I've often wondered if those cost-benefit analysis didn't in fact
underestimate the non-pecuniary benefits that accrued to the british
citizenry from their empire building.
What, for instance, was the utility of having an empire that the sun never
set on? If I were a british that might be something I was willing to pay for
(in fact it was something that they did pay for).
Similarly if I were racist, finding an outlet for me to express my racism
might also be something that yielded utility.
To say that colonialism didn't on net benefit the british people seems to
ignore or at least discount these potential benefits.
V
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue Sep 19 08:55:31 2000
Subject: Re: some history
> I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone
> who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to
Britain
> of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than
> it was worth.
> David Friedman
Because of British colonization, including of North America,
English is now the predominant language. That saves many
English speakers the costs of learning and using a foreign
language, an on-going benefit. I wonder if such benefits
have been included.
The cost/benefit to the British includes having their former
colonies, including the United States, as allies during the
world wars. This may be a net loss, since if the Germans
had not lost W.W.I, they would not have started WWII. The
US-influenced W.W.I settlements also contributed to WWII -
had the Austro-Hungarian empire not been broken up, the
Germans would not have started their expansion into Austria
and Czechia. So the colonization of the US by Britain and
the creation of the USA may have indeed caused a large net
loss for the British by contributing to the cause of World
War II.
Fred Foldvary
