rate of return on capital Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>> Carrol Cox wrote:
>> >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 agree with Doug, but why "developing" is in inverted commas?
Because it's an optimistic euphemism that hides maldevelopment, subordination, and the long-term failure to narrow the north-south income gap.
^^^^^^^^
CB: Is there such a thing as Foreign Indirect Investment ?
Here's the puzzle that occurs to me . Why does the U.S. have military bases and personnel in some 100 countries ( if something I read recently is true), why not in just the top 10 or 20 where its development is concentrated ? I would see some of it left over from the era of trying to prevent countries from becoming socialist. Are the countries without high investment being held "on ice" for future investment ? a future markets freezer on the reserved platoons of as yet unexploited economies ?