You... didn't learn history from before 1945 did you?

They were funding and arming proxies that were bombing and destabilizing neighborhoods. Nobody in the region likes Iran, that is precisely why the Gulf States want US bases and a Israeli military pact.

And this is not a reactive policy as it is an explicit proactive policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution and gaining regional hegemony. Which no one wants.

AMD has no equivalent to NVidia in the high end, it isn't tax as it is functional monopoly

That is to say, if you want a system that keeps up with 32 GB Ram, you'd be already willing to spend alot what with options for noctua fans, water cooling, higher end MOBOs, premium cases, OLEDs etc. If you can't afford that then you won't be buying expensive DDRD5 RAM either.

This only effects a very narrow slice of highly budget conscious consumers trying to build high end PCs at razor thin margins.

The problem was the lack of hit IPs, and buying a bunch of studios with good histories like Bethesda was on the surface, a logical choice. The problem is that the Western AAA industry was also undergoing through a general decline amidst a larger cultural shift that was anathemic to originality, so no new hits could be made.

Nintendo and Sony in contrast still had a portfolio of more niche legacy studios like Monolith or Atlus or Kojima that could create new things. Obviously the talent for that does exist in the West, from Larian or smaller indie studios, but it is very hard for upper management to discern these kinds of details or be willing to take the risk with them.

And I would say that one reason for that is the elements I mention is something an individual can take seriously and integrate into their own world, while enclaves stay perpetually from the vantage of exoticism rather than integration.

None of this is "unaffordable" as you say as it is just a month's worth of savings.

Besides, if you want to optimize for pure consumerism, you can just look at how roman slavery worked out for roman freemen in the late republic.

Well, not really, because obviously that deprecation via buying government treasuries is balanced by the appreciation in the other currencies. But if everybody (large enough to matter) dosen't want their currency to appreciate, if somebody buys Japanese bonds for example to weaken their own currency, then Japan will buy somebody else's treasuries to offset the increase in Yen, and if we go to the long chain of musical chairs of people offsetting each other's behaviours, it just leads back to the USA as the only ones both large enough and willing to take in those capital inflows.

That's not a interpretation mind you, that's a description of what central banks are doing right now. If that has to change, you need somebody willing to take the mantle of the absorber of global deficits, and nobody wants to do that.

Anybody who can (EU, Yuan) does not want to. Primairly because as export based economies, they want a weak currency in relation to a strong reserve (dollar) so they can make their goods more competitive, and also because surplus naturally appreciates a currency without central bank intervention via buying US treasuries to offset the appreciation. And for China, they're not going to accept the liberalized capital controls neede for it either.

So the answer is if the US dollars fail it would be global economic collapse and then chaos, but contrary to the rhetoric the rest of the world's economic systems are too uniquely vested in the USD to see it fail. As for gold, well we come to the same problem as noted above but worse, and in that situation the US actually holds the highest gold reserves so they still benefit the most out of it.

And which is harder? Bringing back production to satiate domestic demand or increasing domestic demand? Historically, demand deficiency is much harder to restore.

What is misleading is labeling a global system marked by large, persistent imbalances as benign or indicative of "free trade". A healthy free trade system should have balanced trade, and the reasons that are not are unfortunately the fault of surplus nations like China or the EU. I know, its unintuitive, but going back to Bretton Woods to IMF analysis will back this point.

P.S if one wants to note the grocery shop analogy, a better analogy is that if you count up all your transactions, your income should exceed your spending, or else you're probably in trouble. That's roughly the problem here, but made more complex with the shenanigans of the US dollar.