i don't know how many times i've been listening to some prof rant about the effects of neo-liberalism, or some panel discussing the effects of globalization, and heard some remark about what happens to supply chains in a crisis. the general way to make this remark was to present it as an oncoming catastrophic event; you'd often hear something like "just wait until we have a crisis that disrupts the supply chains, then we'll be really sorry, then we'll realize what we've done".
so, to suggest this scenario was predictable is an understatement - the inevitability of this situation was one of the most critiqued components of the system that created it, and one of the most compelling arguments against continuing on with it.
you could probably find a relevant quote warning about this by virtually anybody operating on the economic left.
anarchists on the ground tend to focus on food sovereignty, but the idea of courses generalizes. the focus shouldn't be about hoarding, though, it should be about maintaining the capacity for self-sufficiency, even if the logic of ricardan free trade does imply the benefits of trade in the short run.
to be clear: the problem isn't really that we've been export-reliant for so long. the problem is that we didn't have a backup plan, in case that failed.
i have to point this out every time this topic comes up - i'm an anarchist, i'm not a communist, so i don't have this intellectual tendency towards emphasizing the nationalization of goods for the fatherland; trade is a good idea, so long as you're actually doing it right, which means actually understanding the theory. the extant "free trade" regime is actually something more akin to a series of mercantilist economies observing overlapping monopolies than any kind of ideologically coherent free trade zone, and we're just seeing how true that is as the system sees stress on it. so, i'll argue that i'm not opposed to tariffs in principle, but tariffs are hard, and you have to be deeply wonkish to use them right - a description that neither applies to donald trump nor to justin trudeau. the reverse argument, though, is also true - understanding the rules of free trade means that it isn't always the best arrangement, especially not when you have large disparities in quality of life between the work forces in the trading nations. in that case, special rules need to be put in place to prevent an absolute advantage in labour costs from siphoning production out of the more wealthy nation, leading to supply chain disruptions in the wealthy country in cases of emergency.
so, i believe in ricardan free trade, if it makes sense, under the rules of ricardan free trade, which don't appear to be consulted very often when attempting to engage in "ricardan free trade", any more.
so, when trade is mutually beneficial, of courses anarchists would advocate it, as mutual aid.
but, as much as anarchists support mutually beneficial trade, they insist on self-sufficiency, as well. just because we can do a calculation and come to some reasoned deductions on the mutual benefit of trade in terms of minimizing resources allocated to produce those goods doesn't mean we should always prioritize the minimizing of resources allocated as paramount; at the least, maintaining a capacity for self-sufficiency may, in many contexts, be seen as of greater priority than minimizing resources allocated, or, in the capitalist context, of maximizing profits.
but, don't let them tell you they didn't see this coming; there was a sign at every protest, a comment in every documentary, a remark in every flyer - this was a major component of the opposition to nafta from day one, and we see the predictions coming true.
let's hope that we can react quickly enough to adjust, but let's examine a lot more things a lot more carefully, as well, to ensure this doesn't happen again, and that it's not worse if it does.