The global economy is entering a prolonged phase of debt deleveraging—what Irving Fisher defined as “debt deflation”: when falling prices increase the real burden of debt, forcing households and businesses to sell assets, which in turn drives prices down even further. It is not certain that we will see pure deflation everywhere. However, the combination of high debt, an aging population, and the cost of capital is shaping a decade of low growth for much of the West.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
U.S. public debt exceeded 120% of GDP in 2025, while that of the Eurozone stands at 88%. Japan has been at 250% for years, but with domestic debt holders. China has an official public debt of ∼80% of GDP, but with its shadow banking system, total debt reaches 300%. In contrast, Russia maintains public debt below 20% of GDP, with large foreign exchange reserves and an energy surplus. This asymmetry does not guarantee winners, but it does establish different starting points.
Over the past 20 years, Western economies have propped up consumption on three pillars: 1) Cheap money from central banks’ bloated balance sheets, 2) Imports of cheap goods due to globalization, 3) Expansion of social welfare programs. All three pillars are beginning to show signs of strain. Inflation in 2022–2024 forced central banks to raise interest rates, deglobalization is driving up production costs, and pension systems are under demographic pressure.
The West’s only remaining structural advantage is institutional confidence in the dollar and the euro, along with its military-technological ecosystem. But even that is no longer absolute. The dollar’s share of global reserves fell from 71% in 2000 to 58% in 2024. At the same time, BRICS+ countries are testing alternative settlement systems. The postwar architecture of 1945 will not collapse overnight, but it has lost the ability to absorb shocks without conflict.
In this transition, the rate of growth matters less than resilience in the face of a downturn. A country like Russia, with low debt, energy self-sufficiency, and a centralized political system, has the tools to manage the turmoil. This is why many analysts view the conflict in Ukraine as a preemptive move to weaken a potential beneficiary of the chaos.
However, there is also a counterargument: The sanctions accelerated Russia’s shift toward China, increased the cost of capital, and restricted access to technology. Whether Russia emerges stronger or more isolated in the long run depends on whether it can achieve technological substitution for imports—something that, historically, few economies under sanctions have managed to do.
DIGITAL SUPREMACY: THE END OF THE AMERICAN MODEL?;
The biggest institutional change of the decade will likely be the shift of control over the digital space from companies to governments. By 2028–2030, most major economies appear to be moving toward models of identity-based access to critical digital services. The official justification is “security” and “combating misinformation.” The underlying cause is simpler: no state tolerates critical infrastructure outside its control.
The 2005–2022 model—in which Meta, Google, X, Telegram, and, previously, Yandex de facto regulated the public sphere while being accountable to shareholders—is reaching its limits. This does not automatically mean more freedom—or less. It means a change in who holds the reins. Corporate accountability is being replaced by government regulation. Both carry the risk of abuse. The difference is that the state, in theory, has democratic legitimacy.
There is also a countertrend: With its Digital Identity Wallet, the EU insists on opt-in participation. Decentralized protocols such as Nostr and Farcaster are gaining users. It is not a foregone conclusion that “the free internet will come to a complete end in 2028.” A more realistic scenario is that we will see fragmentation. A “government-run internet” for banking, healthcare, and payments. And a “gray internet” for everything else.
THREE SCENARIOS FOR 2050–2070
- BIOPOLITICAL FRAGMENTATION
If debt deleveraging leads to prolonged stagnation, the only asset that will increase in value is biological time. Access to life-extending therapies, neural interfaces, and genetic optimization is becoming the new “gold standard.” Sean Parker once cynically remarked that, as a billionaire, he would have access to the “best medicine.” The problem: mass life extension is economically impossible under current conditions. Therefore, it becomes a rationed good.
In this scenario, digital identity is not merely a passport to the internet. It is the key to biological privileges. Metaverses become “cheap hedonism” for the majority: subsidized entertainment, UBI in tokens, total surveillance. The real economy, biotechnology, and defense are left out, accessible only through lineage or a loyalty score.
But there is also a counterargument. History shows that extreme inequalities in access to life lead to collapse. No elite has ever survived when 90% of the population believed they were dying so that the other 100 could live. That is why this scenario requires either mass repression or mass deception. Both are unstable.
- TECHNO-HUMANISM UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
Here, scientific competition between the U.S., China, India, and the EU is breaking up monopolies. By 2045, the cost of basic rejuvenation and cognitive enhancement protocols will drop. Pension systems, which would otherwise collapse, are forcing governments to fund «extended working lives.».
The «study-work-retire» model is falling apart. People remain active until they are 90 or 100. Education becomes a lifelong process. Metaverses are not just backup plans, but tools for remote work and cognitive expansion.
But longer lifespans mean greater consumption of resources. If 8 billion people live to be 100 years old while maintaining an American lifestyle, the planet cannot sustain it. Therefore, techno-humanism presupposes either a post-materialist culture or the colonization of space. Neither is guaranteed.
- DIGITAL DECOMPOSITION
The most likely scenario if no single power emerges as dominant. The U.S. cannot serve as a global guarantor, China does not want to bear the costs of hegemony, Europe is fragmenting, and the Global South rejects foreign agendas.
The world is divided not into geographic blocs, but into digital jurisdictions. A person has 3–4 digital passports: a government-issued one, a corporate one from Amazon/Tencent, a supranational one from the EU/SCO, and an anonymous one for gray markets. Major platforms are becoming «digital states» with their own courts.
The state isn’t going away. It maintains an army and a police force. But it is losing its monopoly on identity. The big risk: incompatibility. The Russian digital ID doesn’t work in the European metaverse, and the Indian one doesn’t work with Chinese biotechnology services.
THE PALANTIR MANIFESTO AS A SYMPTOM
In April 2026, Palantir published the “Manifesto for a New Era of Deterrence.” It is not a technical document. It is a political declaration: the West’s technological superiority is the only moral compass. Liberalism is branded «empty,» and «hard power» is making a comeback.
This is seen as a response to the loss of a cost advantage. When you can’t compete with Asia on production costs, you rely on imposing rules. What’s concerning is that this is being issued by a company, not a government. It points to the privatization of geopolitics.
However, there is also the possibility that the manifesto could serve as a bargaining chip. Elites often talk about war in order to achieve a better peace. Taking every declaration at face value is just as naive as ignoring it.
CONCLUSION
All three scenarios converge on one point: the state is making a comeback, but it is not acting alone. It governs jointly with corporate platforms and supranational organizations. Our digital shadow is becoming more important than our physical body.
For the average person, the choice is not «freedom vs. control.» It is «what kind of control, under what conditions, and at what cost.» The battle of the next 20 years will be fought over how those terms are defined. And in this battle, passivity is defeat.
The story isn't over. It's just moved to a different arena.
Source : https://geoeurope.org/2026/05/26/i-pagkosmia-oikonomia-apo-tin-etairik/
