When Protectionism Makes Genuine Sense – Even if it Stops Some from Making Money

The debate over tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles has been bubbling across social media, and what’s striking is not the policy detail but the discomfort it creates among the market‑orientated commentariat.

These are people who have spent decades insisting that globalisation is the only sensible economic model, that markets should always set the rules, and that any interference – especially by governments – is a step backwards.

Now, faced with the reality that the UK may need to work with EU partners to protect domestic manufacturers, they are being forced into intellectual contortions that reveal just how brittle their worldview has become.

The friction here is not really about cars. It is about the deeper assumption that the economic model we have – a model built on global supply chains, financial expansion, and the relentless pursuit of growth – is the only one that makes sense.

That assumption rests on a one‑directional pull toward opening trade as far as conceivably possible, because that’s supposedly where growth will be found. And growth, in this worldview, is not about people becoming better off. It is about the creation of yet more money, usually through debt, which pushes up GDP and keeps the financial system ticking over.

This obsession with growth hides a fundamental truth: the growth that markets obsess over is not the same growth that most people experience.

GDP can rise while living standards fall. Productivity can increase while wages stagnate. Asset values can soar while home ownership collapses.

Many people still cling to the myth that political growth will make things better – or at least return life to how it used to be – but the numbers have been going up for years while the lived reality has been going down.

To understand why protectionism now makes sense, we have to understand the money system that made globalisation seem inevitable.

The Money System Behind the Illusion

Modern economies run on fiat money – money created not from physical value but from government authority and, crucially, from debt. When banks issue loans, they create new money. When governments borrow, they expand the money supply. Growth, in the political sense, is simply the expansion of this created money.

For decades, this system worked because the newly created money was tied to expanding production. Factories were built. Goods were made. Jobs were created. Communities thrived. The money had something real behind it.

But once production was moved overseas, the link between money creation and real economic activity broke. We kept creating money – but we no longer created the goods, jobs, or value that once justified it. Instead, the West became dependent on consumption funded by debt, while production was concentrated in China and a handful of other countries.

This is where extraction enters the story.

Extraction: The Hidden Cost of Globalisation

Globalisation didn’t just move factories abroad. It extracted value from every part of Western society:

Extraction of jobs – manufacturing, engineering, logistics, and skilled trades hollowed out.
Extraction of wages – pay stagnated while costs rose.
Extraction of communities – towns built around industry lost their purpose.
Extraction of environmental stability – long supply chains increased emissions and resource depletion.
Extraction of political agency – decisions moved from local hands to global markets.
Extraction of national wealth – profits and production flowed outward, not inward.

Above all, globalisation extracted economic power from people and transferred it to corporations, financial markets, and foreign production hubs.

This wasn’t accidental. It was the design. Globalisation was sold as efficiency, but it functioned as a massive wealth transfer mechanism.

Wealth Transfer: The Real Story

The wealth transfer happened in several layers:

1. From wages to profits

When production moved abroad, labour costs collapsed. The savings didn’t go to consumers – they went to corporations and financial markets.

2. From communities to global supply chains

Local businesses couldn’t compete with imported goods. Wealth drained outward.

3. From national economies to China

The West consumed; China produced. The money followed the production.

4. From real economy to financial economy

As production declined, financial speculation replaced industry as the main driver of “growth.”

5. From future generations to the present

Debt expanded to maintain consumption levels that wages could no longer support.

This is why the system feels hollow: because it is.

The Illusion of Efficiency

Globalisation was sold as efficient. But efficiency is fragile.

Efficiency removes redundancy. Redundancy is what makes systems resilient.

Here, redundancy doesn’t mean job losses. It means resilience. In systems terms, redundancy is the spare capacity, backup options, and local alternatives that keep things functioning when something goes wrong. A resilient economy has multiple sources of essential goods, local production alongside imports, and enough slack in its supply chains to absorb shocks. Globalisation removed this kind of redundancy – not by cutting jobs, but by stripping away the buffers that once protected communities, industries, and national security.

Local supply chains, local production, and local skills were once buffers against shocks. Globalisation removed those buffers. It replaced resilience with fragility, and called it progress.

When shocks hit – a pandemic, a war, an energy crisis – the system broke exactly where it had been hollowed out.

The Curious Love Affair With China

This is where the love affair that politicians, industry aficionados and financial players have with China becomes so curious. They praise China’s industrial might, its manufacturing efficiency, and its ability to produce goods at scale and at speed. But they are blind to the realities underpinning the Chinese powerhouse – just as they are blind to how things really work economically here at home.

China’s industrial strength is real, but its economic model is fragile. It is heavily dependent on exports, deeply entangled in debt, and centrally managed in ways that hide structural weaknesses. The property sector has been in crisis for years. Domestic consumption is too weak to sustain growth. And the country’s manufacturing dominance relies on a global system that assumes stability, cheap energy, and constant demand – none of which can be taken for granted.

Yet Western economies outsourced their industrial base to China under the assumption that globalisation was permanent, stable, and mutually beneficial. They believed that moving production overseas would always be cheaper, always be efficient, and always be safe. But globalisation was never a natural law. It was a confidence game – a system that works only as long as everyone believes it will continue working.

Calling globalisation a Ponzi scheme might be too simple, but calling it a worldwide confidence trick is not far off. It requires constant expansion. It depends on trust rather than resilience. It shifts production far from consumption. And it leaves countries vulnerable if supply chains break, energy prices spike, or geopolitical tensions rise.

The truth that must be reckoned with is this: transferring every conceivable part of industrial production to the other side of the world leaves a serious question hanging in the air. What happens here – and what happens there – when the money system that is the lifeblood of this one-directional process comes to a grinding halt?

AI: The Final Blow to the Globalised Model

If globalisation hollowed out production, AI is now hollowing out what is left of the wage‑earning capacity that once kept the system going.

For decades, the global model relied on a simple loop:

The West consumed goods made abroad.
People earned wages to buy those goods.
Governments and banks created money to keep consumption rising.
China produced the goods that consumption demanded.

But AI breaks this loop. It displaces jobs across sectors – not just manufacturing, which was already offshored, but services, administration, logistics, design, media, and even parts of professional work. The very wage base that kept the consumption‑debt cycle alive is eroding.

We now face a situation where:

We no longer produce the goods.
We no longer earn the wages.
We still create the money – but it has nothing real to attach to.

This is the point where the global system begins to fail. You cannot sustain a consumption‑driven economy when the capacity to earn wages is collapsing. You cannot sustain a debt‑driven money system when the underlying productive base has been hollowed out. And you cannot sustain globalisation when the domestic economy no longer has the means to participate in it.

AI is not the cause of the crisis – it is the accelerant that exposes how fragile the system already was.

The Collapse of Demand

The global system requires:

constant production
constant consumption
constant money creation
constant debt expansion

But:

production moved abroad
wages stagnated
AI reduces earning power
debt has reached saturation
demand is collapsing

Once demand collapses, the entire global system fails – and protectionism becomes not ideological, but practical.

EVs: A Redirection, Not a Solution

EVs are being sold as a technological fix, but they are built on the same flawed logic: extract resources, extract labour, extract wealth, and hope the system holds.

The deeper issue is not the fuel that vehicles use. It is the assumption that we need so many vehicles in the first place – an assumption created by an economic system built around long‑distance commuting, centralised employment, fragmented supply chains, and consumer lifestyles that depend on mobility rather than locality.

EVs change the technology but not the underlying logic.

The System Is Failing – And Protectionism Is Becoming Necessary

We cannot continue like this. Soon we will not be able to.

The system that pointed everything toward China, foreign production, and EVs is falling to its knees. The question is whether we wake up in time to address the real issues while we still have a choice – or whether events will push everything we know straight to the floor.

In this context, protectionism not only makes sense – it becomes essential. Not just for cars, but for everything people genuinely need each and every day.

Media discussions about “upsetting China” are irrelevant compared to the question of more pressing matters such as whether everyone can continue to eat during a prolonged crisis.

Like so many other forms of essential production and supply we have hollowed out the UK’s ability to feed itself. Politicians may say we produce around 60% of our own food, but that figure is misleading. Much of that production depends on imported inputs: fertiliser, feed, energy, machinery, labour. If borders fully closed, the real amount of food ready to go directly to the table is closer to 11%.

That means in a real, ongoing crisis, we could feed roughly one in ten people. And this would potentially be the baseline for as long as it would take to change, develop and reestablish UK systems to produce enough food to meet everyone’s basic and essential needs.

To call this situation stupid would be an understatement. It is a growing structural vulnerability that has been ignored for decades because it was easier to believe that global supply chains were permanent and that crises only ever happened somewhere else.

The Only Viable Path Forward

Locality, localism, and an entirely different system – one that puts people first rather than money first – is now the only answer. And it’s the same for everyone else too.

Protectionism, in this context, is not about nationalism or nostalgia. It is about resilience. It is about ensuring that essential goods are produced close to where they are consumed. It is about rebuilding the capacity to feed, clothe, transport, and sustain ourselves without relying on fragile global systems.

This does not mean closing borders or rejecting trade. It means recognising that trade should complement domestic capability, not replace it. It means building systems that can withstand shocks rather than collapse under them. It means prioritising the basics – food, energy, manufacturing, infrastructure – over abstract financial growth.

The globalised model didn’t fail because of ideology. It failed because it extracted too much, transferred too much, hollowed out too much, and left too little behind.

Protectionism isn’t a political choice. It’s a survival strategy.

Why High Streets Are Really Failing

Featured

The empty shop is not the disease. It is an early warning sign of a money-centric system running out of road.

High streets are not failing because people suddenly stopped caring about them. They are failing because the economic system that once made them possible has changed so profoundly that the traditional high street no longer fits within it.

The familiar explanations are well known: online shopping, out-of-town retail parks, high rents, business rates, parking, poor planning, and changing consumer habits.

Each of these factors matters. But each is also a consequence of something deeper: a value system that has placed money, return, scale, and efficiency above human participation, local capability, and community life.

The decline of the high street is therefore not just a retail story. It is a visible expression of a wider economic direction. The same system that has hollowed out town centres is now beginning to hollow out work, ownership, contribution, and the human role in economic life itself.

That is why the empty high street matters. It shows us where the system has been, what it has already broken, and where it is now heading.

To understand the problem, we have to follow the chain properly: from local circulation, to financialisation, to centralisation, to digitalisation, to automation, to the false promise of Universal Basic Income, and finally to the question of whether a money-centred system can survive once people are no longer able to participate in it.

The answer begins with the high street, but it ends with the future of society itself.

The high street was built for a different kind of economy

For most of modern history, the high street worked because everyday life was organised locally. People lived near where they shopped. Money moved between households, independent businesses, local trades, nearby suppliers, and community institutions.

Shops were not just places of transaction; they were part of the social infrastructure of a town.

That system depended on local circulation. A pound spent with a local butcher, baker, café, repair shop, market trader, or family-run store was more likely to remain in the area, supporting other local work and relationships.

The high street was therefore sustained not only by demand, but by a pattern of life in which people, money, services, and trust repeatedly moved through the same place.

This is what is meant by a human-scale economy: an economy small enough for people to see the consequences of their choices, know who they are dealing with, and feel that their town is something they participate in rather than merely pass through.

The old high street was not perfect, and it should not be romanticised. But it did reflect a structure in which local presence mattered. That structure has been steadily dismantled.

Financialisation changed the rules

Over recent decades, the economy has shifted away from production, local exchange, and community resilience towards financialisation.

Financialisation means the process by which financial returns, asset values, debt, speculation, and shareholder value become more important than the practical usefulness of the things being financed.

In a financialised economy, the question changes. Instead of asking, “What does this place need in order to thrive?”, the system increasingly asks, “What produces the highest return?”

Efficiency is rewarded more than resilience.
Scale is rewarded more than locality.
Profit is rewarded more than community benefit.
Growth is rewarded more than stability.
Centralisation is rewarded more than distributed local ownership.

Once those incentives dominate, decline becomes less mysterious. Supermarkets replace local food shops because they operate at scale. Retail parks draw trade away from town centres because they fit car-based convenience. Online platforms bypass local businesses because they can centralise stock, data, logistics, and profit. Landlords and investors may treat property as an asset class before they treat it as part of a living town.

This does not mean every closure is caused by one villain or one policy. It means the wider system increasingly incentivises behaviour that drains value away from local places.

That is what extraction means in this context: value is created in one place, by real people and real communities, but is captured elsewhere by systems, owners, platforms, or institutions that are distant from the consequences.

Financialisation is not the root cause

Financialisation itself did not appear from nowhere. It emerged from a deeper value system that places money at the centre of every part of life.

When money becomes the primary measure of success, institutions begin organising themselves around its accumulation. Communities become markets. Citizens become consumers. Local capability becomes less important than financial efficiency.

The decline of the high street therefore reveals more than a retail problem. It shows what happens when the economy stops asking what creates healthy places and starts asking only what produces measurable financial return.

Digital convenience accelerated the collapse

Digitalisation did not create the underlying problem, but it accelerated it dramatically.

Online retail, delivery apps, automated logistics, targeted advertising, and platform marketplaces all make it easier for spending to leave our towns and communities without ever touching the local economy.

The promise is convenience. The cost is disconnection.

A purchase that once involved a walk or bus ride into town, a conversation, a shopfront, a local wage, and perhaps another local supplier can now become a silent transfer to a centralised platform where no other human being will ever be seen.

The behaviour feels small and therefore insignificant at the level of the individual, but multiplied across millions of transactions it transforms the physical life of towns and cities too.

The high street is expected to compete, but it is not competing on equal terms. It is being measured against businesses that can exploit scale, data, automation, global supply chains, and financial backing that local shops rarely possess.

This is why decline often feels like a one-way street. The system increasingly makes local presence optional, then wonders why local places become vulnerable, underused, and out of step with the economic world being built around them.

Why some high streets still thrive

Some high streets still work, and their existence is important because it proves that decline is not inevitable.

In many places, especially where communities remain socially dense and locally connected, independent businesses continue to play a central role in daily life.

Part of the reason appears to be stronger social cohesion, local spending habits, walkable routines, and community networks. These are not minor details. They are the social conditions that allow local businesses to survive.

Thriving local economies often depend on behaviours such as:

regular walking routes through local shops and services
dense social networks that create trust and repeat custom
loyalty to community-run or family-run businesses
localised spending patterns
multi-generational knowledge of place
a sense that the high street belongs to the community, not only to landlords and retailers

These behaviours naturally sustain local shops because they keep money, attention, and relationships circulating within the area.

The lesson is not that some communities are immune to economic pressure. It is that high streets need more than buildings, grants, or branding exercises.

High streets and urban centres need the social and economic infrastructure that gives people a reason to use them every day.

Where that infrastructure remains, high streets remain more resilient. Where it has been stripped away, regeneration becomes much harder. This is why the answer cannot be limited to retail strategy. The problem is deeper than shopping, and so the solution has to be deeper too.

The high street is the warning, not the destination

The mistake is to treat the decline of the high street as an isolated problem.

It is not. It is an early warning sign of a much larger direction of travel.

The same forces that reduced the need for local shops are now reducing the need for human involvement elsewhere. Automation, artificial intelligence, platform systems, and machine-led logistics all follow the same basic logic: remove friction, reduce cost, increase efficiency, centralise control, and maximise return.

For those who own the platforms, technologies, data, and infrastructure, this appears rational. It looks like progress. But the contradiction is obvious once we look at the system as a whole: a money-centric economy only functions if people continue to earn, spend, consume, and generate returns.

If technology removes the economic role of growing numbers of people, the system does not become magically abundant. It becomes unstable.

The customers, workers, taxpayers, tenants, borrowers, and consumers who are supposed to keep the machinery turning are the same people whose incomes and agency are being eroded.

This is the direction the empty high street points towards. First local shops become unnecessary. Then local ownership becomes unnecessary. Then local labour becomes unnecessary. Eventually, human participation itself is treated as an inefficiency to be managed.

Why UBI has entered the conversation

This is why Universal Basic Income, or UBI, has become attractive to some of the people building the technological future as we are being led to understand it.

They can see that a problem is coming. They can see that automation and artificial intelligence may leave many people without a reliable route to income. They can see that a system built on employment and consumption faces a serious problem if employment becomes scarce.

But recognising that a problem is coming is not the same as understanding the mechanics of the system that created it.

Proposing UBI as the solution assumes that a collapsing money-centric system can be preserved by giving people enough money to keep consuming. It assumes that the same structure that has concentrated ownership, transferred wealth, extracted value, weakened local capability, and reduced human participation can somehow provide a secure income to a population it no longer needs economically.

That is the contradiction. A system built on wages, debt, rent, consumption, tax, and returns cannot sustain a permanently kept population if the people expected to fund and circulate value no longer have stable incomes. Even if the intention were compassionate, the mechanism does not hold.

UBI may soften the appearance of collapse for a time, but it does not reverse the underlying direction. It does not restore local ownership. It does not rebuild capability. It does not give people a meaningful role in production, governance, or community life. It keeps the money-centred frame intact while the social and economic foundations beneath it continue to weaken.

The problem is not that people need support. They do. The problem is believing that support can be delivered through the same system that created the dependency in the first place.

The alternative: LEGS, BLS, and a people-centred economy

If the high street is a symptom of a deeper economic failure, then saving it cannot mean simply filling empty units with new tenants. Nor can it mean relying on another short-term regeneration scheme, marketing campaign, subsidy, or welfare mechanism that leaves the underlying structure untouched.

What is needed is a revaluation: a shift away from treating money as the centre of value and towards treating human wellbeing, contribution, dignity, place, community resilience, and environmental responsibility as the things an economy is supposed to serve.

This is where the Local Economy & Governance System, or LEGS, becomes relevant. LEGS is not simply an economic policy. It is a different operating system for society: one that begins with people, community, and the environment rather than money, growth, and extraction.

Its purpose is to restore local capability, local decision-making, shared responsibility, and meaningful contribution.

Instead of asking how people can be kept alive inside a system that no longer needs them, it asks how society can be organised so that people remain necessary, valued, secure, and sovereign.

The Basic Living Standard, or BLS, is central to that alternative. Unlike UBI, it is not simply a payment distributed within the existing system. It is a structural guarantee that people can meet the essential costs of living through a normal week’s contribution, without debt, charity, or dependency.

It links security to dignity, participation, and a fair structure of life rather than to passive receipt within a collapsing model.

In practical terms, this means rebuilding local economic life around:

local capability, so towns can meet more of their own needs
local production and repair, so value is created close to where people live
local supply chains, so businesses support one another rather than depend entirely on distant systems
local ownership, so wealth does not immediately leave the area
local governance, so decisions are made closer to their consequences
local value circulation, so money, skills, trust, and responsibility move through the community rather than out of it

This is not a call to go backwards. It is a call to re-scale forwards: to use technology, planning, enterprise, and governance in ways that strengthen human capability rather than replace it.

A healthy high street cannot be created by nostalgia. It can only be created by an economy that gives people a real reason, and real ability, to participate locally. The same is true of society as a whole.

The real message of the empty high street

The decline of the high street matters because it exposes a much deeper problem. It shows what happens when financial efficiency becomes more important than human value, local capability, and community resilience.

Empty shops are not the disease. They are the symptom.

The question is therefore not simply how to save the high street. The question is whether we want to keep organising life around a system that produces dependency, centralisation, extraction, and fragility – or whether we are willing to build systems that restore capability, participation, dignity, sovereignty, and belonging.

The difficulty is not that alternatives such as LEGS and the BLS are impossible to understand. The difficulty is that most of us have been conditioned to believe that a money-centred system is the only way life can work.

We have learned to treat money as value itself, rather than as a tool that should serve life.

That is the real lesson of the high street. It is not asking to be saved as a memory. It is asking whether we still value the kind of society that made it possible – and whether we are willing to build a people-centred future before the money-centred one collapses under its own weight.