CB: Of course, GDP in a developing country might be raised by mainly
domestic means, but at that time I think you were talking about investment
from developed countries being the main way it has actually happened, and
thus impliedly giving a gold star on the forehead to the investment from
outside.
_______
[mbs] I don't think I said anything about investment.
I could have said, or inferred, that capitalism
was the way it happened, and clearly investment
was involved, but I was not celebrating the
wonders of investment per se. As I said,
there are other ways it might have happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
GDP might go up, but we might not call this a success
for human welfare.
_________
CB: Last time we discussed this , this was my line, or Lou's
________
[mbs] Neither of you have the franchise on this line.
It's in Chap 1 of every econ textbook.
__________
CB: Was it a strawman who had that fever ?
I remember mentioning that you all didn't take into account all the
imperialist imposed wars on the developing countries in your cost/benefit
calculus.
_________
[mbs] No it was Jim Blaut, with assistance from
LP and to some extent, you.
CB: There's a good point for your side. So, should you are saying U.S.
foreign investment was good until about 1982, but now it has exhausted its
benefits ?
_______
[mbs] No the fact that we had no serious trade deficit
until 1982 means one cannot ascribe development or GDP
growth elsewhere prior to 1982 to non-existent U.S. trade
deficits.
________
CB: I discussed this with an economist once ( since export of capital is one
of the defining characteristics of imperialism in Leninist terms). He said,
no, the U.S. is still a net exporter of capital overall, but some other
imperialist countries (Japan, Germany) were exporting a lot of capital to
the U.S. because of highly skilled labor, developed distribution system and
stable politics.
>>>>>>>>
[mbs] He's using a different language than other
economists. If I knew how he defined his terms
I might be able to respond. In the terms I
understand, dimly, trade deficit equals capital
import in aggregate net terms. This does not
mean no capital is exported. It means that more
is imported than exported. And indeed, a trade
deficit with China means they accumulate more
claims on assets in the U.S. for the period
in question than the U.S. accumulates in claims
on Chinese assets.
__________
CB: Surely there is not increased penetration of Chinese capital in the U.S.
The U.S. is building plants in China, and the goods are exported to the
U.S., thus the trade deficit.
__________
[mbs] see above
>>>>>>>>>
The working class 'producerist' interest is to
export more and import less. The internationalist
translation of this is roughly balanced trade.
What we're getting is increasing imbalance,
thanks in part to the free trade regime of
which the WTO is a part.
__________
CB: The working class 'producerist' interest is narrow and shortsided. The
larger working class interest is to consider balanced trade, as you say.
Yea down with free trade , i.e. freedom for imperialist capital to do hit
and runs in the neo-colonies. CB
[mbs] Yes in the sense I defined it producerism
is narrow. But it is also positive from a political
standpoint because it is a moment in a process that
has some potential. Just like any other ordinary
labor action one might think of.
>From my populist standpoint, there is naive producerism
and a more sophisticated extension which realizes that a
progressive movement cannot grow if its trade and
economic plank rests on beggaring a neighboring
working class. Hence the point of balancing and
managing capital flows.
mbs
