{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","title":"Zombie Capitalism Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9781608461042","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","id":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","uuid":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","title":"Zombie Capitalism Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx","normalized_title":"zombiecapitalismglobalcrisisandtherelevanceofmarx","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9781608461042","isbns":["9781608461042"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":426,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Zombie%20Capitalism%20Global%20Crisis%20and%20the%20Relevance%20of%20Marx","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/search"},"page":{"printed_page":263,"pdf_page":263,"physical_index":263,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"da654cc7f2777c6561998422f6ebc9558fb66bc1915f8df824610a806b4f0cc9"},"chapter":"Zombie Capitalism Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx","content":"Research economists Georgios Chortareas and Theodore Pelagidis concluded in 2004:\n\nThe increase in international trade flows is predominantly confined within the three developed trade blocs of the global economy (the USA, the EU, Asia-Japan). A large part of the world continues to be excluded from the trade boom. The emerging reality is more a process of deepening regional integration (regionalisation) of particular groups/blocs of countries rather than a global increase in cross-border trade flows and production interdependence. 36\n\n\"Trade'', they argued, \"has not come to be spread over a wider range of countries, even compared with the past. It is enough to recall that developed countries' imports from developing countries are still only about 2 percent of the combined GDP of the OECD\".37 Their one exception was East Asia, which will have grown more important after their research at the turn of the century-by 2005 Chinese exports had expanded to reach to over 7 percent of the global total.\n\nInvestment flows were similarly concentrated within the \"triad\" of North America, Europe and Japan. In 2002-4 FDI flows into the European Union averaged about \\$300 billion a year. The total for the rest of the world-the \"developing countries\"-was only \\$180 billion, of which China (including Hong Kong) took two fifths, and Brazil and Mexico a fifth. Some 89 percent of the cumulative stock of FDI worldwide in 2004 was in the developed economies (roughly the same proportion as in 1990), and two thirds of that was in Europe. 38\n\nThe pattern was not one of capital flowing effortlessly over a homogenous worldwide landscape. It was \"lumpy\", concentrated in some countries and regions, in a way that was not fully grasped by either the crude globalisation view, by interpretations that stressed regional blocs, or by those who still spoke solely in terms of national economies. The empirical material could be looked at in different ways-just as a bottle can be seen as half full or half empty. But the reality of capitalism was that it could not be reduced to any one of these facets.\n\nDifferent firms operated at different levels. Some, the majority in simple numerical terms, still operated within national economies from which they put out tentacles to see what they could gain by buying and selling to their neighbours. Others, smaller in number but enormously powerful, increasingly operated on a regional basis and reached out to pick up what they could elsewhere in the world. And a small minority saw their future in genuinely global terms. As capitals with each perspective bought and sold, manoeuvred to expand markets, searched for cheaper inputs and for more profitable places for investment, they both influenced each other and tripped over each other. The outcome was not some new model, but an ever shifting, kaleidoscopic pattern which was upset every time it seemed about to attain some fixity. \"All that is solid \" did \" melt into air\" as Marx had put it-but not in the way the crude globalisation theory held. For capital's old companion, the state, entered into the process at every point.\n\nGlobal Capital in the New Age\n\n263","previous_page":262,"next_page":264}