nativewolf
Active Member
Colonies were from the get go an idiotic move and exactly support my arguments. The expenditures almost always exceeded investment. The countries in Europe with the greatest economic growth did so because they had no colonies. Various German States, Denmark, etc. Colonies In Africa, were not just risky but a complete farce economically. In Latin American the silver from Mexico and Boliva financed the trade with Asia but it actually never really benefited Spain. In fact, Spains economy moved sideways for centuries and not just because of wars. You couldn't make a better argument for abandoning the "silk road" development than the experience of Europe with colonization. It is more fundamental than that though, it is a nationalistic policy not supported by economic rationale.The words change but the self-serving policies do not. Remember what you studied about colonies? How about trade agreements and treaties. The Silk Road initiatives combine all of those elements to a degree but direct Chinese financing of infrastructure is the key element.
Your historical suggestions are incorrect. You're talking about a term while the subject is content.
Let the market sort it out, things like the silk road are actually the foundation of Adam Smiths arguments. It was mercantilism that he was arguing against. The silk road is a form of state supported mercantilism and is doomed to inefficient allocation of resources as anything else.