Step 5 of 10

Macro economics

This step converts ethical priorities into a simple “impact signature”. We weight each ethic’s macro impact by how high it sits in the priority order. Then we compare each party (and you) against the average.

From this step onwards it's more theortical, and shows interesting ways you can think and interpret the framework.

Weighting rule: for each ethic, weight = 18 − priority. Priority is normalised to 1–18. Higher priority → higher weight.

Compare

Bars show deviation from average across User + all parties.

How to read this

Positive means the selected entity implies more of that impact than the average. Negative means less than the average. This is not “good” or “bad” by itself — it’s a profile.

Globalisation — the ethical 4D chess

Global trade is like 4D chess. Short-term incentives are easy to see: cheaper goods, higher GDP growth, more choice. The longer-term impacts on power, resilience, and ethics are much more complicated.

Increased reliance can reduce the chance of war and lift living standards. But unbalanced trade can hollow out national industry and foreign-currency reserves while super-charging trade partners. Dictatorships can exaggerate this by suppressing wages, directing capital, and deliberately under-pricing exports to pull in cash and weaken competitors’ industries over time.

Once a country (especially a dictatorship) has pooled cash from inbound trade, it gains enormous leverage over states that rely on its goods and finance. It can spike inflation, restrict access, or weaponise supply chains while its partners no longer have the national industries to fall back on.

Ethics and the globalisation vs nationalism balance

The balance between globalisation and economic nationalism depends heavily on how you prioritise global vs national ethics. If you prioritise global ethics very highly, you might favour trading with almost anyone, most of the time. If you lean toward longer-term national utilitarianism, you might prefer balanced trade with neutral deficits, or trade with democracies that are less able to weaponise dependencies against you.

Below is a simplified example: three different trade-partner profiles trading with the UK. You can switch partner to see how the impacts differ for the UK, the trade partner, and the world as a whole.

Choose a trade partner

Each profile assumes a long-running trade relationship with the UK. Impacts are shown as relative percentage changes versus a “no special trade focus” baseline.

UK impact

How this partner changes outcomes inside the UK.

Trade partner impact

How the relationship impacts the partner country.

Global impact

Net effects on the wider global system.