I agree with much in here but the "G" Globalization related stuff may be off the mark and possibly even diametrically so. I suspect that absent "G" Globalization, and I'm including much of its decreases in protectionism, there would be far more international trade (I mean trade in goods and services and the associated human interactions) than there is now because there would far more development in the developing world, far less market concentration, far more economic redundancy and thus far more firms and geographic economic nodes, and far less demand destruction and far more demand creation. And demand is the Final Source of trade. So the de-globalization thats coming (and most of it will ultimately be not by the USA's hand) will likely increase trade, increase available potential trading partners, and increase your choices of who you want to do business with. (I'm not referring to blanket band or protectionist measures that are so high as to be effectively blanket bans, well that is in most all cases wrong, in fact, the USA's pre Globalization Old Republic didnt do that (and the Smoot Halley At was not at all that and I can prove that quickly) outside of rare limited instances like in its Civil War or against Imperial Japan, etc.)
This is "soft", hybrid-warfare Hitlerism of much greater proportions that Hitler even dreamed about, waged by the Anglosphere.
It is shocking that we are living in such times, although in 1945 we were so sure that Hitler was defeated.
It morphed into Von der Leyenism
Who also had very large conflicts of interest over procurement during 'covid' 'Unelected war hawk Ursula VDL has financial links to Pfizer, Orgenesis, Israel, Vanguard and Blackrock (who were invited to the G7 and are buying up Ukraine as we speak).'https://jowaller.substack.com/p/meet-von-der-leyens-husband?utm_source=publication-search
Hi Lena.
'covid' wasn't just a serendipity either! https://jowaller.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax?utm_source=publication-search
I agree with much in here but the "G" Globalization related stuff may be off the mark and possibly even diametrically so. I suspect that absent "G" Globalization, and I'm including much of its decreases in protectionism, there would be far more international trade (I mean trade in goods and services and the associated human interactions) than there is now because there would far more development in the developing world, far less market concentration, far more economic redundancy and thus far more firms and geographic economic nodes, and far less demand destruction and far more demand creation. And demand is the Final Source of trade. So the de-globalization thats coming (and most of it will ultimately be not by the USA's hand) will likely increase trade, increase available potential trading partners, and increase your choices of who you want to do business with. (I'm not referring to blanket band or protectionist measures that are so high as to be effectively blanket bans, well that is in most all cases wrong, in fact, the USA's pre Globalization Old Republic didnt do that (and the Smoot Halley At was not at all that and I can prove that quickly) outside of rare limited instances like in its Civil War or against Imperial Japan, etc.)