> >Exploitation or theft have nothing to do with the
> >extent to which colonization fueled capitalist
> >development. What matters are returns in
> >excess of cost. Even thievery is not possible
> >without costs to the perpetrator. ...
>
> Sure, but if you only measure the GNP returns of trade, you are
> missing the big negative on the other side of the balance sheet. If
> you wipe out an entire continent and only increase your GNP in nominal
> terms by 2% measured by trade with exploited countries, you have not
> addressed what you may have done to their capacity to compete with you
> in the future. For example, I believe the Bengal region of India was
> highly productive both in agriculture and in textiles, before the
> British arrived. They wiped it out, and protected their textiles
> and agriculture thereby.
I agree that returns to business firms'
capital discount the social or environmental
effects that you allude to, but the private
returns are the only thing that could directly
contribute to expansion in the colonizer nation.
Even that is exaggerated for just the reason
you cite -- the colonizer in some sense degrades
productive opportunities in the future. So I
still think RD's note on the low contribution of
colonization to GDP in the colonizer's country is
pertinent.
In general I see a tendency to let capitalism's
moral crimes and despoilation of the environment
obscure the advances it brought in terms of
productive capacity. The latter doesn't justify
the former, but the former does not negate the
latter either.
Cheers,
MBS
==================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200
202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
Opinions here do not necessarily represent the
views of anyone associated with the Economic
Policy Institute.
===================================================
