Kevin's blog #3

 


Based on both Susan Strange and Benjamin Cohen’s idea, a mainstream trend in global economics is the apportioned power. On the condition that standing on the original strong countries, like America, Britain, Netherlands, and so on, we won’t think the upcoming power-sharing trend as a good thing. However, I think it will be a certain future – even besides China, there will be more developing countries who will be “eligible” to have a right to speak in the global economic system. I am not indicating that this trend is good or bad, but trying to stop some other countries from getting stronger enough to join in the “high level” will not be a wise decision – generally speaking, IMF and some other organizations actually did a lot to those developing countries. Currently, attempting to reclaim that decentralized power can lead to some unfriendly cold war, especially between several impactful countries – the results can somehow be larger than we imagine. For instance, I would like to mention the economic sanctions that a lot of countries use on Russia because of the war between Russia and Ukraine. I understand that sanctions are for reasons to punish the people who start a hot war in this era, but the impact of such punishment actually might be larger than the war itself. Like the price of oil and crops in many countries recently went up. If Russia really gets expelled from the WTO, the world’s financial system would inevitably tip the balance. Furthermore, those countries who gave the sanction to Russia are mainly in the west, and it will push the Russian economy to the east(in a word, Asia), which will make the global economy marginalized. The harm the sanction brings up is horrible for the balance of the financial system indeed, let alone trying to reclaim the power from developing countries. The IMF has set the rough shape of the world economy, though,  nowadays, the turbulence happened. We realize that the sharing power might cause some unhealthy movement because the currency dominance will be moved harshly, so the better solution here might be accepting the shared power, and waiting to see the process of the on-going economic war and hot war.

Comments

  1. Kameron SchrefflerMarch 30, 2022 at 1:19 PM

    First off I would like to say that your writing was great. I like how you incorporated real world events into your writing. I also agree that there will be more developing countries that will have a chance to speak in the global economic system. What countries specifically do you feel will have this chance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brooke WallaceMarch 30, 2022 at 7:53 PM

    Kevin,
    Your blog is very well-written. I like how you explained that "original strong countries" like America and the Netherlands might be opposed to the concept of power-sharing. Yet, I see both sides because power-sharing is supported by democracy. I think that a strong democracy like the US would see it as a rather good thing. I agree with you that there will be more of a place for developing countries to voice their concerns/thoughts in the global economy. Since power-sharing is desirable, do you think that non-democratic nations like Russia and China will embrace this new trend with open arms (even though they should)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. CiaraMarch 30, 2022 at 7:57 PM

    This is definitely something I had no given much thought to but makes a ton of sense! Having smaller countries more involved may be on the rise and would be beneficial to the global economic system. This increase could provide more development and give smaller countries a chance to join in on world events. I also agree the sanctions against Russia could be harmful to the US in the future, as we have to consider Putin is strong minded and would no longer wish to work with us if he did not have to.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US

                           Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US Now more than ever, countries feel tempted to engage in a ‘currency war’ and go back and forth trying to devalue their currency in efforts to encourage exports. The two largest economies, China and the United States, seem to be in a long, bitter trade dispute as the trade relationship is significantly imbalanced. From tariffs to currency, trade tensions are clearly escalating with both sides slapping substantial tariffs on each other’s goods. Currency manipulation (arguably the world’s most protectionist international economic policy) refers to the concept of countries artificially lowering the value of their currency to achieve an unfair competitive advantage (Forbes). The U.S. Dollar is the most popular reserve, and everyone wants a stake in our economy. Unlike many other countries, China does not ha...
Read more

Kevin Yin's Blog #5

  To be honest, it has been a long time for me – a Chinese social media and news reader, not hearing any information about the follow-up of the Ukraine and Russia crisis on Chinese websites. Yes, you can’t find a lot of information about the invasion on Chinese news websites. If you do, then the news may be connected with the following reaction of European countries towards Russia, like the sanctions and changes in foreign policies. Some of the news writers did actually defame some of Ukrainian Defiance for some bad activities. It is quite clear for other people to understand the attitude of China towards the crisis. How about other Asian countries? Although I don’t want to be mean at this point, I have to indicate that the attitudes of many “second-tier power” countries are not that genuine. If we rationally consider the situation and the nature of politics, we must admit that it is not clever to think in either only a humanitarian angle or only a political angle. We need to comb...
Read more

Ciara: blog post #5

  The fear of an action might be powerful enough to scare off another party, or cause them to fear the lengths others are willing to go. As Kenneth Waltz argues in “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability” allowing more countries to obtain nuclear defense would put international relations at a general deterrence from the nuclear wars that could start. Deterrence is a strategy that can be used in order to prevent another party from undertaking an action through coercion. Many times this works as a method to keep two parties from destroying each other, or to allow a smaller army to scare off a larger one to show the lengths they would go. Nuclear deterrence can be the ultimate way of scaring off other parties as it is the strongest weapon that could potentially cause complete destruction. Even if a nuclear power is relatively small and compared to other nuclear powers would seem less threatening, once they cross the threshold they are using deterrence (Wa...
Read more