Trade and Colonialism in CT

[BlackBat242]

Well, part of Britain's blindness about its colonies' economic situation was caused by India.

After the "American colonies" rebelled, India was the most valuable colony. In fact, the overall colonial economic equation was skewed by the fact that India produced more wealth for Britain after 1860 than all of her remaining colonies cost to run.

Of course, that very productivity meant that enough wealth could be siphoned off by the native administrative personnel to fund the Independence Movement that eventually forced Britain to let them go.


As for #5, consider a "pocket empire" that can manufacture its own starships, but which has been cut off from its only supply of Lanthanum (according to Traveller Chronicle #5 jump drive coils require lanthanum to function) by another "pocket empire" with which it is in a "cold war" (that might get hot real soon).

Now an exploration mission has found a large deposit of lanthanum on a t.l. 6, pop 8 world which has always insisted on remaining independent from all stellar alliances or governments.

 

[tbeard1999]

I accidentally hijacked S4's thread about skills and tech level. Our discussion of information trade led me into a digression on colonialism and its feasibility in Traveller. This is a different topic that S4's thread, so I decided to make a new topic.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
The fact that travel is expensive in Traveller would probably mean that information (which takes up little space) would be one of the primary goods traded.

You make a very fair point. But, also don't forget that books aren't sold on weight. They're sold on the information they contain. A text book is more expensive than a novel, and a medical text book is more expensive than a history text book.

My point: economics might still be an issue, especially when you compare currency from a TL 4 world to that of a TL 14 world.

The buying power of a credit on a TL 14 world will be close to the buying power of the Imperial credit. The buying power of a TL 4 credit might be more like pesos vs. the US dollar. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I addressed that in my post, but I probably should have been more explicit.

You are correct; a book costs more than its shipping cost. However, your argument seemed to rest on travel costs so that's what I focused on.

I. Information Trade

I don't know that much about book publishing economics, but I do know that manufacturing and distribution costs comprise a significant proportion of the cost of a book.

Royalties to the author may be significant -- but maybe not. A sci-fi author I once corresponded with claimed that he'd lose money if he sent a letter to every buyer of his books -- the cost of the postage stamp exceeded his royalty for the book sold.

And of course, the largest markup is the retailer's markup. My guess is that is about 40%.

That said, a typical legal treatise probably averages about $300-500US these days. These are huge (often 1000+ pages), information-dense tomes printed in very small quantities in durable bindings. These texts contain comprehensive treatments of an entire area of law (contracts, income tax law, medical malpractice, etc.)

Medical texts probably cost about the same and offer the same kind of coverage (all about treating a certain class of disease).

These books are expensive for several reasons. First, they are printed in very small quantities, which greatly increases the per book cost. Second, (I think) the authors get larger royalties due to the fact that the information is designed to be used by highly paid professionals.

Assuming 1 Traveller credit is equal to $1US in 1978, this translates to a cost of ~cr100-170 per book.

But some of these costs can be minimized. Production costs are what they are. While it's possible to setup a book printing operation on a primitive planet, book printing economics probably won't change (though some modest savings in shipping might be realized).

However, electronic books have virtually no manufacturing costs. They only require a reader.

I suspect that there would be a huge market for high-tech, cheap, solar powered electronic book readers designed for use on low tech worlds. Such readers could eliminate the manufacturing cost of books, since a single reader could access many terabytes of electronic information. Given that early models of these gadgets are available at TL 8 for about $500, I imagine they'll be given away with Happy Meals by late TL9.

There's plenty of precedent for this. On Earth, for instance, cell phones are common even in the most backward parts of Africa (surely TL4-). Ironically, cellphones are *better* suited than older wire telephones because these areas can't afford the expensive infrastructure.

And a lot can be done to eliminate author royalties.

Piracy (illegal duplication) comes immediately to mind.

Author royalties, would be nonexistent for information in the public domain. Assuming the Imperium has similar copyright laws, anything published over ~100 years ago would be in the public domain. Anyone can reprint it and no royalties are due. That means that there could be millions of TL13- medical texts available copyright-free.

(There's also the fact that ideas are not copyrightable, only their expression). So my particular description of a treatment for male pattern baldness is protected. The treatment itself, however, is not, so you could describe it without violating my copyright. (It might be protected by a process patent, but maybe not. And the duration on that is far shorter than copyright protection.)

So I don't think that *useable* information will be terribly costly for any society that interacts with the Imperium. A TL4 world will be *far* more interested in TL5-7 medicine than in expensive, cutting edge TL15 medical techniques.

II. Trade With Low Tech Worlds

And we *do* trade with Mexico, so obviously the low value of their currency isn't an absolute barrier. A TL4- world will probably have nothing to trade to a TL6+ world in the technological or knowledge-based realms. However, there are several things that they *can* trade to higher tech worlds (shipping costs permitting):

1. Enjoyment (or tourism). "Come to Crichton's World and hunt dinosaurs like your ancestors did..." "On Aphrodite Nova you'll learn all 1,000 ways to make love..." "Scale the majestic heights of Mount Olympus on Craggia". Etc. Bored, affluent folks will always be looking for more exotic experiences and will pay for the privilege. CT even acknowledges this by having a starship devoted to Safaris. The money paid by tourists will then be available to purchase off-world goods.

2. Raw materials. Anything that the low tech world has that the higher tech world needs. If, of course, it's cheaper for the high tech world than manufacturing (considering the cost of shipping). The high cost of Traveller shipping means that the raw materials must be relatively valuable. I doubt that grain would be shipped, for instance. Plants to make pharmaceuticals, unusual gems (that cannot be manufactured), etc. In MTU, for instance, petrochemicals are routinely shipped from low tech worlds to high tech worlds for use as fuel and later to make plastics. (I assume a huge bulk tanker could probably get costs down to cr200/ton. A ton can hold about 40 barrels of oil, so it really isn't as cost-prohibitive to ship as it might seem).

3. Labor. By TL9, I suspect that manufacturing on low tech (and cheap) worlds will no longer be economically attractive. The reason is that robotic manufacturing technology is becoming ever more capable and inexpensive. Also, high shipping costs reduce the attractiveness of manufacturing in low tech places. And as many US firms have discovered, worker productivity is typically quite low, compared with more expensive US workers. To say nothing of extra costs imposed due to corruption, inferior infrastructure, civil war, crude legal systems, etc.

However, the value of personal *services* will be unaffected by manufacturing advances. In fact, in a material paradise promised by nanotech gurus, personal services and real estate may be the *only* things that really have value.

Low tech worlds might have cultures that turn out particularly capable butlers, for instance. Or soldiers (see the Ghurkas, for instance). Or sexual partners for that matter. This can even be an adventure hook. The promiscuity of the "primitive" Tahitian women delighted Captain Bligh's crew and was a major factor in the mutiny on HMS Bounty. Imagine the PCs getting caught up in a mutiny on a ship they're travelling on...

Any of these things will produce wealth that the low tech worlds can use to buy high tech goods. And note that this is true whether the exchange system is currency or barter.

III. Why Not Conquer Low Tech Worlds?

At first glance, it might seem that low tech worlds would be very vulnerable to being "bought up" or conquered by high tech worlds. Especially in the case of worlds that have significant natural wealth.

However, I'd submit that colonialism won't be anywhere near as common as it was in the 16th-19th centuries. The reason is that colonialism simply does not pay. In other words, the costs of occupying and administering a colony is seldom offset by whatever wealth is extracted from it. Europe finally figured this out in the 20th century. Indeed, the precipitous decline in post-colonial living standards in former colonial possessions is strong evidence that the colonies profited more than the imperial power. (Of course, a lot of the decline was probably due to widespread embracing of Marxist principles, which seem *designed* to guarantee starvation).

A few notable exceptions *might* be situations where the colonial power utterly rapes the colony and withdraws (Belgium in the Congo). But even there, maybe not.

As for colonizing areas with serious material wealth, the modern Arab world is an argument against that happening. The colonial powers were aware of the staggering oil wealth, yet they still ended their colonial regimes.

At the end of the day, it just seems to be cheaper to buy stuff than to try to take it. Makes sense, really. It's always easier to destroy something than to make it. And insurgencies could make extraction of natural resources VERY expensive by (a) destroying the resources or interfering with the extraction of them; and (b) increasing the costs of garrisons and combat operations. Modern military operations are *very* expensive. Add to that the expense of maintaining a logistical pipeline over one or more parsecs, and it seems clear to me that colonialism is a losing proposition in economic terms.

At very least, it seems to be much cheaper to let the local warlords extract the resources from their people, then buy the resources from the warlords. That's what the industrialized nations are doing with Middle Eastern oil today.

Of course, governments *could* miscalculate or have other motives than economics. But I'd guess that these would be relatively uncommon. And the Imperium might impose legal restrictions on such operations. This, too, can be an adventure seed. <snip of MTU war story>

IV. Relocation and Genocide

At first blush, it might seem that colonialism might pay in cases where the colonial power conquers the natives and either wipes them out or relocates them from the most desirable areas. Then, the colonial power transplants its own people to exploit the wealth.

This has happened many times in history. For Americans, the most famous example is the military conquest, forced relocation and largely inadvertent extermination (through disease) of Native American populations. The Brits did it to the Zulus (who did it to some other group). The same happened to the native peoples of Australia as well.

But from the colonial power's perspective, this was no better in the final analysis. First, it's much more expensive to transport hundreds of thousands of colonists to a world. Genocide or relocation can be very expensive (and messy). People will resist far longer if their alternative is extermination or forced relocation, which means much higher military costs for the colonizing power.

And worse of all, consider what happened to the Brits -- who were the *best* at colonialism. The most lucrative of these colonies rebelled (the United States). The rest demanded and eventually got independence (Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc.) In the case of Australia, a near rebellion might have turned into a repeat of the American revolution had a very few things gone differently. And while the Brits defeated the Boers eventually, it was a very costly endeavor. And eventually, South Africa became a sovereign nation.

So if anything, the colonists from the high tech nation were even *less* willing to be exploited -- and FAR more effective at resisting it.

I see no reason that this wouldn't de true in the Third Imperium.

So even if the Imperium was willing to allow mass relocations and genocide, I don't think that economically astute worlds would tend to take this course.

As always, miscalculations or non-economic motivations might trump economic reason.

V. Viability of Colonialism in CT

A point that referees might want to bear in mind -- high tech military operations are hideously expensive. And it gets worse when a power has to maintain an extended supply line.

The implication of this is that there is almost no way that the economic benefit of seizing resources will offset the cost of using serious military force.

As an illustration, consider the Allied occupation of Iraq. Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of invading Iraq, it was *never* an economic proposition. Anyone with access to Excel can verify that siezing all of the Iraqi oil production wouldn't cover the interest on the expense of conquering and garrisoning Iraq. And that's using the estimated costs before the invasion, which were a bit low. So anyone who alleges that the invasion was merely to sieze oil resources is showing a staggering degree of economic illiteracy. In raw economic terms, it would have been infinitely cheaper to simply buy the oil from Saddam.

This fact has interesting implications for a referee who wants to run realistic campaigns. Governments and (especially) megacorporations will seldom (if ever) resort to outright invasions of attractive worlds. Such operations are just too expensive to ever turn a profit.

Rather, they will probably resort to "conquest by proxy". They'll prop up friendly regimes and undermine unfriendly ones. Military support will generally be limited to supplying weapons and some training to native forces. Special ops units would probably be able to produce benefits exceeding their costs from time to time, but such units are expensive to raise, train and equip. They'd only be committed to very high value operations.

To see this in action in the real world, look at France's activities in Africa and the Middle East. Their Iraqi activities are a textbook on this technique. The French sold Saddam billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry, with easy credit terms. They sold him a breeder reactor capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. They negotiated sweetheart deals to buy oil at lower than market rates (after the UN embargo lifted). They used the political influence to keep the friendly regime in power. But they *never* contemplated providing overt military support to Saddam. Even if military support would have been effective against the US/UK coalition, and even if was politically feasible, the cost of committing French troops would have dwarfed the economic benefits.

On rare occasions, the French *will* intervene in some minor African nation to protect French economic interests. But even there, the interventions are extremely modest. And some might argue that French notions of national prestige drive such interventions far more than economics.

The "Dream Ticket" in Mercenary is, I'm afraid, exactly that.

 

[tbeard1999]

So...if we wanted to have colonialism in CT, what would have to happen?

1. Simply assume that the colonial activities are driven by non-economic reasons. In my mind, ideology is the strongest non-economic reason. The Soviets spent *far* more wealth in Africa and Cuba than they ever received back, all in the name of spreading their religion, Marxism. The costs of British colonialism were occasionally justified by appealing to the so-called "White Man's Burden", i.e., the civilizing and religious conversions of primitives. Germany engaged in colony building as a matter of national prestige. All of these reasons could furnish a non-economic justification for colonialism in CT. The colonial powers might consider the cost of colonialism to be money well spent.

2. Assume that the colonial powers are unware that colonialism doesn't really pay. This isn't as absurd as it might seem. After all, Europe only recognized this fact *after* the economic destruction of WWI and WWII made them unable to afford colonies. A complacent and/or affluent government might be blind to the economic reality of colonies. Or, a large, entrenched colonial bureaucracy might actively conceal the true costs of colonialism. I'd add that economic literacy is not universal, nor is it immune to being trumped by ideology. Humans have a nearly limitless capacity for self-delusion. For instance, Marxists really believed that their system was superior to capitalism, despite the fact that prevailing economic theories (and common sense) predicted exactly what actually happened -- complete economic failure. Even as their system was collapsing around them, many Marxists refused to admit it. Some *still* refuse to admit it.

3. The costs of military operations would have to go WAY down. It's almost impossible to imagine how this could happen without obliterating key aspects of the Traveller universe. Cheap mercenaries might seem to be an answer. Unfortunately, war is just as expensive for mercenaries as it is for national armies. And someone has to pay the bill. It should be noted that there are two components of the cost of waging war. First is the expense of raising, equipping and training a competent military. Second is the costs of actually engaging in military operations. Mercenaries provide a way to avoid most of the first cost (you "rent" the army), but they really can't do much to lower the costs of the second activity. And the second activity is the really expensive part. Consider a US Mechanized division. It costs about $2 billion to equip. But its annual upkeep is huge -- over $1 billion per year in *salaries* and benefits alone. Add in fuel, transportation, ammunition, etc., and the operating costs can easily exceed the cost of raising the unit.

4. Assume that certain politically powerful groups *within* a nation benefit from colonialism, even if the nation as a whole suffers a loss. I don't find this a very compelling reason, for the simple reason that these groups would have to be able to control information far better than they are able to today. And if those groups were *this* powerful, it seems unlikely to me that they'd have to resort to expensive and messy colonial ventures to line their pockets. Good, old fashioned graft and pork would be a much easier and more reliable way to line your pockets. More conspiracy-tolerant referees might disagree.

5. A variant of #1, I guess. An invasion might be contemplated to secure a critical resource. It would have to be pretty important. So important that any significant disruption in trade would have consequences that far outweigh the economic cost of invading. And the possibility of disruption should be high enough to consitute a real danger.

So I'd stick with #1 or #2, with #4 as a possibility.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
Well, part of Britain's blindness about its colonies' economic situation was caused by India.

After the "American colonies" rebelled, India was the most valuable colony. In fact, the overall colonial economic equation was skewed by the fact that India produced more wealth for Britain after 1860 than all of her remaining colonies cost to run.

Of course, that very productivity meant that enough wealth could be siphoned off by the native administrative personnel to fund the Independence Movement that eventually forced Britain to let them go.


As for #5, consider a "pocket empire" that can manufacture its own starships, but which has been cut off from its only supply of Lanthanum (according to Traveller Chronicle #5 jump drive coils require lanthanum to function) by another "pocket empire" with which it is in a "cold war" (that might get hot real soon).

Now an exploration mission has found a large deposit of lanthanum on a t.l. 6, pop 8 world which has always insisted on remaining independent from all stellar alliances or governments.

All good points. I probably overstated my case when I alleged that colonialism would be extremely rare in the CT universe. It's just that most people (including the colonialists sometimes) assume that economic exploitation is the reason for colonialism. Yet it seems clear to me that colonies are usually (maybe always) losing economic propositions for the colonial power. So it's something of a cliche (and an inaccurate one at that) to assert that economic exploitation is why a starfaring nation would have colonies.

But as you note, there can be non-economic reasons that drive colonialist powers, such as a need for a crucial strategic resource.

Personally, I kinda like the idea of an entrenched colonial bureaucracy hiding the true costs of colonialism from the politicians and voters. I don't care much for conspiracy theories, but I do find this a plausible explanation for a nation continuing a colonial policy. "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy..."

As an aside, any referee who wants to run adventures involving bureaucracies should watch "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister". Not only are these series hilarious, they are absolutely dead on when it comes to how bureaucrats think and operate. If you're in a rush, just fast forward to the scenes with Sir Humphrey Appleby (the chief bureaucrat). Some quotes from Sir Humphrey:

***

"Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement"

***

"If there had been investigations, which there haven’t, or not necessarily, or I’m not at liberty to say whether there have, there would have been a project team which, had it existed, on which I cannot comment, which would now have been disbanded, if it had existed, and the members returned to their original departments, if indeed there had been any such members.".

***

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, I have something to say to you which you may not like to hear."

Jim Hacker: "Why should today be any different?"

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position."

Jim Hacker: "I wonder what made you think I didn't want to hear that?"

***

Sir Humphrey: "Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to know. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured and tortured."

Bernard: "You mean by terrorists?"

Sir Humphrey: "By the BBC, Bernard."

***

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, you said you wanted the administration figures reduced, didn't you?"

Jim Hacker: "Yes."

Sir Humphrey: "So we reduced the figures."

Jim Hacker: "But only the figures, not the number of administrators."

Sir Humphrey: "Well of course not."

Jim Hacker: "Well that is not what I meant."

Sir Humphrey: "Well really Minister, one is not a mind-reader, is one? You said reduce the figures, so we reduced the figures."

***

Jim Hacker: "Suppose he [Professor Henderson] produces one of these cautious wait-and-see reports?"

Sir Humphrey: "Well in that case we don't publish it, we use the American report instead."

Jim Hacker: "Oh fine, you mean we suppress it?"

Sir Humphrey: "Certainly not, we just don't publish it."

Jim Hacker: "What's the difference?"

Sir Humphrey: "Oh Minister, all the difference in the world. Suppression is the instrument of totalitarian dictatorship, we don't talk of that sort of thing in a free country. We simply take a democratic decision not to publish it."

***

Sir Humphrey: "Well, if I might suggest that we be realistic about this."

Jim Hacker: "By realistic you mean drop the whole scheme?"

Sir Humphrey: "Dear me, no. But perhaps a pause to regroup, a lull in which to reassess the situation and discuss alternative strategies, a space of time for mature reflection and deliberation."

Jim Hacker: "Yes, you mean drop the whole scheme."

***

Jim Hacker: "Will you answer a direct question?"

Sir Humphrey: "I strongly advise you not to ask a direct question."

Jim Hacker: "Why?"

Sir Humphrey: "It might provoke a direct answer."

Jim Hacker: "It never has yet."

***

"It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them, and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection; consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials; from which it emerges with elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decisions which is not recorded in the minutes by the officials has not been officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it; so in this particular case, if the decision would have been officially reached, it would have been recorded in the minutes by the officials and it isn't so it wasn't."

***

And my favorite quote:

[Sir Humphrey opposes the Prime Minister's decision to cancel a very expensive missile program, which of course will require an expanded bureacracy to administer. He's explaining to the minister's secretary the irrelevance of the fact that the missile won't actually make Britain safer..]

Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?

Bernard: To defend Britain.

Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.

Bernard: But surely the Russians...

Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it's not.

***

 

[BlackBat242]

A gem from Minister of Administrational Affairs James Hacker's private secretary Bernard Woolley:

“The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.”



That was the only one I had, so thanks for the others.

As I learned so many years ago, the primary duty of all bureaucracies is to ensure the continued existence and perceived importance of itself, regardless of its alledged reason for being... thus preserving the jobs of all its employees.


For example, any agency set up to eliminate poverty must not do so, because that would mean the elimination (or at least severe downsizing) of the agency (and the jobs and funding it has).

Therefore, it must appear to be working hard... and to be making progress... while not actually doing so.

 

[aramis]

To be honest, as a Baccalaureate Historian by training, I look at the colonial era, and I DO see a profit for most colonial powers, but not economic ones.

The colonies often served as a system of deportation, a way to purify the population of undesired categories of people.

Further, they fulfilled a perceived need to proselytize.

Colonialism provides massive benefits for the colonists, too, as TBeard noted.

The problem with 19th C colonialism was that the colonies were taken over from local governments; insurgency was in their birth.

In Traveller, we have some cases where worlds with habitable areas the size of continents are completely devoid of intelligent life. In such a place, colonialism makes plenty of economic sense, as insurgency requires that the colonists not see the value in their relationship.


Further still, they provided SECURE sources of certain resources; these may have been no cheaper, but were controlled, reliable sources.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
A gem from Minister of Administrational Affairs James Hacker's private secretary Bernard Woolley:

“The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.”

That sounds like something in a languages thread - Bureauspeak

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by BlackBat242:
A gem from Minister of Administrational Affairs James Hacker's private secretary Bernard Woolley:

“The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.”



That was the only one I had, so thanks for the others.

As I learned so many years ago, the primary duty of all bureaucracies is to ensure the continued existence and perceived importance of itself, regardless of its alledged reason for being... thus preserving the jobs of all its employees.


For example, any agency set up to eliminate poverty must not do so, because that would mean the elimination (or at least severe downsizing) of the agency (and the jobs and funding it has).

Therefore, it must appear to be working hard... and to be making progress... while not actually doing so.

I can't find one superb quote, so I'll paraphrase it. Minister Hacker is questioning why the bureaucracy won't shut down a huge, expensive, completely staffed hospital that has no patients. Appleby is perplexed by the question and asks for clarifications. Hacker does so and says that the hospital should be closed BECAUSE IT HAS NO PATIENTS. Appleby is shocked at such an outlandish notion and replies "but you wouldn't disband the Army merely because there was no war, Minister!"

--Ty

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
However, I'd submit that colonialism won't be anywhere near as common as it was in the 16th-19th centuries. The reason is that colonialism simply does not pay.

Tbeard,

How delightfully Marxist of you!

Looking around at the former sugar colonies in the Western Hemisphere that various European powers still own, let me suggest a qualifier to that statement:

Colonialism does pay at certain times at certain places and colonialism does not pay in all times at all places.

In other words, the costs of occupying and administering a colony is seldom offset by whatever wealth is extracted from it.

Except in some places at some times. Such as when (for whatever reason) the natives no longer exist so the colonial power in question ships in a labor force it controls and that labor force never reaches the 'critical mass' necessary in numbers and/or affluence and/or political beliefs to desire independence.

Historical places that fit this mold include the Caribbean sugar islands I mentioned and Russian Siberia. You'll note that the last is still essentially a colony too.

Indeed, the precipitous decline in post-colonial living standards in former colonial possessions is strong evidence that the colonies profited more than the imperial power.

That statement, of course, completely ignores the former colonies in Asia like Taiwan and Singapore. Let's broaden our sample beyond the train wreck that is Africa, shall we? Africa is an example of Africa and little else.

Anyway, the decline had more to do with a lack of competent post-colonial administration and governance than anything else. Anyone who knew what they were doing left with the colonial power. And any competence left with them because very few natives were ever educated or brought into the governing process long enough to know what they were doing.

(Of course, a lot of the decline was probably due to widespread embracing of Marxist principles, which seem *designed* to guarantee starvation).

There was that too... but not in all cases.

Some colonies during some times and in some places did very well indeed. India paid well for centuries, until political changes required Britain to control it more and more directly and thus less and less cheaply.

Even certain colonies in Africa paid for themselves until European 'guilt' decided a technological and sociological 'uplift' was in order - primarily as an excuse for grabbing colonies in the first place - and colonial costs increased. As with the British in India, the Portuguese maintained revenue producing colonies in Africa for centuries until political changes made them revenue sinks.

As for colonizing areas with serious material wealth, the modern Arab world is an argument against that happening. The colonial powers were aware of the staggering oil wealth, yet they still ended their colonial regimes.

Because they believed they could control the local warloards far more cheaply.

At very least, it seems to be much cheaper to let the local warlords extract the resources from their people, then buy the resources from the warlords.

That's called 'Indirect Rule' and it was the British Empire's SOP up until roughly the 1880s. You'll notice that Britain lost nearly all her empire within two generations of abandoning that policy.

That's what the industrialized nations are doing with Middle Eastern oil today.

Very much so.

As you point out correctly, there are many other reasons for colonies besides economic ones. However, just because the economic rationale behind colonies have failed in most places over the last century or so, it doesn't follow that the economic rationale behind colonies has always failed or will always fail everywhere.

The dialetic need not apply.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[tinker123]

Originally posted by Aramis:
To be honest, as a Baccalaureate Historian by training, I look at the colonial era, and I DO see a profit for most colonial powers, but not economic ones.

There were similar benefits for the ancient Greek colonisation movement. Colonies provided land to support an expanding population, as well as trade opportunities and tax revenues. New raw materials were tapped in the form of grain from Ukraine's Black Sea coast.

Those colonies were typically planted into under-settled areas around the Aegean and in southern Italy & Sicily. Naples is Greek for new-town.

Also there's an interesting twist to the British colonisation of India, in that it was originally managed by a corporation (the East India Company), and the government only stepped in when the company ran into difficulties.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
However, I'd submit that colonialism won't be anywhere near as common as it was in the 16th-19th centuries. The reason is that colonialism simply does not pay.

Tbeard,

How delightfully Marxist of you!

...

As you point out correctly, there are many other reasons for colonies besides economic ones. However, just because the economic rationale behind colonies have failed in most places over the last century or so, it doesn't follow that the economic rationale behind colonies has always failed or will always fail everywhere.

The dialetic need not apply.


Have fun,
Bill </font>[/QUOTE]<chuckle> Well, that may be the first time in my life that I've ever been called a Marxist. Anyone who knows me can attest to how good a tweak that is. Well done sir.

I guess Shakespeare was right...a man will play many roles in his life.

(RANT ON)

But in my defense, I have to point out that Marxism is a *religion* and that its adherents claim nearly *everything* that has happened was predicted by Marx. So it would be hard *not* to agree with them at some point. Marxism is a classic illustration of the fact that "even a broken clock is correct twice a day".

It's ironic, however, that Marxism is often brought up (if only in jest) when a historical interpretation is done along economic lines. Marx did contend that economics is the driving factor in history. Well, actually, he took hundreds of stupifyingly dull pages to assert that, but why quibble?

The problems are that (a) Marx's ideas about economics were absurd at best and downright delusional at worse(see the patently absurd Marxist theory of value for instance); (b) his predictive mechanism failed to accurately predict -- reading tea leaves would have been a better way to predict the future IMHO; and (c) saying that economics is a huge factor in history is about as profound as observing that the sky is often blue.

This was so before Marx created the most murderous religion in history. Of course, only a fool or a lunatic would assert that it is the only significant force in history. And I'd note that the most devastating critiques of Marxism appeared a couple thousand years before Marx decided to inspire the greatest mass murderers in history:

"For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." (Aristotle, Politics, Bk2, III)

(RANT OFF)

Ah...that felt good.

And since I think economics is the most commonly asserted motivation for colonialism (both from its critics and its few defenders, to say nothing of the colonialists themselves), it seemed reasonable to me to focus on economics.

I guess I should include a disclaimer in my posts. I tend to post during lulls in my real job (lawyering), which involves making a lot of categorical assertions. It's hard to break that habit at work. So anytime I make what appears to be a categorical statement, you should assume that I mean that my assertion is true in a majority of significant cases.

That said, I stand on my assertion that colonialism is *extremely* unlikely to be profitable in economic terms. I will concede that my analysis of the decline in post-colonial living standards focused a bit too strongly on Africa. However, I don't think that most Asian former colonies improved their situation soon after becoming independent. And the Marxism insanity did not take hold as strongly in former Non-African colonies, so some of them were spared the famine and genocide that seems to characterize every Worker's Paradise.

Vietnam is an interesting oddball that may be a major exception to my contention. Or not. At the very least, it's a pretty unique colonial story.

A French colony from the 1800s, it was occupied by the brutal Japanese during WWII, then reoccupied by the French (who were arguably the most inept of the major colonial players).

It then fought for and won its freedom, at what would have to be a high cost.* I can't imagine that there was much "standard of living" to decline after that. It then fought a long, costly war to ultimately reunite South Vietnam. While it received lavish materiel support from the Soviet Union and China, I can't see how this would have compensated much for the damage suffered in 3 decades of war. So it would be hard to draw any conclusions about whether it was better off under colonialism.

The Vietnam situation might make an interesting CT world (if the referee avoids obvious stereotypes and symbolism). The GDW wargame "Bloodtree Rebellion" is a good example of applying guerilla warfare to a futuristic setting.

And I should note that a colony can be unprofitable for the colonial power *and* a lousy deal for the natives.

In any case, I think that a referee should carefully consider the *reasons* for colonialism, if that's gonna be common in his universe, and not rely on the cliche that it's all about "exploitation".

*Also being a history major (I was about 1/3 of the way to my PhD before selling out and going to law school), and a wargamer, I've studied military and economic history pretty seriously as well. I've noticed 2 things that would apply to this analysis. First, openly available Communist historiography is almost completely worthless as serious history. Second, non-westerners usually suffer many times more casualties in wars with western powers. I don't know what the Vietminh casualties were in the Franco-Vietminh war, but I suspect they were very high.

 

[Icosahedron]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
3. Cheap mercenaries might seem to be an answer. Unfortunately, war is just as expensive for mercenaries as it is for national armies. And someone has to pay the bill.

I'm not an economist, politician or historian, (maybe it shows?) but perhaps paying mercenaries a small stipend and allowing them to take their own spoils would significantly reduce costs, especially if the mercenaries were hired by a corporation that was itself allowed free reign of the planet provided they paid their taxes...
If the natives get a bit uppity with the post-invasion policemen, one could always threaten to bring back the 'Satan's Rapists' mercenary battalion, rather than employ more policemen.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Icosahedron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
3. Cheap mercenaries might seem to be an answer. Unfortunately, war is just as expensive for mercenaries as it is for national armies. And someone has to pay the bill.

I'm not an economist, politician or historian, (maybe it shows?) but perhaps paying mercenaries a small stipend and allowing them to take their own spoils would significantly reduce costs, especially if the mercenaries were hired by a corporation that was itself allowed free reign of the planet provided they paid their taxes...
If the natives get a bit uppity with the post-invasion policemen, one could always threaten to bring back the 'Satan's Rapists' mercenary battalion, rather than employ more policemen.

</font>[/QUOTE]That's a pretty clever way to shift the costs onto the natives. The only criticism I can come up with is that this would probably make an insurgency more likely. However, it's certainly possible that any additional cost would be offset by the savings on mercenary fees.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And since I think economics is the most commonly asserted motivation for colonialism (both from its critics and its few defenders, to say nothing of the colonialists themselves), it seemed reasonable to me to focus on economics.

Tbeard,

Reasonable? Hardly.

You spent several paragraphs 'ranting' about how Marx's "Everything Boils Down To Economics" religion is wrong and then you still approach colonialism from a Marxist viewpoint.

You also failed to look at the entire history of colonialism across all of human history and instead, like Marx and his adherents, examined only the failed colonial economic situation of the mid-1800s onwards.

For a fellow who loathes Marx, you certainly follow his limited approach to historiography a great deal.

I'll post my qualifier to your 'universal' statement again:

Colonialism does pay at certain times at certain places and colonialism does not pay in all times at all places.

I tend to post during lulls in my real job (lawyering), which involves making a lot of categorical assertions.

Lawyer? That explains a great deal.

I'm an engineer so I deal in all the actual facts that are pertinant to a problem. That means I take a 'deep' look at colonialism, one that encompasses all of human history, while you marshall only those limited number of facts that can 'prove' your case.

Like you suppose, it's matter of habit.

... you should assume that I mean that my assertion is true in a majority of significant cases.

"A majority of significant cases within a specific time period" would be more accurate.

That said, I stand on my assertion that colonialism is *extremely* unlikely to be profitable in economic terms.

Again, only in your narrowly limited historical sample. The 'old', or pre-1800s, European empires paid pretty damn well.

However, I don't think that most Asian former colonies improved their situation soon after becoming independent.

Thye did so well within the lifetimes of the Independence 'generation'. Something sub-Saharan Africa never achieved, except in one case.

And the Marxism insanity...

Again with Marx! Marx is not the end all and be all of colonialism, colonial economics, or economics. Leave him out of the equation. What happened to colonies after they recieved independence has little to do with the economies they were plugged into before independence.

Vietnam is an interesting oddball that may be a major exception to my contention.

There are several exceptions to your contention, enough exceptions in fact to make your contention the exception. Try looking past ~1850 AD.

snip of the usual Vietnam stuff

... reoccupied by the French (who were arguably the most inept of the major colonial players).

Most inept? leaving aside the so-called Russian Federation, the French own of the largest remaining colonial empires. And, when you remember they have upwards of 15,000 troops permanently stationed in a gaggle of West African 'nations' that also happen to be 'former' French colonies, you'll realize their empire is more extensive yet.

[And I should note that a colony can be unprofitable for the colonial power *and* a lousy deal for the natives.

Again, colonies are unprofitable when you administer them in certain ways. Colonies can be very profitable when they are administered in other ways.

... and not rely on the cliche that it's all about "exploitation".

The cliche about exploitation you rail about is straight from Marx. There has been and can be profitable exploitation by the colonial power.

Also being a history major (I was about 1/3 of the way to my PhD before selling out and going to law school), and a wargamer, I've studied military and economic history pretty seriously as well.

Shrug. I've a minor in Colonial American history to go with my major in Nuclear Engineering. I've also been a wargamer since 1972.

The fact that you were in a history PhD program only means that you were steeped in academia for a period, an academia that is, for the most part, leftist and small 'm' marxist if not wholly Marxist in outlook. That means, despite knowing Marx for an idiot, you were still 'trained' to look at history through Marxist or Marxist-influenced eyes. Hence your statements about colonialism that focus only on the last 150 years while ignoring all of colonialism throughout the entirety of human history.

Second, non-westerners usually suffer many times more casualties in wars with western powers. I don't know what the Vietminh casualties were in the Franco-Vietminh war, but I suspect they were very high.

Vietnam 'admits' - for what good that is worth - that it's casulties during the American Period (between ~1965 to 1975) were over 1 million. While the French weren't blessed with the level of technology and industrial supply the Americans were, I'd suspect Vietnamese casulties in the Franco-Vietminh to be similar.

I'll post my qualifier again:

Colonialism does pay at certain times at certain places and colonialism does not pay in all times at all places.

Our 'snapshot' of the Third Imperium is just that, a snapshot or a peek of a brief moment in time. Planet Alpha may very well hold Planet Bravo as a colonial possession at the time the snapshot was taken. Planet Alpha may very well make a profit off that arrangement. However, it doesn't follow that Planet Alpha has always owned Planet Bravo or will always own Planet Bravo, just as it doesn't follow that Planet Alpha will always make a profit or will always fail to make a profit.

Things change. What works one day, might not work the next, and vice versa. History is deep, both in the Real World and in the OTU. To understand it we need to examine far more than just the last 150 years.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And since I think economics is the most commonly asserted motivation for colonialism (both from its critics and its few defenders, to say nothing of the colonialists themselves), it seemed reasonable to me to focus on economics.

Tbeard,

Reasonable? Hardly.

You spent several paragraphs 'ranting' about how Marx's "Everything Boils Down To Economics" religion is wrong and then you still approach colonialism from a Marxist viewpoint.

</font>[/QUOTE]

I am perplexed as to why you would misunderstand my critique. I thought I was very clear on what I think the flaws in Marxist religious dogma are. In case you missed them...

1. Marx's economic theories were absurd at best and downright delusional at worse(see the patently absurd Marxist theory of value for instance).

2. His predictive mechanism failed to accurately predict -- reading tea leaves would have been a better way to predict the future IMHO; and

3. Saying that economics is a huge factor in history is about as profound as observing that the sky is often blue.

<shrug>

I don't think I can be any clearer.

And since *you* brought Marx up in your post, it seems odd for you to object to the fact that I commented on Marx.

Nor is it clear to me how this constitutes an endorsement of Marxist historical theories. At absolute worst, all I implied is that economics is a very important factor in history. Of course, I mean *real* economics, not Marxist religious dogma.

You also failed to look at the entire history of colonialism across all of human history and instead, like Marx and his adherents, examined only the failed colonial economic situation of the mid-1800s onwards.

Well...guilty as charged. I don't know what I could have been thinking when I failed to look at all of human history.

Gee...I guess I should have said something like "However, I'd submit that colonialism won't be anywhere near as common as it was in the 16th-19th centuries"...

For a fellow who loathes Marx, you certainly follow his limited approach to historiography a great deal.

"I don't think colonies are likely to be economic benefits for colonial powers" seems rather different than ascribing virtually all significant historical events to a twisted and patently absurd economic theory.

I'll post my qualifier to your 'universal' statement again:

Colonialism does pay at certain times at certain places and colonialism does not pay in all times at all places.

Well, I welcome examples of 16-19th century colonialism that did pay. But I would note -- and please understand I hold you in the highest regard -- that your statement is really, well, kinda *obvious*.

And since I explicitely qualified my assertions, I don't see your point. Or more accurately, your point doesn't seem to add anything that isn't (a) stipulated in my previous posts; and (b) blindingly obvious.

Feel free to enlighten us here. I'm always willing to learn.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I tend to post during lulls in my real job (lawyering), which involves making a lot of categorical assertions.

Lawyer? That explains a great deal.</font>[/QUOTE]Gee...never heard a lawyer bash before.

I give you a 1.2 out of 5. I really think that you can do better, though.

I'm an engineer so I deal in all the actual facts that are pertinant <sic> to a problem.

Well, I am impressed. I meet so few omniscient folks these days.

You know, none of my dozen or so engineer clients (electrical, chemical mostly, though one is an MIT materials science wallah) claim omniscience. What's it like to know everything?

But on an unrelated point, should I take that long position in pork bellies?

And by the way -- You probably shouldn't waste your obviously valuable time criticizing me for failing to have "all the actual facts that are pertinant <sic> to a problem".

I'll stipulate that I have imperfect knowledge of...well, everything, really.

<sigh> Not all of us can be you, you know.

That means I take a 'deep' look at colonialism, one that encompasses all of human history, while you marshall only those limited number of facts that can 'prove' your case.

For an omniscient being, you sure do a lousy job of mindreading...

Like you suppose, it's matter of habit.

Still not there on that whole mindreading thing...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />... you should assume that I mean that my assertion is true in a majority of significant cases.

"A majority of significant cases within a specific time period" would be more accurate.</font>[/QUOTE]

<shrug>

Gosh, I wish I'd explicitely limited the scope of my contentions to the 16-19th centuries.

If I had done so, you'd be in the odd position of complaining that I only looked at certain periods when I stated at the outset that I was only looking at certain periods.

Good thing for you I didn't say something like "I'd submit that colonialism won't be anywhere near as common as it was in the 16th-19th centuries".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That said, I stand on my assertion that colonialism is *extremely* unlikely to be profitable in economic terms.

Again, only in your narrowly limited historical sample.</font>[/QUOTE]

Uh...yes. Gee...I wish I'd specifically limited the scope of my statement by saying something like "I'd submit that colonialism won't be anywhere near as common as it was in the 16th-19th centuries".

And again, feel free to deploy your knowledge of *all* facts to enlighten us. I just can't wait.

The 'old', or pre-1800s, European empires paid pretty damn well.

Evidence?

And the Marxism insanity...

Again with Marx! Marx is not the end all and be all of colonialism, colonial economics, or economics.

Well...that's a load off. Glad you let us know before I made a BIG mistake.

And to think I was gonna invite Marx and his 3 brothers to dinner.

Leave him out of the equation. What happened to colonies after they recieved independence has little to do with the economies they were plugged into before independence.

Did you forget that *you* brought Marx up in your post?

In any case, it seems reasonably clear to me that Marxism was a major contributing factor to the collapse of former African colonies. Indeed, it's really hard to come up with a religion that would be *better* at producing starvation, economic collapse and genocide.

And I did muse that the post-colonial collapse of African colonies might indicate that they got more out of colonialism. So I think I have an obligation to note that there are other explanations for that collapse, such as Marxism.

Hmmn...doesn't seem to fit your supposition that I am skewing the evidence to fit an argument, does it?

And I must say...you seem kinda *sensitive* about criticisms of the most murderous religion in history. I do apologize if I offended your religious beliefs.

<snip of rest>

Things change. What works one day, might not work the next, and vice versa.

Um...yeah. Well, thanks for reminding us about that.

History is deep, both in the Real World and in the OTU. To understand it we need to examine far more than just the last 150 years.

Unless, of course, we are confining the analysis to a particular period.

In any case, I'd be obliged if you can correct any *meaningful* factual mistatements I've made. But feel free to omit mindless quibbling over insignificant points, blinding glimpses of the obvious, arguments against assertions I haven't made, etc. I won't mind.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Icosahedron:
I'm not an economist, politician or historian, ...

Stop bragging