Carrol Cox wrote: > Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > > Yet, according to O'Brien's tentative findings, England;s trade with > > the periphery, and the profits thereof, were still too small a percentage of > > its total economy to explain its expansion through the 18th century. > > Thus, by means of a counterfactual demonstration, he argues that, if > > Britain had not traded with the periphery, its gross annual > > investment expenditures would have decreased by no more than 7%. > > In constructing this counterfactual O'Brien makes the rather > > optimistic assumption that colonial profits were very high and that > > capitalists reinvested 30% of their profits. > > It doesn't seem to me that analysis of total profits are of much use > in historical/political analysis. Those profits did not go to the "Nation" > nor were they prorated among the various enterprises. They went to > only a few sectors. It is the political/economic influence of those > sectors that is of analytic importance. In so far as British taxpayers > had to bear the expenses of empire, those expenses (in India, for > example) could have been greater even than the returns and still > have been of more importance politically than larger domestic > profits. I don't know whether this is the case or not, but I do > feel that an analysis that does not explore it or account for it > should be held suspect. > > Carrol ________________ As far as I know, the British tax payers did not have to bear the burden of their Indian Empire. They imposed something called "Home Charges" on Indian tax payers, which was supposed to pay all the costs of British administration in India (which included the lavish life style of the British administrators and the army officers), the Indian contingent of British army, which was supposed to defend the British interest in this region, plus all the expenses of "India Office" in Britain, which gave hefty salaries to people like James Mill etc. I think Ricardo needs to take this into account, which probably is not showing in his export-import data. Moreover, he should also take into account that up till first world war, India's trade relation with Britain was triangular in nature. India had surplus of balance of trade and payments with the rest of the world, and Britain had generally a deficit of balance of trade and payments with the rest of the world. The Indian surplus was siphoned primarily in the name of "Home Charges" that played the critical role in bridging Britain's deficit with the rest of the world including the USA. Cheers, ajit sinha
