>There's no question in my mind that the North's rise to wealth was greased
>by theft of resources and people from the South (though when I say things
>like that, Bob Brenner often writes me offlist to disagree). But today,
>I'm not so sure. My sense is that the world's poor regions are mostly
>outside the circuit of value production. I'm happy to listen to arguments
>to the contrary, but I've yet to hear one.
>
>Doug
Of course the biggest things are hard to quantify. 'Circuits of value' are fine for examining "exploitation" (i.e. in the Marxist sense) within *established* production. And unequal exchange (Ricardian/Emanuel or otherwise) can examine existing trade. But if you propose looking at the impact of the North and the South one has to also look at the things that the South never got to do.
The biggest single advantage to the North is the ability to 'set the rules'. When England benefited from having destroyed the advanced-but-still-cottage-style textile production of India it didn't just create an export market. It also foreclosed the eventual development of a potential competitor...so one has to think of all the competition England (and the rest of the "North") never faced. And the subsequent capitalist development that could have emerged from India after that, and so on. [Brenner doesn't argue that India NEVER could have developed capitalism or industry, if given time.] And of course, even in just textiles, this ability to control the timing and pace of changes in the rules goes on and on - for 250 years. Up to and including last month with the TO rules change - and this is just measly textiles. You get to largely control - in multi-decade regimes - when and how the others can get in on production.
And the getting of the rules' is no longer being limited to interstate economic matters. The timing and pace of domestic political formation, military options and most of the other things that shape a nation's destiny are subject to players who may not be thinking of how you can best become a strong competitor.
Will Microsoft eventually make money on its version of Internet Explorer launched to crush Netscape? It almost doesn't matter - they eliminated *potential* competition that could have, someday, led to having less of a free hand in more crucial and core areas. So Microsoft "benefited", even if they lost money.
The North's wealth and the South's poverty are linked in many ways.
Paul