>>
>>THE QUESTION OF IMPERIAL INTENT
>>By Robin Hahnel
>>
>>Not so long ago the United States was widely viewed as having lost its
>>global economic hegemony.
Again the paradigmatic case was the loss of US technological leadership in DRAMs. But it turned out that US firms were strengthening itself by buying from least cost foreign sources. Frederick Scherer makes 3 interesting points: US firms did not need the experience of meeting the demanding fabrication tolerances from basic memory chip production to master the techniques for making more complex application specific and microprocessor chips. The US dominates design and production of microprocessors whose tolerances are at least as stringent as those of DRAMS. Second, computer designers have not suffered from not having the earliest possible access to the latest chip memory layouts since their interface with computers is pretty standardized, and lower capacity chips serve as a functional, if not ideal, substitute. Finally, Japan was not successful in forcing the payment of higher prices by cartelizing production.
I tend to agree with Susan Strange that the loss of US hegemony was never more than a myth, and is even more so of one now.
>> With the end of the Cold War, the United States decided it had
>>to launch a rollback operation in East Asia if it was to maintain its global
>>hegemony. The high-growth economies of East Asia had become the main
>>challengers to American power in the region, and it was time they were
>>brought to heel."
This seems quite one sided to me as if economic problems in Japan in particular don't put strains on the US economy. E.g., distress export sales that have made unsustainable the rise in the American current account deficit from weakening export growth yet in order recapitalize its own own economy. Japan needs to sell off the US securities their purchase of which has financed said American deficit.
>> Jusuf Wanandi, head of a
>>research institute in Jakarta is more alarmed: "All our stocks and companies
>>are dirt-cheap. Foreigners may take over everything."
This is surely true, and much hinges on the redefinition of bankruptcy laws. This is discussed in Strange's book.
Yours, Rakesh