Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Nutty Productions" channel.

I read in the book "The Economic Life of the Ancient World" by Jean-Philippe Lévy, and I concluded that the economy of the Ptolemian Egypt must have been the most dystopian economic system in history. And that doesn't say little with all the crappy regimes that have existed throughout history. And I happen to know a lot about economic history as a nerd I am into the subject. Its an interested topic for exploration, but I don't know any books written about the economy of the Ptolemian Egypt specifically. To me is Ptolemian Egypt a blueprint of how a rich ruling class opress the rest of society and steal all wealth from everyone else only to enrich themselves. They raise taxes on the poor and on everything they consume. They own all property in the country and charge fees for their use, so there is really no incentive for any person to do any work at all so the economy of the society goes into total stagnation. And to make matters even worse, was the ruling class not even Egyptians, but Macedonian Greeks. So no solidarity at all existed between the ruling class and the people, as they did not even feel any pity for them or cared the slighted about their fellow Egyptian subjects, as the rulers were not Egyptians themselves and therefore did not even care a bit over the people who lived in the country. This was just a simple parasitic plundering economy. Egypt had a huge economic potential. It was the breadbasket of Rome. It was the mightiest and richest country in the mediaterranean sea during the middle ages. And ancient Egypt was one of the most advanced and early human civilizations in antiquity. So to me its clear that this country had a huge economic potential. But the Ptolemian rulers did manage to let it all go to waste. To me they were the proto-neoliberals. They can be said to be a blueprint for what happens when a selfish powerful rich ruling class takes over the state machinery in a country and start using it to steal money from the poor so the rich can make themselves even richer that way. It reminds me how the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth destroyed itself from within, or how Swedens time as a great power ended with its corrupt aristocracy taking power during its "age of liberty". And it also reminds me of Yeltsins oligarchs that took over Russia, and Carlos Menems corrupt regime that transformed Argentina from one of the richest countries of the planet into a 3rd world country. The Ptolemaian Egypt is a historical warning. Just like George Orwells book 1984. This is a dystopian, dysfunctional and extremely crappy economy and society. And a lesson in how to not do things.
30
In year 1492 did the Americans find Christopher Columbus
18
He found America. Don't be silly. With your logic we should not say that Fleming found penicillin or Scheele found oxygen because such things have always existed before anyone "discovered" them. Columbus sucked at math, and his moral compass sucked even more. And miscalculations made him sail and find america. Sure did the vikings discover America centuries before him. And perhaps was also the Chinese in America before him.. However his travel to the west indies did change the world enormously. And like it or not, was this one important starting point for the wests dominance of the world and birth of the Spanish empire and its role as a great power. It was born out of suffering and tears of hundreds of millions. And today are Spanish spoken from Mexico to Chile, and in Spain and the Philliphines. Its awful. I often wish it never happened, or that the Spaniards at least would have been more gentle towards the peoples it conquered and been less warmongering and religiously intolerant. However like it or not, the past is what it is and it cannot be changed. And I also realize that we other European countries also have drawn upon much on Spains success as we as a collective started to dominate the world and conquered almost every country on the planet. We brought good and bad stuff all over the world. And arabs, asians, indians, africans, native americans and others admire us and sometimes hates us for it.
7
@Earthbound369 You do not say anything substantial. Probably because you have nothing of value to say. There is nothing to gain by having a society where rich people steals money from the poor and rig all rules in their own favor. Personally do I believe that mass production needs mass consumption. So if you have a large middle class, then you can have a large group of consumers. But if you kill off that middle class and make them poor, then you will also kill all industries that depends on them. This is what happened in Rome after all wars with Carthage and Greece. The rich got richer, while the middle class either died in the wars or got thrown into poverty and was forced to sell their farms out of desperation to feed themselves and their families - and when all farmers in Italy did the same, then rich people could buy up all land at firesale prices. And people went to loan-sharks and fell into debt-traps. Ordinary people had to flee from the countryside into the cities to try to find a job. But there was not enough jobs for everyone. So a class of poor people without property was formed in Rome. And the rich got enormously wealthy from all cheap land and all slave labor they could use to grow things on it. All this meant a death blow to the Roman industry. There was no longer any middle class that could buy all pottery, furniture, textiles and other simple everyday goods. Too few people had any money to be able to afford to buy stuff to keep those industries alive. And the only two industries that would flourish from now on was luxury products such as high quality wine and jewelry/metallurgy. But those industries were small and employed very few people... so when Roman agriculture died out, then did also Roman industry die off. The division of labor that Adam Smith talked about did then also stagnate along with the technological innovation. Rome became a more unequal society and the rich and powerful people had started to put self-interest before the interests of the well-being of Rome. The economy stagnated. The democracy of the Roman Republic died and got replaced by the monarchy of the Roman empire. And the country started to get torn apart in costly and deadly civil wars. Not at anytime did the rich try to do an effort to try to save Rome from destruction by giving back all land in Italy to the Roman people. But instead did the rich rather want to keep all land and power in their own hands. And buying grain from Egypt and bribing people off with bread and circuses was seen as less economically costly than doing a land reform and giving every Italian a piece of land they could use for farming. So the damage of the punic wars was never repaired. So the economy remained crappy. And then did Rome stop expanding and ran out of slaves. So feudalism began to become popular. Nobles were exempt from taxes, and the peasants were forbidden from moving away from the farms for tax reasons. And the tax system became more and more opressive towards ordinary people. The obvious solution would have been to tax the rich and to hand over land to the Italian people to undo all damage that the rich had done to Rome and to save Rome and the Roman economy from destruction... But the rich people did rather let Rome die than changing course. A few Roman politicians did try to change the system - like Julius Caesar. But the rich nobility got enraged and saw it as impossible to compromise with him and saw no other possible solution than to kill him - which they did. And with his death did the best chance of saving Rome from a sad ending go lost.
5
Hygiene was only invented to opress men
1
@foggy561 Yes and no. I think USA is most accuratly called a country of "settlers" and not a country of "immigrants" or "conquerors & invaders" as some people proclaim. The reason why I think so is that not many people lived in USA when the Europeans arrived. Population numbers was low to begin with, and then they fell even more as diseases that came from the Spanish (and others) to america and killed off the native population. So much of Americas land therefore laid empety and unused, and the European settlers from England elsewhere took it and no one was really upset about it. I therefore think we cannot say USA was a country of immigrants. It wasn't like Europeans asked for green cards and visas at the borders of Dakota or Sioux territory and wanted to apply for citizenship in native American communities. Nor were they illegal immigrants that came to their land to do low wage jobs without paying taxes. And calling the whites invaders and conquerors are not correct either as most Europeans just settled large plots of uninhabiteted lands. Some conquests did of course occur, however that was more a thing of the 1800s. I will not deny the war and imperialism aspect. However all I saying is that this aspect was of a secondary importance - at least to begin with when Europeans came to america in the 1600s and 1700s. I am also not saying it was right for Europeans to just come in and build settlements on another countries territories. Sure would it probably not bother Swedes much if millions of immigrants invaded the almost completly uninhabited Lapland province and built towns and villages there and created and extracted economic value from that area. But that does not make this settlement legally and morally right to make without Swedens permission.
1
Indeed. He sucked at maths and miscalculated the distance to asia and that is the reason why he found america
1
Well Spaniards and Italians are not exactly white. Whites can take ownership of the dutch slave trade, britains starvation of millions of indians, Belgiums atrocities in Congo, Germany and the holocaust and so on. However Spains atrocities in South America and killing 25 million native americans is something they have to take ownership of themselves. Just like Hitler and King Leopold was brutal men even for their own time period could the same be said about the Spaniards and their brutality in America. I do not understand why they usually get off the hook so easily. And even having a holiday celebration called "Columbus day" is just enormously distasteful.
1
So the nazis and the redneck slave owners were blacks? So if "we wuz kangz" is true as you say... does that mean that blacks never have been opressed by the white man?
1
Hygiene was only invented to opress men
1
Well Jesus did repeatedly say that a clean heart is what is important, and not clean hands.
1
@marlonalexis3080 It was an empire built on royal marriages between Aragon and Castile, and later on did they inherit Burgundy, and gained Portugal through royal marriage and became allied with the Habsburg Austrians. So it was not an empire mainly built on economic and military superiority. But rather more on skillful medieval style diplomacy with royal marriages. The country never built a succesful economic model. Indeed, as a medieval country it had much knights and this warrior class had contempt for hard work. They rather wanted to live off resource extraction instead.. using slaves on plantations and working people to death in silver mines. And then was a few tonnes of silver shipped to China each year, or used for trading spices and other goods in India, and the indian ocean and pacific. This economic model worked well to make Spain rich for some time. But later on would the silver mines not produce as much silver as before... and the global demand for Spanish exports sunk as markets became saturated with all the big flows of gold and silver. And the overextended Spanish empire constantly failed to balance its expenses with incomes and went bankrupt after fighting Dutch, Turks, English, Swedes, Germans, Italians, Portugease, French, Native americans, north african berbers and so on. So even if Spain managed to construct Europes first standing army, with superior capabilities on the battlefield... would other countries soon learn to build better armies themselves. And as the Spanish empire started to fall apart, did money become scarce and it was no longer possible for Spain to maintain troop quality, which only made Spains problems worse. Now it no longer was just the Dutch that wanted independence from Spain, but also Italy and Portugal. And the local rulers in America wanted more power for themselves and their Spanish motherlands expense. And the list of foreign enemies of Spain was long, and it was mostly Spains own arrogance, hubris and extreme religious intolerance that was at fault for those many wars. Spain should have choosen diplomatic solutions to further its interests than trying to use its powerful military as a solution to every problem. When it did that, then did the enemies soon to became too many to handle.
1
@HorrorFXDesigns Not all native american tribes were warlike, and the evil things and backwardness described of the tribes who behaved the worse have also been exaggerated by their European conquerors as an attempt to justify brutal wars and opression. And its their story that remains in the history books, the native americans did not leave much information behind or had their culture destroyed by the european invadors. Your argument is childish and stupid. With your logic can we say that Asians are justified in killing, opressing, and enslaving Europeans... because look how evil Europeans can be... look at the holocaust, look at Stalins terror, and the brutal barbarity used by Count Dracula and the Spanish inquistion... yep its better to just get rid of white european culture all togheter then right?
1