[lev99]

When foreign companies open a factory in a third world company the companies economy benefits significantly less then if a factory owned by citizens of the same country open up. The profits leave the country instead of stay inside, where the money can exchange hands many more times. First world companies can outbid foreign companies on labor, land, resources and bribes. This makes it harder for domestic manufacturing to start.

The jury is really out on if foreign manufacturers help third world economies or hurt them. One major benefit that is hard to quantity is that foreign manufacturing is a sign of a stable government and can increase the stability of the government.

[mozumder]

This isn't a choice between foreign-owned factory or a locally-owned factory.

This is a choice between a foreign-owned factory or no factory.

Also, why would you expect the profits to stay inside? If Nike opens a factory in Bangladesh, wouldn't the profits go to Nike? I don't understand your "local profits" statement?

And the jury isn't out on the benefits of neoliberal globalization. It's been shown to clearly reduce poverty among the global poor. It's why Bangladesh went from 41% extreme poverty to 14% extreme poverty over the last 25 years...

[lev99]

Just a clarifying statement.

In Bangladesh citizens own a factory then Bangladesh benefits much more then if Nike owns a factory. By "Local profits" I meant when locally-owned factories operate more money is kept internally then when foreign-owned factories run.

Globalization as a whole benefits most people, and this is not up for debate. I will agree with that statement.

[selimthegrim]

Those factory owners are stashing their money in Dubai, not Bangladesh