Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again

[Anthony DCosta <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The implication is correct but I brought it up in the context of
imperialism (or rather the new face of it).  The US is the only economy
that can absorb China's magnitude of exports (market dependence, exercise
of hegemony?).  China's (competitive) labor-intensive exports substitutes
for other TW exports. The distribution of gains from globalization
(increased participation) for the TW (not just China) is not conclusive.
Put it another way, if prices of labor-intensive goods were to rise what
would it mean for the US economy?

Cheers, Anthony

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor				Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development		Fax: (253) 692-5718		
University of Washington			Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street				
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Brad DeLong wrote:

> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:16:02 -0700
> From: Brad DeLong <delong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PEN-L:12208] Re: Re: Re: RE: Eurocentrism once again
>
> >It is true that most of the TW are not part of this global
> >economy.  China is enough to subsidize the US with its low wage
> >production....
> >
> >Cheers, Anthony
>
> The implication is that China would be a richer place if it exported
> less, and thus subsidized the U.S. less--that each container that
> leaves Shanghai for Long Beach is a subtraction to Chinese living
> standards.
>
> I cannot see how that could possibly be true...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>
>