> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.