Re: Question on real net new invesment in the US

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think you know the answer to that one, it depends on who owns the chip
factory.  However, now consider the value of total net new investment in the
USA, and the total value of fixed assets in the sphere of production in the
USA, and compare this to the total value of direct foreign investment in the
USA and direct US foreign investment overseas, and, consider the value of
total imports of fixed goods and raw materials into the US as a fraction of
US GDP and as a fraction of total fixed assets in US production, for
example. Then we get this thing better into proportion, I would think.

Cheers

J.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Question on real net new invesment in the US


> If Intel contracts out to a chip factory in Thailand,
> is that a strategic asset for them or for the U.S.?
>
> mbs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jurriaan
> Bendien
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:51 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Question on real net new invesment in the US
>
>
> Max,
>
> One other thing: I do not ask this question to play silly buggers -
> according to the Bendien theory, a much more sensitive indicator of actual
> real growth, and real growth prospects, is the current level of real net
> additions to fixed assets in "strategic" sectors of the economy. The snag
> is, that it is often difficult to get really up-to-date data about this
(it
> takes quite some time to construct this data). The obsessive focus by
> conventional qualified neoclassical economists on real GDP data works to
the
> disadvantage of unqualified socialist amateur economists like me in this
> regard... :,(
>
> J.
>
>