The post-1980s neoliberal consensus of small government and free trade is being replaced by a mercantilist approach. Governments, particularly the U.S., now actively intervene to protect domestic industries and secure geopolitical strength, treating trade as a zero-sum game. This represents a fundamental economic shift for investors.

Nations increasingly use sanctions and tariffs as weapons, risking a destructive race to the bottom. A new international doctrine is needed to establish rules of engagement for economic statecraft, much like the Geneva Conventions govern military conflict, to preserve the global economy.

Modern global conflict is primarily economic, not kinetic. Nations now engage in strategic warfare through currency debasement, asset seizures, and manipulating capital flows. The objective is to inflict maximum financial damage on adversaries, making economic policy a primary weapon of war.

PGIM's Daleep Singh argues that the risk of mutually assured destruction prevents direct military conflict between nuclear powers. This channels confrontation into the economic sphere, using tools like sanctions and trade policy as primary weapons of statecraft.

Unlike the post-GFC era, governments now lack the fiscal and monetary flexibility to cushion every economic shock due to high debt levels. This is forcing global markets to trade on their own fundamentals again, creating volatility and relative value opportunities reminiscent of the pre-2008 era.

Twenty years ago, globalization and open markets (geopolitical tailwinds) created new opportunities for businesses. Today, rising nationalism, trade barriers, and security concerns act as headwinds, creating obstacles and increasing the complexity of international operations.

While markets fixate on Fed rate decisions, the primary driver of liquidity and high equity valuations is geopolitical risk influencing international trade and capital flows. This macro force is more significant than domestic monetary policy and explains market resilience despite higher rates.

The traditional relationship where economic performance dictated political outcomes has flipped. Now, political priorities like tariff policies, reshoring, and populist movements are the primary drivers of economic trends, creating a more unpredictable environment for investors.

The period from 1870-1914 mirrors today's super cycle of innovation, wealth concentration, inequality, populism, nationalism, and geopolitical rivalry. This makes it a more relevant historical parallel for understanding current risks than the recent era of hyper-globalization.