Love the New World Order’s Tea Party

Good morning from a reality that feels increasingly like a discarded draft of a Philip K. Dick novel, where the geopolitical chess board has been replaced by a particularly intense game of “diplomatic musical chairs.” And speaking of chairs, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have just secured the prime seating at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, proving once again that some friendships are forged not in mutual admiration, but in the shared pursuit of a slightly different global seating arrangement.

It’s September 2nd, 2025, a date which, according to the official timeline of “things that are definitely going to happen,” means the world is exactly three days away from commemorating the 80th anniversary of something we used to call World War II. China, ever the pragmatist, now refers to it as the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression,” which has a certain no-nonsense ring to it, much like calling a catastrophic global climate event “a bit of unusual weather.”

Putin, apparently fresh from an Alaskan heart-to-heart with a certain other prominent leader (one can only imagine the ice-fishing anecdotes exchanged), described the ties with China as being at an “unprecedentedly high level.” Xi, in a move that felt less like diplomacy and more like a carefully choreographed social media endorsement, dubbed Putin an “old friend.” One can almost envision the “Best Friends Forever” bracelets being exchanged in a backroom, meticulously crafted from depleted uranium and microchips. Chinese state media, naturally, echoed this sentiment, probably while simultaneously deleting any historical references that might contradict the narrative.

So, what thrilling takeaways emerged from this summit of “unprecedented friendship”?

The Partnership of Paranoia (and Profit): Both leaders waxed lyrical about their “comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation,” with Xi proudly declaring their relationship had “withstood the test of international changes.” Which, in plain speak, means “we’ve survived several global tantrums, largely by ignoring them and building our own sandbox.” It’s an “example of strong ties between major countries,” which is precisely what one always says right before unveiling a new, slightly menacing, jointly-developed space laser.

The Economic Exchange of Existential Dependence: Russia is generously offering more gas, while Beijing, in a reciprocal gesture of cosmic hospitality, is granting Russians visa-free travel for a year. Because what better way to foster friendship than by enabling easier transit for, presumably, resource acquisition and the occasional strategic tourist? Discussions around the “Power of Siberia-2” pipeline and expanding oil links continue, though China remains coy on committing to new long-term gas deals. One suspects they’re merely waiting to see if Russia’s vast natural gas reserves can be delivered via quantum entanglement, thus cutting out the messy middleman of, well, reality. Meanwhile, “practical cooperation” in infrastructure, energy, and technology quietly translates to “let’s build things that make us less reliant on anyone else, starting with a giant, self-sustaining AI-powered tea factory.”

Global Governance, Now with More Benevolent Overlords: The most intriguing takeaway, of course, is their shared commitment to building a “more just and reasonable global governance system.” This is widely interpreted as a polite, diplomatic euphemism for “a global order that is significantly less dominated by the U.S., and ideally, one where our respective pronouncements are automatically enshrined as cosmic law.” It’s like rewriting the rules of Monopoly mid-game, except the stakes are slightly higher than who gets Park Place.

And if that wasn’t enough to make your brain do a small, bewildered pirouette, apparently these talks were just the warm-up act for a military parade. And who’s joining this grand spectacle of synchronised might? None other than North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Yes, the gang’s all here, ready to commemorate the end of a war by showcasing enough military hardware to start several new ones. It’s almost quaint, this continued human fascination with big, shiny, destructive things. One half expects them to conclude the parade with a giant, joint AI-powered robot performing a synchronised dance routine, set to a surprisingly jaunty tune about global stability.

So, as the world careens forward, seemingly managed by algorithms and historical revisionism, let us raise our lukewarm cups of instant coffee to the “unprecedented friendship” of those who would re-sculpt global governance. Because, as we all know, nothing says “just and reasonable” quite like a meeting of old friends, a pending gas deal, and a military parade featuring the next generation of absolutely necessary, totally peaceful, reality-altering weaponry.

Death on the Trump Express: An Agatha Christie-esque Mystery of Global Commerce

Right then, gather ‘round, my dears, and let us speak of a most peculiar demise – not of a corpulent Belgian detective, nor a glamorous American heiress, but of something far more fundamental, something that once hummed with the joyous rhythm of exchange: the very Notion of Unfettered Global Trade.

Our scene opens not on a snow-laden railway in the Balkans, but in the hallowed, yet surprisingly beige, halls of the International Tariff Tribunal in early 2025. A chill, sharper than a poorly aimed icicle, permeated the air. For lo, the spectral figure of Protectionism, a gaunt and rather orange apparition, had once again cast its shadow.

Our protagonist, if we can call him that (and frankly, one wouldn’t), is a certain Mr. Donald J. Tremendous, a man whose hair appeared to have achieved sentience and was now engaged in a vigorous debate with his own eyebrows. He had, in his first act upon the world stage (circa 2017-2021), decided that the venerable old engine of global trade needed a good, firm kicking. “America First!” he’d bellowed, a slogan as subtle as a foghorn in a library. And with a flourish that would have made a particularly theatrical badger proud, he slapped tariffs on all manner of things – steel, aluminum, and, most notably, the entire contents of China, seemingly on the grounds that they kept sending us rather good fortune cookies without the actual fortune.

The international community, a collection of nations as diverse and bickering as passengers on a long train journey, responded with the sort of bewildered outrage one reserves for discovering a particularly aggressive squirrel has taken up residence in one’s hat. Retaliatory tariffs flew back and forth like particularly ill-tempered pigeons. The goal, we were told, was to bring back the glorious days of American manufacturing, a vision as romantic and possibly as outdated as a steam-powered washing machine.

Fast forward to the early months of Mr. Tremendous’s assumed second act (January-April 2025). The protectionist spectre, far from being exorcised, seemed to have developed a taste for the finer things in life, like further tariff increases and a meticulous study of supply chain vulnerabilities. One could almost imagine it twirling its spectral moustache, muttering about “critical industries” and the urgent need for national self-sufficiency, much like a character in a poorly translated spy novel.

Now, the backdrop to this unfolding drama was considerably less stable than our first act. The world, still reeling from the Great Pandemic Panic of the early twenties, was now juggling geopolitical kerfuffles (involving a rather unfortunate incident with a rogue consignment of Ukrainian borscht, or so the rumours went) and an inflation rate that seemed determined to reach escape velocity. This, naturally, provided ample excuse for more tariff-based shenanigans. “Think of the supply chains!” cried Mr. Tremendous, seemingly unaware that most supply chains were now so tangled they resembled a particularly enthusiastic plate of spaghetti.

The reactions, as one might expect, were a symphony of predictable groans and the occasional, rather unsettling cheer. Domestic industries, particularly those specialising in the manufacture of oversized novelty cheques, were delighted. Businesses that actually, you know, made things using imported bits and bobs, or dared to sell their wares beyond the sacred borders of America, expressed concerns that sounded remarkably like the whimpering of a trapped badger. The international community, meanwhile, collectively face-palmed with such force that several small nations briefly achieved escape velocity themselves.

And so, while the “America First” philosophy remained as stubbornly present as a stain on a favourite tablecloth, the tariffs of early 2025 had a certain… je ne sais quoi. A hint of desperation, perhaps? Or maybe just the lingering aroma of burnt economic bridges.

But did these tariffs, this grand protectionist experiment, actually deliver the promised goods? Did the American manufacturing sector suddenly burst into a glorious, job-creating, trade-deficit-slaying phoenix? Well, the data, bless its dry, statistical heart, paints a picture as clear as mud wrestled by an octopus. While a widget factory here or a sprocket manufacturer there might have experienced a fleeting moment in the sun, the overall growth in manufacturing and employment resembled the gentle, almost imperceptible, rise of a particularly lethargic soufflé. As for the trade deficit, that stubborn beast remained stubbornly… there. Like an unwanted guest who has eaten all the biscuits and refuses to leave.

And then, the truly dreadful bit. The tangible toll. The negative consequences, which manifested with the subtle grace of a rhinoceros in a tutu. Consumer prices, already doing a passable impression of a runaway train, decided to pick up even more speed, thanks in no small part to these tariffs. Steel and aluminum, suddenly imbued with an almost mystical expensiveness, drove up the cost of everything from cars to can openers. Chinese goods, once the affordable backbone of modern life, now carried a hefty surcharge, much to the chagrin of anyone attempting to purchase a new pair of novelty socks.

But the real tragedy unfolded amongst those poor souls who actually made things in America, relying on those pesky imported components. Their costs soared, making them about as competitive as a chocolate teapot in a sauna. And let’s not forget the farmers, those salt-of-the-earth types who suddenly found their soybeans and pork chops about as popular overseas as a politician at a badger convention. Retaliatory tariffs had seen to that, leaving them with fields full of unsold produce and a distinct lack of festive badger-related cheer.

The global supply chains, already resembling a plate of particularly tangled spaghetti (a recurring theme, it seems), descended into utter chaos. Businesses, in a frantic attempt to avoid the tariff-induced apocalypse, began flailing around for alternative suppliers, leading to a logistical nightmare that would have made a particularly pedantic bureaucrat weep with joy.

And so, we arrive at our doomsday scenario. Imagine, if you will, a world where these initial tariff tantrums escalate into a full-blown protectionist hissy fit. Country A throws a tariff tantrum at Country B, who responds by hurling a tariff tea set back. Soon, everyone is at it, lobbing trade barriers like particularly aggressive toddlers throwing their toys. Global trade, once a smooth-flowing river, becomes a stagnant, tariff-choked swamp. International cooperation packs its bags and leaves a rather terse note on the fridge.

The consequences, my dears, would be less than ideal. Global economic growth would likely grind to a halt, like a train that has run out of steam and is now being used as a badger sanctuary. Industries reliant on the intricate web of global supply chains would simply… cease to be, like a particularly ambitious soufflé that has collapsed in on itself. Consumers would find themselves paying exorbitant prices for everything, possibly leading to a resurgence in bartering (I can offer you three slightly used novelty socks for that loaf of bread). Innovation would wither and die, like a houseplant left untended during a particularly enthusiastic badger-watching expedition. And in the truly apocalyptic version of this tale, widespread economic misery could lead to nations engaging in even more… robust forms of disagreement.

So, the “America First” tariffs. Perhaps a roaring success? The evidence suggests otherwise. More like a rather unfortunate incident involving a beloved global train, a misguided conductor with a penchant for loud slogans, and a whole carriage full of very confused and increasingly impoverished passengers. And the badgers? Well, they probably just watched the whole thing with a mixture of bemusement and mild concern for their future supply of novelty socks. It can’t get any more absurd than the last 3 months… can it?

Friday beers and Economic Fears: TFF with Trade Policies from 100 years ago?

Right, deep breaths everyone. It’s Friday. The end of the working week is nigh. Birds are probably singing (unless you live in Edinburgh, in which case it’s more likely seagulls are aggressively raiding the bins). But amidst the usual Friday feeling of “get me to the pub beer garden,” there’s a rather alarming buzz in the news: talk of bringing back trade barriers reminiscent of the pre-World War 2 era. Seriously? Are we dusting off economic policies that helped pave the way for global conflict? Make that a triple measure please.

Pre-WW2 Trade Barriers Explained (Because it is Friday and My Brain is Fried)

Okay, so picture the time before World War 2. The global economy was a bit of a mess after the Great Depression. Countries, in a bid to protect their own industries and jobs, started slapping hefty taxes (tariffs) and strict limits (quotas) on goods coming in from other countries. The idea was simple: “Buy local!” But the reality was a spectacular failure.

Think of it like this:

  • Tariffs: Imagine Scotland decides to put a massive tax on all English tea coming over the border. Suddenly, Scottish tea becomes cheaper, and the government hopes Scots will buy more of it. But then England might retaliate by putting a huge tax on Scottish whisky. Everyone ends up paying more, and trade grinds to a halt.
  • Quotas: Now imagine Scotland says, “Only 100 boxes of English biscuits can come into the country each month.” This limits the amount of foreign goods available, again trying to boost local producers. But it also means less choice and potentially higher prices for consumers.

The most infamous example of this protectionist madness was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States in 1930. It raised tariffs on thousands of imported goods. Other countries retaliated, global trade plummeted, and many economists believe it actually worsened the Great Depression. It was a classic case of “tit for tat” tariffs escalating into an economic disaster. “You hit me, I’ll hit you harder!” Except in this case, everyone gets a bloody nose and goes home poorer.

The post-WW2 era saw a global push away from these barriers, with agreements like GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which eventually led to the World Trade Organization (WTO), aiming to reduce tariffs and promote smoother international trade. The logic was that open trade fosters economic growth, competition, and (hopefully) fewer reasons to start global conflicts over resources.

“Bring Back Trade Barriers?” – Should We Stockpile Tinned Goods and Toilet Rolls again?

So, the news is suggesting some folks are advocating for a return to this pre-WW2 style of protectionism? Are they serious? It’s like saying, “Remember that time we all had covid? Let’s do that again!”

Here’s why this idea is about as sensible as navigating Edinburgh during the Fringe Festival on cutches:

  • Tit-for-Tat Tango of Tariffs: We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well. Country A imposes tariffs on Country B. Country B retaliates with tariffs on Country A. Soon, everyone’s slapping taxes on everything, consumers pay more, businesses struggle to import and export, and the global economy looks like a toddler who’s just dropped their ice cream. Remember those “tit for tat tariffs” from earlier? Multiply that by the number of countries on Earth, and you’ve got a recipe for economic indigestion on a global scale.
  • Supply Chain Mayhem: In today’s interconnected world, products often cross multiple borders before they’re finished. Slapping tariffs everywhere throws a massive spanner in the works. Your fancy smartphone might have a screen made in one country, a chip from another, and be assembled in a third. Tariffs on each component just make the final product more expensive and harder to produce. It’s like trying to make a Full Scottish breakfast when you can’t import the haggis because someone decided offal deserves tariff protection.
  • Economic Slowdown: Reduced trade means less competition, potentially leading to higher prices and lower quality goods. It stifles innovation and economic growth. Businesses that rely on international markets suffer. It’s like putting a speed limit on the entire global economy – everyone moves slower.
  • Increased Risk of Conflict (Yes, Really): Economic interdependence can actually be a force for peace. When countries rely on each other for trade, they have less incentive to go to war. Bringing back trade barriers fosters economic nationalism and can breed resentment and mistrust between nations. It’s like building fences between neighbours – it doesn’t exactly encourage friendly chats over the garden gate.

“Thank Fuck It’s Friday,” and we have two days to forget all about it:

So, as you crack open that well-deserved beverage tonight, take a moment to appreciate the relative freedom of trade we (mostly) enjoy. The idea of reverting to pre-WW2 protectionism isn’t just economically daft; it’s a historical amnesia of epic proportions. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail and we don’t end up needing to barter our Irn-Bru for survival in a post-tariff apocalypse. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to check if tinned haggis futures are a thing… just in case.