THE ANATOMY OF CHINA´S EXPORTS
In the preceding part, we have seen the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position and viewpoint on bureaucratic capitalism to understand the development of foreign direct investment (FDI) and bureaucrat capitalism in this region of the world. After that, we related the China´s FDI growth with the increasing subjugation of the Chinese economy to foreign imperialist capital requirements, becoming a “global maquila” or, as called also by the imperialist press, the “global export platform”.
About that, we have to see the specific nature of the imperialist capital exports to China, its difference from the capital export to other imperialist countries, which has to do with that fact that it is an imperialist country with late development, most backward in terms of capitalism development, resulting from the destruction of a more advanced economy, the socialist economy, with which China was overcoming centuries of backwardness. As for its backwardness, it shows a similar situation as that of the imperialist Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution in comparison to more advanced imperialist countries, as Lenin observed well. Therefore, FDI has targeted China in the two previous decades in volumes that have beaten all records. Thus the imperialist finance capital has disputed the exact dominance over this economic territory. Lenin said about this: “The capital exporting countries have divided the world among themselves in the figurative sense of the term. But finance capital has led to the actual division of the world “(40).
That is the “secret” of the “economic miracle” of the revisionist China. Therefore, the historical comparison does not corresponds to the Japan and Germany´s case because of their latter development, they were a young capitalism with respect to France and England (old capitalism), hence that they exceeded them before the First World War. It is very important to point out all of this, to crush all the false information that the ROL repeats at home and abroad, to convey a distorted view of the international situation, to combat its impact in our ranks.
The imperialist finance capital was poured into China (41) and set in it an important link for its monopolistic networks, to obtain super profits by using china as an “export platform” and that is how the actual occupation of this economic territory has been. But that does not satisfy or satiate the domination appetite of the imperialist finance capital; it has its eye put on the Chinese domestic market, as a new market that is opening for them. That’s why it increasingly pushes the revisionist bosses. The Imperialist dispute grows – through their investments and the establishment of their monopolies -, the imperialist countries seek to beat the competition to take the advantage position cognizant of the development of this “potential huge market.” At the same time, US imperialism and its other rivals, never lay down its plans to divide China and will continue trying to boost the internal forces to dissociate and subvert this vast country fraught with contradictions.
THE REVISIONIST INVEST ABROAD BECAUSE OF THEIR CLASS CHARACTER AND THE DELAY OF THE ECONOMY
It is a “potential” market because it still doesn’t have no effective demand comparable to the size of its population: because of low incomes and restrained consumption (high savings rate). This becomes a negative phenomenon because it is subtracted from the internal reproduction process. In addition, the so-called national saving has had a large increase in the last two decades, but instead of using it to develop the economy and life of the masses, ie in the productive and households consumption, the revisionists in the state and economy power use it for financial speculation of all kinds, such as buying US Treasuries bonds.
Bourgeois economists confirm that China cannot invest this great mass of money at home because of the backwardness of the economy does leave a place for it (42). It´s economy is so irrational that even before the 2008 crisis; it had problems of overinvestment in different industries, resulting in a large idle capacity and therefore lower productivity. The most striking example is the real estate industry, which has been described as the “Titanic of the Chinese economy,” referring to the large and most modern cruise of early twentieth century, which sank on its maiden voyage.
The truth is that, as they are imperialists, these revisionists thugs, are not going to invest that abundant capital in the development of the country and the welfare of the masses, but it will be exported looking for super-profits and buying US Treasuries bonds to keep the relationship dollar-Remin in benefit of their exports, with which they increase their imperialist rent, the parasitism.
All that we have said concerning China and its rightful place on the world stage as an imperialist country is confirmed by what was addressed on this regard on the last congress of the Chinese revisionist party and the new plans of the Chinese government to “stop the exportation model” to look for the expansion of domestic consumption. This, as Chairman Gonzalo teaches us, constitutes a political proof.
It is necessary to note that after the Teng´s anti-communist coup, China began the “reforms of the market economy” against the socialist planned economy, which have developed over a long period and ” firmly took place in the early 90s; Deng Xiaoping’s “southern tour” is a noticeable mark in the economic reforms in China. Such an event took place in 1992. “(43)
The revisionist party new leader, just installed, traveled to the US and the countries of the EU, for what reason? To reassure to the other imperialists that in the Chinese economic policy there won´t be any fundamental changes. As we have said, by class nature the Chinese social imperialists are not on behalf of investing the large earned profits in the development of agriculture, in the balanced development of the country and in meeting the masses´ needs, on the contrary, each time they dismiss more people from the countryside to the cities through economic and extra economic means, to concentrate large armies of cheap to increase competition among workers in favor of the imperialist capital; as all other imperialist they export their capital to more profitable locations for speculative imperialist super profits overseas.
In the face of the exhaustion of their “exportation model”, the Chinese social imperialists are seeking to reorganize and develop its banking, finance and general services sector. That is the core of the current “economic reforms” that the revisionists, usurping the CPC, have launched, this has been said by diverse analysts.
Pondering on information:
“With the ‘economic liberalization’ during the 80s, the Chinese leaders established special economic zones in areas such as Shenzhen” (…) where the materials and components imports free of customs duties was authorized. That was a great success (…) to meet the global demand for inexpensive clothing and toys, made in China, in the global workshop “.(44)
We comment: This led China to its dependence on the world market and its crisis, as a link of the world imperialist monopolies’ chain, as the current “exportation model” of assembled products and raw materials -and in turn importer of intermediate products and raw materials, which has meant big profits for a handful of the large native and foreign bourgeoisie and has brought great calamities for the vast majority of the proletariat and people, a great deformation of the social-imperialist country´s economy and its economic dependence on the more powerful imperialist countries. It’s important to remember that the social imperialist Soviet Union became dependent on oil and gas exports since the late fifties and importer of industrial products and technology (FDI) and then definitely sank.
Naturally, this is from the Marxist-Leninist- Maoist Chairmen Gonzalo´s Thought point of view and position, contrary to that presented by the bourgeois economists in charge of the imperialist propaganda about the benefits of “globalization,” especially of that group linked to one big investment banks, who in early 2000s created the acronym BRIC (after BRICS) which then was repeated by imperialist propaganda throughout the world, by its bureaucratic capitalism servants in our countries and revisionism worldwide.
Of these, the new revisionism, whose main representatives are the rats of both ROLs, as the sworn enemies of Chairman Gonzalo and Gonzalo Thought, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism worldwide, who keep repeating that imperialist propaganda despite that reality has shown all its falsity, when its content is questioned even by imperialism economists, off course linked to the interests of another imperialist investment bank, Morgan Stanley (45). It is important to read it, because it makes an accurate assessment of the Chinese economy growth prospects in the medium and long term.
ON CHINESE “EXPORT MODEL” AND PLACE IN THE IMPERIALIST CAPITAL WEBS
For everyone it is clear that this “model” is already worn out. So the Chinese revisionists are forced to “reforms” that are nothing more than to “complete” the model followed up to the date. It the scape forward.
The general opinion of the bourgeoisie economists on the future of the Chinese economy, whether they are Keynesian or monetarist, is similar. For example, a supposed neo-Keynesians manifesto argues that, to save the imperialist world economy, free market must be combined with the expansive state intervention in the economy and about the ‘model’ followed by China they say:
The global crisis that began in 2008 with a prolonged recession in many parts of the world and low growth in others, which continues today, was shown “the limits of that model” and “the impossibility to lead a sustained growth”(46)
Others, like the note of Wall Street Journal add:
“While the plan for Shanghai´s FTZ (Free Trade Zone, our note) remains vague, it essentially combines four existing similar areas in the city and adheres some services liberalization (…) the old gradual regional experimentation program of 80 is little adapted to today challenges. A strong reform agenda is what is needed now.”b (47)
This means that for the US´ finance capital media, the situation in China is at least difficult, they cannot go halfway. That’s why it is necessary to make out China’s exports anatomy. Which has to do with the Chinese global economic role in the global economy, as a link in the chain of the greatest monopolies, “within the global production networks “as” export platform “, which explains more than a thousand words the “Chinese economic miracle” and its fall it explains why China acts as it does on the world stage.
For which we must begin with the relationship between exports and imports and FDI, through the data explaining the general situation, as in the following quote (48):
“The data summarized in Table 5 demonstrate the crucial role of the assembly operations into global production networks in expanding exports of machinery from China. The ratio of components in the overall import of machinery from China increased from 32.5% in 1992/3 to 63.4% in 2004/5, with the import share of the three ICT products * (** SITC 75, 76 and 77) recorded a much faster growth. By contrast, the (total exports less components) final goods continue to dominate the composition of exports. In the last decade, the percentage of finished goods in total machinery exports has remained around 75%, with only small changes from year to year. Given the fact that the production of parts and components is usually more capital intensive – and final assembly technology, these figures clearly show that China’s export success so far has been largely supported by its comparative advantage in the production International. Semiconductors and microprocessors are what best exemplify China’s reliance on imported components. China has surpassed the United States and Japan to become the world’s largest market for semiconductors in large part because they are assembled in electronics and technology products information industry exported in large volumes. In 2004, imports from China accounted for one third of global semiconductor production of 213 billion US-dollar (SIA 2005). If components, over 80% of total exports of Chinese-made exported by China are not taken into account it may still be treated as derived from the abundance of labor.
In sum, the mere fact of rapid growth of assembled final goods exports in highly fragmented high-tech industries does not necessarily imply that China is rapidly gaining maturity as a sophisticated high-tech exporting country. In a context where international fragmentation of production is becoming a symbol of economic globalization, the classification of final commodities by factor intensity is not the same as the classification of the production process occurring in these countries by factor intensity. The ongoing process of production fragmentation and China’s increased integration into global production networks as an assembly center has opened up opportunities for other countries in the region to benefit from China’s rapid export expansion as participants in these networks. ”
* Information and communication technology (ICT): information technology and communication.
** Standard International Trade Classification SITC: Standard International Trade Classification
On the Chinese “comparative advantage” – the factor intensity, this is the factor “abundance of labor”, “low cost of the average wage” – its outlook is not rosy, which explains very well the policy of the Chinese revisionists to accelerate the expulsion of the rural population:
“The population in China is simply too big and too rapidly aging for its economy to continue growing as rapidly as before. Since over 50% of the population now lives in cities, China is approaching what economists call “Lewis turning point”: that moment when the surplus labor in rural areas of a country practically runs out. Such depletion is derived from both the intense migration to cities over the past 2 decades and the diminished workforce, which has shrunk due to the only-child policy … “(49).
On the “Chinese miracle” – FDI and “comparatively advantage”-, we read in another report:
“According to statistics, about 88 percent of high technology (HT) exports were produced by foreign-invested firms in the China, suggesting that China has emerged as an export platform not only for traditional labor intensive products, but also high-technology goods.
China has been recognized as the world’s oldest factory for intensive labor product as toys, shoes, dresses, etc., and now emerges as a leading exporter of high technology goods. The high-tech industries are the sources of high-value added jobs “(50).
In the quote above, we emphasize the role of FDI in high-tech exports and in a subsequent quote we will see the importance of FDI in foreign trade and in the whole Chinese economy.
In this report, on the relationship of Chinese exports to the imperialist countries and Chinese imports from the countries of Asia bureaucratic capitalism, the following facts are mentioned:
“Empirical analysis indicates that the impact of China’s ICT exports on the six Asian exporters differ across countries and products. Singapore and Philippines suffered the most when Chinese exports grew. These two countries were also affected more severely by China’s expansion into the markets of both Japan and the US. The Korean and Malaysian exports were also adversely affected. Intensified competition from China’s rising ICT exports may be one of the reasons for the shrinking market shares of these Asian countries. The relocation of production capacity into China by the multinational enterprises of these countries may be another reason. China has become an integral part of the production network in Asia, and many multinational enterprises have utilized China as their export platform to global markets. They import parts and components in to China, assemble these intermediate inputs there, and finally export the final products to the rest of world. Thus, the diminishing market shares of these countries, even in association with the expansion of Chinese exports, may be the result of the relocation of production rather than the crowding-out effect. In fact, while China enjoys a huge ICT trade surplus with the US and Japan, it also experiences deficits with respect to Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (Figure 3). The rising Chinese exports apparently affected the exports of these countries negatively in the third market, but enhanced their exports to China. The effect of rapid Chinese exports on a particular country should be evaluated in a more comprehensive framework.”(51)
So what the cited above report says is that the American and Japanese ICT companies moved production to China, because of the comparative advantage offered, so the export of the final goods grew from China to these imperialist countries and also therefore decreased the intermediate inputs imports for ICT goods production from these imperialist countries to Korea, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore, while the Chinese imports of these inputs from these same countries of the Third World increased. About the production relocation to China or other countries, including the Third World, we must keep in mind that this movement is not in one way but also reverses.
To get an accurate idea of Chinese economic development, it is important to consider not only its “export success”, but its relation to imports, content of imported inputs to see if they express an internal development or is only an intermediation. In addition, it serves to establish the weight that the Chinese international trade has in its entire economy, “the sum of imports plus exports of goods and services exceeds 70% of GDP”. Which determines the country´s tariff policy, “between 1992 and 2002 the average tariff (weighted) decreased from 40.6% to 6.4%,” according to an article published in the “Journal Papers of the East” from de UCM (52 ) .The revisionists don´t apply a protectionist economic policy to develop its own industry, but economic openness.
In the same article cited, we have a calculation of the sum of FDI, exports and abundant and cheap labor; in comparison to the whole economy:
“Regarding FDI, since the year 1993 that it exceeded 20,000 million, the inflow of foreign investment has only grown more, reaching 72,400 million in 2005 (second largest recipient), historical record, and an accumulated investment stock (until 2006) of no less than 600,000 million (third worldwide). Among the factors that attract international capital highlights its robust economic growth, the size and potential of its domestic market, and especially its international competitiveness in labor costs, given the abundant and cheap Chinese labor (AFI, 2006, p . 33; ECLAC, 2006, p 54;. Bustelo, 2006a, p.1) .The foreign businesses presence is so important in the Chinese economy that it generates 19% of the total production (figure that increases to 33% if you take into account the joint ventures), and almost 50% of foreign trade. According to official estimates, foreign companies, representing only 3% of existing national companies, contribute 28.5% of industrial added value, 20.5% of tax revenues, 87, 9% of high-tech exports and 58% of the Chinese exports “(53).
While China, in about the same time, became the 5th capital exporter imperialist country after France.
There is no need for us to add more comments to these quotes about “China’s export success”, we just want to remind the reader the “Ornellas” study (54), quoted in part on the US imperialism hegemony, that made reference to the economic significance of the high-tech products export to China and, on “opportunities for other countries in the region,” it is necessary to keep in mind what was described on bureaucratic capitalism and specifically on Southeast Asia.
FINANCE CAPITAL LEADS THE CONCRETE WORLD PARTITION
Before proceeding we must say: Bourgeois economists and their repeaters call the path taken by direct imperialist investment, especially since the early 60s of the century, “production fragmentation and dispersion process “, To further develop the monopolies’ “holding system” at a national and international level (as we have seen in the parts corresponding to the development of bureaucratic capitalism in the world).
They use these buzzwords of “fragmentation” or “dispersion” trying to make us believe that this is a power decentralization process of the internationally big monopolies. But the reality is that it’s about an apparent decentralization in order for a greater power centralization and concentration of the imperialist monopolies worldwide, the highest concentration of the livelihood and production means in a few hands.
Thus, in a tough contest among them, a small number of large monopolistic octopus extend their tentacles, their so called “networks” or chains, rivet ties with new nodes or links, deepening the penetration and dominion of the farthest corners of the terrestrial globe and thereby heightening the contradictions due to the struggle among monopolies and the greater oppression and plunder of the vast majority of the Earth´s population.
This process occurred first and foremost in the automotive industry. Then, it occurred in the production of intermediates for the subsequent production of final electronics and telecommunications products. In this process the production is no longer concentrated in a factory but has been dispersed into its components, which are manufactured by affiliates or independent companies; but subject to the large automotive or electronics companies, etc., as an intra-sectorial production.
For example, the big monopolies, directly or through banks, with state support, organize small and medium companies to manufacture auto parts for major automotive companies in Germany (suppliers), which are simply big capital agents (intra-sectorial or in many cases inter-sectorial commercial chain in a country or the EU) . In other cases, some of these parts suppliers are also monopolistic companies operating globally and intertwine with other monopolies, as the German Bosh, who is testing a fully automatic car. Or again, components or parts are made by different companies in different countries mainly from a region of the world such as North America or the European Union (also intra-sectorial international trade).
Another example of this is the Volvo, based in Sweden, whose car parts are made in different companies in different countries, almost all from Europe and some from North America and a few from Japan.
All of which is always under the general principle of the apparent decentralization for greater power centralization and concentration of the imperialist monopolies. As stated by Lenin, who also established that the competition, the struggle among the monopolies does not exclude agreements, compromises, entanglement, etc., among them. These partnerships and agreements take multiple ways to eliminate other from the market.
Specifically, it ” is presented as one way of production streamlining to cheapen costs (mainly labor, leveraging the so called comparative advantage); another “dispersion” economic factor has to do with the currencies course due to the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1973 (anchored to the gold standard monetary system) and the transition to a floating exchange rate monetary system (“competitive monetary progress”); and the need for wider markets for the ” scale economy “, the latter one was observed by Chairman Gonzalo when studying the early ’70s bureaucratic capitalism , see above when referring to the Velasco government’s fascist economic policy. Large-scale production and profits maximization of the largest monopolists that surpasses the national borders.
This dispersion occurs through capital exports, like FDI; thus moving the production of some intermediate inputs for final goods to some Third World countries. As in the case at hand, transferring production mainly to Asia for their final assembly in China and sold as cheap products, mainly for the imperialists market in North America, Europe and Japan (because of the imperialism necessity to keep a low wage in their countries, among other reasons).
Hübner observes in the cited work, in the part referring to bureaucratic capitalism, about the European Union process:
“So it could had been very attractive, as for example – due to the collapse of the Bretton Woods world monetary system and the transition to a competitive exchange rate despite the existence of the fixed- term currency market – for a large number of companies to avoid the risks of monetary exchange rate through the production localization in the same place of sale. With this, the potential scale economies associated with the market size, could again be necessary and give economic sense to the production dispersion process, where in the case of small national economies or too small national economic spaces, dispersion is the corporeal form taken by foreign direct investment, while in the case of large national economic spaces- as you can think of in USA- must be easily counted as a domestic investment “(55).
That is why is false to argue that this “dispersion” process, which is considered by imperialism ´s economists as the ” globalization core” leads to a new international division of labor, based on an independent industrialization of the Third World. They generalize for the entire global economy, “as the main sign of globalization”, the particular domination form taken by the imperialist monopolies, mainly in a region, ie in the regional market organized by the imperialist capital exportation to Asia, under the control of US imperialism in closed dispute with Japanese imperialism, follow by the other imperialists. While in the NAFTA and EU countries, the intermediate products exports or ‘vertical production dispersion “has other features. But in any case, this process has not only aggravated the imperialist oppression of the Third World countries who remain debtors of imperialist finance capital and remain mainly raw material and industrial “maquila” products exporters, intermediate inputs that imperialism permits or drives. For as Lenin says. “… Naturally, the country which exports the capital skims the cream” (56).
So, with the so called “new international division of labor”, imperialism´s representatives, intended to hide the redoubled imperialist oppression of our countries, but the reality busts in their face and after many digressions and data to conceal the true sense all this, they will end up admitting in other words, that this “scattering process” has led to concrete partition of the world economic territory by the imperialist finance capital, as when he says:
“The result suggests the existence of three major groups of economies in the global trade of intermediate products: NAFTA, EU and Asia including East Asia (Japan, Korea and China) and ASEAN economies …” (57). Which we will see below in greater detail.
Lenin, deeply permeated by the significance of these changes that were operating in this historical stage, pointed out its historical sense as follows:
“Ownership of shares, the relations between owners of private property “interlock in a haphazard way”. (what is now called vertical production dispersion to form the global value chains, our note) (…) But underlying this interlocking, its very base, are the changing social relations of production. When a big enterprise assumes gigantic proportions, and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organizes according to plan the supply of (…) when the raw materials are transported in a systematic and organized manner to the most suitable places of production, when a single center directs all the consecutive stages of processing the material right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when these products are distributed according to a single plan among tens and hundreds of millions of consumers (…) then it becomes evident that we have socialization of production, and not mere “interlocking”, that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period (if, at the worst, the cure of the opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed”(58).
Imperialism is decaying, sinking irretrievably worldwide and will inevitably be buried by the global revolution through people’s wars that will be fused into one great stream, into a worldwide people’s war.
(To Be Continued)
40. Lenin: The imperialists, Highest Stage of Capitalism, Zurich, 1916.
41. “(…) from 1980 to 2010, global FDI grew 21 times, while world trade increased sixfold, respectively (Calculation based Authir report UNTAD http://unctad.org). According to the estimates of international and consulting firms institutions, India was recognized as one of the most preferred investment in the world with China and the United States … of 2005-2009, destinations India ranked second in the list of most favored FDI after China “countries. The above quote is from “Investment in the Indo-Korea CEPA, Saon Ray and Neetika By Kaushal, edition of Korea-India Deepening Partnership for the 21st Century, Editors Parthasarathi Shome & Choong Yong Ahn, KIEP Korea Institute for International Economic Policy . Korean Economy in Transition Toward an Advanced Economy: Prospects and Challenges by Choong Yong Ahn and Kyttack Hong ”
42. Korean Economy in Transition Toward an Advanced Economy: Prospects and Challenges by Choong Yong Ahn and Kyttack Hong, p. . 111 ff, from which we quote:
“Global Balance of imbalances of the country. Most analysts now believe that the global economic crisis of 2008 obviously had its roots in the financial crisis of the 90s, had deep structural roots in the persistent global economic imbalances. These imbalances established a vicious unsustainable circle and, if not corrected, the global economy will remain vulnerable to frequent clashes. The key features of global imbalances can be summarized as follows.:
a. The US economy, along with other major Western economies, has a deficit of large and persistent current account, reflecting the weak domestic savings.
b. This deficit corresponds to the surplus from three main channels: i. Emerging markets, especially China, has excess savings and correspondingly large current account surplus. ii. The oil-exporting countries are saturated with funds that cannot absorb nationwide. They also have current account surplus and excess savings.iii. To a lesser extent, metals exporting countries are in a similar situation.
The US current account, which measures the investment savings balance has been in deficit since 1992-1997, thereafter their growth was modest but grew steadily, reaching a peak of nearly 6% of GDP in 2006. The savings rate in the US fell steadily in the following years. The financial system had the job of recycling the money lenders. Inevitably, credit became cheaper and savings declined. In the US, savings dropped from around 10% of disposable income in 1970 to 1% after 2005%.
Therefore, this is accompanied by a high demand for foreign exchange reserves. Many Asian countries consider that although they have an excess of savings today, they want to invest in foreign exchange reserves and do not have to deal with a sudden capital flight as something similar to what is experienced in the 1990s crisis.
The excess savings in China is partly the result of China’s exchange rate policy. Buying large amounts of dollars serves to maintain weak the national currency, promotes exports and reduce domestic spending. The result is a high level of net national saving, much of which ends up in the central bank’s foreign reserves. The US, Britain and other deficit countries have shown a high appetite for cheap credit from abroad.
All countries that produce manufactured goods as China, or oil or metals, have excess savings, which led them to seek ways of safe and liquid investment abroad and national financial instruments are neither large nor sufficiently developed to absorb such large amounts of savings in excess. Caballero (2011) and Caballero, Farhi and Gourinchas (2008) have argued: that the emerging countries cannot create enough trustworthy saving vehicles to keep up with the pace of economic growth, financial markets are immature. So the United States are largely preferred a wide range of liquid markets for titles destination. Emerging markets need title insurance which has led them to export capital to the US The interaction between the two proved fatal. Following a strong external demand for AAA-rated assets, the financial system became creative. Marginal home loans were packaged into securities supposedly safe. Credit supply raised prices and stimulated a boom in residential construction, which filled the gap in demand left by weak business investment.
These loans went bad and accumulated losses. At the same time, banks had left very little capital to protect themselves against unexpected losses, leaving banks helplessly as when the race for the redemption of financial assets began. The attraction for liquid capital inflows was because the US provides reliable and liquid assets that cannot be found at home. This establishes a dynamic flow where the surplus of a bloc serves to finance the deficits of others. The problem is that persistent and large imbalances poses problems of sustainability and recurrent falls. ”
43. “Causes of International Fragmentation of Production”, Russel H. Hillberry, University of Melbourne, on “Global Value Chain” in Trade Policy Rechearch, Canada, 2011.
44. The Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2013, p. 28.
45. Ruchir Sharma *, “The BRIC fell down? Why “the world” stopped its ascent? “. * Director of Emerging Markets and Global Macroeconomics at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, and author of Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles.
46. “Act now! The Global Manifesto for the Salvation of the Economy “by Flassbeck, Davidson, Galbraith and others, Editorial Westend, Frankfurt / Main 2013.
47. The Wall Street Journal, quoted above.
48. Prema-chandra Athukorala , April 2008, Working Paper No. 2008/04, The Arndt-Corden Division of Economics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies ANU (Australian National University College of Asia and the Pacific. P. 10
49. The Brics fell down…?
50. Xing, Yuqing, China’s exports in ICT and Its impact on Asian countries country (2008), Research paper / UNU-WIDER, No. 2008.39, ISBN 978-92-9230-087-6, p. 1.
51. Xing, Yuqing (2008), cited above, p. 8 and 9.
52. Los capitalism emergences en la nueva arquitectura internacional ¿ que hay de Nuevo en la nueva division internacional del trabajo? Palazuelos, A, Revisa papeles del Este, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), 2007, p. 11.
53. Up above, p. 18.
54. Raúl Ornelas* ,LA CRISIS CAPITALISTA, ¿FIN DE LA HEGEMONÍA ESTADOUNIDENSE? UN ESTUDIO DESDE LA COMPETENCIA ENTRE EMPRESAS TRANSNACIONALES ,* This work is part of research project PAPIIT “Transnational corporations and natural resources in Latin America” (IN-306609-3).
55. Hübner, op cit, p. 177.
56. Lenin, op cit. p. 65.
57. “Global Value Chain: Impacts and implications, Trade Policy Research 2011” Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Government of Canada, 2011.
58. Lenin, op. Cit. P. 86.