This is Schumpeter's interpretation of imperialism. Also, while I agree that the role of the dollar was a consequence of US economic strength, the US will fight like hell to keep the dollar power, because power fears any sign of weakness.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 02:35:17PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > I wrote: > > so far, the Bushwhackers have succeeded in steering most of the benefits of > > empire in the direction of their fraction of the capitalists, while costs > > are borne by the vast majority. In the longer run, that may not be true. > > Carrol: >I think the costs and benefits of empire (pre-capitalist as well as > capitalist) have almost always been allocated in rather twisted ways. I > think a good argument can be made that during the entire span of English > occupation of India, it cost more to control India than _England as a > whole_ got out of India. The beneficiaries were (a) a sector of big > capital and (b) the civil service which ran both India _and_ England in > the service of capital. The costs came out of the British working class.< > > that's exactly the historical analogy I was thinking of. > JD -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
