Both Adam Smith and John Hobson declared British imperialism unsound national policy from a strictly economic standpoint.
1. First, what did they mean by British imperialism?
2. Second, why did they agree that British imperialism was an economic burden on Britain, not a benefit.
3. What were their difference, if any, on their analysis of British imperialism's real cause?
4. Is imperialism ever economically beneficial to the imperialist mother country?
5. Is it beneficial in some other way? (drawing both questions on Smith and Hobson, answering persuasively).
6. What is imperialism? If it is sometimes beneficial?
A brief explanation to these questions will be sufficient. Thank you!
By responding to the questions, this solution examines British imperialism from the perspectives of Adam Smith and John Hobson, as well as if imperialism was beneficial to the mother country. It also discusses imperialism and if it is beneficial. Supplemented with three articles on imperialism and racism.