This is a very old debate in economic history, a lot of empirical work has been done on it. Some individuals in positions to influence governments made a very large amount of money on these trades. But there is little evidence that the workers of the industrial world benefitted much. If there was a benefit it was likely that the exclusion of manufactured goods from the periphery increased the demand for home production. The benefits of capitalism were and continue to gained by excluding rather than including the periphery. Even the current debt loads of African and Latin American countries result in part because they are not allowed to earn foreign currency in industrialised markets. Again as Joan Robinson said, in captialism the only thing worse than beiing exploited is not being exploited. ----Original Message Follows---- From: michael perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1. As Ajit mentioned, a quantitatively small phenomenon can play a strategic role, and thereby be important. 2. The long-standing debate about whether imperialism or the exploitation of domestic workers was more important to British economic development has yet to be resolved. This debate is clouded by the fact that an enormous number of Irish came to Britain to work as domestic workers. And 3. What is the relative importance of the linkage of Third World countries by way of trade and financial relationships? Finally, I cannot remember any contentious thread on the list carried on in such a mature manner. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
