Finally, people are mentioning the Triffin dilemma. In short, with a strong dollar needed for world trade to prevent another world war caused by economic crises, the U.S. has to face chronic and growing trade deficits (which it has since the 1970s) and increasing overall debt (since the early 1980s) to make more dollars so that the world economy, which needs more dollars, can continue growing.

But there's one catch: as countries become stronger economically, which is what's happening with BRICS and forty emerging markets, then they become less reliant on the dollar. And when that happens, demand for the dollar may decrease, leading to a weaker dollar, and thus less borrowing and spending for the U.S. Meanwhile, the latter is still saddled with high levels of debt which it can't pay back. (Some say it has to borrow more to even pay for part of the interest of previous debts.)

And some of that debt is in the hands of countries like Japan and China, with many countries still having dollar reserves. If the U.S. falls, will it drag the rest with it?

If some of these countries demand payment from a defaulting U.S. and want to take control of U.S. physical assets, will the U.S. military industrial complex, which has been bullying countries for decades to keep them weak and thus dependent on the U.S. dollar and for the U.S. for aid, allow that?

Some more points:

The trade war actually started back in 2018, when the U.S. slapped tariffs on China, and the latter retaliated the following year. The year after that, Trump and Xi met, and the former convinced the latter to buy more U.S. goods to lower the deficit and thus allow the U.S. to earn more and thus lower its debts.

China did not comply after the chaos over spying took place, and even after Biden, who continued Trump's America First tariff policies plus included the Inflation Reduction Act, which is filled with MAGA principles, made tariff exemptions for China as part of deals with China.

I think those markets have been rigged since the early 2000s.

The U.S. has been experiencing low growth since the early 1960s because the dollar's been used for global trade. This also led to chronic trade deficits, which started during the 1970s, which in turn prompted the country to promote financial deregulation, or Reaganomics, in order to increase debt and thus meet increased spending, especially for consumers and the military.

In short, for over 40 years, and even after the 2008 crash, the U.S. has been borrowing and spending heavily, to the point that it has to borrow more just to pay for part of the interest of previous debts. Part of the spending went to the American dream, which consisted of taking on increasing credit to buy all sorts of things and financial speculation, like flipping McMansions. Another part went to the military, which with onerous foreign policies was used to keep other countries weak and thus dependent on the dollar for trade. Otherwise, the borrowing stops, spending drops, and the country falls apart.

The problem is that BRICS and emerging markets became stronger, and have been slowly moving away from the dollar and U.S. influence.

Global GDP growth, not crops.

It was in The Guardian around a decade ago, but the same point was raised only recently, with an increase to 18 percent of GDP by 2050.

I read somewhere that the effects of climate change have led to disasters which have eaten up at least a third of global GDP annual growth.