The Case for Regionalism in a Post-Coronavirus World

For those interested in an alternative to the dreadful New World Order that elitist bozos are dreaming off. Interesting analysis (I know the author somewhat).

COVID-19 has exposed the myopia and fragility underlying our worldwide supply chains. The first order of business, therefore, should be in ensuring the integrity of critical supply chains. Elected officials cannot play dice with basic necessities like food, medicines, clothing, public transportation, and the assorted nuts and bolts of daily societal functions. Supply chains should be shorter, less prone to exogenous risks, and must be dictated by long-term strategic imperatives rather than economics.

Take the global healthcare ecosystem, for instance. When COVID-19 struck, India — a traditional pharmaceutical powerhouse — was sourcing 70% of its active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) imports worth $2.4 billion from China. The figures appear worse for the US. According to a recent CFR blog, about 97% of all US antibiotics were sourced from China, on top of 80% of APIs used in local drug production. To make matters worse, both the US and India are engaged in a severe geopolitical logjam with China. Imagine the consequences of a full-scale trade war?

In short, our over-reliance on China to produce just about everything has backfired badly. Only the super 0.1% has benefited from globalization but I still wonder if regionalism can reverse the wealth inequality process.


We need to break away from China as fast as possible and any American business operating in China after this should end up paying significant consequences.


This has been in the works for awhile. I can guarantee you this will all be for naught if Biden is elected.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration is “turbocharging” an initiative to remove global industrial supply chains from China as it weighs new tariffs to punish Beijing for its handling of the coronavirus outbreak, according to officials familiar with U.S. planning.

The U.S. Commerce Department, State and other agencies are looking for ways to push companies to move both sourcing and manufacturing out of China. Tax incentives and potential re-shoring subsidies are among measures being considered to spur changes, the current and former officials told Reuters.

“There is a whole of government push on this,” said one. Agencies are probing which manufacturing should be deemed “essential” and how to produce these goods outside of China.

1 Like

Yup. I agree. Biden will gift whatever that is left of US industry to China. I can understand having a good number of factories in Mexico as they are neighbors who can produce at lower cost but why China?

1 Like

Our government believed it would move China more towards democracy:

With the world’s sixth largest economy and a population of one billion people, China in 2000 was already a massive market and clearly a rising power. Before 1978, China had a socialist-planned economy and was largely isolated; since then, it had been gradually opening up its economy to the rest of the world. WTO membership would accelerate that process.

Clinton and others championed China’s accession for a few reasons:

  • China would have to change its policies to adhere to WTO rules, reducing tariffs and guaranteeing intellectual property rights, among other things, while countries such as the United States would have to give up little in return.
  • The United States argued that membership in an international organization such as the WTO would act as a check on China’s communist government, speeding up its transition to a market economy and encouraging it to have a greater stake in setting global rules. This was not a new idea; Clinton’s predecessor had operated under the same **assumption that free trade leads to democracy: “**No nation on Earth has discovered a way to import the world’s goods and services while stopping foreign ideas at the border,” said George H.W. Bush.
  • It would also legitimize the WTO itself: China was the biggest trading country outside the organization, and the WTO could not really claim to be a global organization without it.

Hence why Hong Kong was such a big issue in “one country two systems” and their special trade status will no longer be honoured. Xi overplayed his hand and he is going to pay dearly for it.

1 Like

I have never been to India (I was at the Mumbai airport for an hour or two but it doesn’t count) but when I met a guy from India, he showed me some Indian paper money. And it had all kinds of NWO symbols.

Regionalism as opposed to globalism certainly is one answer. But for regionalism to work, each region has to be self-sufficient to a degree.

Here’s the dilemma. 7 or 8 billion folks in the world are way too many for regionalism. Certain regions cannot feed themselves because of their industrialization. (On the other hand, Iceland with its very limited agricultural output has survived for centuries.)

Regionalism doesn’t mean back to stone age like the Khmer Rouge tried to do.

Certain regions cannot produce automobiles and computers, BUT we have to ask ourselves:

Do we need newfangled computers and smartphones for our basic survival?
Do we really need brand new cars like these?

We need some kind of weak government for the effective operation of respective regions (mostly for food production and food distribution) and police because there are always criminals and psychopaths.

We can certainly get away with international banking which thrives on compound interests on their fake money.

I believe he will as well. The momentum is just getting started.

1 Like

I never noticed that. But India as a source of alternate supply chain vs China is a pipe dream. Even its Hindu religious paraphernalia are mass-manufactured in China.

1 Like

Yes it is, but they will be players as a developing nation and doesn’t hurt to have them in the mix in terms of certain manufacturing. The US is diversifying their portfolio and India is just one of many that will make that happen while at the same time strengthening our ties with them is a smart move. Africa is the final frontier in terms of competition for economic development especially in the tech sector.

1 Like

Absolutely. No doubt about that. But it’s the immediate term that is worrying. You cannot set up factories overnight for a variety of essential products. COVID-19 has been a wake-up call for many nations. I think the globalist plan backfired badly this time.

And China has a strong foothold there and has

Some of the primary motivations that lie behind China’s push toward increased investments in African nations include the desire to secure a solid base of raw materials to fuel China’s own rapidly growing economy, the desire to increase China’s global political influence, and the major growth opportunity presented by emerging market economies in Africa.