> -And how could they have financed the growing current account defict
> withouth the
> savings of the rest of world? And don´t remember that in that period many
> 3rd world
> countries followed programs of financial liberalization that have resulted
> in massive
> wealth transfers to the central countries.
Any estimates available for such global transfers? Also note that the US corporate profitability actually declined between 97-01. (See responses from Jim [D] and Doug)
> Curiously, those countries
.>which
> remained
> more or less immune to the recurrent crisis of peripheral capitalism were
> those who
> limited financial liberalization (India and China).
China's financial liberalisation may be limited, but the access to North American and Japanese markets that China gets is unprecedented. China's trade surplus with the US this year will be $120 bn. This is almost 25% of India's GDP. IMO China's is a good example of Imperialism actively promoting rapid capital accumulation in a developing economy.
> -On the other hand, I think there is something wrong with Roach analysis.
> The US
> economy grew by 3,5%/year from 1995-2002 (approximated). Multiply this to
> 32% and
> you will have 1,12% yearly growth. If US growth was 96% of worldwide
growth,
> then
> the world economy was growing by 1,16% an year? Certainly this is not true
I don't know if Roach's estimates of growth are derived on the PPP basis.
> and this
> 96% illusion is probably the result of the use of raw currency exchange
> rates, and
> as many countries in the world suffered currency devaluation (nominal
> Brazilian GDP
> in dollars fell by 60% from 1995-2002, despite a economic growth close to
> 20% in the
> same period) this will have the false impression that US was responsible
>by
> 96% of
> economic growth. A better estimate is close to 50%, I think.
Even your estimate of 50% is higher than the US share (32%) global GDP.
.> From my point the better performance of USA economy is largely due to the
dollar
> hegemony
Dollar hegemony can not be sustained merely by the capacity to print $. Surely it must ultimately be based on the quality and volume of productive capital deployed, i.e. the rate and volume of surplus value created and reinvested.
Ulhas