Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment)
Charles Brown wrote: > Profits aside, two features of FDI which seem to clearly differentiate developed > and developing countries (in the context of the US foreign investment thread, > imperial vs neo-colonies) appear to be the balance between inward and outward > investment stock (biased towards outward for developed countries; overwhelmingly > inward for developing > > > > CB: Might this be termed "export of capital " ? It could be expressed as net export of capital, but that would cover up the fact that most capital exports are from one developed country to another. Bill
Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment)
Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment) by Bill Rosenberg -clip- Nice synthesis of these threads, Bill. Profits aside, two features of FDI which seem to clearly differentiate developed and developing countries (in the context of the US foreign investment thread, imperial vs neo-colonies) appear to be the balance between inward and outward investment stock (biased towards outward for developed countries; overwhelmingly inward for developing CB: Might this be termed "export of capital " ?
US foreign investment
US foreign investment by Doug Henwood 18 April 2002 19:43 UTC Doug: 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. ^^^ CB: Some uses of the term "superprofits" do not confine it to those derived from foreign investment. It may also refer to extra profits derived from racist discrimination within the U.S. , as well as monopoly profits of all types , whether foreignly or domestically derived. However, I agree that superprofits from superexploitation of lower waged workers is also alleged. I am not clear on whether the fact is only that the great bulk of foreign direct investment is in relatively high wage countries or whether the rate of profit is higher from domestic investments than investments in lower income countries as well.
Re: Re: Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment)
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:37:28 +1200, Bill Rosenberg wrote: > >It's difficult to say what profit figures would >show. The ability of TNCs to transfer their >profits from one country another for tax, >political or internal reasons must make the >profit attributed to their operations in any one >country arbitrary to a degree. It is absolutely necessary to dispense with the idea that imperialism is identical to multinationals seeking out countries where labor is cheap and profits are high. Imperialism is operative even when there is not a single US corporation or subsidiary on foreign soil. Take the petroleum industry, for example, an essential piece in the jigsaw puzzle of imperialism. Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan oil wells are owned by the government, but are forced to deal with Anglo-American corporations that market the finished product. With pliant governments, the US can continue to bleed these countries dry even if it is not operating on foreign soil. This is also true of agro-export. For example, Colombia capitalists own all of the plantations but are forced to deal with much bigger and more powerful US marketing operations that buy and process the raw beans. In general, third world cartels for products like coffee beans, etc. are at a much bigger disadvantage than oil exporters, who can at least cause shocks to the world system if they cut back on production. Higher coffee prices might cause grumbling at Starbucks, but they won't bring the advanced countries' economy crashing down. Finally, many maquilas are typically not owned directly by US corporations or subsidiaries. Nike would prefer to line up local subcontractors who it can then blame for abuses to the work-force. This, of course, is not to say that North American auto production in places like Mexico is driven by the need to compete with Korea and Japan. There is a drive to the bottom. However, to fully understand the operations of imperialism, you have to look at the full constellation of class relations not just multinational behavior. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/19/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada (and US foreign investment)
Ratios of inward and outward FDI stock to GDP, and FDI flows to gross fixed capital formation are tabulated for most countries in the various World Investment Reports of UNCTAD. They also calculate a "transnationality index" of FDI host countries, which averages the four shares: FDI flows (as a percentage of GFCF), FDI inward stocks as a percentage of GDP, value added of foreign affiliates as a percentage of GDP, and employment of foreign affiliates as a precentage of total employment. The developed countries which the 2000 report tabulates (with New Zealand at the top!) average around 13%, and the tabulated developing countries 14%. Unfortunately they don't seem interested in tabulating profits! It's difficult to say what profit figures would show. The ability of TNCs to transfer their profits from one country another for tax, political or internal reasons must make the profit attributed to their operations in any one country arbitrary to a degree. Even without deliberate transfer pricing, it is conceivable that (say) Nike would put up with lower rates of profit in Indonesia because the manufacture of its shoes is such a small part of the cost. Most of the profits may well be made elsewhere in the chain of distribution and sale. I'm not saying that it necessarily happens like that, but it is quite conceivable. To say TNCs chase cheap labour is to oversimplify. Certainly that is an important part of their motivation, but since around 76% of FDI was to developed countries (in 1999) - and 90% of mergers and acquisitions - it isn't the whole story. Other motivations include domination of their selected markets, increasing scale for competitive reasons, and security of investment. Profits aside, two features of FDI which seem to clearly differentiate developed and developing countries (in the context of the US foreign investment thread, imperial vs neo-colonies) appear to be the balance between inward and outward investment stock (biased towards outward for developed countries; overwhelmingly inward for developing); and greenfield vs mergers/acquisition investment (over 80% of FDI was M&As for all countries in 1999; but about one third of FDI to developing countries). Grant Lee remarks below that Singapore's "inward FDI is still well above outward FDI in this city-state where annual trade is also 160% !!! of GDP". Singapore has unusually high FDI, but its high level of trade is no mystery. Like Hong Kong, it has a huge entrepot function, with high levels of "re-exports" - importing for the purpose of re-exporting with little or no work done on the goods on the way through. In 1999 Hong Kong (popn about 6 million) had the world's 10th largest international trading volume (mainland China was 9th). In 2000 88.5% of its exports were re-exports, a third of these to mainland China. Its foreign investment is even more remarkable (and statistics-distorting!): with the exceptions of China and its former colonial master, the U.K., the top-ranked sources and destinations of Hong Kong investment are the tax havens of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda (1998 figures). The ownership of this investment is certainly elsewhere, including the U.S., Europe, Hong Kong itself, and China. Bill Grant Lee wrote: > > Bill Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > country inward FDI stock/GDPoutward FDI stock/GDP > > Canada 23.9% 26.9% > > Australia 28.117.1 > > UK 23.335.9 > > France 11.715.9 > > Singapore 85.856.1 > > Malaysia67.022.7 > > Indonesia 73.32.4 > > Argentina 13.95.4 > > Brazil 17.11.4 > > Interesting figures. I haven't had time to look at the comparable figures > for other countries. In any case they don't prove a permanent/structural > exclusion from "imperial" activity. For example, what about Hong Kong > (pre-1997, not that it is yet a homogenous part of China)? The last I heard > there was hardly any manufacturing left in Hong Kong because proprietors had > shifted operations to the mainland. South Africa? Saudi Arabia? > > > Note the > > obvious difference in rates of outward FDI, plus the fact that most FDI by > > Canada, France, etc. is in other imperialist countries while most FDI by > > Indonesia, Argentina, etc. is in fellow semi-colonies. > > Every bourgeoisie has to start somewhere. For example --- and I'm not going > to revisit the complexities and vitriol of the "Kenya Debate" --- but I just > came across this on the web: > > Andrea Goldstein and Njuguna S. Ndung'u, OECD Develo
Re: US foreign investment / tactics in Venezuela
SEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Year 7, Nº 15 / Monday, April 15, 2002 International trade missions, trade shows and forums on promoting business opportunities and investment, continue to be viable official policy options for conveying relevant data to economic players, with a view to trying business schemes in any country. Such activities facilitate the decision making process in connection with the development of private efforts, as they bring investors and policymakers, trade financing entities and country experts, closer together. These efforts basically reflect the features of the "investor targeting" technique as pertains to the investment promotion element. This technique follows a classification of specific actions for promoting investment, together with support services for the establishment and post-establishment of investments, which are highly valued among investors. In practice, it is a highly effective policy for attracting investments to specific industries with a competitive potential, or to address specific development needs in every country. Recently CONAPRI gave its support to and took part in a trade mission to San José (Costa Rica), in an effort organized jointly by the Foreign Ministry and BANCOEX. Several Venezuelan entrepreneurs exchanged views with their Costa Rican colleagues and explored business opportunities, joint-investments and direct foreign investment schemes in each country. This is a highly specific effort that evidences our strong interaction with public sector entities. The NA to investigate the April 11 Events Federal Legislative Council to be created Armed Forces to see Changes Chávez is back after Thursday Events CTV to analyze upcoming Union Moves OAS: Events in Venezuela not to be repeated OPEC advised to increase Production Venezuelan Crisis drives Oil Prices up Oil Supply guaranteed PDVSA Board resigns en Masse The VP and PDVSA Senior Managers meet Trends in Foreign Direct Investment Accepting an invitation from the Export and Investment Promotion Corporation of Ecuador (CORPEI), CONAPRI took part in a regional workshop on Management of Events for the Tourism Sector on April 9, 10, and 11 in Guayaquil-Ecuador. This report presents some of the trends in foreign direct investment, along with the comments on how to attract investments by one of the key speakers, Arvind Mayaram, director-general of tourism, art and culture of the Indian state of Rajasthan and member of the World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (WAIPA). If not interested in this e-publication anymore, please click on cancel delivery. --- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > US foreign investment / tactics in Venezuela > by Doyle Saylor > 18 April 2002 02:01 UTC > > -clip- > > Documents that are produced need to be accessible to > people via more > reliable attention to search engines. I am thinking > of an anecdote of > Venezuela that the press recently reported. > According to press accounts the > television stations maintained a blackout and biased > reporting against > Chavez, but that ordinary people using cell phones > were able to get the word > out anyway. We need to use the 'interactive' tools > that the whole left can > use to our advantage. Interactive here meaning > collaboration technology. > > To me then applying the example of cellphones to > collaboration here I think > important work needs to be done in teamwork for > online left lists. The sort > of one line irritation of antagonists needs to be > replaced by common > collective work that takes advantage of principles > of computing that serves > our brain work best. > > ^^^ > > CB: I saw that reported too. The revolution may not > be televised, but it may be on the radio and > cellphones. Maybe there is a challenge as to > whether it will be on email. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: US foreign investment
Doug Henwood: > It's widely believed that foreign investment is largely about chasing > low wages. You are right to address these beliefs. If you asked at a company, it would be to get a good rate of return on the investment. If I want to sell labor-intensive goods in an affluent market, then I try to set up manufacturing in a low wage country with weak unions, weak environmental laws (and little liability), and an adequate infrastructure to get my goods to their ultimate markets. >But most FDI is targeted at high-income countries. Because these countries offer affluent consumer markets if you are selling goods and services. Nike doesn't make sneakers in Indonesia because it wants to sell them in Indonesia. It wants Walmart to sell them in North America and Carrefour to sell them in Europe. So Nike benefits from Carrefour's investment in retail all over Europe, but it's Nike chasing cheap wages. I'm just using Nike as an example, but I think one of Nike's biggest investments in the past 5 years is to set up retail stores exclusively for marketing Nike in the affluent markets. This is as important to Nike than its cheap factories in Indonesia, if not more so. They could quickly substitute Vietnam for Indonesia, but the affluent markets are still the same, though competition in them might well have increased (resurgent Adidas, new brands with more cachet with younger consumers, like Skechers, etc.). High income countries also offer juicy takeover targets. A private equity group like Carlyle finds the defense contractors or telecoms or software companies it wants in affluent, developed countries (though software includes India, too). 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. I always thought how MNCs got profits was always pretty dodgy, but Enron (and Tyco) puts the whole concept in doubt for even the least skeptical people. But consider a company like Coca Cola. It went after (and got) a high stock valuation by reporting higher profits, but the 'profits' really came from selling small bottling companies to bigger ones and by passing on price hikes in materials to the bottlers. Nevertheless these were 'profits' in the scheme of things. > > 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. Japan kept investing in the US, including to build new factories, even though, overall, the rate of return for Japanese companies in the US has been rather awful, actually. It's the politics and the rush not to be locked out of the US market and NAFTA that led to this. If you were a Japanese automaker, for example, if you wanted to sell cars in the US unfettered, you had to make a show of making them there, too. They also underestimated just how much things like law suits over discrimination can cost. It was American companies who mastered the idea of manufacturing in China and then selling the goods in Japan (so US companies made profits in Japan but did nothing to create trade surplus between US and Japan). Uniqlo, a Japanese clothing retailer, has copied the model and is looking to try clothing retail in the UK--though probably wary of the US, what with the Gap bust. OTOH, US equity groups--not manufacturers, though they might hold manufacturers because they act as holding companies--are now moving into Japan and buying up banks, insurance companies, consumer finance and leasing, and real estate. I suppose if a company like Ripplewood Holdings can turn around the failed resort complex on Kyushu, they will have added some value. Other than that, most of these interests strike me as parasites seeking quick returns or the chance to hold and squeeze profits from capacity they themselves didn't create. I know they are not here to build new manufacturing to lead Japan into the next big thing that everyone is talking about, and the only turnaround plans they have is how to talk up the value of the assets so they can be sold for profits. Charles Jannuzi
RE: US foreign investment
> People seem to think that if you assert A it > somehow rules out an interest in B, C, and D. > It doesn't. > > Doug I agree with this observation. It happens everywhere, not just on PEN-L. On the other hand, if you keep asserting A repeatedly without trying to show your interest in B, C and D, then some people may conclude that you lost your interest B, C and D. This was just another observation of mine. Sabri
US foreign investment / tactics in Venezuela
US foreign investment / tactics in Venezuela by Doyle Saylor 18 April 2002 02:01 UTC -clip- Documents that are produced need to be accessible to people via more reliable attention to search engines. I am thinking of an anecdote of Venezuela that the press recently reported. According to press accounts the television stations maintained a blackout and biased reporting against Chavez, but that ordinary people using cell phones were able to get the word out anyway. We need to use the 'interactive' tools that the whole left can use to our advantage. Interactive here meaning collaboration technology. To me then applying the example of cellphones to collaboration here I think important work needs to be done in teamwork for online left lists. The sort of one line irritation of antagonists needs to be replaced by common collective work that takes advantage of principles of computing that serves our brain work best. ^^^ CB: I saw that reported too. The revolution may not be televised, but it may be on the radio and cellphones. Maybe there is a challenge as to whether it will be on email.
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: US foreign investment
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: US foreign investment
Greetings Economists, I've been following Lou Proyect's essay on Argentina, Australia, and Canada. I wanted to observe this series from a different perspective. I will start at a juncture where Lou responds to J. Devine, 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. Doyle What I want to write about is collaboration. I am glad to see Lou writing here, and the series he produced is interesting, though I am not in a position to comment on the content of the series. Rather where D. Henwood responds with a one liner to Lou, I think one can look at how people work together and what on the left could build things more. Obviously both Lou, and Doug have conflict. I'm not arguing for them to just get along. I think producing documents like what Lou did is important. He has said in the past he has access to the library at Columbia University, and he has feed back from his list of international leftists to utilize in a paper. These elements probably contributed to the depth of his work on this series of papers. Those though are exceptional circumstances most on the left don't share. I would like to see more development of the underlying methodology that made Lou's work strong with the tools that are available to us on the internet. I think collaboration is an issue that goes beyond Lou's efforts here, but also illustrated by various elements in Lou's series of thoughts. To do substantial work on the internet, we need to better utilize the internet in producing brainwork. I think that instant messaging, working on the same document, archiving and metadata are important issues for the left to advocate and build upon. Documents that are produced need to be accessible to people via more reliable attention to search engines. I am thinking of an anecdote of Venezuela that the press recently reported. According to press accounts the television stations maintained a blackout and biased reporting against Chavez, but that ordinary people using cell phones were able to get the word out anyway. We need to use the 'interactive' tools that the whole left can use to our advantage. Interactive here meaning collaboration technology. To me then applying the example of cellphones to collaboration here I think important work needs to be done in teamwork for online left lists. The sort of one line irritation of antagonists needs to be replaced by common collective work that takes advantage of principles of computing that serves our brain work best. thanks, Doyle Saylor
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 > >
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. In other words, if the contemporary statistics don't say what you want them to, turn to Lenin instead. Doug
US foreign investment
Yesterday Henwood furnished a URL for the Bureau of Economic Analysis--U.S. Direct Investment Abroad : http://www.bea.gov/bea/di/di1usdop.htm I took the liberty of extracting out only the rows that included meaningful data for all columns and added percentages based on the following: 1. Net income divided by Total Assets 2. Employee compensation divided by Total Assets 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 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. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
