Abstract
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 three 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 U.S. 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’s conclusion is the BW II analogy between today’s global financial system and the original Bretton Woods system is without foundation, but it survives because the hypothesis helps rationalize and justify large trade deficits and the process of corporate globalization.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
