Over tonnaged and under cargoed threatens this year and the next
 When considering the future of global shipping, it is wise to examine not only the forecasts of rival futurologists but also the creeds that shaped conventional wisdom over the last six decades. The assumptions of yesteryear still cast long shadows over today’s maritime realities.
In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith published The Affluent Society, declaring that “what the poor need is money.” That dictum became a guiding creed for social policy in the West. Yet in recent years, Dr Jordan Peterson has countered with a starkly different view: what the poor need is not money, but purpose. His point is that since the 1960s, governments have poured ever more funds into welfare, but the plight of the poor has not improved. As Robert F Kennedy once quipped with cynical resignation, “I don’t know what the problem is, but I know the answer - more money.” That philosophy still dominates, and its consequences ripple into shipping and trade.
Today, this outlook is embodied in what many call the Deep State - an informal nexus of media, academia, and bureaucracy that governs private sector players through regulation and contractual control. These actors claim the mantle of classical liberalism, but their practice has drifted far from its tenets. Property rights are suspended, “rule of law” reduced to “obeying the law,” and freedom of speech curtailed under the guise of “hate speech” or “misinformation” restrictions.
For shipping, one attraction of this system has been its commitment to free trade. Goods and people flow across borders, manufacturers chase the lowest costs, and supply chains stretch from Melbourne to Munich. Yet this very model has hollowed out Western manufacturing, leaving nations dependent on low‑end Asian cargoes and vulnerable to global shocks.
Critics point to what has been dubbed the “great replacement theory”—the idea that Western populations are being marginalised and replaced by impoverished migrants willing to work for a pittance. Whether one accepts the label or not, the credibility of the critique was reinforced by the election of US President Donald Trump, who sought to reverse these policies. Similar populist victories in Hungary, Poland, and Italy underscored the backlash against leftist regimes and their open‑border orthodoxy.
Trump’s reforms, coupled with the rise of social media exposing Deep State mendacity, revealed two truths: first, that Western governments had indeed pursued policies consistent with demographic replacement; and second, that such policies could be halted. Italy, Poland, and Hungary closed their borders, and the US followed suit, despite fierce opposition. The result was a dramatic shift in the political landscape, one that continues to shape trade and shipping.
For shipping itself, the outlook is sobering. The era of massive volumes of low‑end Asian exports feeding Western consumerism is fading. Quality now counts more than quantity, and volumes will shrink. Domestic manufacturing in America and Europe is rising, reducing reliance on Asia‑US/EU trade lanes. Trucks, trains, and planes will take on more of the load, while ocean carriers face leaner times.
Some carriers hope Latin America will reform its colonial legacy legal systems. In many countries, property is held under usufruct rights - owners may use land but cannot sell it or mortgage it for loans. This blocks normal commerce and stifles investment. Mexico and Brazil have largely dismantled such restrictions, but elsewhere they persist. If Latin America embraces true property rights, shipping could benefit from a surge in trade and investment.
Geopolitical risks also loom. Until Israel resolves the Hamas conflict, the Red Sea route through Suez will remain perilous, viable only for those able to pay steep war‑risk premiums. The Cape route around Africa offers an alternative, but cargo development there is still nascent. Progress is slow, though early signs suggest potential.
Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum’s vision of “15‑minute cities” hints at broader social changes. Remote work, accelerated by the Covid scare, has become entrenched. Surplus office space is being converted into housing, reshaping urban landscapes. Artificial intelligence, still at the Model T stage, promises eventual transformation of mobility, though driverless ubiquity remains distant.
History reminds us how quickly change can come. In 1903, whaling was the world’s largest industry, supplying lamp oil for centuries. Within five years, coal‑fired electricity had rendered it obsolete. Shipping too could face such abrupt shifts.
The greatest unknown for 2026 and beyond is the clash between increasingly authoritarian Western regimes and reformist opposition movements. For trans‑oceanic shipping, this likely means a reversion to home‑shoring in Europe and America, coupled with dispersal of production away from China. A hub‑and‑spoke model may emerge: feeders serving outports, megaships connecting global hubs, and inland networks of rail and road expanding connectivity. China’s Belt and Road initiative will play a central role in this restructuring.
Thus, shipping faces a paradox. On the one hand, over‑tonnaged fleets confront under‑cargoed realities. On the other, new patterns of trade and production may yet offer opportunities. The industry must adapt to a world where volumes shrink, risks multiply, and politics intrude more deeply than ever.
The lesson is clear: shipping cannot rely on the assumptions of the past. The creed that “more money” solves poverty has failed, and the Deep State’s devotion to free trade at any cost has hollowed out Western economies. As nations turn inward, shipping must recalibrate. The next two years will test whether carriers can survive leaner volumes, navigate geopolitical risks, and seize opportunities in re‑shored and diversified production.
Change will be swift, as history shows. The whaling industry collapsed in five years. Shipping must be ready for similar upheaval. Over‑tonnaged and under‑cargoed, the industry faces a storm. Whether it emerges leaner and stronger, or weaker and diminished, depends on how it adapts to the forces now reshaping the world. |
