For a badly underdeveloped country, almost any investment is usually a good thing. Yet one of the charges leveled against foreign investment in a poor country is that it simply “exports” the profits from the investment, leaving the people in the host country as poor as ever. Is this a fair accusation? If it’s a “it depends” situation, then what makes the difference?
A good thing. Money wisely invested is good for everyone all around. The biggest obstacle/enhancemnt to the economy is rule of law. Where property rights are respected and people can move to new industries, the economy flourishes. Investment then wil speed things up. Where the government is corrupt of tyrannical, investment can never fix things or solve poverty.
Even assuming this is the case, it is the worst case. Investment presumably can’t lose more than it invests.