You're right about colonialism being a net loss for the government. In the Netherlands the NSB (Dutch Nazi Party) based a lot of their messaging around the idea that if the Netherlands were to join up with the allied forces, they would be forced to relinquish their colonies.

This was absolute nonsense but it spoke to people at the time because the idea of giving the colonies their independence had become a popular talking point during the recession because they were no longer profitable (fuckery involving the united fruit company).

During the second world war the Dutch colonies would become profitable but for completely different reasons. Basically a lot of the fosfate used in bombs came from Curacao and the aluminum to craft airplanes came from Suriname.

Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.

noteworthy the british empire never turned a profit for england at all. it was losses all the way through. the english wikipedia article mentions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

edit: nvm i can't find it anymore rn. probably i remembered badly

this article (Economy of the British Empire) mentions that it was profitable.

Eh, Nazi Germany basically attacked Poland to do settler colonialism (or at least that was the regime's justification). Main difference is that the Poles were more developed that e.g. the Native Americans.

IMO the error is assuming that it was likely to be successful and profitable, war/colonialism is generally not sound government policy.

It's a matter of distance really. Germany raiding France or Brazil isn't functionally different.

Spoils and plunder isn't really trade. Rome wasn't trading for slaves, Spain wasn't trading for gold, England wasn't trading for anything that they could lift...