Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Why is it counter-intuitive? I would assume that colonial profits have
> >_never_ been higher in absolute terms than profits at "home" -- they are
> >simply a requirement for the absorption of capital that otherwise would
> >not be active at all.
> >
> >Return in Developed Nation: X %
> >
> >Return on additional investment in developed nation: 0 %
> >
> >Return on Investment in Colony: X/2 %. Better than nothing.
> >
> >This is why imperialism is _not_ a policy adopted by imperialist nations
> >but the very mode of existence of capital.
> >
> >It is also why capital (if not destroyed) will destroy the human
> >species.
>
> The only thing wrong with this quasi-syllogism is that the marginal
> return in the developed nation is >0%, which is why about 2/3 of FDI
> goes to developed countries (and the remainder is concentrated in
> only about 10 "developing" countries). So while capitalism may
> destroy the human species, this isn't sufficient proof.
>
I didn't really think it was -- it was a pure shot in the dark. But while I'm not at all strongly attached to my argument, your reply doesn't quite settle the issue either.
I tossed out a pure hypothetical, formulated loosely:
Given that that the return on actual investment is as you say, what would happen if what little investment there _was_ in the undeveloped world were shifted to home investment.
Or put another way, since returns on investment in the "First World" is so much greater than investment in the "third world," why is there any investment whatever in the latter. Why do _some_ capitalist firms invest in those areas that offer lower returns?
I'm trying to figure out what question I want to ask. Explore this a little.
Carrol
> Doug