22, 27, 33

  One of the biggest ideas that stood out to me is how the United States continues to dominate the global economy, even as China rises. The Economist section explains this really well. On the surface, it seems like America is declining: manufacturing is shrinking, China is growing rapidly, and U.S. influence doesn’t look as overwhelming as it once did. But when you look deeper, the U.S. still controls many of the most important systems that keep the global economy running: financial institutions, technology, intellectual property, higher education, and global standards. The fact that Alibaba chose to list in New York rather than Shanghai says a lot. It shows that even Chinese companies rely on American markets, legal systems, and investor confidence. To me, this suggests that economic power today is less about factories and more about controlling systems, ideas, and rules. That kind of power is quieter, but probably more durable.

At the same time, the chapter made it clear that this dominance can be frustrating and destabilizing for other countries. U.S. monetary policy affects economies around the world, even when those countries have no say in American decisions. This imbalance raises real questions about fairness and accountability in the global system. Just because the U.S. can influence the world doesn’t necessarily mean it always should, especially when its policies can unintentionally cause harm elsewhere.

What’s most troubling is how these policies often end up hurting the poorest people the most. Cuts to social spending, unemployment, financial crises, and increased inequality seem to follow IMF programs in many cases. It feels deeply unfair that countries struggling with poverty are pressured to adopt policies that benefit wealthy investors and corporations in richer nations. This made me realize that globalization, as it currently operates, often reflects the interests of powerful countries rather than the needs of developing ones.

The IMF section reinforces this critique by showing how IMF programs frequently fail to promote growth and instead worsen inequality. I was surprised to learn how much evidence exists showing that IMF involvement can actually slow economic growth and deepen poverty. The idea that governments sometimes use IMF conditions as a political tool to push unpopular reforms or protect elites makes the situation even more concerning. It suggests that ordinary people often pay the price for economic decisions they had no role in shaping.

These chapters highlight a central contradiction of globalization: it has incredible potential to improve lives, yet it often reinforces global inequality. Countries like those in East Asia demonstrate that globalization can work when governments actively shape it to serve national development goals. Meanwhile, many developing nations struggle because they are forced into a one-size-fits-all economic model that ignores local realities.