English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper explores and contrasts the revised Bretton Woods hypothesis (BW II) with the structural Keynesian hypothesis. Whereas the former sees the growing global imbalances of the 3 decades prior to the financial crisis of 2008 as beneficial, the latter sees them as problematic and destructive of shared prosperity in the United States. Moreover, the US economic relationship with China is viewed as especially problematic as it involves the largest bi-lateral trade deficit, and because it has also been a major source of investment diversion and manufacturing job loss. The paper concludes that the BW II analogy between today's global financial system and the original Bretton Woods system is without foundation, but that it survives because the hypothesis helps rationalize and justify large trade deficits and the process of corporate globalization.

Global imbalances: benign by-product of global development or toxic consequence of corporate globalization?