Globalization Now Being Seen as 'Zero-Sum Game,' Says Eswar Prasad

I did not start out being gloomy, Tom. In fact, the book I plan today was a very different book. It was about how we might be moving from a unipolar world where after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US became the dominant power in every respect to one where economic power is more evenly balanced.

And as an economist, one thinks competition is good for balance, efficiency and stability. But as I thought about all the forces that I was going to argue would push us back to a more stable world, a more stable equilibrium. I began to realize that each of these forces might actually generate more instability rather than stability.

So the book ended up being one about where economics, domestic politics and geopolitics, which always go parallel tracks. They intersect with each other, but in this case, they're feeding off each other into a negative loop, a negative feedback loop, and bringing out the worst in each other. So your publishers didn't say, make it gloomy so you could sell the movie rights?

Tom I said I was writing this book. My heart was pulling in one direction, but my head was pulling in completely another direction. And I think the reality is that, you know, we're in a difficult world right now, and the book ultimately is going to help us at least understand the forces that brought us here.

Right. Before we think about solutions. Professor Wiebe I think most of our listeners, most of our viewers grew up in a world of globalization.

Is globalization unraveling right before our eyes right here, too. Globalization was once seen as a positive sum game, you know, which would offset the zero sum game of geopolitics. The US-China relationship was a perfect example.