Gidday Bill,
Yes NZ earned differential rent on its pastoral production for much
of its history I agree. But a lot of this dissappeared into the hands
of the financiers, banks etc who had the mortage on the land etc.
i.e. much of it back to the motherland. That part which was retained
by the owners of the best land became the capital fund for a weak
national bourgeoisie which set up factories in backyard sheds with
tariff protection and then state subsidies to survive.
I don't take the view that NZ was part of the centre living off the
British working class (like Rob Steven) or the periphery for that
matter, but like most of the white-setter colonies was a 'special'
sort of privileged semi-colony so long as protection was tolerated by
and profitable for imperial finance capital. I would venture to
say that the loss of this protection has sent NZ down the
semi-colonial stakes towards a less bloated and more emaciated
existence.
What do you say?
Dave
>
> Dave,
> You make the claim that surplus value has been
> > pumped out of NZ by finance capital from the 1840's to
> > the present
> I'm interested in what empirical evidence you have regarding the inflows/out
> flows of surplus value in the NZ economy - my impression is that for chunks
> of our history, for instance part of the 50's,60's and early seventies, that
> our agricultural produce sold at prices considerably in excess of there
> value in foreign markets, indicating an inflow of surplus value. Naturally I
> stand to be corrected on this point.
> cheers
> Bill Cochrane
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
