Assume that in a country there are only two industries,

 Economists Eli Heckscher (1879-1952) and Bertil Ohlin (1899-1979) died more than three decades ago. But it's fair to assume that neither would have been surprised by the underlying causes of Donald Trump's election as president of the United States, or Brexit for that matter.afabet

Situs Slot Online

Their Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) bentuk of international trade - developed at the Persediaanholm School of Economics in the 1930s - clearly predicted today's middle-class discontent bellowing at the ballot box.

The two Swedes recognised the simpel but too-often-overlooked soft underbelly of global trade and growth: prosperity doesn't distribute evenly. And workers in bustling ekspor industries keuntungan at the expense of those who face foreign competition.

Inherent inequality

Eli Heckscher's work predicted today's middle-class discontent bellowing at the ballot box. Slarre lewat Wikimedia Commons

Building on the H-O bentuk, academic economist Branko Milanovic has described in an mewaht chart how pendapatan around the world changed from 1988 to 2008. Only one pendapatan bracket failed to get significantly richer: those around the 80% percentile. That's the middle class in the developed world and the upper class in poor countries.

Ironically, Milanovic's graphic both resembles and reflects the proverbial elephant in the room that carried Trump to victory in regions such as the US Rust Belt, which are populated by those he characterised as forgotten Americans.Slot Online Terbaik dan Terpercaya

It supports Heckscher and Ohlin's mendasar premise about the unequal consequences of economic growth - rare is the tide that lifts all boats. Milanovic demonstrates the disparities of our masa of globalisation: the rich get richer, the poor get much less poor, and a big chunk of the middle class gets left behind.

The alasan is relatively easy to understand. Assume that in a country there are only two industries, divided into high-skilled and low-skilled workers who produce high-tech konten (product H) and low-tech konten (product L).

Country A (say the United States) has proportionally more high-skilled individuals than country B (let's call it China). Let's further assume that both the Chinese and Americans have similar tastes for products. That's a lot of assumptions, but the intuition should be straightforward: countries with a higher proportion of more educated workers have an advantage in producing more technologically advanced goods. It's as simpel as that.

In the tidak hadirce of trade, the United States would produce more goods and serviss that use high-skilled workers than China. A simpel permintaan and pasokan graph illustrates this:

Without trade, the United States produces more high-tech goods and consumers pay a lower relative price for them than in China. But here is the important poin: in the US, the wages of high-skilled workers are lower than in China. Not lower in absolute but in relative terms.

Great programmers in the US are handsomely rewarded because the country can ekspor the goods and serviss they produce. If Apple, Uber or Facebook could sell and operate only in the US, the permintaan for high-skill workers would be much lower than it is today, and the country's lower-skilled labor force would not face such strong competition from abroad.