is manifest.

If the countries still to be overrun are not adapted for colonisation,
the benefits accruing from imperialism, according to these
anti-imperialists, will go to merchants, manufacturers and investors
and not to wage-earners. It is often claimed that this trade which
arises from an imperialistic policy is not great enough to exercise a
beneficent influence upon the fortunes of the masses. Prof. Hobson,
writing in 1902, states that during the period since 1870, when Great
Britain launched into its latest imperialistic policy, British foreign
commerce did not grow as rapidly as population, and actually declined
in proportion to wealth. The British colonies increased their trade
with other nations more rapidly than with the home country. The newly
acquired colonies, the last fruits of imperialism, were the least
profitable. Their commerce was small, fluctuating and of low quality.
Mr. Hobson therefore comes to the conclusion "that our modern
imperialistic policy has had no appreciable influence whatever upon the
determination of our external trade."[2]

When we consider individual countries which have been the cause of much
rivalry and dissension, we discover that their commerce is often
extremely small. France has almost monopolised the trade of
Martinique, but in 1913 her total trade with that country was less than
a sixtieth of her trade with the United Kingdom and less than a
fiftieth {132} of her trade with Germany. The specifically tropical
countries, for which the nations are fighting, do not have a commerce
worth a fraction of the cost of their acquisition.[3] Nor are the
investments in the imperialistic domain nearly so large as those in
countries over which the European nations exercise no political
control. France has invested largely in Russia and the Balkans;
Germany has put capital into the United States, South America and Asia
Minor; England has gigantic sums in countries over which she exercises
no dominion. The profits from imperialistic investments are merely a
bonus. Though they loom large in the popular imagination, they are
only a small part of the national income, and even at the best these
profits go to capitalists and not to the people.

Moreover, what advantage is it to the wage-earner to have his country's
wealth exported beyond his reach? Concerning this movement towards
absentee ownership of capital, the widest divergence of opinion
prevails. The optimists among the i