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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (33250)	3/25/1999 2:24:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

By the early 19th century the British had squeezed all that they could squeeze out of their own people. The great fortunes of 19th century Britain were made on trade and industry, which were profitable because the colonies served as sources of cheap raw materials and guaranteed outlets for manufactured goods. Many people think that Gandhi's spinning wheel was a symbol of back-to-the-hearth virtue. Not so. It was an act of rebellion: in British India it was illegal to make cloth. They grew cotton, shipped it to England, made things from it, and shipped it back, without local competition. How else do you think they made so much damned money? Remember the opium wars? How much money did the British make from the opium trade; the most profitable drug trafficking operation in history? For those who don't remember: since trade with China began, the Chinese would only sell their silk, spices, ceramics, etc. for bullion. No reciprocal trade was allowed. This resulted in a huge fiscal imbalance. The Chinese had always known opium, but it had ben expensive and in very short supply, as caravan routes from producing areas had to pass through rugged terrain and pay for protection all along the way. When the British went looking for a commodity that the Chinese would pay cash for, they found opium, and with Burma, India, and Pakistan under their control, the supply was almost unlimited. So they shipped it in, in massive quantities. When the Chinese government objected, they were suppressed militarily. Lots and lots of money was made. The British were the only ones to make massive profit from colonialism, though I do not know much about the Belgian ventures in Africa. I suspect the Dutch came away with a positive balance sheet, but not to the exaggerated degree that the British managed. The Spanish made money but pissed it away on absurd ventures; the French were too inept to make their colonies profitable for any purpose but lazing about and feeling superior. No great American fortune was made in the Philippines because there was not a shred of economic logic behind the expansion, except perhaps for the sugar trust (a fascinating story there). American had enormous untapped resources available much closer to home, and almost anything they could produce in the Philippines would compete with domestically produced products. An Englishman growing cotton in England did not need to worry about protectionist agitation from cotton-growers in Leeds, Shropshire, and Bognor Regis. American agricultural interests, substantially represented in legislatures, vehemently opposed bringing the Philippines inside the tariff umbrella; these interests never actually gained ascendancy, but the possibility that they might was enough to convince potential investors to keep the money in the old oak chest. It should be recalled that the gap between full pacification of the Philippines in 1908 and the Depression in 1929 was only 21 years, hardly comparable to the time it took the British to develop their profitable colonial infrastructure.