[was: Re: [PEN-L:12032] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism
onceagain]
>There's no question that imperialism was essential to the rise of
>European capitalism. But what about its contribution to First World
>wealth in the present? No doubt greater than zero, but how much?
>Does anyone have any good ideas? Doug
>So less than 3%.
>Of course, this is not "dialectical"...
>Brad DeLong
It's probably one of these things that can't be calculated.
One thing I would say, however, is that the negative impact on the third
world countries would likely be much smaller than the impact on the rich:
if a rich man steals $100 (US, of course) from a panhandler, the latter
could end up in even worse shape, while the rich guy hasn't really
increased his wealth.
Further, there's likely a lot of "dead weight loss," hurt to the third
world that doesn't help the rich countries. For example, the destruction of
the natural environment of the Amazon. Much of what the "West" does to
Africa really doesn't benefit anyone.
Third, _who_ in the first world benefits? One might argue that between 1945
and 1970, the workers in the U.S. benefited from that country's hegemony in
the imperialist system. But it's extremely hard to make that point today in
an era of increasing capital mobility in search of low wages and pliant
labor. Increasingly, it's the elite who are the winners, as seen in the
upward trend in the gap between rich and poor (wealth and income) in the
U.S. during the last quarter-century or so.
Finally, who in the third world pays the costs? is it the corrupt dictators
of U.S. client-states? no, unless they step out of line (as with Manuel
Noriega). is it the up-and-coming business owners, like whoever owns Pan
Bimbo?
These last two points suggest that Doug's initial question is off-base,
because it puts too much emphasis on nations or rather aggregates of nations.
And Max brings up a dynamic point:
>Another thing, calculations aside, 3% of output implies
>quite a bite out of annual growth.
if the dominant countries dominate the poor ones for long periods (like 200
years, say), this bite accumulates (by the "miracle of compound interest").
Max's dynamic point is getting us toward ... a dialectical perspective.
Next, look at the world system as a unified totality (rather than simply a
collection of countries, etc.) and we're almost there.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
