Income from India is the main driver of 18 century British naval dominance but even if we exclude India and the sugar growing Caribbean islands, there was tons of British colonial possessions that didn’t directly contribute to the treasury enough to cover expenditures but still benefited the Empire economically and enriched upperclass brits individually. There are maybe a handful of remote islands that could be considered charitable to add to the British Empire; exploitation was the name of the game everywhere else.
Where I’d say Friedman is arguing in bad faith is that the obvious goal of colonialism is value extraction by force or coercion. He may argue that due to inefficiency or resistance it didn’t actually produce significant wealth for Britain but the evidence shows otherwise.
That or he may argue that the East India Company (the origin of multinational capitalism) was not colonialism which would be divergent from historical consensus.
Fun fact, Britain had to create taxes in it’s East African colonies not to raise income but because British economic interests struggled to recruit workers from people who had everything they needed without the British. Forcing them to pay taxes in currency forced them to accept employment to acquire that currency.
Income from India is the main driver of 18 century British naval dominance but even if we exclude India and the sugar growing Caribbean islands, there was tons of British colonial possessions that didn’t directly contribute to the treasury enough to cover expenditures but still benefited the Empire economically and enriched upperclass brits individually. There are maybe a handful of remote islands that could be considered charitable to add to the British Empire; exploitation was the name of the game everywhere else.
Where I’d say Friedman is arguing in bad faith is that the obvious goal of colonialism is value extraction by force or coercion. He may argue that due to inefficiency or resistance it didn’t actually produce significant wealth for Britain but the evidence shows otherwise.
That or he may argue that the East India Company (the origin of multinational capitalism) was not colonialism which would be divergent from historical consensus.
Fun fact, Britain had to create taxes in it’s East African colonies not to raise income but because British economic interests struggled to recruit workers from people who had everything they needed without the British. Forcing them to pay taxes in currency forced them to accept employment to acquire that currency.
We call that extortion in our part of the world. I assume the British call it that today too.
I’d say coerced wage slavery.