on the thread
of Imperialist booty. I was able to read them yesterday - but was too
tired to comment.
If I recall right - Charles brown called for some empirical
calculations regarding the extent & numeric value of "super-profit' bribes.
This was done by Bland in relation to Maoist claims r
I have no idea why but a lot of the messages from the Saturday 7 May
2004, are not showing up.
So this comment is in response to various items proffered on the thread
of Imperialist booty. I was able to read them yesterday - but was too
tired to comment.
If I recall right - Charles brown called
A belated question: why should we calculate profits as a ratio of GDP, as
Doug does? I don't think any country (other than the smaller W european
countries) will have a high ratio? For the US obviously much less so,
given the size of the domestic market. Why don't we look at the profit
rates as
Tom Walker writes: >A rich country's monopolization of resources, markets etc. can
effectively
deny access to those resources or markets even with no money changing hands.
So how do we measure the absence of what might have been?<
dead weight loss! the gain to the imperialists < the loss by the i
Doug Henwood wrote,
>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. I'm open to the
>argument, if someone wants to make it.
Depends first on what you mean by rich and poor. Polit
k of, would make a more plausible booty-buyoff argument.
Another idea that comes to mind is some kind of way to measure a longer term
"accumulation of wealth" effect. In other words, is all the value added to
make the GDP of 2002 from labor in 2002 ? I don't know what economists thi
Bill Lear:
How does one measure the opportunity cost of, say, 10 million
slaughtered peasants over the last 40 years?
You really need to expand your time-frame in order to make sense of this
question. Like 400 years rather than 40. If it were not for the colonial
exports of silver, gold, fur, sugar
On Thursday, May 6, 2004 at 16:11:31 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
>...
>My pleasure. 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. I'm open to the
>argument, if someone wants to m
Charles Brown wrote:
CB: My thought on that is that the 30%-40% is the icing on the cake, and the
icing is the "extra" profit ( so "super" means "extra" rather than
"gigantic"; "above and beyond" the regular profit). I don't know if the
concept of "margin" applies to this. The idea is that "super"
our
activity. We don't act as subjects in relation to those conditions. We have
to cope with the subjectivities of the working class as impacted by the
objective conditions created by the capitalists, which includes the
imperialist booty the capitalists control.
^^
And if you review the
From: Doug Henwood
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: Ok , how about just "profits" ? Why would U.S. imperialism and U.S.
>based transnationals go through so much, invest so much in creating and
>protecting capitalist relations of production outside of U.S. territory if
>profits were not made there ?
11 matches
Mail list logo
