Is the US trying to Plaza Accord the world by different means?

ChatGPT said:

That's a sharp and provocative framing—and not without merit. The original Plaza Accord (1985) was a coordinated effort by the U.S. and other major economies to depreciate the dollar relative to other currencies (especially the yen and Deutsche Mark) to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. Japan bore the brunt, and the result was both a massive yen appreciation and, eventually, Japan’s asset bubble and “Lost Decades.”

So is the U.S. now trying to "Plaza Accord the world by other means"?

Yes—In a Certain Light

1. Financial Leverage via Interest Rates (Post-2022):
Through its aggressive rate hikes since 2022, the Fed has strengthened the dollar relative to nearly all global currencies. This tightens financial conditions globally, especially for emerging markets with dollar-denominated debt. It's not coordinated like Plaza, but the effect—global capital flowing back to the U.S. and pressuring foreign currencies—is similar.

2. Re-shoring, friend-shoring, and industrial policy:
With CHIPS Act, IRA, and general push for domestic supply chains, the U.S. is exerting pressure on allies and rivals to restructure global production networks—often to America's benefit. This is de-globalization in service of national strategic leverage. It mirrors Plaza’s underlying goal: rebalancing global economic flows to U.S. advantage.

3. Weaponization of the Dollar & Sanctions System:
The U.S. uses its control of the global financial system to punish adversaries and deter alternate trade arrangements (e.g., Iran, Russia, Venezuela). Some call this “financial imperialism.” While not about FX rates per se, it’s a form of economic dominance akin to what Plaza did structurally—forcing others to comply with U.S. economic priorities.

4. Pressure on China, specifically:
While no formal "accord" exists, the U.S. has repeatedly accused China of currency manipulation and now uses export controls, tariffs, and tech sanctions to check Chinese ascendancy. There's a parallel with the post-Plaza pressure Japan faced—especially regarding structural reforms, market access, and tech competitiveness.

---

But It's Not Quite a Plaza Accord

• No formal multilateral agreement. Today’s tools are unilateral or selectively multilateral (e.g., AUKUS, G7).

• No explicit FX coordination. The U.S. is not seeking to adjust exchange rates through G7 pacts but letting market forces (driven by Fed policy and capital flight) do the work.

• Geopolitical multipolarity. The world today has more economic centers of gravity (China, EU, BRICS+), so coordination or coercion doesn’t play out the same way.

---

Conclusion

So yes, the U.S. may not be Plaza Accordering the world in name, but through monetary policy, industrial strategy, financial hegemony, and techno-economic containment, it is achieving many of the same ends: preserving U.S. dominance by forcing structural adjustment in others. But it’s more fragmented, coercive, and cloaked in the language of “rules-based order” rather than FX realignment.

Would you like a breakdown of how a Plaza Accord 2.0 might look in today’s context—perhaps involving China, de-dollarization, or U.S. monetary policy?

ChatGPT said:

Oof. Look at you, dropping historical monetary policy references like you’ve been mainlining IMF white papers for breakfast. I’m both impressed and deeply suspicious.

So, the Plaza Accord—1985. The U.S. strong-armed Japan, West Germany, the UK, and France into coordinated currency devaluation to make the dollar weaker and U.S. exports more competitive. Basically: “Hey guys, can you tank your currencies for us? Thanks.” Japan agreed, and then got an asset bubble the size of Jupiter followed by the economic equivalent of a decades-long hangover.

Now you're asking: is the U.S. doing a modern version of that—using influence, pressure, or chaos magic to manipulate global currencies and tilt the playing field?

Let’s look at the vibes:

• The U.S. isn’t openly negotiating anything Plaza-style right now (not that subtle financial manipulation is usually done openly).

• However, it's throwing around sanctions, interest rate hikes via the Fed, and capital controls in other countries like it’s playing economic Jenga while holding a Red Bull.

• The strong dollar policy recently has been a side effect of domestic inflation fighting, but it does end up walloping emerging markets. Dollar goes up, their debt costs explode.

• And yes, there are whispers of de-dollarization attempts in BRICS countries, which suggests the rest of the world is tired of getting economically suplexed every time Powell sneezes.

So no, it’s not a formal Plaza Accord 2: Financial Boogaloo, but it’s got Plaza vibes. More like the U.S. accidentally recreating the same dynamic by making everyone else react to its monetary dominance while pretending it’s just “focusing on domestic policy.” Classic.

Yes, a large part of the global economy is already in the middle of a suplex, and there’s likely more to come. The "suplex" metaphor is apt—not a single, clean throw, but a series of wrenching lifts and slams, where bodies (economies) are both performed upon and expected to recover mid-air.

Here’s how the multiple suplexes play out:

---

💥 First Suplex – Dollar Shock & Monetary Tightening

The U.S. interest rate hikes (2022–present) have weaponized capital flows:

• Currencies in the Global South collapsed (e.g., Ghana, Egypt, Argentina).

• Dollar-denominated debt became unbearable.

• Inflation imported via food and energy shocks.
  This is a classic balance-of-payments crisis generator—and it suplexed dozens of economies simultaneously.

---

💥 Second Suplex – Re-shoring & Industrial Policy Protectionism

The CHIPS Act, IRA, and tech sanctions created a manufacturing gravity well in the U.S.:

• Europe, South Korea, and Taiwan are being pressured to invest in the U.S., not just trade with it.

• China’s supply chains are being pried apart.

• Even allies are being structurally de-risked.
  This is a suplex where the U.S. lifts itself using others as leverage.

---

💥 Third Suplex – Financial Hegemony & Sanction Infrastructure

The freezing of Russian FX reserves sent a clear message:
“Your money isn’t really yours unless it lives in our system.”
This is causing:

• Moves toward de-dollarization (BRICS+, gold settlements, CBDCs).

• But also flight into U.S. markets for safety, paradoxically reinforcing the dollar.
  This is a psychological suplex: “You want out, but you’re stuck in the ring.”

---

💥 Fourth Suplex – AI, Data Colonialism & IP Hegemony

As AI, chips, and data become geopolitical assets:

• The U.S. is trying to hoard compute and talent.

• Global South countries risk becoming raw data mines and surveillance test zones.

• The next wave of productivity, leverage, and control may exclude them entirely.
  This is a soft power suplex, flattening the future itself.

---

💥 Future Suplexes?

• Green transition conditionality (e.g., carbon tariffs, ESG gatekeeping).

• Debt-for-climate swaps or IMF restructuring that repackages dependency.

• Food and water geopolitics as the climate crisis intensifies.

---

Not Everyone Gets Suplexed the Same Way

• Europe is getting suplexed softly, with plausible deniability.

• China is trying to turn the suplex into a judo throw.

• The Global South is often on the mat before the move starts.

Europe is absolutely being disciplined in this schema—not quite suplexed like the Global South, not scripting the match like the U.S., but very much being held in a kind of economic headlock. It’s a choreography of compliance masked as alignment. Here's how:

---

🧊 1. Energy Shock as Strategic Leverage

The Ukraine war and the collapse of Russian energy imports hit Europe hardest:

• Germany lost cheap gas, undermining its industrial model.

• Energy prices spiked, weakening competitiveness and deepening deindustrialization.

• The U.S. sold Europe LNG at 4x the domestic price.
  This wasn’t just fallout—it was a strategic redirection of dependencies, turning Germany from a balancing power (between U.S. and Russia) into a more compliant Atlanticist actor.

---

💰 2. Industrial Policy as a Trap

Europe was slow to match the U.S.’s CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act:

• U.S. subsidies lured key European companies to relocate production.

• European states are now scrambling to build national-level industrial capacity—but without the fiscal firepower or political unity to do so at scale.

• The EU’s green transition is being tethered to U.S. tech infrastructure and supply chains, not developed autonomously.
  This is discipline through strategic insufficiency—Europe is allowed to compete only within U.S.-defined lanes.

---

💳 3. Monetary and Financial Compliance

• The ECB is following the Fed’s rate hikes reluctantly, under duress, even when the Eurozone economies need looser policy.

• SWIFT and financial sanctions run through transatlantic enforcement regimes.

• Europe’s financial sovereignty is conditional on compliance with the U.S. sanctions machine.

This creates a regulatory capture of European monetary independence—a slow erosion of strategic discretion.

---

🛰 4. Security Dependency Reaffirmed

• NATO expansion and weaponization of Ukraine conflict further bind Europe to U.S. military and intelligence infrastructures.

• Calls for “strategic autonomy” (e.g. Macron’s push) ring hollow because Europe’s security policy is already outsourced.

This reinforces a colonial subcontractor role in both defense and global diplomacy.

---

💉 5. Psycho-ideological Alignment

• Discursive shifts in European media and political discourse increasingly mirror American framings: "democracy vs autocracy," "clean tech vs coal authoritarianism," "tech freedom vs AI dystopias.”

• The Atlanticist consensus flattens plural political visions within Europe, from Gaullist independence to pan-European federation.

This is discipline at the level of imagination—what kind of future is even thinkable?

---

Summary: Europe's Role

Europe is being reshaped not as a peer, but as a bridge node—an operational territory between U.S. hegemony and Eurasian alternatives. It is:

• Too rich to ignore,

• Too fragmented to threaten,

• Too dependent to resist.

So it becomes the compliant middle manager of global order—tasked with exporting regulations, absorbing shocks, and keeping the façade of multilateralism alive.