For most of the last 50 years, globalization has been a win-win proposition, America richer while lifting hundreds of millions in the developing world out of poverty and despair. Recently, however, it has begun to operate differently, undermining U.S. welfare while creating imbalances likely to end in a global economic cr.
In this new mode, globalization is tilting the world like a giant sliding board on which the "flattening" of old barriers is accelerating the transfer of the supply side of the U.S. economy to the rest of the world, especially Asia. Take the semiconductor king, Intel, as an example. When economists and political leaders say American industry should concentrate on producing very-high-technology products where it has a clear comparative advantage, Intel’s chips are what they have in mind. Yet company executives recently told a presidential advisory panel that under present circumstances they must consider building more of their new factories abroad. Over the next 10 years, they explained, the cost of running a semiconductor factory in the United States could be $1 billion more than that of running it abroad.
That there is something odd here is not yet widely acknowledged. Indeed, most business, academic, media and political leaders continue to insist that globalization is proceeding smoothly, the world rich, more democratic and more peaceful. Nor is this view entirely unjustified. U.S. GDP and productivity growth are the highest in the developed economies, while inflation, unemployment and interest rates are among the lowest.
Nevertheless, a closer look reveals a dark side. The U.S. trade deficit is now more than $800 billion, or 7 percent of GDP, and grows inexorably as Americans continue to consume more than they produce. Economists typically expect the United States to import commodities and cheap manufactured goods while exporting high-tech products, sophisticated services and agricultural goods, for which its land and climate are well suited. In reality, the U.S. high-tech trade surplus of $30 billion in 1998 has collapsed to a deficit of about $40 billion. Agricultural trade is now also in deficit for the first time in memory, and the modest surplus in services is declining as global deployment of the high-speed Internet has made it possible for services to move offshore as easily as manufacturing.
Some economists speak bravely of a "soft landing". In this scenario, the United States reduces its budget deficit and excess consumption, while a gradually falling dollar results in rising exports to foreign markets where governments are stimulating consumption. While desirable, this will not occur automatically. Thus, for the sake not only of the United States but of all nations with a stake in globalization, it is imperative that political leaders change its current mode. The cannot continue with one participant playing consumer while nearly all the others play producer. For the long-term success of all, everyone must agree to play the same globalization .
To redress the present situation the author suggests that the United States