In Marxian, we discussed the inherent flaw of capitalism that as all markets deepen and intertwine a downturn in one will lead to a downturn in all. The Great Depression and Oil Crisis of 1973 seem evidence of this problem. However, this article suggests that due to “decoupling” the current American recession may not affect other countries as much as predicted. The article notes “The four biggest emerging economies, which accounted for two-fifths of global GDP growth last year, are the least dependent on the United States: exports to America account for just 8% of China’s GDP, 4% of India’s, 3% of Brazil’s and 1% of Russia’s”. Perhaps markets are not as interdependent as believed. Perhaps in a more developed global economy, floundering countries will go the way of floundering businesses in a market. Suggesting that if one market fails, all will fail may be too strong a statement. Capital will find a way to make more capital. As a result, perhaps the American recession will not hurt other economies as much as it will encourage those other economies to find new markets. Decoupling could result in countries becoming less dependent on
Friday, 7 March 2008
Interdependence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hmmm...decoupling...I don't know if I buy it.
Markets may not be tied on a first order basis, but on the second, third, etc. they are all interconnected. For example, China and the US both buy oil from many of the same African and Middle Eastern countries. A dip in the US economy may affect the economy of these intermediate countries, subsequently affecting China (then Russia, the EU...a sort of domino effect).
In the first paragraph he mentions the intertwined financial markets and then...never mentions it again. Though trade is an important aspect of the global economy, international finance and foreign investment play a preeminent role in the world economy. Though our trade (imports/exports) with certain countries may not be significant, but our foreign investment is.
yeah all good points
I probably should have critiqued the article a little. I guess I more summarized it. Stupid Economist.
Post a Comment