Re: Re: Re: RE: US foreign investment
Carrol Cox wrote: >I don't see what points (yours or anyone else's) are or are not being >"proved." It's widely believed that foreign investment is largely about chasing low wages. But most FDI is targeted at high-income countries. It's also widely believed that imperial investment is the source of superprofits that power the whole system; that doesn't seem to be borne out by the data either. Following up on Michael Yates's point - of course it's useful to compare profitability at engine plants, etc. But given the fungibility and mobility of capital, it makes plenty of sense to talk about economywide rates of profit too. People seem to think that if you assert A it somehow rules out an interest in B, C, and D. It doesn't. Doug
Re: Re: RE: US foreign investment
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Not to mention that picking two countries out of a hundred or so says > absolutely nothing about the data or any analytical technique > associated with it. > > Though the fact that U.S. assets in Norway are 130 times those in > Nicaragua, and there are 23 times as many MNC affiliates there, comes > closer to proving my point than the contrary. > I don't see what points (yours or anyone else's) are or are not being "proved." I suspect the answers (and the questions to be answered) aren't, to begin with, in these or any other statistics. First there has to be a framework of some sort to define the meaning of any figures. Facts never carry their own meaning. Many decades ago Jalee succeeded in wresting some meaning from a large complex of figures but no one here, it seems to me, has really even tried to define what the goal of the search is. Perhaps Hegel is relevant here. We have to posit a whole first, then explore what figures are relevant to what. Carrol
Re: RE: US foreign investment
Not to mention that picking two countries out of a hundred or so says absolutely nothing about the data or any analytical technique associated with it. Though the fact that U.S. assets in Norway are 130 times those in Nicaragua, and there are 23 times as many MNC affiliates there, comes closer to proving my point than the contrary. Doug Davies, Daniel wrote: >Just to suggest that although the numbers are "nearly exactly the same", >these are returns on capital we're looking at, so they need about two more >decimal places. To put it another way, although they're practically the >same, there is all the difference in the world between an investment which >earns 4.6% return and an investment which earns 7.5% return if you are >funding your investment with borrowed money at 6%. In one case, you're >making a decent profit; in the other, you're slowly going out of business. > >dd > >>If there is any meaningful economic interpretation that can be gleaned from >>all this, I have no idea what it is. Just take a look at: >>http://www.marxmail.org/foreign_investment.htm and compare Nicaragua to >>Norway. > >>Nicaragua: > >(A) Number of Affiliates -- 8 > >(B) Total Assets -- 147 > >(C) Sales -- 260 > >(D) Net Income -- 11 > >(E) Employee Compensation -- 14 > >(D) divided by (B) -- 0.07 > >(E) divided by (B) -- 0.10 > >> Norway: > >(A) Number of Affiliates -- 182 > >(B) Total Assets -- 19092 > >(C) Sales -- 12836 > >(D) Net Income -- 882 > >(E) Employee Compensation -- 1855 > >(D) divided by (B) -- 0.05 > >(E) divided by (B) -- 0.10 > > > > >___ >Email Disclaimer > >This communication is for the attention of the >named recipient only and should not be passed >on to any other person. Information relating to >any company or security, is for information >purposes only and should not be interpreted as >a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. >The information on which this communication is based >has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, >but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. >All expressions of opinion are subject to change >without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, >are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. >___
Re: Re: Re: US foreign investment
I am curious about the stats you chose. I guessed that you were trying to show something like the rate of exploitation (ie. that wages were a lower fraction of assets than income). But there is no clear reason why income should be a higher fraction of assets than any given expense (like wages) measured in the aggregate. Marx developed the idea of the rate of exploitation on the level of the firm, where the rate of profit was assumed and prices and wages moved accordingly. The yearly national accounts measure total profits rather than firm profits--and some firms could be profitable without their being aggregate nat'l profits. And there are limits to the flexibility of wages and prices. I think it would be more interesting in this context to see the ratio of debt to assets and the proportion of debt held by foreigners. Christian === Let me be as clear as I can. There was no way that I could derive any meaningful political or social analysis from the numbers available at: http://www.bea.gov/bea/di/di1usdop.htm. More to the point, to rely on such indicators without doing an in-depth analysis of particular countries is REDUCTIONIST. If people want to put those kinds of figures into a spreadsheet and play pundit with them, they should. Here is my approach: (http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism%40lists.panix.com/msg33040.html) The consumption/investment habits of the Argentine ruling class was typical of those of other Latin American economies dominated by the latifundia. Based mostly in Buenos Aires, the bourgeoisie received as much as 25 percent of Argentina's GDP through land rent. With this revenue, they spent a significant portion on goods manufactured in the USA or Europe. As Johns points out, "The elite's ardent desire to prove its cosmopolitan stature translated into a fetishism of foreign goods." No doubt such consumption habits shaped the cultural views of a sector of Argentine artists, who identified more with Europe than their own gaucho realities. With a diminished internal market, local industry had unfavorable conditions for growth. Also contributing to the structural weakness was the low incomes of the urban proletariat that earned about one-half the wages of workers in England and about one-fifth those in the USA. Finally, "high urban land rents further reduced the effective demand of urban wages, as did the unsystematic import tariffs, which afforded industry little protection but did finance the government at the cost of increasing the prices of imported goods." (Johns, 194) If class relations in the countryside were typified by sharecropping, seasonal labor and other forms of super-exploitation, the situation in the city was not much better. In fact, the urban proletariat was either unemployed for much of the year or was forced to work at pittance wages on the big estates of the pampas. In a study of the Buenos Aires proletariat, Juan Alsina wrote: "the workers in factories and workshops are usually day workers who, without any definite skills or job description, learn a job quickly. These are highly mobile workers earning minimum wages, able to perform several tasks and transfer to other jobs rapidly; they even leave their city jobs for five to six months to work in the countryside shearing wool or harvesting grain." (Johns, 196) Because manufacturers could rely on what amounted to a part-time force, it was under no particular pressure to introduce labor-saving machinery. Hiring or firing workers on a contingency basis ensured profits, but only at the expense of long-term productivity. They also made extensive use of the "putting out" system, which effectively reduced fixed costs. Enormous retail houses such as Gath y Chaves, which was the Macy's of Argentina, employed five times as many female homeworkers as their permanent staff. (Retailers typically manufactured their own goods.) In total, such retail houses and clothing factories employed 10,000 while at least 50,000 worked out of their homes. With manufacturing in such a primitive state, it is no surprise that Argentine goods were viewed as second-rate. The tanneries, for example, could not produce high-quality goods, which were in great demand overseas. Furniture shops also faced capital shortages and tended to employ artisans who turned out pieces one by one. It is also important to consider the nature of Argentine immigration, which despite being massive, tended to be far less permanent than that found in countries like Canada, the USA or Australia. Since much of the labor was based seasonally around agrarian enterprises, the work force found it necessary to return to Europe when work dried up. This prompted the nickname "golondrina", or swallow, after the birds that migrate annually. Because the Argentine economy was based in Buenos Aires and the nearby pampas, the immigrants tended to concentrate near the city and the adjoining coast. As Corradi points out, this led to over-urbanization in an agrarian society, a chara
Re: Re: US foreign investment
Lou wrote >I take the question of development and statistics quite seriously. If Henwood wanted >to respond to what I wrote, he could have explained why the statistics instead >revealed some deeper truths about Nicaragua and Norway. I am curious about the stats you chose. I guessed that you were trying to show something like the rate of exploitation (ie. that wages were a lower fraction of assets than income). But there is no clear reason why income should be a higher fraction of assets than any given expense (like wages) measured in the aggregate. Marx developed the idea of the rate of exploitation on the level of the firm, where the rate of profit was assumed and prices and wages moved accordingly. The yearly national accounts measure total profits rather than firm profits--and some firms could be profitable without their being aggregate nat'l profits. And there are limits to the flexibility of wages and prices. I think it would be more interesting in this context to see the ratio of debt to assets and the proportion of debt held by foreigners. Christian
Re: Re: RE: Re: US foreign investment
Lou, I don't think Jim was singling you out. I agree that Doug tweaked the first with the Lenin barb. Ordinarily, it would've passed without notice, except that you two have a history. Like I mentioned a minute ago, nothing outrageous has occurred. Like Jim, I noticed the temperature rising. Nothing for anybody to get upset about.Nothing for anybody to get upset about. Nothing for anybody to get upset about. On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 05:58:36PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:33:53 -0700, Devine, James wrote: > > > >getting away from sparring such as the above, it > >seems to me that if one wants to understand the > >concrete condions, it really helps to have > >statistics. Both kinds of analysis seem > >relevant, and can be complementary. > >JD > > Let me take this opportunity to clear something up. I returned to > PEN-L not to be baited by Doug Henwood. I take the question of > development and statistics quite seriously. If Henwood wanted to > respond to what I wrote, he could have explained why the statistics > instead revealed some deeper truths about Nicaragua and Norway. > Instead, he baited me. This all he knows how to do apparently. This > is really too bad, since I have earned quite a bit of respect through > the posts I have contributed to PEN-L and other leftwing lists. To > throw Lenin at me is just a step above red-baiting and the sign of an > exhausted intellect. > > -- > Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/17/2002 > > Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: US foreign investment
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:33:53 -0700, Devine, James wrote: > >getting away from sparring such as the above, it >seems to me that if one wants to understand the >concrete condions, it really helps to have >statistics. Both kinds of analysis seem >relevant, and can be complementary. >JD Let me take this opportunity to clear something up. I returned to PEN-L not to be baited by Doug Henwood. I take the question of development and statistics quite seriously. If Henwood wanted to respond to what I wrote, he could have explained why the statistics instead revealed some deeper truths about Nicaragua and Norway. Instead, he baited me. This all he knows how to do apparently. This is really too bad, since I have earned quite a bit of respect through the posts I have contributed to PEN-L and other leftwing lists. To throw Lenin at me is just a step above red-baiting and the sign of an exhausted intellect. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/17/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: US foreign investment
Why not cool the sparring, to use Jim D.'s expression. Nobody has done anything terribly provocative so far, but let us keep it that way. On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 05:18:55PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > >In other words, if the contemporary statistics > >don't say what you want them to, turn to Lenin > >instead. > > > >Doug > > Better than Lacan. > > -- > Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/17/2002 > > Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: US foreign investment
Louis Proyect wrote:>>You'll notice that (D) & (E) are practically the same for each country. So can you draw any meaningful inferences about whether the same level of exploitation exists for both countries? Obviously not. Bottom line, we have to avoid the temptation to do economic analysis based on such a reductionist view. There is no substitute for the concrete analysis of concrete class relations.<< Doug writes: > In other words, if the contemporary statistics don't say what you want them to, turn to Lenin instead.< getting away from sparring such as the above, it seems to me that if one wants to understand the concrete condions, it really helps to have statistics. Both kinds of analysis seem relevant, and can be complementary. JD
Re: Re: US foreign investment
>In other words, if the contemporary statistics >don't say what you want them to, turn to Lenin >instead. > >Doug Better than Lacan. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/17/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: US foreign investment
[13938] Varga, Eugene And L. Mendelsohn. New Data for Lenin's "Imperialism". NY: International, 1940. Hard Cover. Very Good / Very Good. 322 pgs., very light oxidation stains to endpapers, lightly bumped spine ends, slight rubbing to corners, dj lightly rubbed at edges with a few very small tears $10.0 4/17/02 11:57:03 AM, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Louis Proyect wrote: > >>You'll notice that (D) & (E) are practically the same for each country. So >>can you draw any meaningful inferences about whether the same level of >>exploitation exists for both countries? Obviously not. Bottom line, we have >>to avoid the temptation to do economic analysis based on such a >>reductionist view. There is no substitute for the concrete analysis of >>concrete class relations. > >In other words, if the contemporary statistics don't say what you >want them to, turn to Lenin instead. > >Doug > >
