>At least four questions are being conflated.
>
>One is simply whether, due to foreign capital,
>Indian people are better off than they were otherwise.
***Probably yes.
>
>The second is whether you want to call profit-making
>exploitation. If you're in a miserable state and I
>come along with some capital and devise a way to make
>you slightly better off and myself much better off,
>is or is that not exploitation.
***Surplus value seems to me to be an important idea, but equating it with "exploitation" in the ordinary sense of the word is problematic.
>There is also the long v. the short run -- whether
>foreign involvement provides some temporary benefits
>while precluding healthy economic development over the
>long term.
***Sometimes yes, more often no.
>Finally there is the TINA question. There may be
>three possible states of the world. One is the
>miserable, isolated state; two is foreign investment,
>maybe good temporarily, indefinitely, or never; and
>three is some kind of independent, development-
>oriented alternative.
****The latter is worth talking about, though I'm no expert as to the particulars. The best I can do is some blather about developing internal markets and keeping key resources in public hands. Social- democratic trade regimes (labor/enviro standards, some regulation of capital flows, north-to-south aid).
mbs
Well, yes, but what do you think are the answers to these excellent questions?
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk