Re: colonial weapons

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Tomb wrote:
>And you make the large assumption that trade exists only between
>immature colonies and their major powers. Look at today - England and
>the US and Canada have vast trading relationships, and they aren't
based
>on a lack of self sufficiency (at need, I suspect any of them could be
>self sufficient with a bunch of belt tightening and some rethinking). 

See WWII.

>Trade exists in part to move goods from regions where they are cheap to
>produce to regions where a demand exists. That does not stipulate you
>cannot produce that good at the other end, but perhaps it isn't as
>cheap. You might not choose to produce that good. But do not and could
>not are not the same things. 

You might even move goods from an area where they cost X to produce to
an area where they cost less than X to produce - _if_ the recipients can
use the time they save in not producing the things to do something else
which earns them more than they'd save by making their own things.

>And you further assume that the self-sufficiency of a colony will get
it
>out from under the power that started it... ha ha ha! That power
>probably built the colony to reap a return and to import things _it_
>needs. So making the colony self sufficient is stage 1. Stage 2 is
>having the colony contribute its goods back to the parent power in
>exchange for a few luxuries and latest-design goods that the colony
>can't (easily) produce but probably wants. 

Which is why the parent power tends to get annoyed when the colony wants
to break free - it's a major loss of investment.