>Loot the world for 250 years.
>Literally 40tn estimated stolen from India alone
>Be the most expansive and powerful empire on earth.
>UK ends up a run down, depressing, debt ridden shithole. Literally generation ruining economic crisis every 20 years and non stop austerity since like the fucking 70s.
>Even during imperial age, life for most British people was fucking terrible, even by European standards. UK rivers were so polluted they literally used to catch fire all through the 19th and early-mid 20th century lmao.

>>17770640 (OP)
This is a good question and I've honestly never seen a decent explanation that's satisfied me even though I studied 20th century Britain during my A Levels. The impression I have is that it was mostly a product of lazy and conservative leadership, economic devasation due to WWII and blowing all the Marshall Aid money on gibs and the NHS so British industry never properly modernised after the war so things like building riveted cargo ships and digging out coal just slowly became more and more inefficient and unproductive.

It's cause LONDON the financial hub of the universe invests all its money in the turd world. not the UK.
According to anecdotal accounts of UK posters here some of the outskirts of the UK are wastelands theres no one out there.

>>17770640 (OP)
>40tn stolen from india alone
sounds like bullshit, source?

>>17770640 (OP)
Yeah, I've never lived or went to the UK but from videos/vibes it seems like an actual shithole, I've seen places in West Virginia that look more appealing to live in than most of Britain, everything is run down and looks like it was built in the 1880s,

>>17770723
funny comments ive seen is uk people calling chicago people soft.
Its funny because they might actually be right, a lot of the uk seems worse than chicago and chicago is a warzone

it probably all went to some rothchild vault lol

>>17770704
Yeah I think it's really a culture of "that's good enough" for shit that was built in the early 19th century. Hence why the sewage/water system is absolute thirdie tier and you have swimming spots right next to raw sewage is just being dumped into the sea.
My assumption for most imperial wealth is that it literally just got stolen by British elites. Mainland Europe was way more destroyed by WW2, and mostly isn't the shithole the UK is.

>>17770712
>For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.
>How did this come about?
>It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way – mostly with silver – as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.
>Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.
>It was a scam – theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.
>...also, Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills – a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were “paid” in rupees out of tax revenues – money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded.
>Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports.

>>17770767
>This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world – a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century – it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India’s exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain.
>Some point to this fictional “deficit” as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the “deficit” meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control.
tl;dr: Britain stole the entire GDP of India, took everything for free, then put any debt/cost burden back on Indians lol. They did this not only in India, but all over the colonies. Having Jews basically at the top of UK society since the 17th century, basically allowed the UK to become god tier at Finance and trade scamming.

>>17770767
>>17770769
I asked for the source, not for some copypasta
In which book/article did you find this?

>>17770767
>>17770769
I see, the argument literally boils down to "taxation is theft"
delusional