>I'm still trying to see why if the U.S. firms reach a point where
>they can't make a high enough rate of profit in the U.S and
>therefore invest in foreign countries ( developed or developing),
>that the other developed countries can invest here and make a profit
>that seemed to have reached a limit for the U.S. firms (causing them
>to invest over there). And alternatively, why can the U.S. firms
>make satifactory profit in the the other developed countries, when
>the firms in those countries no longer can ( and invest here !) ?
It's not just about competing levels of profit. MNCs locate abroad to build market share, be closer to foreign markets - and increase the mass of profit (a separate consideration from the rate of profit). I've read papers that argue that MNCs are actually less profitable than their domestic counterparts. I don't know that that's a certainty, but multinationalization is a very complicated thing.
Years ago, I talked with a grad student at the New School who was doing a diss on the multinationalization of U.S. firms in the 1950s. She said that the U.S. government urged them to invest abroad as part of the post-WW II plan to get dollars overseas and kickstart the global trading mechanism - and the firms were reluctant at first. I lost touch with her, and don't know what came of her research.
Doug