Queen Elizabeth II’s Death Elicits Wide-Ranging Reactions & Steve Bannon Indicted | The Daily Show

by



Buckingham Palace announces Queen Elizabeth II has died, Steve Bannon is indicted on fraud charges, a membership list of Oath Keepers is leaked, a Dutch city bans meat advertisements, and a Texas judge says HIV drug mandate violates religious freedoms. #DailyShow #Comedy

Subscribe to The Daily Show:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWhs_6x42TyRM4Wstoq8HA/?sub_confirmation=1

Follow The Daily Show:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedailyshow

Stream full episodes of The Daily Show on Paramount+: http://www.paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-05-10aei0b

Follow Comedy Central:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ComedyCentral
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ComedyCentral
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/comedycentral

About The Daily Show:
Trevor Noah and The Daily Show correspondents tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and pop culture.

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah airs weeknights at 11/10c on Comedy Central.

source

43 thoughts on “Queen Elizabeth II’s Death Elicits Wide-Ranging Reactions & Steve Bannon Indicted | The Daily Show”

  18. You're not funny, your not a American Black, by the the way of what you express yourself in the news faking its journalism and its all your opinions, you are a LIAR. I understand its only for your views. You fake and tired. You encourage others to race bait like you do. Ask me this, why you black and European and you're not kept down. You speak about what's going on about Black Americans but you are so successful. You are not kept down. Tell me why you different from everybody else. Something is afoot.

    Reply

  23. Martin Luther King Jr is lucky to die like half a century ago.

    If he had lived long enough, imagine what kind of jokes Trevor would make about him and his family when he dies.

    Reply

  24. New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938. 
    It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today.

    How did this come about?
    It happened through the trade system. Prior to the colonial period, Britain bought goods like textiles and rice from Indian producers and paid for them in the normal way – mostly with silver – as they did with any other country. But something changed in 1765, shortly after the East India Company took control of the subcontinent and established a monopoly over Indian trade.
    Here’s how it worked. The East India Company began collecting taxes in India, and then cleverly used a portion of those revenues (about a third) to fund the purchase of Indian goods for British use. In other words, instead of paying for Indian goods out of their own pocket, British traders acquired them for free, “buying” from peasants and weavers using money that had just been taken from them.

    It was a scam – theft on a grand scale. Yet most Indians were unaware of what was going on because the agent who collected the taxes was not the same as the one who showed up to buy their goods. Had it been the same person, they surely would have smelled a rat.
    Some of the stolen goods were consumed in Britain, and the rest were re-exported elsewhere. The re-export system allowed Britain to finance a flow of imports from Europe, including strategic materials like iron, tar and timber, which were essential to Britain’s industrialisation. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution depended in large part on this systematic theft from India.
    On top of this, the British were able to sell the stolen goods to other countries for much more than they “bought” them for in the first place, pocketing not only 100 percent of the original value of the goods but also the markup.

    After the British Raj took over in 1858, colonisers added a special new twist to the tax-and-buy system. As the East India Company’s monopoly broke down, Indian producers were allowed to export their goods directly to other countries. But Britain made sure that the payments for those goods nonetheless ended up in London

    How did this work? Basically, anyone who wanted to buy goods from India would do so using special Council Bills – a unique paper currency issued only by the British Crown. And the only way to get those bills was to buy them from London with gold or silver. So traders would pay London in gold to get the bills, and then use the bills to pay Indian producers. When Indians cashed the bills in at the local colonial office, they were “paid” in rupees out of tax revenues – money that had just been collected from them. So, once again, they were not in fact paid at all; they were defrauded.
    Meanwhile, London ended up with all of the gold and silver that should have gone directly to the Indians in exchange for their exports.

    This corrupt system meant that even while India was running an impressive trade surplus with the rest of the world – a surplus that lasted for three decades in the early 20th century – it showed up as a deficit in the national accounts because the real income from India’s exports was appropriated in its entirety by Britain. 
    Some point to this fictional “deficit” as evidence that India was a liability to Britain. But exactly the opposite is true. Britain intercepted enormous quantities of income that rightly belonged to Indian producers. India was the goose that laid the golden egg. Meanwhile, the “deficit” meant that India had no option but to borrow from Britain to finance its imports. So the entire Indian population was forced into completely unnecessary debt to their colonial overlords, further cementing British control. 
    Britain used the windfall from this fraudulent system to fuel the engines of imperial violence – funding the invasion of China in the 1840s and the suppression of the Indian Rebellion in 1857. And this was on top of what the Crown took directly from Indian taxpayers to pay for its wars. As Patnaik points out, “the cost of all Britain’s wars of conquest outside Indian borders were charged always wholly or mainly to Indian revenues.” 

    And that’s not all. Britain used this flow of tribute from India to finance the expansion of capitalism in Europe and regions of European settlement, like Canada and Australia. So not only the industrialisation of Britain but also the industrialisation of much of the Western world was facilitated by extraction from the colonies.
    Patnaik identifies four distinct economic periods in colonial India from 1765 to 1938, calculates the extraction for each, and then compounds at a modest rate of interest (about 5 percent, which is lower than the market rate) from the middle of each period to the present. Adding it all up, she finds that the total drain amounts to $44.6 trillion. This figure is conservative, she says, and does not include the debts that Britain imposed on India during the Raj.
    These are eye-watering sums. But the true costs of this drain cannot be calculated. If India had been able to invest its own tax revenues and foreign exchange earnings in development – as Japan did – there’s no telling how history might have turned out differently. India could very well have become an economic powerhouse. Centuries of poverty and suffering could have been prevented.

    Reply

  26. My family killed millions of people. The jewellery i wore were stolen from Africa. I own Billions of acres "inherited" from my family. I had 70 years to publicly apologize. Never Reinvest some of my wealth and help the many countries my family broke… This Queen was unapologetic. No mourning for her.

    Reply

  31. I will forever be in_depted to you Ms Catherine Lambert you've changed my life . I'll continue to preach about your name for the world to hear , you've saved me from a huge financial debt with just little investment , thanks Ms Catherine Lambert

    Reply

  37. Dear Trevor, the Dutch's political party is Groenlinks, not Greenlinks. I don't think it is correct to translate the name of the political party just to make it easier for the viewers to understand the content.

    Reply

  39. RAFI is sad that FATHER OF OUR NATION HINDUSTAN had to sit in back of train. WAS NOT ALLOWED WITH LOCAL BRITISH PEOPLE TO SIT NEXT TO. GHANDI ( father of nation) , LAWYER & SAINT. HE WAS MODEL for ethics & HEALTHY VEGETARIAN DIET.
    RAFI MAINE USA

    Reply

  43. How is this person described as a comedian? A five year old could do better. Comedy used to be, strangely enough, amusing, not just an excuse to settle scores from a massively privileged so called comedian.

    Reply

Leave a Comment