market dynamics is a very surface-level analysis. The historical exploitation and colonization of many of the global South nations have left lasting impacts on their economic structures. Unequal power dynamics and resource extraction during colonial times have contributed to the disparities we see today. Capitalism, by its nature, relies on the extraction of surplus value from the labor of the proletariat. The global division of labor, as seen between the global North and South, is not merely a result of market dynamics. Your argument assumes a level playing field in global trade; the north can exploit weaker labor and environmental standards in the global south, contributing to lower production costs. I must point out the commodification of labor as a fundamental feature of capitalism. The global south's lower labor costs are not simply a product of market forces but are indicative of a system where labor is systematically undervalued. This leads to unequal exchange, with the surplus value produced in the global south disproportionately benefiting the global north. I feel obliged to explain the basics of the Marxist explanation as to why and how unequal exchange occurs (this is not necessarily to change your point of view; it serves more to explain where I'm coming from; I do apologize in advance if I end up repeating myself; I don't have enough time to make this more concise). Marxist theory emphasizes the concept of commodity fetishism, which suggests that the social relations embedded in the production of commodities are often obscured in a capitalist system. The global division of labor is structured in a way that exploits the labor of the working class in less developed countries, leading to the production of commodities at a lower value. I chose to express value here, not as use value or exchange value, but rather as value in the abstract. To explain this quickly, while value can be described simply through the amount of socially necessary labor time embodied in it, I will break it down into dead labor, which is the labor that was previously used in the production of the tools and raw goods necessary for production; in short, the constant capital (C) needed for production, then the amount of variable capital (V). For simplicity, think of this as simply the wages paid to the workers. Surplus value (S) is the difference between the total value of a product and the combined costs of constant capital and variable capital. The total value T is the sum of the constant capital C (representing the total amount of time necessary to produce all the raw materials needed for production, or the amount of time necessary to generate enough value to cover the cost of the same), the variable capital V (representing the time required to reproduce the working population, i.e., the overall value of labor power), and the surplus value S.T=C+V+S, where S > 0.Surplus value can be absolute or relative. Absolute surplus value is increased simply by increasing the total amount of labor time, that is, increasing the length of the working day, increasing the amount of work being done, and increasing production (for the sake of simplicity, I will disregard drops in productivity as I won't be touching on this too much).Relative surplus value increases by increasing efficiency so that it takes less time to fulfill C and V, or by decreasing V without decreasing efficiency.The rate of surplus value is actually the rate of exploitation, e, which corresponds to the ratio between surplus value and variable capital, that is, e=S/V. Exploitation under capitalism therefore has to exist for profit to exist, since the rate of profit π is defined as π=S/(C+V) and π is thus always smaller than e.The global capitalist system has created an international division of labor where certain regions specialize in producing raw materials and low-value-added goods, while others focus on high-value-added production and technology-intensive industries. The global south, often specializing in primary production, faces a situation where the value added to its commodities is disproportionately lower than the value added in the production process in the global north. So due to the different productivity rates, the capitalists in the south aren't able to add the same amount of absolute value; they have to reduce the wages of the workers to keep sufficient proffit rates while keeping prices low enough to meet the artificially low market prices. So the cost of unequal exchange has to be shouldered by the workers, not by the capitalists. The south, being made to focus on these low-value-added industries, forms a dependency on technology, capital, and market access, reinforcing global inequalities. On your point about relative GDP growth, I have two observations. A closer examination reveals that the benefits often accrue to a small capitalist elite, exacerbating social inequality and maintaining the global capitalist system. And while relative GDP growth is higher for global south countries, the absolute growth is significantly higher for the global north, I will use IMF data for this purpose. 2022 GDP growth for "Emerging market and developing economies" was 4.1% and for "Advanced economies" it was 2.6%, in relative terms this looks quite favorable, but if you adjust the this to be per capita absolute value added, the average person in the north becomes wealthier than the average person in the south. I strognly dislike the manipulation of data through percentages because they don't tell you the real pitcure. I know you dislike the idea that wealth gets transfered from the south, but the empirical data remains clear, call it unfair trade or whatever you want. But the difference in productivity between developing countries does not match the difference in wages. On the topic of investment, I suggest you look into something called net international investment position (NIIP), even adjusted for GDP NIIP remains the highest for rich countries, so your point on investment doesn't stand up to data.