Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis.
Answer:
In the 11th century CE the Awlil mines were in the hands of Takrur, but it would be the Mali Empire (1240-1645 CE), with its capital at Niani, that dominated the sub-Saharan salt trade following the collapse of the Ghana Empire.
We could say that the growth of the cotton industry and the expansion of slavery into new states such as Alabama and Mississippi this ended hope's for a very gradual end to slavery so its opponents had the necessity to stop it from spreading to the new lands of the Louisiana Purchase. However, by the year of 1818 the northern states had a majority of growing immigrants in the House.
