[wz1000]

There is certainly a huge difference between setting up extractive institutions designed for the benefit of people living half a world away, compared to extractive institutions set up for the benefit of people living a few hundred kilometers away. In the latter case, you have a much greater chance of seeing some of that wealth again, and of being able to influence the decisions of your rulers.

[enkid]

Do you have any evidence of this? I doubt the poles would agree with you.

[ClumsyPilot]

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Logic dictates that any wealth or resource that staysin the community is more likely to benefit that community as opposed to if it is shipped to a different continent and never seen again.

[enkid]

Yes, the Germans invaded Poland, Russia, and most of Europe and extracted lots of resources at a significant disadvantage to the Poles. Japan invaded Korea, China, and much of Southeast Asia and killed hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of colonialism. I don't think the locals were happy about that. The United States relationship to the Native Americans. Mongol conquest of central Asia. The Zulu conquest of their empire. The Italian and French occupation of North Africa. The Ottoman relationship with the Armenians. The relationship between South Sudan and Sudan. Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Kurds. Israel and the Palestines. All of Europe and the Jews. I can name historical examples of neighbors exploiting neighbors all day.

You can't just say "logic dictates" when logic dictates no such thing. I'm not saying your wrong, or there is not correlation, but there is no clear pattern between how far off an occupier is and the treatment of the occupied from what I can see.

[zozbot234]

I'm not sure that this is a "huge" difference, especially when compared to the clear difference between extractive and inclusive institutions.