I had written that:
> > The data in front of me, which does not include portfolio investment
> > (it is taken from the UN World Investment Directory) yeilds an inward
> > FDI/GDP ratio of about 7.8% and outward FDI/GDP of 5.6% in 1992 for New
> > Zealand, i.e. considerably less than Canada's 19.5% and 14.1%. So by this
> > standard, Canada is more foreign dominated than New Zealand.
And Bill Rosenberg replied:
> I can't reconcile these two sets of figures for New Zealand! Using
> Statistics New Zealand's International Investment Position figures,
> in 1992 the ratios were 31.1% inwards in 1992 and 15.8% outwards
> (we're talking stocks here, not flows aren't we?).
>
Bill Burgess:
I'm sorry, I don't have my sources at hand to help figure out
why our numbers are so different, and I am shortly leaving on holidays for
3 weeks. I did have some older OECD data for 1989 on my shelf here and it
yeilds the same ratios I quoted above. I hope I did not make a mistake on
the date of the first numbers I quoted, but in any case it seems unlikely
there could have been such a change in 3 years to 1992.
Bill Rosenberg also wrote:
> ......I don't fundamentally disagree with your analysis either. But
>
> (1) recent experience has shown that policies favoured by foreign
> capital are considerably more brutal towards workers, and less
> susceptible to pressure, even than the previous reactionary regime.
> There are logical reasons for this to be so. Hence these policies
> are important for the protection of working people. They are a
> necessary but not sufficient condition.
>
> (2) As a matter of their self-interest, I don't think (what remains
> of) the New Zealand national capitalist class can survive under
> these conditions: they become simply compradore capitalists with a
> very shakey future. There are contradictions between the policies
> being followed.
>
Bill Burgess:
Are these brutal policies really the result of **foreign**
control/domination? I don't think the capitalists in either Canada or New
Zealand needed foreign inspiriation or prompting; in my humble opinion our
respective governments act first and foremost in the interests of national
capitalists. Of course they are constrained by the world market
("investment climate" etc.), and so smaller and more open economies like
NZ and to a lesser extent Canada are more vulnerable than US, Japan or
Germany. Is there any evidence those "policies favoured by foreign
capital" are not **also** favoured by capital at home?
Bill Rosenberg:
> But as a matter of record, foreign
> ownership of our large privatised corporations like Telecom and New
> Zealand Rail has led to dramatically falling employment in them,
> despite them having previously been "rationalised" by the government
> in processes designed to get them ready for sale. In addition,
> firms have been taken over and their production moved to another
> country, losing jobs in New Zealand. So in practical terms, foreign
> ownership *has* reduced employment.
>
Bill Burgess:
But are not domestic capitalists **also** shedding workers?
Aren't NZ capitalists **also** investing abroad and moving production
abroad? Is it really "foreign ownership" that has reduced employment, or
is it **capitalist** ownership?
Bill Rosenberg:
>.... Solving the problems of foreign
> control are a prerequisite to solving the other problems: to repeat,
> they are necessary, but not sufficient. It is a delusion to attempt a
> *purely* nationalist solution. It is also a delusion to think that
> socialism > (or even reformist measures significantly favourable to the
> working class) can be attained while the economy is foreign controlled.
>
Bill Burgess:
When you say "prerequisite" in a country like New Zealand I think that
goes too far. In my humble opinion, we have too much historical
evidence already on how nationalism aimed at foreign capital is highly
toxic to the unity and militancy (to say nothing of the socialism)
required to fight the offensive by our governments and employers. If New
Zealand and Canada were really semi-colonies then nationalism **would** be
a central plank in any socialist platform, but when I look at where
these countries are in the pecking order of world capitalism I don't think
such a characterization can be sustained.
Bill Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home (604) 255-5957
fax c/o (604) 822-6150
