>It would appear then that growth or slowdown in the US economy is
>largely driven by factors internal to the US economy. That far from
>the US imperialism requiring the rest of the world for extended
>reproduction of capital in the US (as assumed by the traditional
>theory of imperialism), it is the capitalism in rest of world (or at
>least very large part of it) that requires the capital accumulation
>in the US for its own growth. Would that be accurate description of
>the relationship between the two? And if this is case, the US
>economy far from being a obstacle to the growth elsewhere, may in
>fact be a condition for it. Or am I missing something?
The traditional theory of imperialism needs a major overhaul.
Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley <http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html#anchor0> says that 96% of global growth after 1995 was accounted for by the U.S. alone - directly. Indirectly, that U.S. demand for other countries' exports was their major source of growth. So the surplus countries lend us money so we can buy from them, they accumulate more surpluses, lend us more, we buy, etc. Wheeee!
But this can't go on forever - something's got to give. The U.S. can't keep running current account deficits this large forever, and foreigners won't accumulate dollar claims forever either. I don't know how it will end, but it has to, god knows when.
Doug