Founder & Chief Strategist
Institutional Blindspot Architect | Energy & Geopolitical Risk
We declared total war on global trade, then walked it back like it was a typo.
Now, imagine you're a foreign supplier. Or a U.S. firm reliant on overseas parts. You’re not planning based on "maybe" anymore. You're scrambling.
- - Contingency becomes core strategy.
- - Workarounds become replacements.
- - The U.S. becomes optional.
Because in global trade, unpredictability is uncompetitiveness.
You don’t need to implement tariffs to trigger decoupling—you just need to make every non-U.S. company believe they could face steep barriers with <90 days' notice.
This is economic brinkmanship dressed as policy. But here’s the deeper truth:
When a buyer imposes retroactive penalties on a supplier for deals it begged to make—it's not policy, it's pathology.
Tariffs framed as revenge for decades of “unfair” trade aren’t a strength. They’re the tantrum of a hegemon whose own rules outcompete it.
China didn’t "steal" growth. They played the game we wrote—better. Reinvested profits. Built capabilities. Moved up the value chain. Now they’re the supplier we can’t live without.
When you scream “exploitation” at a supplier you negotiated with for 30 years, you reveal more than you intend:
That the real issue wasn’t the deal. It was losing the edge.
Markets can price risk. They can’t price erratic empire logic.
Let’s not kid ourselves—supply chains don’t forget. Once partners de-risk, they rarely re-risk.
📉 Short-term volatility? Sure.
📍 Long-term structural trend? Accelerated multipolarity.
Founder & Chief Strategist | Asymmetric Intelligence | Institutional Blindspot Architect | Energy & Geopolitical Risk | High-Conviction Trade Design


No comments:
Post a Comment