De-Globalization Is Forcing Nations Worldwide To Choose A Side | Michael Every

Summary of the video’s main arguments and analyses

1) “De-globalization” is creating a forced choice between two financial/geopolitical blocs

Michael Every argues the world is shifting toward a binary structure:

• One side: U.S.-linked systems—U.S. markets, U.S. tech, U.S. finance, and U.S.-backed stablecoins.
• The other side: working with Iran (and, by implication, a broader anti-U.S. alignment).

He claims the U.S. uses economic pressure to make this a real “join us or be sanctioned” dynamic, forcing other countries to decide where they fit. This is framed as an emerging, large-scale destabilizing trend—effectively “pulling the rug out” from under many global actors.

2) U.S. “yield curve control” via Treasury policy is linked to the stablecoin push

Every connects several policy moves:

• Treasury actions are described as a “special” version of Operation Twist (rate-stabilizing/rate-management), though he says it’s not textbook yield curve control.
• The key thesis: stablecoin legislation (e.g., Genius Act / Clarity Act, as referenced) will accelerate stablecoin adoption by ~2027 at the latest.
• If stablecoins expand globally, issuers must back them with Treasury bills, creating significant demand for short-dated U.S. Treasuries.
• That demand could help keep short-end borrowing costs down, aligning with the Treasury’s apparent rate-management strategy.

The hosts emphasize this resembles yield-curve control “in spirit,” suggesting it could be part of a broader strategy rather than narrow interest-rate tinkering.

3) Economic warfare against Iran is meant to be insulated from market constraints—and may precede renewed military action

Every frames U.S. measures against Iran as “economic warfare”, aimed at squeezing Iran’s ability to fund its military and militias (including claims involving currency weakness and inflation).

He also argues:

• The U.S. is reducing the usual constraint that “financial markets tell Treasury what it can’t do” geopolitically.
• If sanctions/economic statecraft weaken Iran, he expects the U.S. may later revert to more direct military action—after midterms (as discussed in the conversation).

There is disagreement/uncertainty about whether Iran is fully blocked from oil exports, but the overall message remains: revenue pressure is real and politically consequential.

4) Stablecoins are portrayed as a tool for neomercantilist power—reshaping trade settlement and leverage

The discussion shifts from “globalization” to economic statecraft / neomercantilism:

• The U.S. uses policy tools to steer economic outcomes toward U.S. power, not merely efficient markets.
• Stablecoins are framed as “non-inflationary” liquidity rails—allowing foreign users to hold and transact in dollar substitutes backed by T-bills.
• Every hypothesizes this could create a system where offshore interest rates and incentives diverge from domestic ones by metering demand through T-bill-backed stablecoins.
• Analogy: stablecoins may provide “goods/benefits with fewer liabilities,” by changing settlement mechanics without the same direct monetization associated with QE/Fed money creation.

Geopolitical stakes are summarized as: who controls trade flows, pipelines, and payment currencies, with stablecoins potentially reinforcing U.S.-aligned settlement.

5) Energy and “physical supply” constraints will ultimately matter more than financial engineering

A recurring theme: finance can be a lever, but real-world supply (oil, diesel, refineries, infrastructure) can’t be created by financial gimmicks.

Key points:

• Iran pressure may affect broader energy/logistics, but the diesel/refined-products bottleneck is central—not just crude.
• The U.S. may use sanctions and economic statecraft to improve access to supply (the conversation discusses a Venezuela angle as part of securing refinery feedstock and diesel production).
• Financial tactics help, but physical bottlenecks could drive escalation if demand can’t be met.

6) Future escalation risk: multiple theaters could intensify together (Russia/Ukraine, Iran, NATO-adjacent risks)

Every warns (as scenario logic, not certainty) that:

• If one major front escalates, it may encourage escalation elsewhere to maximize pressure on the Western system.
• He mentions “whispers” of escalation patterns involving North Korea and Russia/Ukraine, plus risks related to NATO “Article 5” misunderstandings.
• Markets may be underestimating the potential for volatility if conflict spreads.

7) Commodities and (potentially) Treasuries are the main investing themes discussed

In the “investment themes” section, the agreed directional takeaways were:

• Commodities: expected to do well in a more zero-sum, rearmament/neomercantilist world with strategically disrupted supply chains.
• Treasuries / bond yields: potentially supported in the short-to-medium term by the rate-management framework and stablecoin-linked Treasury demand—though longer-term inflation risk remains.

The hosts stress these are themes, not guarantees, and that cycles can reverse.

8) The episode ends with additional commentary: AI/data centers + energy grid pressures + market/risk management philosophy

A major side topic is domestic politics and infrastructure:

• AI data center growth is generating backlash due to electricity cost increases, land use, and perceived community harms.
• The implied policy need: align incentives so communities benefit (e.g., tax relief, energy cost offsets, revenue sharing).
• Potential solutions mentioned include grid buildout and the possibility of nuclear microreactors.

The show then transitions to a financial firm partner segment emphasizing:

• Trend-following with risk management, including hedging via options (covered calls for income/timing reduction; puts sometimes used as crash insurance).
• A broader “life and investing” message: security comes not only from market returns, but also from health, relationships, and planning for the future (including succession planning if the investor can no longer manage).

---

Presenters / contributors

• Adam Tagert — host, Thoughtful Money
• Michael Every — guest; “Mr. mercantalism” / economic statecraft viewpoint
• Mike Preston — lead partner, New Harbor Financial