> 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
This procedure while unexceptionable would delimit
both sides of the ratio. What's the right number?
> . . .
>
> 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
If we're talking about accumulation, shouldn't it be the effect
of colonization on savings and capital formation? Not all of
the two percent would be saved or invested.
> 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.
I took it on faith because, like Tiny Tim, I believe in the
fundamental goodness of all people.
> 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.
It's not clear how a little extra income, only some of which goes
to capital formation, dramatically affects competition.
Moreover, presumably some capital is exported and
improves the competitiveness of some other country,
whatever that means.
> 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.
OK. I'll buy that. But then you need to imagine
(because you would be unlikely to measure it) some
counter-factual evolution of profit rates against
actual historic levels, which themselves may not
be known.
> (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.
Is it really possible to do this?
If not, are these competing theories
impossible to support empirically?
The literal observation of wealth flowing
from the colonies to the imperiums seems
not to prove a necessary development but
only an actual one.
I'd say that some kind of economist vanity,
ideology aside and present company excepted,
allows people to delude themselves that they can
discover the laws of motion for phenomena that
don't repeat themselves, are invulnerable to
experimentation, and have a duration of many
decades. It's like some feudal character
realizing he's living in the "Middle Ages."
> 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.
I used OS/2 for a while and was underwhelmed. It was
quite unfriendly and crashed plenty. It did seem pretty
good for telecommunications.
MBS
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
