Sarah C. M. Paine has an excellent series of lectures on what it means to be a "continental" vs. a "maritime" power, and how the latter build wealth through trade and an international rules-based order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VSg4ZSwJs is probably the most succinct, and a good introduction if the name Alfred T. Mahan is not familiar to you. Dwarkesh Patel's channel has a more recent 9-part series (on this and other topics): https://www.youtube.com/@DwarkeshPatel
Trade will muddle through somehow. Where there is a buck to be made people can be innovative and bold.
What worries me far more is environmental disasters. Large parts of insurance and accountability has disappeared with the arrival of the shadow fleet model.
Only a matter of time before some pristine coastline gets fucked by an oil spill and everyone just shrugs and ignores it
> Trade will muddle through somehow. Where there is a buck to be made people can be innovative and bold.
That's what I believe as well. Once the opportunity arises, another power or group of interest will seize it, as it's always been the case throughout history. It may take a while, that's true, but just like we can't turn back to a world without countries anytime soon, we can't turn back to a world without commerce anytime soon.
In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that we should not want a state like the US to be the guarantor of such a system, if only because it will do everything in its power to keep this planet burning just so it can maintain various leverages of power.
Regardless of what the US does in this particular respect, the current economic philosophy is nothing short of disastrous on some key aspects and it needs changing fast, something that the US is determined to prevent from happening. As such, I suspect that there will be tremendous suffering globally regardless of this particular situation, having a so-called guarantor won't make much of a difference - it may very well be the opposite.
This was a well-written and thought provoking article. The USA bashers out there should contemplate a world where the Chinese PLAN has assumed the role of the US Navy. Hint: it wouldn’t be pretty.
Where the essay goes off the tracks is in its conspiratorial view that the US no longer wants to perform the role of securing maritime trade. Instead, the US is intent on expanding its Navy, and the Trump administration clearly recognizes that trade is crucial for future American and worldwide prosperity.
"America first, not only" was Obama's policy [0], not Trump's. The US wouldn't be starting trade wars with its oldest, closest allies if the current executive believed in multipolarity.
Sarah C. M. Paine has an excellent series of lectures on what it means to be a "continental" vs. a "maritime" power, and how the latter build wealth through trade and an international rules-based order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9VSg4ZSwJs is probably the most succinct, and a good introduction if the name Alfred T. Mahan is not familiar to you. Dwarkesh Patel's channel has a more recent 9-part series (on this and other topics): https://www.youtube.com/@DwarkeshPatel
Trade will muddle through somehow. Where there is a buck to be made people can be innovative and bold.
What worries me far more is environmental disasters. Large parts of insurance and accountability has disappeared with the arrival of the shadow fleet model.
Only a matter of time before some pristine coastline gets fucked by an oil spill and everyone just shrugs and ignores it
> Trade will muddle through somehow. Where there is a buck to be made people can be innovative and bold.
That's what I believe as well. Once the opportunity arises, another power or group of interest will seize it, as it's always been the case throughout history. It may take a while, that's true, but just like we can't turn back to a world without countries anytime soon, we can't turn back to a world without commerce anytime soon.
In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that we should not want a state like the US to be the guarantor of such a system, if only because it will do everything in its power to keep this planet burning just so it can maintain various leverages of power.
Regardless of what the US does in this particular respect, the current economic philosophy is nothing short of disastrous on some key aspects and it needs changing fast, something that the US is determined to prevent from happening. As such, I suspect that there will be tremendous suffering globally regardless of this particular situation, having a so-called guarantor won't make much of a difference - it may very well be the opposite.
Trade will muddle through, but with a 50%+ incentive to cheat, the winners will be those who are best at cheating.
This was a well-written and thought provoking article. The USA bashers out there should contemplate a world where the Chinese PLAN has assumed the role of the US Navy. Hint: it wouldn’t be pretty.
Where the essay goes off the tracks is in its conspiratorial view that the US no longer wants to perform the role of securing maritime trade. Instead, the US is intent on expanding its Navy, and the Trump administration clearly recognizes that trade is crucial for future American and worldwide prosperity.
It’s America First, not America Only. ;-)
"America first, not only" was Obama's policy [0], not Trump's. The US wouldn't be starting trade wars with its oldest, closest allies if the current executive believed in multipolarity.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Doctrine
Global trade or just US trade?
Global trade. Here’s an explanation for more details: https://acoup.blog/2026/08/28/collections-global-trade-and-u...
Global trade, except for the states the US doesn't want to have access to global trade at any given moment.
If you read the article you'll get your answer