~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Bart Croughs wrote:
You claim that I must show that foreign capital investment will not flow back to US workers. But in my original post, I said:
"Of course there are advantages also for the US (shareholders will get higher returns, trade will increase), but how can you proof that these advantages will offset the disadvantage of the lowered amount of capital in the US? "
You haven't answered this question yet. I don't claim that the U.S. is worse off when US capital moves abroad. I only ask: how can you proof that the US isn't worse off when US capital moves abroad?
The movement of capital from the US was an *assumption* in Bart's argument. He has done nothing to show that it would in fact happen. When he proves that, they it would be reasonable to expect me to offer proof that foreign capital will flow to the US. It seems just as likely to me that US source capital will NOT flow overseas if it can be profitably invested in other US industries that retain--or gain--competitive advantage from relative changes in productivity, supply and demand, or whatever. In my experience, Americans are loathe to invest money overseas unless it is highly profitable. The reason is obvious. They understand--or think they understand--the rules here. In historical terms, US investments have been more stable and safer than investments overseas. (Which is why, by the way, that the US is the worlds largest tax haven in the world, but I digress.) Thus, until Bart can support his highly dubious assertion that capital that flows away from some non-competitive US industries will necessarily flow offshore, there is no need for me to prove that such a situation will probably lead to a counterbalancing foreign capital flow into the US. So far, Bart has not yet met his burden of proof. While I'm sure per capita capital investment is a *factor* in determining how high wages are, it certainly is not the only factor. It appears that Bart has fixated on this one to the exclusion of other (probably more important) factors.
If you don't know the answer, there's nothing to be ashamed of.
It is just this sort of unnecessary condescending snottiness that create the clear impression that Bart is an asshole. Perhaps he is a fine chap and this is just his style, but I find it very offensive an counter-productive in this discussion. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~