Why are all Anglo countries rich?

We are krauts not a*glos

Keep telling yourself that kraut Larper.

And this is why they succeed over dumb latinos

Guys, this is getting scary now

Attached: Sweden-Swedish-Statistics-Swedes-Nordic-Scandinavian-Ethnic-Svenskar-Etnisk-Svensk-Sverige-Statistik (4864x6653, 3.91M)

Canada and Australia are only rich because of their natural resources

UK and NZ are merely average

America is a Murika and there is no a straightforward explanation as to why they are as rich as they are. But no reason to believe that angloness has something to do with it.

Summa summarum anglos are not superior

Least we're not poor because we're Finnish and inbred

Statistically I would say anglo countries are superior to most. All Nordics + Finland are amazing as well.

>America is a Murika and there is no a straightforward explanation as to why they are as rich as they are

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore (except muslims)

Attached: 1474257835464.jpg (500x447, 107K)

Finlandxs econony naturally outperforms both NZ and UK aka the only normal anglo economies

>Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore (except muslims) and some darkies to work the fields and it'll be fucking great

>Canada and Australia are only rich because of their natural resources
Australia's economy was more heavily agricultural based than anything in its early years which was due to introduced resources not resources that could be found in Australia.
Australia became a rich industrialised nation because the foundations for one was already there.

>Canada and Australia are only rich because of their natural resources
Then why we are not?

Your population is too by a factor of five at least

America isn't anglo

and no there isn't a genetic difference, the British and Spanish are the only two empires that really can be compared in terms of colonies, and the problems with the Spanish Empire stem from the collapse of Spain. Britain remained a completely stable state and we were able to prosper without anything turning us towards populism

too big vs the amount of available natural resources that is

Because of their mentality. Rationality, fairness and economic pragmatism play a huge role in the Anglo culture. This results in low corrpution, and we all know that many shithole countries are shitholes because of high corruption.

Strong institutions coupled with strong decentralization created countries that adapted quickly and were able to rule themselves with little trouble. When the US jettisoned the Brits in the War of Independence, for example, not a whole lot changed because there'd already been a tradition of self-rule for like 100 years at that point.

I honestly think it has more to do with the settlers being white. In Canada, Australia and NZ you have a large number of white settlers that almost completely replaced the natives, plus many natural resources. In the US the same was the case but only partly with Anglo settlers, many also came from other European countries. See Quebec and South Africa too, for example, both are (were, in the case of SA, because there was a native population explosion) prosperous despite the settlers being non-Anglos (mostly Frenchmen and Dutch, respectively).
Meanwhile in most African colonies of the 19th century (including British colonies!) only very few whites settled, meaning there was no great improvement. Spanish colonies are somewhere in the middle.
Does that make sense?

Attached: World 1914.png (4889x2697, 456K)

Typical Jow Forums

Argentina was sparsely populated like Australia was if I remember things correctly, but you are right. You're basically shipping over modern British institutions and culture and immediately making it the majority in the entire country. Unless people departed significantly from that, there really was no way the colonies could fail.

I fucking hate this argument. When applied to Africa or wherever else.

We are rich and powerful, because we stole your resources
Therefore resources make you rich and powerful
Therefore when you had resources you were rich and powerful
Therefore you should have been able to fight off the poor cunts coming over for your stuff

But no, your lot and many others cut front the same cloth sat around with your thumbs up your arse and did nothing with those resources. Races indigenous to lands of plenty did not evolve the same capacity for long term thinking and utilisation of tools as those in harsher climates with strong winters.

this is also a stupid argument, because the environment Europeans found themselves in is what made them successful.
it's fucking stupid to belittle people like the abos for not developing into an agrarian culture when they lived in a sparsely vegetated wasteland with no herd animals or plants that could be properly farmed, and with soil so shit that even the English found it incredibly difficult to use with 19th century technology while also being completely cut off from the rest of the developing world

>there is no a straightforward explanation as to why they are as rich as they are.
are you fucking kidding me. do all euros think US only got rich through a stream of coincidences?

Yeah I know it sounds racist, but it just seems apparent if you compare various colonies and how they turned out.

He's memeing you.

it's not really racist Tbh, anyone can see that primitive societies were going to have difficulty when they're suddenly plunged into advanced European societies and governments.
it's got nothing to do with race, just the difference in development of the natives and the colonisers

Saying it's because they're anglos is a bit stupid, New Zealand's the only really anglo one there. America is an amalgamation of Europe, Canada is filled with the French and a scots and Australia is filled with Irish

>geographically perfect down to the way rivers flows
>all the super powers of the world and your only industrial competitors kill themselves on each other while you sell them shit and have close to a monopoly for the next decade not once but twice
ok intuitions but also good luck fucking that up

When people say Anglo what they really mean is British. Foreigners are always using England when they really mean Great Britain as a whole.

not really, anglo refers to the anglo-saxon ethnic group
the welsh, cornish and scottish are all british, but they're not anglo

US was already in good standing before the outbreak of both world wars. Yeah you're right it's hard to fuck up those geographically perfect resources.

makes sense.

oh yeah and i'm not going to berate countries for their good geography while we're sitting on 30% of the worlds uranium and a shitload of iron and coal

Anglos settled in a way that was more organised and isolated. It has nothing to so with race. Our settlers also isolated themselves from natives and eventually killed them off but we're still shit

not too bad

Attached: ur gay.png (287x493, 14K)

So basically, anglos were the only people who knew how to colonize properly?

Attached: Typical anglo.jpg (313x313, 14K)

Anglos were the ones to conquer those territories first that had very small and weak indigenous populations.

anglo values. they only seem commonplace now because every civilized country has adopted them in some form or another

Attached: 1499025145384.png (420x420, 31K)

Because Anglos plan their colonial settlements unlike the Spanish who just dump slaves

if resources make you rich explain the Congo

Because an Englishman's rights and freedoms traveled with him which brought stability allowing wealth creation and investment to grow.

replaced population.

The British were the first to industrialise and continued to send settlers on a large scale to the colonies well into the 20th century, and had very efficient bureaucracies governing the territories. Not mentioning the massive fuck off Navy ensuring it could all happen smoothly. The British Empire didn't just conquer, exploit and destroy. It built, invested and maintained. An empire of trade. The direct ancestor of today's American neoliberal capitalism, which for all it's faults, has led to the most prosperous and peaceful period in human history.

Attached: images.png (4832x5787, 1.4M)

>American neoliberal capitalism
anglo-american. almost all the rules governing the global economy today were either entirely written or coauthored by the british

>have a private company conquer an entire civilised in its own right
>use their own people as occupation troops
>control the economy of it so its in a massive trade deficit to you feeding your own industry
>milk it for decades without anything too ridiculous
the fucking madmen

It's because they're protestant and capitalism oriented

nah, they had their share of pump and dump colonies too, and they seized French and Dutch colonies and made them their own.
Western Australia was also initially going to be settled by the Dutch and then by the French, but they hand't managed to organise it by the time the British settled Perth and claimed the western half of the continent.

Argentina was an example of how the Spanish colonised "properly", things just went to shit after they lost it.

Australia was filled with effective slaves m8

You're basically saying the natives never were wealthy, then.
Really people who make this argument can't have it both ways. If the UK and West Europe was poor until they exploited natives then all that does is beg the question of how the natives were ever exploited in the first place.

Because we are better

no of course they weren't wealthy, I thought I made it clear both arguments are shit

>we

>Bottom tier Anglo has a problem
?

lol, what about India, Jamaica, Bangladesh?
Only that colonies are rich where white population is.

India's economy is massive m8

Because Anglo countries are actually Anglo in culture and ancestry (except for USA on that part). This is not so for other empire's colonies.

Only New Zealand, we're heavily influenced by the Irish and Canada has the French

why are all japanese colonies rich?
most european colonies in asia are poor now
but the japanese colonies are all wealthy and developed countries
is this because of genetic difference?

If you're going to split hairs over the Irish then NZ's got Scots in their place. I personally don't see much point in claiming Australia's not really anglo because of the Irish influence.

somebody post the hdi colonies map already

Slave labour
Ruthless exploitation of natives around the world.
Anglos are not the most successful race. They are the most orc-like

american ruling class is pretty anglo

common law
simple as