Skip to content

Comment on Umberto Eco: "the crypts of state secrets are not beyond the hacker’s grasp..."parent

Comments

What? Imperialism is seldom about money. Trade is much better to make money than war. War only costs money, and 'acquired' territories don't make money, they just cost it - so much that many a kingdom with too aggressive expansion policies has gone (nearly) bankrupt because of it.

What is Imperialism about then?

It's always about resource acquisition.

One can argue that some resources are not equal to money -- say China's imperialist expansion into non-resource rich areas as a method of buffer zone acquisition against strong foreign powers -- e.g. resources = security model.

But from before Rome on, most empires adopt an expansionist policy as a method of acquiring resources to turn into money. Kill the inhabitants, take their stuff, everybody gets rich. resource = money model.

Here's some relevant background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires bestowed, England, France and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia.

Yes, though that's not the whole story.

Have you heard of principal-agent conflicts? What benefits certain subgroups / lobbies may not benefit the organisation as a whole.

I agree. Some people, like defence contractors do make lots of money with war, though.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.