[lbo-talk] Empires' Development Economics (Coming Around to His Father's Thinking)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Sat May 28 02:00:51 PDT 2005


Chris wrote:
>>The US power elite, unlike men who presided over the creation of
>>the British Empire, have never been interested in developing
>>settler colonies (of which North America was once a shining
>>example), so
>
>I wasn't thinking of the Colonies. I was thinking if places like
>India, which the British Empire developed. Or Eastern European
>Warsaw Pact countries, into which the USSR poured funds (including
>food when there was famine in the USSR).

Of all the British Empire's colonies, current and former settler colonies (its own as well as other empires') received the most investment and non-settler colonies in Africa the least, India falling in the middle. Investment went to where settlers settled, even or rather especially after settler colonies became independent. Among the British Empire's current and former settler colonies, the United States, which became independent first, received the most investment.

<blockquote>At the end of 1913, just under half of foreign investment was in the dominions and colonies, approximately 20% in the United States, and another 20% in Latin America, and 15% in Europe. U.S. new issues were 21 per cent of total new overseas issues, 1886-1913. Argentina was another significant importer of capital from the United Kingdom over the same years. Between 1870 and 1913 Argentina issues accounted for approximately 8 per cent of total overseas issues placed in the UK. Between 1870 and 1913 Australian new issues absorbed by the United Kingdom amounted to £325 million, approximately 8 per cent of total new overseas issues in the UK. Britain's investment in new Canadian issues totaled 9.7 per cent of the total new issues taken up by the United Kingdom during 1870-1913.34

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 3 Capital Publicly Invested by Great Britain Overseas December 1913

Geographical Distribution Description £ in '000 Canada and Newfoundland 514,870 Australia 332,112 New Zealand 84,334 Africa-South 370,192 Africa-West 37,305 India and Ceylon 378,776 Straits Settlements 27,293 Hong Kong 3,104 British North Borneo 5,820 Other Asiatic Colonies 26,189 Total India and Colonies 1,779,995

United States 754,617 Cuba 33,075 Philippines 8,217 Argentina 319,565 Brazil 147,967 Mexico 99,019 Chili 61,143 Uruguay 36,124 Peru 34,173 Miscellaneous American 25,538 Russia 66,627 Egypt 44,912 Spain 19,057 Turkey 18,696 Italy 12,440 Portugal 8,136 France 8,020 Germany 6,364 Miscellaneous European 54,580 Japan 62,816 China 43,883 Miscellaneous Foreign other than European or American 69,697 Total Foreign 1,934,666 Grand Total 3,714,661

Source: Ripley, 1934, p. 175. Ripley states that the figures were computed by Sir George Paish.

(William N. Goetzmann and Andrey D. Ukhov, "British Investment Overseas 1870--1913: A Modern Portfolio Theory Approach," 8 Nov. 2004, <http://www.kelley.iu.edu/finance/workingpapers/Britain_03_27_2004.pdf>, pp. 12, 40)</blockquote>

The British Empire's most remarkable development story is development through genocide: 97-99% of natives of a colonized territory, exposed to new diseases brought by settlers, die; and settlers claim the territory for themselves, making it safe for investment.


>>it is occupying Iraq only so as to set up a new pro-Washington Iraqi regime
>
>How would such a regime be viable without stabilization of Iraq? How
>will it function with bombs going off and officials getting
>assassinated all the time?

Who said that such a regime would be viable or that Washington could pacify Iraq? If Washington had wanted a stable Iraq, it would have lifted its economic sanctions on it and encouraged American investors to compete with French, Russian, and other investors for a chance to invest in its oil industry, instead of starving and then invading the country.

As Christian Parenti, having come around to his father's thinking, said during Doug's interview with him: "[I]n my opinion, the war is now over. It's done. The US has lost Iraq. And it will hang on as it did in Vietnam, for five or six more years, killing people, escalating, trying to escalate its way out of it" (November 11, 2004, <http://leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#041111>). -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list