I have several issues with your statements.

Atributing the inequalities simply to

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.