Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (907690)	12/11/2015 4:09:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574879

A number of those companies later went broke. Also new products from new places that were colonized isn't the same thing as "colonization". Trade doesn't require colonization, and certainly not extensive colonization and conquest. The amount grabbed by colonization could reasonably be considered the difference in what was paid, which would only be the fully price if nothing was paid for the item. That was the case sometimes, but also the amount grabbed isn't equal to the net benefit since colonization had high costs.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (907690)	12/11/2015 8:13:41 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574879

New American foods Those new crops went all over the world and made everyone's life better, not just Europeans and not just colonial countries. Maize, chilis, and other crops became part of Asian and African diets. Ireland and other countries adopted potatoes without any colonies, certainly not any in the Andean region where potatoes came from. Italian cuisine uses tomatoes heavily but Italy had no American colonies. Most of the benefits you describe came from trade. The colonial powers turned to colonialism to defend their access to markets in an age of piracy. Note that after most of the Americas became free in the late 1700's and 1800's, trade from the Americas continued to benefit both Europe and the Americas. Also note that the European countries themselves freed their slaves with no ill economic effect. So much for capitalism depending on colonialism. You're trotting out Marxist arguments which I find ironic given that Marx was a colonialist and racist himself. "Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?" Karl Marx