----------
> From: Enrique Diaz-Alvarez <enrique at anise.ee.cornell.edu>
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: First world prosperity
> Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 10:04 AM
>
> In this list, the inescapable fact that large majorities of first world
> populations enjoy a prosperous lifestyle is sometimes dismissed as the
> result of imperialist plunder and exploitation of the third world. This
> gives lefties a warm, fuzzy, self-righteous feeling, and it has great
> value for that reason alone.
>
> However, US imports of goods and services from the rest of the world
> amount to, what, 12% of national income. Most of this trade is with the
> first world. Since I am too lazy to go look up exact numbers, I'll say
> that imports in goods and services from the third world amount to 5% of
> national income.
>
> Doesn't this place a rough upper bound of 5% in the amount of US
> prosperity that can be explained away as imperialist plunder?
>
> Of course, this upper bound assumes that those nations get nothing in
> return for those goods and services they send our way. Now, a lot of our
> exports to the third world may be in the form of F-16 and financial
> consultants, but I am sure that a few Volvo trucks and Caterpillar
> excavators wind up there as well. So this 5% would be further reduced.
>
> Am I missing something?
Yes. Why does no one consider the theft of North America from we of the First Nations "imperialism" (whatever Canada and the United States are doing to indigenous peoples elsewhere)?
Roland Chrisjohn