Economist foresees end of the G7 hegemony against BRICS

Richard Wolff warns that Brics already surpasses G7 and draws a new world architecture with India and China at the center of the transformation

In a blunt analysis that reverberates global economic circles, renowned American economist Richard Wolff painted a picture of a historical and irreversible change in world economic power. According to him, the BRICS block – formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – has already surpassed the G7, the group of the most industrialized nations in terms of global economic production. “If you get China, India, Russia and the BRICS, the total participation of world production these countries produce is 35%. G7 has dropped to about 28%,” Wolff said in a podcast interview.

This new panorama, for the economist, completely transforms geopolitical dynamics. And the epicenter of this transformation is India. Wolff used a vivid metaphor to criticize recent United States tariff threats and pressures on the Indian government, especially for his refusal to stop buying Russian oil. “The United States telling India what to do is like a rat punching a elephant,” he said, characterizing the American posture as “funny, not scary.”

Also read:
Report points to Bolsonaro’s escape risk by neighboring wall
Sovereignty of South Africa is imposed before barriers from the USA
Modi breaks ice and takes India back to China after seven years

Wolff argues that these US actions are actually a shot for Culatra. By imposing commercial barriers, Washington would ironically be forcing India to get even closer to its Brics partners, strengthening the block as a real economic alternative and integrated with the West. “If you block US access to India with high tariffs, India will have to find other places to sell your exports. What you are doing is developing BRICS,” he explained.

American threats and the Indian response

The tension was elevated to another level with the statements of Trump’s commercial advisor Peter Navarro. In an explicit attempt to press New Delhi, Navarro classified the war in Ukraine as “The Modi War,” accusing India from buying Russian oil with a discounted Russian oil. Navarro accused the country of “arrogance” for defending his sovereign right to buy oil and conditioned any tariff relief to reduce Russian purchases, installing India to “act as the largest democracy in the world.”

For Wolff, this type of rhetoric is not only ineffective, but illustrates US inability to accept its new position in the world. “A country with 4.5% of the population of this planet cannot tell the other 95% how to live, what to do, where to go. This is not sustainable and we have to face it,” said the economist.

US debt and structural challenge

In addition to the commercial dispute, Wolff pointed to a deep economic vulnerability of the United States: the national debt, which borders on US $ 36 trillion. He has warned that countries like China are already aggressively reducing their reservations in US Treasury titles, which raises an alarming question: How long could Washington depend on foreign loans to fund? An escape from foreign creditors can lead to explosive loan costs or drastic cuts in internal spending, further weakening the nation.

The Trump administration’s argument that tariffs can bring jobs and factories back to the American territory was harshly rebutted by Wolff. “No company that currently manufactures something in Brazil, China or India will make the decision to spend a fortune to transfer production back to the United States. This makes no sense,” he said. In the economist’s view, the most likely result is that tariffs isolate American exporters from external markets without generating promised jobs.

Wolff’s conclusion is clear: the world has already changed. The Unilateral Order led by the US has given way to a multipolar world, where Brics, driven by the demographic and economic weight of India and China, dictates the new rules of the game. The attempt to curb this change with threats is, in your assessment, a fight against the tide of history.

With information from The Economist*