Europeans were not wealthy and advanced prior to the colonial era, they would not have succeeded no matter the circumstances that motivated their actions.
        Pic related
        If the Portuguese did not have the ability to win such lopsided battles against other powers, it wouldn't matter how much the Ottomans controlled the trade between Europe and India. They wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There's no single reason and it's highly complex.

    In the short term, the countries with strong democratic institutions (such as Finland) became rich because of high levels of economic freedom. Economic freedom means more competition and a more efficient use of resources, which is what makes capitalism work.

    In the long term, economic freedom is what makes it possible to have the sort of economic growth that makes countries rich, even if a lot of individual rich people come along with it. But economic freedom alone doesn't guarantee this, and a lot of rich people are in places that aren't necessarily that free.

    In the short term, the countries that were rich in the 1800s because of free trade with Britain still were rich when Britain became poor in the 1950s and 60s. But then they lost their wealth for longer and longer periods until a relatively rich country like Finland became rich in the 20th century because Finland is far more free now.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    we are only around 100 years old so we havent gotten into crippling debt, but were about to

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *