> If the superexploitation
> of the third world was an important part of this, one
> would espect that trade with third world countries
> would have risen relative to general foreign trade.
You need to define the term "Third world". IMO, there is no such thing as "the Third World" in reality, ie there is no undifferentiated mass countries that can be described as "the Third World". The so-called theories of imperialism largely depend on sweeping generalisations about "the Third World".
> different question from whether the poverty of the
> third world _adds_ to the prosperity of the first.
> Third world poverty might increase first world
> prosperity without being in any sense necessary for
> it.
India's share in the world trade less than 1%.(It's probably 0.50% of the world trade) How does India contribute significantly to "the First world's" prosperity? How does "the First World" contributes significantly to India's poverty?
Ulhas