Barbara Boyd is arguing that recent political developments in Brazil and renewed industrial investment in the United States reflect a larger shift away from globalism and toward nationalism, domestic manufacturing and national sovereignty.

Boyd pointed first to Brazil, where she said the latest election results showed conservative nationalist Flavio Bolsonaro narrowly leading socialist incumbent Lula da Silva heading into a runoff.

"Last Sunday's surprising election results in Brazil may have freed that country from future communist control. Just look at this shock headline from London's Guardian: The conservative nationalist Flavio Bolsonaro came in at 47.03% against the incumbent socialist Lula da Selva at 45 point 16%," Boyd said.

She tied the outcome to the broader political direction of Latin America and argued that the curtailment of USAID funding under President Donald Trump helped weaken organizations and political networks that had supported left-wing movements.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

"All of it happened because Trump and Elon Musk invoked the Monroe Doctrine and shut off USAID democracy building and social justice aid for Brazil and everyone else in Latin America," Boyd said.

Boyd also linked Brazil’s political story to Trump’s announcement in Maryland regarding the revival of Sparrows Point, once a major steel and shipbuilding center.

President Trump described the project as a major industrial restoration effort.

"Today we're officially launching the construction of the largest new shipyard in the United States. This is since World War II. There's been nothing like what we're doing today," Trump said.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

He highlighted Sparrows Point’s historic role in American manufacturing and defense.

"The workers of Baltimore and the shipyard here at Sparrow's Point have been a vital part of the American industrial strength for literally over 100 years," Trump said.

Trump also recalled the site’s role in producing steel used in major American landmarks and in building ships during World War II.

"When I came into office for my second term less than two years ago, this national treasure was abandoned and was totally forgotten. But it's not forgotten any longer," Trump said.

Boyd said Sparrows Point once supported tens of thousands of workers and served as the economic foundation for surrounding communities.

"The president is discussing the revival of what was once the largest steelmaking and ship-producing complex in the world; it was also the heart of a thriving Baltimore community which based itself on manufacturing," Boyd said.

She made the issue personal, noting that her husband came from the area and that his family relied on the wages and benefits of steel work.

"At its height in 1957. Sparrows Point employed 30,000 workers in the steel mill and 8,000 workers in the adjacent shipyard. My husband's dad worked there," Boyd said.

Boyd argued that the decline of Sparrows Point followed a broader shift toward a post-industrial economy beginning in the 1970s, when investment in heavy manufacturing slowed and foreign competitors gained ground.

She said the current project would bring advanced submarine component manufacturing to the former Bethlehem Steel site and involve $3.4 billion in new investment.

Boyd then turned to a broader question: why wealthy financiers and corporations would support socialist or heavily regulated economic systems.

To make that case, she cited Mike Benz, who argued that centralized state control can benefit large corporations by limiting competition and guaranteeing markets.

"What about pharma? Think about, for example, Pfizer and J and J. Why would they benefit from a kind of communist style economy?" Benz said.

He argued that mandates and government purchasing can create advantages for favored companies.

"Well, because how else do you get people to buy your products even if they don't want it when the state forces vaccinations or the state forces the mass acquisition of billions of vials of Pfizer vaccines?" Benz said.

Benz extended the argument to energy policy, saying regulation can be used to suppress competing industries.

"Climate finance, for example, alternative energy, clean energy sources to hydrocarbons like oil, gas, diesel. Well, if you can't compete on price in a capitalist market, what you want is a communist government to come in and, for the good of the people, basically mandate ethanol-based diesel replacements and outlaw your competition," Benz said.

He alleged that a cycle had developed in which financial and corporate interests supported political movements that could use government power to benefit those same interests.

"So what you have is effectively a class of financial and corporate profiteers who have hijacked the regime change apparatus of the U.S. national security state in order to topple capitalist governments and install socialist ones in order to create a protection racket of the businesses that made them oligarchs in the first place in the position to be able to donate to leftist politicians, and then the cycle repeats," Benz said.

He argued that shutting down USAID disrupted that process.

"And by shutting down USAID, we have temporarily ended the cycle," Benz said.

Boyd then connected the same principle to artificial intelligence and government regulation, citing Silicon Valley investor Chamath Palihapitiya.

Palihapitiya argued that a small number of companies could accumulate enormous wealth through advanced AI and then direct large amounts of that wealth toward political and philanthropic causes.

"This is a very important moment for a very simple reason, which is we, as in the world, are about to endow 3456, companies with about $10 trillion of wealth," Palihapitiya said.

He argued that many of those companies lean politically left and that their wealth could ultimately strengthen Democratic-aligned causes.

"So this money is going to go to things other than consumption or savings, and so it's going to go into PACs. It's going to go into political movements, and they stand to disproportionately benefit," Palihapitiya said.

He described the debate over AI regulation as fundamentally political.

"So this has nothing to do with prosperity. This is a very simple political calculus," he said.

Palihapitiya continued by arguing that preserving the current economic structure would benefit a small number of organizations with significant political influence.

"If you freeze frame the economy the way it is today, a handful of organizations that will disproportionately be able to affect the Democrats will win. They will capture the lion's share of the economic gains, and then they will help the Democrats win power. That's all this is," he said.

Boyd closed by framing the political and economic fight as one between an American system built around manufacturing and nationalism and a competing system based on centralized control.

"President Trump is clearly on a determined war path to save this republic, based on the nationalism, wisdom, and creativity of our founders, who said manufacturing was the key to economic progress," Boyd said.

She said Brazil represents the alternative she believes follows when socialist and communist systems gain power.

"The case of Brazil shows you what is on the other side of this fight; it's what always happens with socialism and communism. You end up with a dictator and a corrupt bunch of elite managers running everything."

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BoredTrashPanda.com. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.