> In the last 20 years, the economic surge of Asia, especially China, has brought a large trade readjustment to the world, one with few parallels with the possible exception of the rise of the Western economies several centuries ago. China’s per capita income, less than $300 in 1984, is now in the range of $10,000. The country is now the world’s second-largest economy, and becoming the largest by one measure.
> Who are some of the possible losers in this radical transformation in the global economy?
To be honest, we already know who the losers were. Median wages in the US didn't budge for 30 years, as manufacturing went downhill. Now that China is more or less industrialised, and Chinese wages are pushing up, US manufacturing is coming back.
The 2007+ recession wasn't about China taking the jobs. It was a credit crunch which wasn't really connected to anything China did, and should go away once the bad debt is all cleared.
You could argue that India's deindustrialisation created a path-dependent problem. It couldn't grow, because it had locked into a bunch of institutions that were anti-industry. But I suspect the British also helped forge those dodgy institutions. India was saddled with institutions which were designed for a richer country (risk adverse), then modified to be extractive (sending wealth back to Britain), and without the need for industry (both because India didn't have the industry, and Britain didn't want them to have it). It was a triple whammy, and it was kept in place for quite some time. Add in the inevitable costs of a revolution (and subsequent sectarian violence), and it's not too surprising that India has had a rough time.
The EU can probably survive a few decades of deindustrialisation with less issues, though the EU is a mixed blessing.
> Who are some of the possible losers in this radical transformation in the global economy?
To be honest, we already know who the losers were. Median wages in the US didn't budge for 30 years, as manufacturing went downhill. Now that China is more or less industrialised, and Chinese wages are pushing up, US manufacturing is coming back.
The 2007+ recession wasn't about China taking the jobs. It was a credit crunch which wasn't really connected to anything China did, and should go away once the bad debt is all cleared.
You could argue that India's deindustrialisation created a path-dependent problem. It couldn't grow, because it had locked into a bunch of institutions that were anti-industry. But I suspect the British also helped forge those dodgy institutions. India was saddled with institutions which were designed for a richer country (risk adverse), then modified to be extractive (sending wealth back to Britain), and without the need for industry (both because India didn't have the industry, and Britain didn't want them to have it). It was a triple whammy, and it was kept in place for quite some time. Add in the inevitable costs of a revolution (and subsequent sectarian violence), and it's not too surprising that India has had a rough time.
The EU can probably survive a few decades of deindustrialisation with less issues, though the EU is a mixed blessing.