Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's rich countries screwing poor by exploiting their resources. The robber barons were also real people with individual hopes and dreams. The real problem is so are all those other people in those poor countries. The 99.99% who are left behind are also individuals with hopes and dreams.
Theoretical question, but do the 0.01% have any obligation towards the 99.99% just because they happen to be born somewhere. Practically, yes, I know society expects people to be nationalist to some degree.
But wealthy countries are not doing this for the benefit of those people, they are doing it for their own benefit. To the detriment of the rest of those in poor countries. This pretty much seals the lot of those countries to be dependent client states subject to the whims of wealthy countries and prone to having their other natural resources plundered as well. Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome.
During colonialism, many collaborators in the countries being exploited got great benefit, they were put in positions of power installed as local rulers, for example. I don't see a lot of difference in the dynamics or results.
Theoretical question, because it's quite interesting to me that almost everyone I have talked with about this who has made arguments in this direction have tended to be leftist or collectivist leaning -- what do you think? Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country?