My guess is that the present value of historic resource rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial areas is huge.
>From a little essay I wrote: For starters, Abdel-Fadil (1987) claims that colonial powers had seized 85 percent of the planet's surface area by 1914. -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: imperalist booty [was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)] Doug writes:>I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often.< The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D.
