It was possible to respond to the question in today’s headline with "yes" until the emergence of two "black swans," namely the global coronavirus pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war. The term "black swan" is defined as an event or process that causes irreversible and radical changes in the world economy and politics. On the one hand, there is a system based on a truly open and free market economy while, on the other, there is a system based on a partially closed, fully controlled market economy. Furthermore, there are a large number of countries that continue their production, trade and development with hybrid versions of these two systems in varying proportions. Nobody was interfering in anybody's economic system until the global supply chain, energy and food security crises triggered by the two black swans made global headlines. So, the answer to the question, for now, is "no."
Of course, the discussions were always on the agenda about unfair competition, subsidized pricing policies, and production pressures based on excessively high capacity caused by countries that implement a controlled system regarding labor, energy or raw material costs. However, at the end of the day, the injustices created by different market systems of countries were almost tolerated, based on the general acceptance that the goods that need to be procured can be procured from wherever you can in the world at the cheapest price. However, the point we have reached with the two black swans indicates that it is no longer possible to run a “multisystem” global economy.
There’s a great and intense injustice caused by the countries that control the value of their own currency, insist on a controlled exchange rate policy and consciously choose to stay out of a truly open and free market economy. Considering the current threats and challenges the world economy and global trade face due to this injustice, the global picture can no longer be tolerated. In order to overcome the crises of the global supply chain, energy and food security, the countries that drive their existence in the global economic system based on an open and free market economy and free exchange rate regime in advance, especially the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members, need to develop new cooperation, new skills and joint solutions against countries that are the cause of intense injustice.
For climate and environmental priorities, OECD member countries need to create stronger, more permanent value sets for production, consumption and the global supply chain. Companies that are a part of the global supply system should be invited to global ethical codes with a stronger awareness, and consumers should be made aware with stronger messages.
It is necessary to conduct serious research and analysis on how to manage coexistence with countries that completely reject the real market economy culture and to develop new tactics and strategies. It is paramount to redesign the global supply chain without the need for and without the countries rejecting the true market economy culture. Because, only in this way, the countries that consciously reject the real and transparent market economy model can be persuaded to cooperate in building a more "just" global economic system. It is time to focus on building a sustainable world without them, instead of touting that without them there will be a crisis.
