I just wanted to change the misleading subject line of this thread: Clearly nations that are not particularly "exploited" (in any definition) by imperialism _do_ have their development blocked by it. I'm not satisfied at all with my substitute subject line, but it is an improvement. Anyone else have a suggestion for what the real question is in this thread? Carrol ------
Original messager from Ulhas: ---
Alexandre Fenelon wrote:
> Good for you that are achieving high growth rates with so few FDI. Brazil,
> despite this massive inflows of FDI, had the following growth rates from
> 1996-2000 (approximate)
>
> 1996-2,5% 1997-3,6% 1998-0,4% 1999-1% 2000-4,5%
> Far from an economic boom, right? My point is that FDI is more or less
> like external loans. Can provide a boost to your economic development if
> properly managed, but simply cannot replace local capital accumulation,
> and results in significant extra expenses latter as profits are repatriated.
Yes. I agree totally. This is particularly true for large nation-states like Brazil, China and Russia.
> The worst possible way to deal with FDI is selling local firms (private
> of public) as you get all the disadvantages of FDI withouth anything being
> added to your productive capacity (privatization, btw, was one of the main
> sources of FDI in Brazil in the mentioned period).
Yes. I agree.
Ulhas