Basically, your point about Holland is suspect, as is your point about Canada.
My point is that it matters little where ownership lies. The reason your point about Holland is suspect is because Britain was in a FAR better position from a per capita basis, and hasn't suffered the woes of 2 world wars (from a physical plant POV) they way Holland has. Still, Britain has been unable to sustain itself along the same lines as Holland.
As for Canada, you are wrong about the residence of ownership and the fact that they benefit at the margins. The only reason to shift plants from one country to another is overall productivity. Mexico is a case in point. While wages there are about 4 times lower than the US, they are about 1/10th as productive. Therefore, many companies that have moved plants to Mexico (or any other foreign country) have had to reexamine their move within 2 years time. The payouts don't exist.
Canada benefits because of 3 things: proximity to the largest export market in the world (US), high level of educated workers, and a weak currency (something that is an historic anomaly at this point).
Benefits of ownership don't hinge on whether it is foreign or local at all...I remember when the Japanese bought Rockefeller Center (I worked next door at the time). Everyone felt "this is it...the US is now #2"....I pointed out that this WAS it, and that the US would own it again in about 10 years time and the US would not likely fall. The reasons are myriad, but Bipin has done a good job outlining them. The US is the single MOST resilient and flexible economy in the world.
Infallible? No. Likely to fall? Not likely, but it could happen, who knows? More likely to continue to power world growth? I'd give the odds to be 3-1 in favor of that over the next 25 years. |
