Is the economic failure or success of a state under unequal preparatory conditions a fair outcome? If so, why? If not, what should be done?

The fact that states do not perform equally within the global economic system should not come as a surprise to the international community. Our globalized world praises the institution of free market capitalism; every nation-state is encouraged to participate within the market in order to augment the general level of competition. Yet participation does not equate to equal gains for all. Global economic competition guarantees the emergence of winners and losers, a struggle for the survival of the fittest in international industry. In many ways, this concept mimics our discussion of the college admissions process. As applicants, we could choose to do the best with what we were given in terms of opportunities and resources, or we could seek for supplementary materials that made our candidacy all the more appealing. While applying to universities throughout the country, we faced disheartening acceptance rates and terrifying price tags; we were aware of the inequity that stalked our grandiose dreams of College A. We clung to the words "options" and "safety school," just in case. States take similar precautions when faced with a fiercely competitive global market. They exploit their domestic natural resources, or pursue symbiotic trade agreements as a means of accessing vital materials that can be found beyond their borders. Yet when every state enters the global market, and when every prospective student's application lies in the hands of a selection committee, everything once again revolves around relative competition: how does the output of Nation A compare to that of Nation B? What is the difference in value between the laundry list of extracurriculars of Applicant A and that of Applicant B? From a purely technical perspective, the success or failure of a state merits the blame of that state only.

However, because our world is increasingly interdependent, the question of who's to blame becomes exceedingly tricky. State concerns are no longer purely their own; the perfect topical example of this is the overwhelming foreign criticism of the Fed's $600 billion expansion of the money supply. As an article in today's issue of the New York Times states, government officials abroad are openly criticizing the Fed's recent change in monetary policy. Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble was quoted in the magazine Der Spiegel: "It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money." The article goes on to say, "Privately, American officials say they were miffed by Mr. Schaeuble's comments, saying it was a breach of protocol for the foreign minister of one country to criticize the central banker of another." This segment of the article reminded me of our conversations pertaining to state sovereignty. Is America's sovereignty at risk because of this "breach of protocol"? Should commentary like this be tolerated within the international community? These are questions that become progressively difficult to answer as our interconnectedness intensifies. Nation-states must be willing to recognize their inherent effects upon one another in order to adequately confront the repercussions of those effects.