Ricardo writes: >Just a handy, if incomplete, stats: At most 2% of Europe's
GNP at the end of 18th century took the form of profits derived from
commerce with Americas, Asia, Africa! (I think source is K.O'Brien).<
incomplete? absolutely. This incompletely-referenced stat should be
enshrined in the newest edition of HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS. First, we
should calculate the percentage for not the whole of "Europe" (where did
the alleged O'Brien draw the line? at the Urals?) but for England and
perhaps the Netherlands and perhaps perhaps the city-states of Northern
Italy, plus France and even Belgium. Those were the capitalist powers of
the day, and it is the capitalist powers which are seen as benefitting from
the looting of the colonies. Most authors I've seen indicate that the
semi-feudal Spain (in an earlier period) didn't benefit much because they
got a lot of inflation from all that gold and ended up helping the
Netherlands and England by buying weapons. Even if this point is disputed,
we shouldn't be talking about _all_ of Europe. If we're talking about 10%
of Europe, then the 2% becomes 20%. This is a seat-of-the-pants
calculation, but that's just about the only way these stats are calculated.
The alleged O'Brien didn't have complete information, either, since the
stats for that period are very shaky, often calculated based on
theory-based interpolations.
Second, we should look at not _all of GDP_ as the denominator but the
income of the ruling classes who were the ones who made the decisions,
benefited from them, and were able to accumulate the proceeds to gain
differential advantage vis-a-vis the "wogs." So it should be "profits
derived from commerce with the wogs"/"total profits." Well, if profits were
10% of the leading capitalist powers' GDPs, then the 20% of the last
paragraph becomes 200%! I don't believe in this statistic much at all, but
I see it just as valid as the 2% that is cited without any explanation of
how it was calculated, the assumptions that went into it, etc.
By the way, even a 2% advantage can be crucial in a strategic battle. And
we shouldn't be thinking of the relationship between "Europe" and the
colonies as "trade" but as a strategic battle, one in which Europe gained
an upper hand and then used to increase its power.
Max writes: >I agree that returns to business firms' capital discount the
social or environmental effects that you allude to, but the private returns
are the only thing that could directly contribute to expansion in the
colonizer nation. <
but if the colonized nation's ability is destroyed (a net destruction that
has no direct effect on the colonizer's profits), it increases the
competitive advantage of the colonizer, which then can be accumulated.
(Again, we shouldn't be talking about "Europe." After all, the French and
the Brits wasted a lot of resources fighting each other (the 7 years war,
the Napoleonic war). Not all of the differential advantage vis-a-vis the
colonies was used against other European countries. But the experience of
winning wars against France helped England perfect the art of colonial
conquest.)
Third, why should we privilege the "end of the 18th century"? That was a
period _before_ the English complete conquest of India. It was before
Africa became a relevant stomping ground for imperialist rivalries. It was
a period _after_ the high point of the African slave trade, I believe.
Instead of looking at simply the "end of the 18th century," it's important
to look at the entire period after 1492 to calculate some kind of average.
------
An idea for punishing Microsoft: force them to turn over info on Windows to
IBM so that the latter can adapt OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 and Windows 95
programs. Then we'd have (more) competition, which is the goal of
anti-trust, no? And I've heard that OS/2, though very hard to install, is a
highly superior operating system compared to Win95.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.)
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
