ITT: The Economics of Imperialism

How does imperialism really work? How does the economics behind it work? I mean wouldn't the sheer cost of military alone account for more than the resources you take back. Look at Britain, they ran massive debts on their empire, was it worth it? Well they became rich, but why not just borrow and invest directly into your economy then? Makes no sense. Also they had to pay that debt down afterwards so i mean it doesn't always work. So how does it really work?

Other urls found in this thread:

breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/24/reports-jared-kushners-family-business-switches-crisis-management-amid-federal-scrutiny/
washingtonjewishweek.com/30236/you-should-know-eric-wachter/you_should_know/
jonathanturley.org/2011/02/06/j-p-morgan-and-the-reverse-bailout-that-saved-the-u-s/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You're right user
Paying off (((debts))) is expensive
The only way to do it is to steal resources.

No but stealing resources costs more than you get from the resources. Look at Iraq war

>4 trillion dollar oil field
>Iraq war cost 6 trillion
>at MOST with corporate tax you will get back 2.7 trillion and that's if there's no money laundering.

They got resources at low cost and then they sold manufactured goods based on those resources in their colonies. Buy low, sell high. These were captive markets obviously.

The government doesn't have to do money laundering you stupid fuck.

You're dumb as fuck, oil companies launder money all the time.

.7 trillion dollar profit. Bam.

No, it's 6 trillion in costs, with 2.7 in revenue. So you have a profit of negative 3.3 trillion

Imperialism is a side effect of capitalism and the banking system. IOW all capitalist states necessarily try to imperialist after certain amount of development due to economic determinism.
Think about it: Bank has $1 million in deposits and uses that to issue $50 million in loans to create new money. That's where new money comes from, banks issuing loans.
HOWEVER, the debtors have to pay back those loans with INTEREST. So where does THAT money come from, since only the banks get to issue new money? The bank doesn't issue enough money for all loans to be fully paid back, so SOMEONE is going to default. That's how "winners and losers" are determined in our "free" market society: whoever defaults on their loans 'loses' the social game, maybe even has to take out MORE loans to pay back the first loans, keeping that ponzi scheme going til the bubble pops and you get a depression.
So, to avoid mass default, capitalists have to organize and build a military and invade and conquer foreigners and monetize all their assets and use this new money to pay off their old loans to avoid a depression.
Yes, this is insane, but it is the natural consequence of not just sorting out the stupid fucking banking system and come up with a better way to organize our society.

Imperialism is the result of social laziness. The "winners" in capitalism never want the system to change. And the "losers" have no say in the matter other than to fight and die in wars designed to keep the winners' ponzi bubble from popping.

Freedom isn't free.

You're talking about Mercantilism there bud.

The net cost is higher yes, but the people who profited from the war ended up with a lot more money than they had before.

Also, their inability to pacify and build markets in Iraq in the expected time frame of a few years was what caused the 2008/2009 financial disasters. People leveraged like crazy expecting there to be trillions in new economies opening up in the middle-east that America and various transnational corps would get rich from. That didn't work out.

Think of it like the plot to RoboCop 3, where the evil corporations had to clean up Detroit within a certain time frame or the financing would collapse.

The Iraq war was essentially RoboCop 3 irl.

Yeah as well, Iraq is like an example of attempted imperialism by an empire no longer competent to do it right.

Except the Iraq war wouldn't get any new USD to pay off the loans since well, Iraq doesn't have any USDs. Remember debts must be paid back in USD

Obviously that's besides the point. Assuming all had gone well, America regime changes Iraq, institutes a new Central Bank, and then issues a bunch of new money that gets tied into the American financial system. With all of Iraq's assets now monetized, there's plenty of cash to pay back those old loans in America.

Cuba, North Korean and Iran understand how this works, and they know that America will be coming to install a Central Bank in their country eventually no matter what, because of the innate forces of Capitalism that drives it to be imperialistic. It really is "The Great Satan", and there's no avoiding it. It doesn't matter what these countries do or say, there's a lot of money to be made by installing a central bank there, so Capitalism will come for them eventually. They have no choice but to militarize and seek nukes to defend themselves, anything else would be insanity, like trying to hug a starving lion.

The big question is what happens after every country finally has a central bank and there's nowhere else to imperialize. At this point capitalism worldwide will just collapse, because there will be a chain reaction of loans being unable to be paid off. Think the 2008/2009 crises but exponentially worse.

And the only way to keep capitalism running 2008/2009 was for the Fed Reserve Central Bank to set interest rates to ZERO and print trillions of dollars to stop everyone from defaulting.

. You see, Britain didn't directly own the land once the lands were fully settled, and a colonial government was established, they set up a colony, which in today's world, is like a puppet government, it had some level of autonomy, but still answered to a higher authority. With this, not only did they just gain resources, but they also had power over land they didn't directly control, which made it all the better, not to mention over time tariffs made the costs of the imperialism well worth it, and a lot of prestige was gained doing it. The British empire was called " the land on which the sun never set, and ruled a 3rd of the world. When it comes to a military, it does cost a huge amount to run, but before its imperialistic conquests, Britain had spent the past 350 years establishing its self economically, gaining trade power, and establishing itself, then started doing it. Also, another advantage was controlling direct trade routes due to overseas presence, and also made more money, when it came to a military stand point, they didn't completely start from scratch everytime, it cost a lot to build ships and upgrade, but not to the point here they would bankrupt themselves doing so. Now, while I used Britain as an example, during the scramble of Africa in the 1800s and 1900s, other countries followed its example, and gained lots from it, as Britain had successfully done this the most. Also, Britain had kind of a winning streak when it came to monarchs. TL:DR, set up a puppet government, which you have authority over but don't control, tax it, be an established, an economical and military power, and have good rulers. Side note : when it also came to imperialism, it wasn't average joe countries doing this, it was the greater and greatest European power doing this.

Thanks for clarifying

*didnt own the land until it was settled

You have to understand that what really 'rules the world' is Capitalism and the system of central banks. America just happens to be the current instrument that big capitalists use to install more central banks to keep the engine running. If America decided it didn't want to be the hand of capitalism anymore, then the bankers would just move all their funds to some other nation with a decent military and build it up, label America the new nazis and start a world war against America, regime change it and put the central bank back in charge.

This is what some elite writers dogwhistle when they say shit like "America risks losing its position of leadership in the world if it doesn't do x". They're just warning America that the global capitalists can do to America what they did to Nazi Germany.

> I mean wouldn't the sheer cost of military alone account for more than the resources you take back.
You seem to think it is about bits of paper.
None of the crony capitalist economy is about the paper they just print out, but about controlling society.
They are happy to give out UBI as long as they know it goes back where they want it.
- Media
- Education
- Religion
All of these things direct you
Everything folds into the wishes of the authority. Which is why people have fought for things like academic autonomy.

But doesn't every nation have a central bank? Isn't therefor capitalism spawning from all nations, and doesn't switzerland reside wher the money is? Also was Nazi Germany in on this scandal? Because Nazi Germany never was a superpower.

How does UBI get back to those things?

Build your military strong as fuck. If anybody challenges you, kill them off and put into power a puppet.

Also, whose gonna collect the debt?

(Shh spoiler)it was actully about gaining military power not money(shh)
Also at times Britain did things like fix markets. Cotten from America was sold to manufacturing in India which made products sold to China which sold tea to england, I'm forgetting a step or two, but you get the idea.
Despite what they teach you in economics 101, ecomanys aren't always rational or efficient (in the max goods produced sense). Sometimes it really is just selling bobbles back and forth to generate fees and commerce. And the end result is it gives you bargaining !!power!! when the chips are down.
Example, American was allowed to continue to sell Cotten (an ingredient in dynamite) to Germany at the outbreak of ww1 in exchange for exchanging some gold and fixing the U.K. Currencyrom crashing when people rushed to sell their bonds when the war started. So at the highest lvls the economy becomes about war power, and giving or taking war power

Jared Kushners businesses being protected by the ADL from the US Government
breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/24/reports-jared-kushners-family-business-switches-crisis-management-amid-federal-scrutiny/
Eric Wachter,"I oversee all aspects of ADL’s programming within the region of Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina."
washingtonjewishweek.com/30236/you-should-know-eric-wachter/you_should_know/
>Captcha = Hammer

>whose gonna collect the debt
Banks and institutions

>puppet government
Costs a lot of money though

>Gun beats spear
>All your resources are belong to us

too many redpills

>How does imperialism really work?

>be america
>go to war
>accomplish zero geopolitical goals
>enslave future generations to bankers
>rinse and repeat

Every nation except now Cuba, Iran, and North Korea has a Central Bank. Central banks are private corporations with owners, shareholders, board of directors like other corporations, but you can't buy their shares on any market, and good luck finding out who the owners are (usually very old money/royalty, people who won wars, even some druglords). They're all linked together and currently the American Central Bank is the head one, but 100 years ago that privilege belonged to Britain; being the military and financial hegemon go hand in hand.
Central banks have a monopoly on the commodity we call currency, what you have to have to pay your taxes. While the elected officials, politicians and bureaucrats handle the day-to-day operations of the actual country. The people who owns the banks don't really care too much about what laws are passed, just so long as they get paid their due. And the politicians are sort of constrained in what laws they can pass because they have to make sure they can pay all the bonds and treasuries or else the whole country defaults. When someone buys an American bond, they are basically buying a share of the profits of the whole country that is collected from taxes. If the elected politicians pass bad laws and manage the economy poorly and can't collect enough taxes to pay the bonds, then it defaults and it is harder to sell more bonds; if it keeps defaulting the "free market" economy goes to shambles and big global capitalists organize a regime change against the politicians and install new ones.
After losing WW1, Germany fell to the bottom of the heap and the global capitalists set up the Weimar Republic to rule the people there. But then the German Nationalists took power back and tried to overturn the economic order and become the new hegemon. If America went Nationalist then the countries still controlled by the globalist central banks would band together and give USA the nazi treatment.

Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Just one thing is how did these people end up becoming the owners of the central bank?

>with owners, shareholders
Shut up you stupid conpsercy theorist.
The central bank is owned by the government, it's just independent to avoid politically modavated interference.
No "the rosechids" and no "the rockefellers" don't own the central bank, stop being retarded. You are just repeating internet memes

In short, yes. But think of all the benefits! You get to trade with other countries run by bankers instead of only eating what you can grow at home. But you have to work your entire life and end up with nothing to pass on to your children. Meanwhile, the few people at the top of the financial pyramid get to build mansions and things the greatest kings in history never dreamed of. The rest of us do get cute little gadgets that are used to spy on us and sell us even more cheap time-wasting junk though, which is cool I guess.

The big question now though is what happens to central banks after cryptocurrency? It looks like the big bankers have already grabbed control of Bitcoin Core and have setup this SegWit/LN scheme for them to collect fees and profits off every Bitcoin transaction. The Bitcoin Cash fork looks safe for now. But my guess is they will try to lock Core in for the crypto market and regulate everything else out of existence. Call you a terrorist Nazi if you use unapproved crypto.

But the concept of decentralized Blockchain ledgers totally replaces the utility of banks. And Russia/China are putting a lot of development power into these technologies, which is probably the real reason why the west is in such a hurry to sanction them now.

Sup Forums
>"Niggers are bad because I saw one sterling from a defensless old lady"
>Also Sup Forums
Let's do this on a international scale again

They were the captains of industry the big rich people back when America was really a "free market". JP Morgan actually bailed out the whole US government in 1890s to "save the economy"

jonathanturley.org/2011/02/06/j-p-morgan-and-the-reverse-bailout-that-saved-the-u-s/

And eventually these big capitalists had the government set up a central bank so that future bailouts would come at the expense of the general public instead of individual rich dudes, but the rich dudes owning the banking system would still benefit the most from the whole scheme.

The central bank is not 'owned' by the government, it is owned by member banks, and the federal government only gets whatever profits are left after the member banks get their share of dividends. I imagine the "rosechids" and rockefellers (and certainly Warren Buffet and I'd imagine Icahn and other big billionaiares) and their various foundations own many shares of various member banks. You can buy some yourself, but likely not enough to have a controlling interest to make any decision or decide who gets to sit on boards and select governors and stuff.
It is a complex relationship, but the government can't simply appoint whoever it wants to chair the fed; I mean it could appoint Bannon or Gorka if they wanted, but the result would be that the big money would pull out and things would go to shit very fast and the government would have to nationalize a lot of things and exercise a lot of military power internally to preserve order.

>The central bank is not 'owned' by the government, it is owned by member banks,
That's wrong, and you are retarded.

Dude im am extremely interested to learn all this. Where did you get your info?

Book name? Websites?

>but the government can't simply appoint whoever it wants to chair the fed; I mean it could appoint Bannon or Gorka if they wanted,
Retarded
> but the result would be that the big money would pull out and things would go to shit very fast and the government would have to...
Again, that's wrong retard.
The banks don't own the fed. When the banks create a loan, the bank via the fed creates the money(not paper money) on deposit, according to the fed interest rate.
The banks or "big money" can't "pull out" becuase they don't own the fed in any shape or form, you have been reading conspiracy websites.
In this way the fed controls the rate of money 'printing', by setting how expensive it is, But the free market, the banks, actully decide whether or not to make new money.

This

Imperialism is Rothschildism.

Fundamental misunderstanding. Our central bank is nationalized, like many others. Doesn't mean it doesn't get up to shady shit though. And if you wanna tell me it's Rothschild owned, give me primary sources. Also, this thread is blatantly swarming with Antifa.

No one remembers Robocop 3

Britain had always a policy of divide and conquer... Set one ethnic group up against each other,... they start butchering each other.... Afterwards the British kill the remaining survivors with a handful of muskets and cannons.... big profit..

also they taxed the natives and if they didn't comply they were forced into slavery , or exploited in any other way