There are two ( or more) questions being discussed. One is why there is U.S. military and colonial presence at all, i.e. is colonialism down right irrational or not in terms of immediate profits ? The other is does U.S. above average prosperity and capitalist existence period depend on colonialism.
If the rates for particular countries ( not grouped based on region, etc.) are higher than "average", then that would provide a "rational" basis for those "investments", no ? We might still wonder why irrational other "investments" in other colonies are made, but the aim of keeping them from going communist/in the profit system, even at an immediate profit rate loss, would be a candidate for a "rational" explanation of military conquest and control there. They are sort of held in the freezer for future potential and out of the hands of anti-capitalists ( mostly communists in recent decades).
On the fate of U.S. capitalism and Halliburton's contracts, my thought is they don't go into it thinking about the fate of U.S. capitalism as a whole, they just see it as "fresh meat" for their company for a future round of profitmaking.
As to other places where there is U.S. monopoly or at least dominance, I'm afraid I'll have to rely on you to tell me :>)Aren't there other countries where the U.S. companies have an advantage over other countries' companies ( U.S. based transnationals).
Finally, the point of the long quote from Marx is, I think, that the periodic gluts of capital in overproduction creates a tendency to look for new places to invest the excess capital. This is done in both rich and poor foreign nations. Not all such exports of capital are successful in bringing in a higher rate of profit immediately, but some are.
Finally, finally, ( I forgot) not everything capitalism does is "rational"
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
Charles Brown wrote:
>1) What is the rate, not absolute value, of profits from colonial
investment
>( the absolute numbers don't matter anywhere
>near as much as percentages) ? Superprofits are super rate profits ,not
>super bulk profits. They are a marginal advantage. So what is the _rate_
of
>Southern contribution to value production, surplus value production, and
>rate of profit contribution ?
Rather small. Here are the figures for 2002 - share of profits on direct investment abroad for U.S. multinationals and the rate of return (profits divided by capital stock). (The profit percentages reflect the distribution of investment pretty well.) The African resuls are mostly South Africa and Nigeria (oil). Note that if there were more profits to be earned in Africa, investment levels would be much much higher.
% of profits return all 100.0% 8.1% rich countries + Asian NICs 78.7% 8.4% world ex rich + NICs 21.3% 7.4% Latin America 13.6% 6.2% Africa 1.6% 12.9%
I've got a fuller table and a discussion of this in After the New Economy, which everyone is urged to buy in bulk <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1565847709/leftbusinessobseA/>.
>2) The U.S. is still involved in interimperialist rivalry, so U.S. military
>expansion gives U.S. imperialism an advantage over EU imperialism with
>respect to exploitation of colonies. For example, U.S. business is being
>given a monopoly in Iraq.
And where else? Does the fate of U.S. capitalism depend on Halliburton's contracts?
Doug