Investment and Self-Sufficiency: Understanding the Global Game to Keep Moving Forward
By: Luis Manuel Hernández G.
Over the past six months, we have faced the challenging task of finding how to position our investment in an environment where governmental debates and geopolitical conditions seem to have a life of their own. Governments with out-of-context agendas, short-term priorities, and limited access to relevant information continue to set the pace of the market.
A few days ago, we learned about the new agreement between the United States and China. While it represents a momentary relief, we must read between the lines: Mexico is not ready to renegotiate the USMCA and seems to be approaching it from a nostalgic rather than an industrial policy perspective.
A Border That Sustains the National Economy
Mexico lacks a comprehensive industrial policy plan. However, its northern manufacturing border represents 22% of the national economy and 42% of total exports, making it a cornerstone within the USMCA framework. To this, we must add two key states, Jalisco and Guanajuato, which, over the past five years, have made significant strides in the medical and automotive sectors, respectively.
Part of a leader’s role is to understand the dualities of the economic system. A good leader not only observes market reactions—they anticipate them. When investment isn’t coming in, it’s not enough to announce that “it’s on the way.” What truly matters is promoting production stability, export continuity, and the fulfillment of existing value chains.
Today’s economy takes a “K-shaped” form: some sectors are growing rapidly while others are declining just as fast. This pattern, similar to what we experienced post-COVID, reminds us that strength lies not in the market, but in the product.
From Geopolitical Risk to Regional Self-Sufficiency
On October 30, 2025, the United States agreed to suspend an additional tariff on Chinese products, while China committed to continue purchasing U.S. agricultural goods and to maintain dialogue into 2026. The budgetary restrictions faced by both nations could, paradoxically, benefit states like Baja California, where critical value chains with California (U.S.) take on immediate relevance.
In the next six months, the electronics, defense, and energy sectors are expected to increase production to sustain consumption and preserve market liquidity. The relocation of supply chains toward Vietnam and India reflects a strategy to mitigate geopolitical risk, but it also reshapes the map of profitability and global control.
The most likely scenario for the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026 is one of relative calm, punctuated by smaller-scale economic disputes. Companies will recover some confidence but remain cautious. It is foreseeable that Beijing may respond with new restrictions on rare earth elements and tighter controls over other strategic minerals—actions that will further accelerate the decoupling of supply chains between major powers.
In this environment, companies will continue to face risks from shifting tariffs, export rules, and regulatory changes. Therefore, we must move toward diversification, redundancy, and regional self-sufficiency, particularly in strategic sectors linked to the USMCA.
This phenomenon, known as the decoupling process, must begin immediately.
Between the United States and China, long-term stability is unlikely. Instead, we are witnessing a controlled tension that redefines the global economic order. The world economy, caught between these two powers, must now adapt to a new reality: volatility is no longer the exception, it is the rule.
And only those regions capable of sustaining themselves will be able to thrive amid constant change.
