Boomer Blueprints and the Fallacy of Equal Exchange
The finance ministries of all of Asia are huddling—preparing a so-called “diligent” but deliberately confusing trade offer.
It’s goofy.
If the U.S. Treasury is smart enough, it will see through the nonsense and just set the terms.
That was the grand plan for 90 days?
All of this actually inverts the core issue.
We live in a buyers’ or choosers’ market—not a sellers’ market.
Any so-called “power” transferred to the seller or the “chosen” is symptomatic of much of what’s wrong with the modern world. It's a complete inversion of merit and market logic—engineered, not organic.
This inversion can largely be traced back to the Boomer generation, which, traumatized by the ideological consequences of WWII, responded by socially engineering multiple layers to prevent a repeat of that era’s thinking.
Why do you think we now have widespread ideological structures like LGBTQ inclusion, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), SJW culture, and neo-communist tendencies? These are not just cultural phenomena—they are protective ideological layers designed to prevent historical repetition.
One such ideological layer promoted the false equivalence of buyer and seller—symbolically linked to feminist economic thought, which argues that value is inherently subjective and that market dominance by buyers is oppressive.
But let's be realistic: if Americans simply produced basic textiles domestically—even on the lowest tier of the value chain—it would still be ethically and economically superior to outsourcing labor to sweatshops abroad.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average manufacturing wage in the U.S. is around $25 per hour, while garment workers in Bangladesh earn less than $100 per month.
If domestic wages were higher, and the cost of the final product was higher, the result would be proportional value—not a loss. That’s what it means to be a rich country with individual economic agency—high cost, high wage, high dignity.