Slavery and colonialism did not make Britain rich, and may even have made the nation poorer, a new study from the Institute of Economic Affairs has found. The Telegraph has more.
The riches of the slave trade were concentrated in a few families while the nation footed the bill for extra military and administrative spending, according to a book by Kristian Niemietz at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
“Profits earned from overseas engagement were large enough to make some individuals very rich, but they were not large enough to seriously affect macroeconomic aggregates like Britain’s investment rate and capital formation,” he said.
Mr. Niemietz argued that that the slave trade had little overall impact on the economy or the country’s ability to industrialise.
He said: “The transatlantic slave trade was no more important for the British economy than brewing or sheep farming, but we do not usually hear the claim that ‘brewing financed the Industrial Revolution’ or ‘sheep farming financed the Industrial Revolution’.”
It comes amid a heated debate over Britain’s imperial past. Caribbean states have demanded reparations from Britain, while more than 100 British families whose ancestors benefited from the slave trade, including former BBC broadcaster Laura Trevelyan, have pledged to seek ways to make financial amends.
By contrast, leading figures including Kemi Badenoch, the Business and Trade Secretary, have hit back to argue that Britain’s wealth was not built on imperialism.
She hailed the report as “a welcome counterweight to simplistic narratives that exaggerate the significance of empire and slavery to Britain’s economic development”.
She added: “It was British ingenuity and industry, unleashed by free markets and liberal institutions, that powered the Industrial Revolution and our modern economy. It is these factors that we should focus on, rather than blaming the West and colonialism for economic difficulties and holding back growth with misguided policies.
“The paper argues persuasively that colonialism played a minor role in Britain’s economy, and may have actually been a net negative after accounting for military and administrative costs – a reminder that state overreach is always an expensive endeavour.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You might want to refer to this excellent website which has been my go to for foreign holidays https://www.traveloffpath.com/countries-without-any-travel-restrictions-or-entry-requirements/
Great site and great recommendation. Bookmark this!
Kayak has a searcheable website that shows the most updated status of entry restriction from all destinations to all destinations. The C19 test from UK to India appears to have been lifted on November 22, hence the delay in updating the airlines. Airline staff are usually the last to know. https://www.kayak.com/travel-restrictions?origin=AU
It’s shocking and disgraceful that the USA is together with Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Angola, Ghana and Libya, in not allowing the unvaccinated to visit. Even China allows unvaccinated travellers in some cases.
Air India have always been the most bureaucratic of airlines
Did you look at other airlines flying to India?
My hunch is that Air India will be the last to implement changes but will be more likely to respond rapidly to someone stating ‘Airlines A, B, C, your competitors, don’t require this, why do you?’ than just referring to a change in New Delhi’s regulations.
I can confirm that, although Cambodi
a states you don’t need to be vaccinared to travel there, getting a Cambodian e-visa still required the UK NHS ‘proof’, a couple of weeks ago. And required masks on incoming (and outgoing) flights. No tests. But Singapore Airlines seemed content with chin warmers although stewardesses continue to wear them. Inside Cambodia, mask wearers are scarce. Maybe this will help someone.
The only way around this is for people to blacklist all airlines and countries that insist on these tests.