Rethinking the United Nations: Abolishing the Veto and Empowering All Nations

The WTO Is Broken — Let’s Reform the UN and Rethink Global Trade from the Ground Up
A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals
The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations
Imagining A New United Nations
A G30 (Or G40) For A New Global Trade Architecture

Rethinking the United Nations: Abolishing the Veto and Empowering All Nations

By: Paramendra Bhagat

---

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), as it stands today, reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not 2025. The five permanent members (P5) with veto power—the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France—were victors of World War II and the major powers of the mid-20th century. But the world has changed dramatically since then. Today, countries like India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Germany, and Japan have far greater populations, economies, or diplomatic weight than several of the P5. The current structure is outdated, increasingly undemocratic, and a major source of global disillusionment with multilateral institutions.

Is Veto Power Necessary?

The veto power, held by the P5, allows any one of them to unilaterally block any substantive resolution, regardless of global consensus. This has often paralyzed the UNSC, particularly on issues like:

• The Israel-Palestine conflict, where the U.S. has consistently used its veto.

• The Syria war, where Russia (and sometimes China) vetoed resolutions on humanitarian corridors and war crimes.

• Ukraine, where Russia, as a party to the conflict, has vetoed condemnations of its own actions.

The original rationale was to prevent another world war by ensuring great power buy-in to all major decisions. But in practice, the veto has become a geopolitical weapon to stall action, protect allies, and obstruct justice.

A New Formula for Global Governance

A proposal outlined at Barackface.net introduces a promising alternative:

Total Voting Power = 40% GDP Share + 40% Population Share + 20% Equal Vote (1/195 per country)

This formula balances:

• Economic contribution (GDP Share),

• Democratic legitimacy (Population Share), and

• Sovereign equality (Equal Vote).

It envisions a Security Council—or perhaps an entirely reimagined General Assembly—where every country gets a weighted vote based on these three components. No vetoes. No absolute power. Just proportional global democracy.

---

Pros of This Reorganization

✅ Democratization of Global Governance

Every country, from India to Iceland, would have a voice that reflects its size, economic strength, and sovereign status. This would increase legitimacy and global trust in the UN.

✅ Ending UNSC Paralysis

Removing veto power could unblock years of stalled progress on critical issues—climate change, genocide prevention, nuclear disarmament, and humanitarian intervention.

✅ Reflecting Modern Power Realities

The emerging multipolar world—with rising powers like India, Brazil, and Indonesia—deserves representation aligned with 21st-century geopolitics, not the post-World War II order.

✅ Better Global Cooperation

Weighted voting based on transparent metrics could encourage responsible policymaking, as countries know they have to work with the consensus of the majority—not just please one of the P5.

---

Cons and Challenges

⚠️ Resistance from the P5

The biggest hurdle is the P5 themselves. None would willingly give up their veto—a symbol of their superpower status. Any reform of the UN Charter requires their approval. Catch-22.

⚠️ Fear of Majority Domination

Smaller countries might fear being overrun by large-population or high-GDP nations like China, India, or the U.S. The formula must ensure fairness without enabling new monopolies.

⚠️ Technical Implementation

Translating GDP and population into vote shares requires trust in transparent data. Disputes over metrics (e.g., nominal GDP vs. PPP) could delay implementation.

⚠️ Institutional Inertia

The UN is notoriously slow at reform. Even modest changes to Security Council composition have dragged on for decades. Overhauling the voting system would be a monumental bureaucratic task.

---

What Will It Take to Make This Happen?

🌍 A Global Coalition of Reformers

Middle powers like India, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Nigeria, and Indonesia must unite behind this reform, rallying support from the Global South and democratic allies.

📢 Public Pressure and Civil Society Mobilization

Global citizens, especially the youth, must demand a more just UN. This could take the form of petitions, forums, or parallel "People’s Assemblies" that shame the current system into change.

🧠 Thought Leadership and Intellectual Momentum

Academics, economists, and policymakers need to develop white papers, simulations, and public campaigns around this formula to show that it is not just idealistic, but also feasible.

💡 Leveraging Moments of Crisis

Major geopolitical crises—wars, pandemics, climate disasters—often create windows for bold change. A future breakdown of UNSC credibility could force a “Bretton Woods 2.0” moment.

---

Conclusion: Time for a Bretton Woods of the 21st Century

The current UN structure is a relic. Reforming it with a formula that blends economic power, population size, and sovereign equality is not just fair—it’s necessary for peace and progress in a multipolar world. The veto is undemocratic. Abolishing it will be hard, yes—but not impossible. History shows us that old orders fall when the world demands something new. That moment is coming.

Whether it's five years from now or fifty, the pressure for a more just, representative global order will only grow.

And when it does, this formula might be the blueprint we’ve been waiting for.

---

Paramendra Bhagat is the author of "Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy" and a frequent commentator on global governance, technology, and political reform.

संयुक्त राष्ट्र का पुनःगठन: वीटो को समाप्त करें, सभी देशों को समान अधिकार दें

लेखक: परमेंद्र भगत

---

संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद (UNSC) आज भी 1945 के भू-राजनीतिक यथार्थ को दर्शाती है, न कि 2025 के वैश्विक परिदृश्य को। पाँच स्थायी सदस्य देशों—अमेरिका, चीन, रूस, ब्रिटेन और फ्रांस—को वीटो पावर प्राप्त है, जो कि द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध के विजेताओं और उस समय की महाशक्तियों पर आधारित है। लेकिन आज की दुनिया बहुत बदल चुकी है। भारत, ब्राज़ील, नाइजीरिया, इंडोनेशिया, जर्मनी और जापान जैसे देश अब कहीं अधिक जनसंख्या, अर्थव्यवस्था और कूटनीतिक प्रभाव रखते हैं, फिर भी वीटो शक्ति उनसे कोसों दूर है।

क्या वीटो पावर आवश्यक है?

वीटो पावर का तर्क यह था कि महाशक्तियों के बीच सहमति के बिना कोई बड़ा वैश्विक निर्णय नहीं हो सकता, जिससे एक और विश्व युद्ध टाला जा सके। लेकिन व्यवहार में वीटो शक्ति ने निर्णय प्रक्रिया को ठप कर दिया है, विशेषकर इन मुद्दों पर:

• इज़राइल-फिलिस्तीन संघर्ष, जहां अमेरिका लगातार वीटो का प्रयोग करता रहा है

• सीरिया युद्ध, जहां रूस और चीन ने मानवीय प्रस्तावों को बार-बार रोका

• यूक्रेन, जहां रूस ने खुद पर आए प्रस्तावों को वीटो किया

अब यह शक्ति न्याय के खिलाफ एक हथियार बन चुकी है, न कि शांति बनाए रखने का कोई यंत्र।

---

एक नया सूत्र: निष्पक्ष वैश्विक शासन

Barackface.net पर सुझाया गया एक नया प्रस्ताव कहता है:

कुल मतदान शक्ति (Total Voting Power) = 40% GDP हिस्सेदारी + 40% जनसंख्या हिस्सेदारी + 20% समान वोट (हर देश को 1/195 हिस्सा)

यह सूत्र तीन मुख्य सिद्धांतों को संतुलित करता है:

• आर्थिक योगदान (GDP के अनुसार)

• जनतांत्रिक वैधता (जनसंख्या के अनुसार)

• संप्रभु समानता (हर देश को एक समान आधार वोट)

यह प्रस्ताव एक ऐसी संयुक्त राष्ट्र प्रणाली की कल्पना करता है जहां कोई भी देश वीटो नहीं कर सकता, बल्कि हर देश की वोटिंग शक्ति मापदंडों पर आधारित होती है—न कि इतिहास या सैन्य शक्ति पर।

---

✅ इस पुनर्गठन के लाभ

✔️ वैश्विक शासन का लोकतंत्रीकरण

हर देश की आवाज़ उसके आकार, शक्ति और संप्रभुता के अनुसार सुनी जाएगी। इससे UN की वैधता और लोकप्रियता बढ़ेगी।

✔️ वीटो की वजह से बंद हो चुकी परिषद को पुनर्जीवित करना

वीटो को हटाकर उन विषयों पर भी आगे बढ़ा जा सकेगा जिन पर वर्षों से ठहराव है—जैसे जलवायु संकट, युद्ध अपराध, और मानवाधिकार।

✔️ समकालीन शक्ति संतुलन को दर्शाना

21वीं सदी की बहुध्रुवीय दुनिया—भारत, ब्राज़ील, नाइजीरिया, जर्मनी जैसे उभरते देशों—को सही प्रतिनिधित्व मिलेगा।

✔️ बेहतर वैश्विक सहयोग

सभी देशों को यह एहसास होगा कि उन्हें बहुमत के साथ मिलकर काम करना है, जिससे सहयोग की भावना मजबूत होगी।

---

⚠️ चुनौतियाँ और नुकसान

❌ P5 देशों का विरोध

P5 देश (अमेरिका, रूस, चीन, फ्रांस, ब्रिटेन) अपनी विशेष शक्ति छोड़ना नहीं चाहेंगे। किसी भी चार्टर संशोधन में उनकी सहमति आवश्यक है—यह सबसे बड़ी बाधा है।

❌ बड़े देशों का वर्चस्व

कुछ छोटे देशों को डर हो सकता है कि बड़े देश—जैसे चीन, भारत या अमेरिका—बहुमत में हावी हो जाएंगे।

❌ तकनीकी व प्रशासनिक अड़चनें

GDP और जनसंख्या के आंकड़ों की पारदर्शिता और स्वीकार्यता को सुनिश्चित करना एक चुनौती होगी।

❌ संस्थागत जड़ता

UN जैसी बड़ी संस्था में कोई भी बड़ा बदलाव बेहद धीमा और कठिन होता है।

---

🔍 यह कैसे संभव हो सकता है?

🌍 एक वैश्विक सुधार गठबंधन

भारत, ब्राज़ील, दक्षिण अफ्रीका, नाइजीरिया, इंडोनेशिया जैसे मध्य शक्तियों को मिलकर इस बदलाव का नेतृत्व करना होगा।

📢 जनता और सिविल सोसायटी का दबाव

विश्व भर की जनता, विशेषकर युवा पीढ़ी, को इस मुद्दे पर आवाज़ उठानी होगी—याचिकाएं, सम्मेलन और डिजिटल आंदोलन ज़रूरी हैं।

🧠 बौद्धिक नेतृत्व और नीति विमर्श

शोध संस्थानों, शिक्षाविदों और नीति-निर्माताओं को इस नए फॉर्मूले को व्यवहार्य और प्रभावी सिद्ध करना होगा।

⚡ संकट के क्षणों का लाभ उठाना

भविष्य में कोई बड़ा संकट—जैसे जलवायु त्रासदी या युद्ध—UN की वर्तमान प्रणाली को नाकारा सिद्ध कर सकता है और सुधार की खिड़की खोल सकता है।

---

📌 निष्कर्ष: 21वीं सदी के लिए नया ब्रेटन वुड्स

संयुक्त राष्ट्र की मौजूदा संरचना पुरानी हो चुकी है। इस नए फॉर्मूले—GDP, जनसंख्या और समानता के मिश्रण—पर आधारित प्रणाली न केवल न्यायसंगत है बल्कि समय की माँग भी है।
वीटो अलोकतांत्रिक है। उसे हटाना कठिन है, लेकिन असंभव नहीं।

इतिहास बताता है कि जब दुनिया बदलाव की मांग करती है, तो व्यवस्थाएं बदलती हैं। वह क्षण अब बहुत दूर नहीं।

और जब वह क्षण आए, यह फॉर्मूला—शायद—हमारे पास पहले से तैयार हो।

---

परमेंद्र भगत, "Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy" के लेखक हैं और वैश्विक शासन, तकनीकी क्रांति, और राजनीतिक सुधारों पर नियमित रूप से लिखते हैं।

1/
क्या आज की दुनिया में संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद (UNSC) की 1945 वाली संरचना तर्कसंगत है?
5 देशों के पास वीटो शक्ति हो और 190 देश बस देखती रहें?
अब बदलाव ज़रूरी है।
👇 @cpimspeak @ShivSena @haryanaINLD

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

5/
यह कैसे मदद करेगा?
✅ निर्णयों में गति
✅ लोकतांत्रिक प्रतिनिधित्व
✅ ग्लोबल साउथ को आवाज़
✅ शक्ति का संतुलन
✅ वीटो के आतंक से मुक्ति @samajwadiparty @INCIndia @jdsforchange

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

7/
इस बदलाव के लिए चाहिए:
📢 सिविल सोसायटी की आवाज़
🌍 भारत-ब्राज़ील-जर्मनी-जापान जैसे देशों की एकता
🧠 नीति विशेषज्ञों की योजनाएं
⚡ और संकट के समय अवसर की पहचान @OfficialSPGB @TheDemocrats @nitin_gadkari @NitishKumar

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

10/
वीटो इतिहास बनेगा।
प्रतिनिधित्व भविष्य होगा।#UNReform की शुरुआत अब होनी चाहिए।
आप इसके लिए क्या करेंगे?
✊
~ परमेंद्र भगत#UNSC #DemocratizeUN #GlobalGovernance @DrSJaishankar @MEAIndia @PMOIndia @narendramodi @RahulGandhi

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

---

Trump’s Tariffs: Frontloading, Economic Fallout, and the Path Forward

The assertion that early frontloading by importers has temporarily delayed the effects of Donald Trump’s sweeping new tariffs—but that empty shelves and price increases are inevitable—is increasingly supported by leading economists and recent market data. This piece evaluates that claim, explores its impact on inflation, polls, and the stock market, and offers a roadmap to a more stable trade policy.

---

Frontloading and the Illusion of Stability

One of the reasons prices haven’t immediately surged despite tariff hikes is due to frontloading, where companies rushed to import goods ahead of tariff deadlines. As Ernesto Tedeschi of the Yale Budget Lab notes, “Companies beat the clock by bringing in foreign goods before Trump’s tariffs took effect.” This led to a temporary surge in imports: U.S. goods imports in the first five months of 2025 rose 17% compared to the same period in 2024.

This tactic, however, only buys time. Once those stockpiles deplete—expected to happen by mid-July 2025, per retail industry warnings—price hikes and shortages are expected to ripple across the economy.

---

Empty Shelves and Rising Prices: The Next Phase

The frontloading buffer masks what nearly every economist sees as inevitable: higher prices and supply chain disruption.

• The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the new tariff regime will reduce the average household’s purchasing power by $2,800 annually.

• Prices on essential goods have already shown early signs of pressure: shoes (+15%) and clothing (+14%), with more expected to follow.

Neil Saunders of GlobalData warns:

“The combination of ballooning supply chain costs and consumer pullback is what ultimately creates conditions for empty shelves.”

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, adds:

“We are likely to see inflationary outcomes, not only on imported goods but on domestic prices, as input costs rise and demand increases for substitute domestic products.”

Murat Tasci of J.P. Morgan confirms that consumers, not foreign producers, shoulder the burden:

“The tax incidence nearly always falls on domestic sellers and consumers. Our models show a near one-for-one pass-through of tariff costs.”

This is consistent with data from Trump’s first term: the 2018–19 tariff round caused U.S. companies to absorb higher input costs and pass them on to consumers, with negligible reductions in Chinese export pricing.

---

On the Ground: Retailers and Manufacturers Sound the Alarm

Industry leaders are preparing for the worst:

• Retail CEOs warned the White House on April 21, 2025, that product shortages could hit within weeks.

• Pulte Homes projected that home prices would increase by $5,000 on average due to costlier imported materials.

• Cox Automotive’s Jonathan Smoke said tariffs on auto parts and vehicles could raise average new car prices by $3,000–$5,000, depending on the make and model.

A recent National Retail Federation survey found that 79% of retailers expect to raise prices by late July, with many planning layoffs if sales fall.

---

Economic Consensus: A Coming Storm

By June 2025, Trump’s tariff policy had raised the average U.S. tariff rate from 2.5% to 15.8%, the highest since the 1930s. Economists across the spectrum warn of long-term damage.

Diane Swonk, Chief Economist at KPMG, warns:

“Uncertainty is its own tax on the economy.”

Jason Furman, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, states:

“There’s a lot to be worried about. These tariffs create inflationary pressure, reduce competitiveness, and introduce policy unpredictability that businesses hate.”

A 2025 joint statement from 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists, including Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, declared:

“The current trade policy path risks reigniting inflation, reducing consumer welfare, and undercutting America’s global leadership.”

---

Poll Numbers: Delayed Pain, Delayed Political Fallout

Trump’s base has so far shown resilience to negative economic news, but this may not last. Political identity plays a strong role in economic perception.

Liz Ann Sonders, Chief Investment Strategist at Charles Schwab, notes:

“Partisanship clouds how people perceive their economic reality.”

However, swing voters and independents may become more sensitive as economic pain becomes tangible. A Leadership Now/Harris poll (April 2025) showed that 84% of business leaders were “very concerned” about tariff fallout. Meanwhile, the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index fell to its lowest since May 2020, a sign of eroding optimism.

Expect a polling dip post-July 2025, when suspended tariffs on key consumer goods expire and price shocks hit the public directly.

---

Tariff Chaos vs. Trade Diplomacy

The Trump administration’s stop-start tariff policy has introduced confusion into the market:

• Tariffs were paused on April 8, 2025, for 90 days, leading to a 9.5% surge in the S&P 500—the biggest one-day gain since 2008.

• Earlier that month, the Nasdaq fell into bear market territory, and the Russell 2000 plunged 6.5% due to tariff panic.

• Trade deals remain limited: a temporary truce with China, and narrow agreements with the UK and Vietnam, with no NAFTA successor and no EU deal.

Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist, called the tariff strategy:

“The largest and most chaotic trade policy intervention in U.S. history.”

Janet Yellen, former Treasury Secretary, echoed:

“This is a massive, self-inflicted wound. We’re applying 1930s-style tactics to a 2025 economy.”

Meanwhile, foreign leaders are standing firm:

• Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum has refused to renegotiate under threat.

• Canada’s Mark Carney imposed retaliatory tariffs worth $21 billion.

• UK PM Keir Starmer walked out of early trade talks in May 2025, citing “lack of predictability.”

---

Markets and Macro Risks

Tariffs have introduced volatility, and analysts warn of a long-term drag:

• Penn Wharton Budget Model projects an 8% reduction in U.S. GDP and a $58,000 lifetime income loss per middle-income household.

• U.S. imports fell 20% in April 2025, signaling disrupted supply chains.

• Oren Cass, of American Compass, cautions:

“Markets hate uncertainty. Without a strategic framework, this chaos is more destructive than any specific tariff rate.”

---

The Core Problem: Tariff Overreach and Policy Volatility

The fundamental issue isn’t just the tariffs—it’s the scale, unpredictability, and lack of strategy. Instead of addressing real concerns—like China’s industrial policy or supply chain resilience—Trump’s approach has:

• Increased costs on friendly trading partners (e.g., Canada, Japan).

• Applied tariffs indiscriminately (e.g., raw materials, consumer goods, components).

• Ignored global supply chain realities. The Peterson Institute estimates that the effective tariff rate on Chinese goods is 76% due to Chinese parts embedded in global products.

As Anson Soderbery of Purdue University puts it:

“Tariffs aren’t a magic wand. You can’t just punish a country and expect your own economy to benefit.”

---

A Way Out: Strategy Over Spectacle

Leading economists and trade policy experts outline a more pragmatic path:

1. Targeted Tariffs: Address specific sectors (e.g., semiconductors, green tech dumping) rather than blanket levies.

2. Extend Tariff Pauses: Use temporary suspension windows to negotiate instead of pressure allies.

3. Comprehensive Trade Deals: A single multilateral deal could take time, but it provides long-term certainty.

   “One comprehensive deal is worth more than 100 chaotic tweets,” says Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics.

4. Currency Coordination: Some advisors (e.g., Stephen Miran) propose a “Mar-a-Lago Accord” to weaken the dollar and spur exports—but this risks capital flight.

5. Diversify Supply Chains: Businesses should reduce overdependence on any one country, as CLA Global advisors suggest.

6. Transparent Communication: The White House should clarify tariff goals, conditions for their removal, and timelines. Without this, markets and consumers remain in the dark.

---

Conclusion

The claim that frontloading has temporarily muted Trump’s tariffs but that empty shelves and higher prices are inevitable is well-supported by economic data and expert opinion. The long-term risks—from consumer inflation and political backlash to global supply chain disruption and market instability—are real.

Tariffs are a tool, not a trade strategy. The U.S. must pivot toward focused, deliberate trade policy rooted in economic data, diplomatic consensus, and market confidence. Otherwise, America risks trading short-term bravado for long-term pain.

---

---

ट्रंप के टैरिफ: अस्थायी राहत, आर्थिक झटका और आगे का रास्ता

यह दावा कि आयातकों द्वारा पहले से माल इकट्ठा (फ्रंटलोडिंग) कर लेने के कारण ट्रंप के नए टैरिफों का असर अभी तक स्पष्ट नहीं हुआ है — लेकिन जल्द ही खाली दुकानों और कीमतों में वृद्धि के रूप में इसके परिणाम दिखेंगे — अब अग्रणी अर्थशास्त्रियों और हालिया आंकड़ों द्वारा प्रमाणित हो रहा है। यह लेख उस दावे की समीक्षा करता है, मुद्रास्फीति, जनमत सर्वेक्षण, और शेयर बाज़ार पर इसके प्रभाव को देखता है, और एक स्थिर व्यापार नीति की ओर संभावित मार्ग प्रस्तुत करता है।

---

अस्थायी राहत: फ्रंटलोडिंग का भ्रम

कीमतों में तात्कालिक वृद्धि न होने का एक प्रमुख कारण यह है कि कंपनियों ने टैरिफ लागू होने से पहले ही बड़ी मात्रा में सामान आयात कर लिया। जैसा कि येल बजट लैब के एर्नेस्टो टेडेस्की ने कहा:

"कंपनियों ने ट्रंप के टैरिफ लागू होने से पहले विदेशी सामान मंगाकर घड़ी को मात दी।"

इससे 2025 के पहले पांच महीनों में अमेरिकी आयात 17% बढ़ा, लेकिन यह भंडार सीमित है — और जुलाई के मध्य तक समाप्त होने की संभावना है।

---

खाली शेल्फ और महंगाई: अगला चरण

लगभग सभी अर्थशास्त्रियों की राय है कि टैरिफ से कीमतों में वृद्धि और सप्लाई चेन में व्यवधान अपरिहार्य है।

• येल बजट लैब का अनुमान है कि इन टैरिफों के कारण प्रत्येक अमेरिकी परिवार की क्रयशक्ति $2,800 सालाना तक घट सकती है।

• जूते में 15% और कपड़ों में 14% तक की मूल्य वृद्धि पहले ही देखी जा चुकी है।

नील सॉन्डर्स (GlobalData) के अनुसार:

"आपूर्ति श्रृंखला की लागतों में उछाल और उपभोक्ता की खपत में गिरावट मिलकर दुकानों को खाली करने वाली स्थिति बना देते हैं।"

जेपी मॉर्गन चेस के सीईओ जेमी डाइमोन कहते हैं:

"टैरिफ न केवल आयातित वस्तुओं बल्कि घरेलू वस्तुओं की कीमतों में भी मुद्रास्फीति लाएंगे।"

मुरात टास्की (जेपी मॉर्गन) ने स्पष्ट किया कि:

"टैक्स का बोझ आमतौर पर घरेलू उपभोक्ताओं और विक्रेताओं पर ही पड़ता है।"

---

उद्योग और खुदरा क्षेत्र की चेतावनी

• 21 अप्रैल 2025 को खुदरा क्षेत्र के सीईओ ने ट्रंप को चेताया कि दो सप्ताह में मूल्यवृद्धि और माल की कमी शुरू हो जाएगी।

• पल्ट होम्स ने बताया कि टैरिफ के कारण घरों की औसत कीमत में $5,000 की वृद्धि होगी।

• कॉक्स ऑटोमोटिव का अनुमान है कि वाहन की कीमतों में $3,000–$5,000 तक की वृद्धि होगी।

---

अर्थशास्त्रियों की आम राय: यह स्थायी संकट है

2025 तक, ट्रंप की टैरिफ नीति के चलते अमेरिका का औसत टैरिफ रेट 2.5% से बढ़कर 15.8% हो गया — 1930 के दशक के बाद सबसे ऊंचा।

डायन स्वोंक (KPMG) ने कहा:

"अनिश्चितता खुद एक तरह का टैक्स है।"

जेसन फुरमैन, पूर्व व्हाइट हाउस सलाहकार, कहते हैं:

"ये टैरिफ मुद्रास्फीति को बढ़ाते हैं, प्रतिस्पर्धा को घटाते हैं, और नीति में अस्थिरता लाते हैं।"

पॉल क्रुगमैन और जोसेफ स्टीग्लिट्ज़ समेत 16 नोबेल विजेता अर्थशास्त्रियों ने मिलकर कहा:

"यह नीति अमेरिका की वैश्विक स्थिति और उपभोक्ता कल्याण को कमजोर कर सकती है।"

---

ट्रंप की लोकप्रियता पर प्रभाव

राजनीतिक झुकाव के कारण लोग आर्थिक वास्तविकताओं को अलग तरह से देख सकते हैं।

लिज़ ऐन सॉन्डर्स (Schwab) कहती हैं:

"राजनीतिक पहचान यह तय करती है कि लोग अर्थव्यवस्था को कैसे अनुभव करते हैं।"

लेकिन स्विंग वोटर और मध्यमवर्गीय उपभोक्ता जब कीमतों में तेज़ वृद्धि और माल की कमी महसूस करेंगे, तब असंतोष बढ़ सकता है।

---

व्यापार नीति या व्यापार में अफरा-तफरी?

• 8 अप्रैल 2025 को टैरिफ स्थगन के बाद S&P 500 में 9.5% उछाल आया — 2008 के बाद सबसे बड़ा।

• परंतु इससे पहले, शेयर बाजार में भारी गिरावट आई — Nasdaq में मंदी, और Russell 2000 में 6.5% गिरावट।

Zanny Minton Beddoes (The Economist) कहती हैं:

"यह अमेरिकी इतिहास की सबसे अव्यवस्थित व्यापार नीति है।"

जैनेट येलेन, पूर्व ट्रेजरी सचिव, ने कहा:

"यह एक आत्मघाती कदम है।"

---

शेयर बाजार और दीर्घकालिक जोखिम

पेन व्हार्टन बजट मॉडल का अनुमान है कि टैरिफ से:

• अमेरिकी GDP 8% तक घट सकता है

• एक मध्यम वर्गीय परिवार को जीवन भर में $58,000 की हानि हो सकती है।

ओरेन कैस चेताते हैं:

"बाजारों को रणनीति चाहिए, न कि संदेह और ड्रामा।"

---

असली समस्या: असंगत टैरिफ नीति

मुख्य समस्या टैरिफों की अनियमितता, वृहदता, और रणनीतिक दृष्टिकोण की कमी है।

• मित्र देशों पर भी टैरिफ (जैसे कनाडा, जापान)

• असंवेदनशील श्रेणियों पर शुल्क (कच्चा माल, उपभोक्ता वस्तुएं)

• वैश्विक सप्लाई चेन की अनदेखी

Peterson Institute का अनुमान है कि चीन से आने वाले सामान पर वास्तविक प्रभावी टैरिफ 76% तक है।

एंसन सोडरबेरी कहते हैं:

"टैरिफ कोई जादू की छड़ी नहीं हैं। आप किसी देश को दंडित कर अपनी अर्थव्यवस्था को मजबूत नहीं कर सकते।"

---

समाधान क्या है?

1. लक्ष्यित टैरिफ — पूरी अर्थव्यवस्था पर नहीं, चुनिंदा रणनीतिक क्षेत्रों पर।

2. टैरिफ स्थगन — स्थायी समझौतों के लिए समय खरीदा जा सकता है।

3. व्यापक व्यापार समझौते —

   "एक ठोस समझौता 100 ट्वीट से बेहतर है," — पॉल ऐशवर्थ

4. डॉलर को नियंत्रित करना — मार-ए-लागो समझौता जैसी नीति पर विचार (जो निर्यात बढ़ा सकती है, लेकिन जोखिम भरी है)।

5. आपूर्तिकर्ता विविधता — व्यापारिक संस्थानों को विविधता लानी होगी।

6. स्पष्ट संचार — उद्देश्य, समयसीमा और रणनीति की पारदर्शिता आवश्यक है।

---

निष्कर्ष

फ्रंटलोडिंग ने केवल अस्थायी राहत दी है। कीमतें बढ़ेंगी, सप्लाई गड़बड़ाएगी, और इसका असर धीरे-धीरे उपभोक्ता और वोटरों दोनों पर पड़ेगा।

टैरिफ एक उपकरण हैं, रणनीति नहीं। अमेरिका को डेटा-संचालित, साझेदार-आधारित, और बाज़ार-संतुलित व्यापार नीति की आवश्यकता है — नहीं तो अस्थायी राजनीतिक जीत के बदले, लंबी अवधि का आर्थिक नुकसान उठाना पड़ेगा।

---

Trump loves ICE. Its Workforce Has Never Been So Miserable.
How Nvidia Became the World’s First $4 Trillion Company Nvidia, based in Santa Clara, Calif., designs the chips, known as graphics processing units, or GPUs, that power the AI industry. The rally in Nvidia’s shares caps a remarkable run and comes barely two years after the company notched a $1 trillion closing valuation for the first time. The AI chip maker which closed at $162.88 a share and just shy of the $4 trillion mark, is now worth as much as the 214 smallest companies in the S&P 500 combined, according to Dow Jones Market Data........... Apple and Microsoft have come close to the $4 trillion mark. Apple closed with a market cap of $3.915 trillion in late 2024, and Microsoft had a valuation of $3.708 trillion last week. ......... Founded by Taiwanese-American engineer Jensen Huang in 1993, Nvidia initially had a much more niche purpose: making personal-computer game graphics better. Its ascendance from a graphics-chip designer catering mainly to videogamers into the digital arms dealer at the red-hot center of the AI boom has been meteoric. ...... Last year, Nvidia released its newest microarchitecture, Blackwell, which represented its most powerful GPUs yet, including the B200, which crams 208 billion transistors onto a chip roughly the size of four Scrabble tiles arranged in a square.

Zelenskyy urges west to hit Russia with sanctions after huge attack on Kyiv
The Dollar’s Troubles Are Just Beginning The U.S. dollar has fallen 10% since January, bucking expectations that tariffs might move the currency higher. Strategists say that downward trend may be here to stay, despite some recent gains in the dollar. ........ The dollar has been trading in an unusual pattern since President Donald Trump announced tariffs on Liberation Day, April 2. Like other currencies, the dollar is seen as a barometer of health of the national economy. But the greenback is special in also serving as a haven for the entire world when things are uncertain. ....... European and other global investors are selling the dollar ....... Investors have been reacting to the uncertainty around tariffs and “what could be a U.S. administration that is really looking to deglobalize to various degrees,” Cohen said. “You have a foreign pool of U.S. assets that have ultimately been underhedged for a long time,” he said. The administration’s “more isolationist approach” to the world is prompting investors to rethink their hedging. ......... To be sure, strategists say there has been no mass exodus from dollar assets. There is also no real fear at this point the dollar’s reserve currency status is at risk. ......... An unusual pattern has shown up this year, where events like the April 2 tariff announcement prompt stocks, Treasuries, and the dollar to sell off simultaneously.

Dear Grandma: Trump took your Medicaid, so it's time for you to work the fields | Opinion Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins presented her farm-work-for-Medicaid-coverage plan on July 8, Tuesday, saying: “There will be no amnesty. The mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce toward automation and 100% American participation, which, again, with 34 million people, able-bodied adults on Medicaid, we should be able to do that fairly quickly.” ......... The Los Angeles Times quoted Ventura County citrus and avocado farmer Helen McGrath responding to Rollins’ idea: “I can confidently say that most farmers in the country either laughed out loud or were just deflated by those comments. It just shows how uninformed and out of touch some of these officials are with what food production looks like in this country.”

“Typical corporate response to someone who will not be missed” — Internet reacts as Elon Musk responds to X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s resignation
Opinion: Trump’s immigration raids have gone too far
India Seeks to Dodge Trump’s BRICS Wrath as It Eyes Trade Deal On Wednesday, Trump followed through with a new round of levies, including a 50% tariff on Brazil, one of the highest so far announced for the tariffs which are set to hit in August. The letter to Brazil comes just after a two-day BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, in which leaders agreed on a joint statement that criticized trade-distorting tariffs. ............ But while Brazil and South Africa have blasted Trump separately for his anti-BRICS comments, India has refrained from responding publicly, a sign that it’s treading a fine line in maintaining its relationship with Washington. ......... India doesn’t support moves for a single BRICS currency, and any participation in local currency trade arrangements is aimed solely at reducing risks ......... “Trump is unhappy with some BRICS members who have been talking about an alternate reserve currency,” said Mohan Kumar, a former Indian envoy and lead negotiator at the World Trade Organization, who now teaches at OP Jindal Global University. “India has time and again differentiated between local currency trade and de-dollarization and therefore doesn’t fall in that category.” .......... India has been cultivated by several US administrations over the years as a strategic partner and key regional counterweight to an increasingly assertive China. As recently as April, US Vice President JD Vance remarked that the fate of the 21st century “is going to be determined by the strength of the United States and India partnership.”

The Courts Won’t Save Democracy From Trump David argues that Trump’s budget and tax policies are reshaping the U.S. economy in ways that will leave the country poorer, less innovative, and more isolated from the rest of the world than we were before. ....... threats to the rule of law in the United States, and the question of how well the federal courts are coping with the challenges to legality under the Trump administration. ........ It cuts other kinds of benefits for many, many people. It’s going to raise a lot of revenue by heaping tariffs on the people least-well positioned to afford them. It will give big tax cuts to many other people, and despite all this—all the cuts in spending, all the new tariffs—the tax cuts are so big that this bill will lead the United States more in debt than ever before, running bigger deficits than ever before, and paying more in interest payments than ever before. .......... This world was so poor not so very long ago, and it’s become so wealthy, so abundant for so many people—all of that because we are able to extract more value from fewer resources at an ever-accumulating pace, on and on our way to bringing full development to more and more of the planet’s population. ........ the Trump budget and the Trump presidency leaves the United States not just a little but dramatically worse off in all the ways that are going to matter for the next decade, the indefinite future. ........ no one was grabbing people off the streets, putting bags on their heads, and sending them to a foreign country to be tortured indefinitely without any kind of hearing, rights, and liberties. .......... More and more Americans—because many of the people who live inside this country live with a status somewhere between that of an alien and a citizen (they’re green-card holders; they’re on temporary visas)—those people, more and more of them, live in a fear society. And that makes them less effective as economic actors, among many other things. It changes the nature of the society in which they live in ways that are less productive, less innovative. ......... This is an administration that is more and more a predatory one, and where the methods that it is using to pass its measures involve seizing or manipulating or extorting, bribes, presence, gratuities. The permission to have mergers depends on if the merged company owns a media company, controlling the content of that media company. We are not living in a world of honest government anymore. .......... Governments that run big, chronic deficits, that have large debts—those are governments whose currency is probably on the way down. .......... one of the worst years in the performance of the American dollar in a long time .......... that’s another price of Trumpism: fewer rights and freedoms, less-honest government, and a future of a less-stable currency. ............. the most important of the fiscal measures of the government is tariffs—those are utterly unpredictable. No one knows next week what you’ll have to pay to unload freight at an American port, never mind next year, the next 10 years. So the tax regime—although the Trump people keep advertising that tax cuts are coming, the tax regime is less and less predictable. Predictability more than level is the most important thing about a tax. ................ So fewer rights and liberties, less-honest government, less-stable currency, unpredictable taxes. ......... Adam Smith taught us a long time ago that the real wealth of nations is their people, their people’s collective ability to solve problems ........... Scotland in the 1700s probably had more literacy than any place else in the world, thanks to a good system of religiously founded, comprehensive primary schools. Almost all Scottish people could read or write. ........... Well, are we building an ever-more educated and ever-healthier society? It doesn’t look that way. We’re certainly not going to be a healthier society when we’re getting rid of vaccinations and waging war on modern medicine and bringing back a treatment regime of amulets and trinkets, instead of proper health and research, when we’re punishing universities for other things the president doesn’t like by shutting down cancer research and other forms of medical research. And when you’re taking away health coverage and other health benefits, you’re not gonna get a healthier population. .............. And as for a better-educated population, again, this administration is undercutting in every way it can the availability of education, limiting the availability of college education, and cutting back spending on primary and secondary education, and having a culture war against institutions of not only higher learning, but secondary learning. ........... So our future is one of more plagues and more ignorance, not fewer plagues and less ignorance. So fewer rights and liberties, less-honest government, less-stable currency, unpredictable tax regime, a population with declining health and levels of education. What else are we doing wrong? ............ in a modern economy, one of the drivers of economic growth is investment in science and technology. And the United States, especially since the end of World War II, has led the world in big investments in science and technology. And many of the investments in science and technology are not the obvious ones. You know, whenever you hear some congressman trying to score a point by making fun of some kind of research—The love life of mosquitoes; who’d wanna study the love life of mosquitoes?—it usually turns out that study on the love life of mosquitoes is a subject of some kind of medical research that is connected to another piece of medical research, which when connected to a third piece of medical research will bring about some new treatment or drug. But we are seeing enormous pressure on institutions of higher learning and independence of research, closing down of atmospheric research because it yields conclusions that are unwelcome or unwanted by the Trump administration. ................... the things they seem to really want are to make this an economy that is about coal, that is about oil extraction, that is about cutting down trees—the industries of 100, 200 years ago, not the industries of tomorrow, which they find kind of ridiculous and embarrassing. ............ China’s the world’s largest producer of energy from wind. These are industries of the future. We seem to be attached to the industries of the past. So less support for science and technology. ............ While you would have a limited government in a high-growth society, you would wanna make sure that that government does what it does do very well, very effectively, very efficiently. You’d want a competent, well-trained civil service recruited for merit, not for political loyalty, with some security of tenure and some independence from pressure from interest groups. Well, we’re going the opposite way on that. ...............

And finally, what you would value above all—not above all, but climatically—is commerce with the rest of the world, because as big as the U.S. economy is, the world is bigger.

Americans out there to succeed need to sell to the whole world. And selling to the whole world means having world-competitive prices. And that applies that Americans must buy world-competitive components, which they integrate into their goods and into their services at the world price. ............ Well, Donald Trump is trying to sever the United States economy from the world, having special, higher made-in-America prices for everything. The world’s most expensive components mean the world’s most expensive outputs. When you don’t trade in peace and freedom with the rest of the world, your goods and services become less sellable in peace and freedom to the rest of the world. You wall yourself off like a hermit kingdom. Well, that is hardly a path to progress. ..............

And the last thing—and this is climactic—societies that are growing faster than their neighbors tend to attract labor. And that’s true whether you’re Holland in the 1600s, Britain in the 1700s, America in the 1800s, Canada and Australia in the 1900s.

Fast-growing societies need more labor, pay higher wages, and attract more labor. Now, the movement of people must always be regulated according to law, but when very large numbers of people want to come to your country—again, you have to regulate it, but—that is a sign of strength. And when very large numbers of people don’t want to come to your country, that’s a warning that your country is developing in ways that are slower growing than other places where people could go. ..................... oftentimes, it seems like their idea is to repel as many people; to scare away people; to make people who have uncertain status, who are here on as permanent residents or student visas, to make them feel unwelcome; to empower every agent of government to be as hostile as possible at ports and airports, at border crossings; to harass and belittle and monitor and bully those people who are plighting their faith and their future to the United States. That is not the path to wealth, but it’s the path that the United States is on. ................. There’s gonna be a lot more debt and a lot more interest to pay. .............. The big decisions that have to be got right—predictability; stability; honesty; integrity; money that holds its value; investment in knowledge and technology; making people feel that they live in a society of rules, not a society of fear; and understanding that the pressure of immigration, which always has to be regulated, is nonetheless a sign of your society’s success, not a betrayal of the people who are already here—flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk. ................. That’s not the America we’d like to leave our children, but that is the America that is being bequeathed to them unless something quite decisive is done quite soon. ................. In 2019, he published in The Atlantic—our Atlantic—the definitive case, over 11,000 words, for diagnosing Donald Trump as a narcissistic sociopath, and not as an insult, but in the most clinical sense of those terms. ............. And you can see the relevance of those principles to Donald Trump, who couldn’t—you know, he was about basically the last person you’d want in a fiduciary position of any sort. Would you trust him? Would you make him the trustee for your children? Of course not. Would you trust him with any piece of property of yours? You’d not. .............. these manifest personality disorders that he has, that are just—you know, you could just check the boxes: He’s a narcissistic sociopath by any reasonable definition. Those people can’t serve as fiduciaries, because they can’t follow rules and they only think of themselves. .................. They basically said the only solution for something, someone as bad as this, who is going to do bad things because he is basically programmed to, is impeachment and removal. Or the alternative will be the fourth section of the 25th Amendment, and that’s still the case. .................. explains why so many, in the especially New York legal world, have been so vulnerable to the pressures we have seen in the second Trump presidency to pay ransom, to yield, that they can rationalize, Well, we’re following rules. And you somehow were not crushed. Your moral sense was not crushed by that technicality. ............ we saw it very, very recently in the D.C. Bar, which had an election involving Pam Bondi’s brother, who tried to challenge somebody to become president of that bar, and he got singularly trounced and embarrassed and humiliated. ............. one of the things we’ve all discovered from Donald Trump is there are a lot of things that presidents might do that they shouldn’t do that turned out not to be illegal, exactly. .............. there doesn’t seem to be a law that says the president can’t sell perfume while being president. We just think he shouldn’t. And other presidents didn’t. .............. The 30-some counts of felony that Donald Trump has been convicted for were not the worst things he did. And the worst things he did may not trigger any federal statute. And that loss of moral sense that some lawyers have, the flight from morality into legality, has in some ways left us disabled in the face of the Trump presidency. .................. he embarrasses himself, he embarrasses the country, he embarrasses the office, and he disrespects the office. He has contempt for what his job actually is, which is to enforce the Constitution, enforce the laws, to do right by the country for the people of the country. And he’s not capable of doing that. ............. the courts are following this rule familiar from children’s games: One for him, and one for you. One for him, and one for you. ......... So can masked men put a bag over somebody’s head on an American street, shove them into an airplane, fly them to another country without a hearing, and throw them into a dungeon? The courts have said that one—that one’s for you. No, no, we can’t do that. The next question is: Well, can the president commit crimes? Can he try to overthrow the Constitution and be prosecuted? And the courts said, That’s one for him. We give him one. .............. And then we have this complex, multipart balancing test about whether or not the president can violate criminal statutes. Yes or no? We will give you a muddy answer that is completely useless. ............. I think the federal courts overall have been doing a tremendous job in fighting back. ............... where they inexplicably stayed an injunction where a judge basically said that you have to give people being removed from the country due process as to where they’re being removed to, because they could be removed to someplace that they might not survive. .................. the Court does have to pick its spots somewhat carefully because it doesn’t have, as Bickel points out—doesn’t have armies, doesn’t have police. ............. For example, if somebody violates a court order and is held in contempt, the U.S. Marshals Service system is the organization that goes out and takes somebody and sends them to jail. Well, that’s controlled by the Department of Justice, by Pam Bondi and Donald Trump. And who controls the jails? The federal jails? The United States Bureau of Prisons, also a part of the United States Department of Justice—also beholden, also managed and run by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi. ................ The courts cannot save us .............. Piers Morgan, who was defending Donald Trump, and one of the points he made is that when there was a court case and Donald Trump lost it and lost it and lost it, on appeal and in multiple courts, eventually he would comply with the law, and doesn’t that make him a very, very good boy? ................ we have a lot of examples of Donald Trump receiving benefits, including, most flamboyantly, a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar that maybe they offered willingly, maybe he extorted. That’s a little unclear. But the question is, the Constitution says, look—the president can’t accept any gift from anybody without a vote of Congress. But the defense is gonna say, He’s not the president. It’s going to his library, so-called, and maybe the library will operate as a flying library, a book-extension service. The books come to you by plane, with the president and/or his family aboard on their way to, you know, Rio de Janeiro. ................. it’s really up to the Congress to pass laws, to enforce restrictions on what the president can accept. ............. It could be just, Thank you for being a good president. Here’s $1 million. That would be a violation of the gratuities law, both by the person who’s giving gratuities and by the person who is receiving the gratuity. ................ Because Donald Trump is president of the United States, he controls the prosecutorial agenda. He doesn’t want to prosecute himself. He wants to prosecute people he doesn’t like. And so that’s the fundamental problem. ............... The United States, because the Constitution is so old, it also includes a lot of ideas that have gone out of fashion in other democracies. And one of the fashions in most democracies is that the people in charge of initiating prosecutions are not political. Whether they’re federal or state, they’re not elected, and they don’t answer to the elected bodies. ............. in the United States, the attorney general is a member of the president’s cabinet. That’s not how most democracies do things anymore, but the United States is sort of stuck with it. .............. the fundamental problem that we have today is not any particular provision of the Constitution, but the people are failing to abide by its text and by its spirit. And fundamentally, those people who are doing that are the Republicans in Congress. ................ the problem we have here is that too many people in our governmental system are failing to comply with their duties to the country and to the Constitution, and putting their loyalty in one man instead of the law. ................ legal realism is a body of thought that said the law is just a way of predicting what courts will do.

Rethinking Trade: Why the Dollar, the WTO, and Trump’s Policies Broke U.S. Manufacturing—and How a G30 Can Rebuild It

 

Rethinking Trade: Why the Dollar, the WTO, and Trump’s Policies Broke U.S. Manufacturing—and How a G30 Can Rebuild It

---

What really damaged U.S. manufacturing?

It wasn’t just globalization. It wasn’t just China. It wasn’t just automation or NAFTA. One of the most under-discussed culprits lies at the heart of the global financial system: the special status of the U.S. dollar.

The Dollar’s Double-Edged Sword

In 1944, at the Bretton Woods Conference, John Maynard Keynes warned against making the U.S. dollar the central reserve currency of the world. He proposed a different vision—a supranational currency called the bancor. But the United States, riding high on its World War II victory and emerging as the world’s dominant industrial power, insisted otherwise.

Keynes saw the trap. A global system built around one national currency would create imbalances that were structurally baked in. The dollar would always be in demand, and the U.S. would have to run massive trade deficits to supply the world with liquidity. That’s exactly what happened. Over decades, this system flooded the U.S. with cheap imports, hollowed out its manufacturing base, and allowed multinational corporations to offshore labor and dodge taxes—while the American working class paid the price.

WTO: Built to Stabilize, Smashed to Pieces

If the dollar system was the invisible lever, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was the visible referee. It brought rules, dispute mechanisms, and multilateral consensus to global commerce.

But in recent years—especially under the Trump administration—the WTO was deliberately sidelined. The United States refused to approve new judges to the Appellate Body, essentially paralyzing the organization’s ability to enforce its own rules. Meanwhile, Trump pivoted to one-on-one, high-pressure trade negotiations and blanket tariffs.

The outcome? A fragmented global trade system, where uncertainty and retaliation replaced predictability and cooperation. Trump’s tariffs may have had short-term appeal, but as economists like Paul Krugman pointed out, they did little to change the trade balance and much to hurt farmers, exporters, and global trust in the U.S.

A New Global Trade Paradigm: G30, Not G7 or BRICS

What’s needed now is a new global architecture, one where no single country dominates and no bloc calls the shots. The idea that the world should be ruled by either the G7 or the BRICS is outdated.

The future lies in a G30—an inclusive new organization of the 30 largest economies by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). This new body would bring together the Global North and South, rich and emerging economies, and establish a fresh, inclusive framework for global trade. No more one-sided rules. No more weaponized tariffs. Just a multilateral approach that recognizes mutual interests.

📘 Read more about this idea:
G7 + BRICS = G30: A Bold Vision for Global Cooperation in the 21st Century

---

Labor Is Trade Too: Immigration and the Human Supply Chain

We talk endlessly about trade in goods and services, but there’s another kind of trade we ignore at our peril: labor mobility. The Trump administration's crackdown on immigration has global implications—not just human rights, but trade itself.

There is a global labor market. Just as iPhones are made in China, strawberries are picked by migrants in California. Labor crosses borders—legally or not—because capital demands it. And yet we lack a global framework for this flow.

When undocumented workers are rounded up, families torn apart, and entire communities destabilized, we’re not just enacting cruelty—we’re disrupting the global economy. If labor is part of trade, then we need rules to ensure dignity, documentation, and fairness, not mass deportation and fear.

For a powerful fictional exploration of this crisis, see:

• Deported

• Empty Country

• Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire

---

What the U.S. Could Be Doing Instead

Despite all the noise, the United States still leads in services, technology, energy, and finance. As explored in the blog post “The Top Prize: Why the U.S. Economy Still Leads the World,” America’s true trade strength lies in value-added exports: software, patents, Hollywood, Wall Street, higher education.

Yet Trump’s trade war fixates on goods. On deficits. On raw numbers that don’t capture the bigger picture. Yes, the U.S. runs a large goods deficit—but it also has a massive services surplus. Taking all trade together—goods, services, foreign direct investment, and corporate revenues parked abroad—might actually reveal a hidden surplus, or at least a far smaller net deficit than advertised.

But focusing on numbers alone is still missing the point. We need a global framework for all aspects of trade, not bilateral brawls that destabilize economies.

---

Toward a Just and Thriving Trade System

If we want to restore manufacturing in the U.S., protect labor rights globally, and usher in a sustainable trade system that doesn’t crush the planet or working people, we need a radical rethink of trade itself.

These books offer starting points for that conversation:

📘 Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
📘 The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
📘 Trump’s Trade War
📘 The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism

These books look not just at the U.S., but at how emerging alliances like India–U.S., and even new philosophies like Kalkiism, can guide trade and economic cooperation in a fairer direction.

---

Conclusion: The Next Bretton Woods

In 1944, we chose the dollar. We chose U.S. hegemony. But Keynes was right—it came at a cost. Now, in the 21st century, that system is fraying.

It’s time for a second Bretton Woods, not to entrench another hegemon, but to build a shared global future. G30, not G7. Multilateralism, not tariffs. Rules with dignity, not detention camps. A manufacturing revival built not on nostalgia, but on smart policy, shared responsibility, and global justice.

Let’s start the conversation.

---

✍️ Read. Share. Organize. The global trade future we want won’t build itself.

व्यापार का पुनर्विचार: किसने तोड़ा अमेरिका का विनिर्माण आधार, और G30 ही समाधान क्यों है

---

अमेरिकी विनिर्माण को असली नुकसान किसने पहुँचाया?

सिर्फ वैश्वीकरण नहीं। सिर्फ चीन नहीं। न ही केवल स्वचालन या NAFTA। इस पूरी कहानी का एक ऐसा हिस्सा है जिस पर बहुत कम बात होती है—अमेरिकी डॉलर की विशेष स्थिति, जिसे जॉन मेनार्ड कीन्स ने 1944 में ही खतरनाक बताया था।

डॉलर: वरदान या अभिशाप?

1944 में ब्रेटन वुड्स सम्मेलन में, अर्थशास्त्री जॉन मेनार्ड कीन्स ने चेतावनी दी थी कि अमेरिकी डॉलर को वैश्विक रिज़र्व मुद्रा बनाना एक असंतुलित वैश्विक व्यवस्था की नींव रखेगा। उन्होंने इसके बजाय बैंकॉर नामक एक वैश्विक मुद्रा का प्रस्ताव दिया था। लेकिन अमेरिका ने अपनी ताकत के बल पर डॉलर को केंद्र में रखवा दिया।

कीन्स ने जो खतरा देखा था, वह हकीकत बन गया। डॉलर की वैश्विक मांग को पूरा करने के लिए अमेरिका को लगातार व्यापार घाटा चलाना पड़ा, जिससे अमेरिकी बाजारों में सस्ते आयातों की बाढ़ आ गई और घरेलू विनिर्माण चरमरा गया।

WTO: नियमों का संरक्षक, ट्रंप प्रशासन द्वारा नष्ट

डॉलर तो अदृश्य कारण था, लेकिन विश्व व्यापार संगठन (WTO) वह संस्थागत ढांचा था जो वैश्विक व्यापार को नियमों से जोड़ता था। वर्षों तक इसने स्थिरता और सहयोग को बढ़ावा दिया।

लेकिन ट्रंप प्रशासन ने WTO की रीढ़ ही तोड़ दी। उसने न्यायाधिकरण के जजों की नियुक्ति को रोककर WTO के विवाद निवारण तंत्र को निष्क्रिय कर दिया। इसके स्थान पर अमेरिका ने एक-एक देशों से दबाव बनाकर सौदेबाज़ी करनी शुरू की।

इसका परिणाम? अस्थिर और खंडित वैश्विक व्यापार प्रणाली, जिसमें अनिश्चितता और बदले की भावना बढ़ गई। ट्रंप के टैरिफ़ अल्पकालिक दिखावे तो बने, लेकिन अर्थव्यवस्था को नुकसान ही हुआ, जैसा कि कई अर्थशास्त्रियों ने कहा है।

---

अब क्या करना चाहिए: G7 या BRICS नहीं, G30 चाहिए

आज की दुनिया को किसी एक देश या ब्लॉक द्वारा संचालित करने की नहीं, बल्कि साझेदारी आधारित वैश्विक व्यापार संरचना की ज़रूरत है।

समाधान है G30—दुनिया की 30 सबसे बड़ी अर्थव्यवस्थाओं (PPP के आधार पर) का एक नया मंच। यहाँ G7 और BRICS दोनों एक साथ हों, साथ ही अफ्रीका, लैटिन अमेरिका और एशिया के बड़े देश भी।

यह नया संगठन समान भागीदारी पर आधारित वैश्विक व्यापार नियमों का निर्माण करेगा। इसमें कोई हावी नहीं होगा, और कोई हाशिये पर नहीं रहेगा।

📘 विस्तार से पढ़ें:
G7 + BRICS = G30: एक वैश्विक सहयोग की नई परिकल्पना

---

मज़दूरी भी व्यापार है: अप्रवासन पर एक नई दृष्टि

जब हम व्यापार की बात करते हैं, तो सामान और सेवाओं की बात करते हैं। लेकिन एक और चीज़ है जो सीमा पार करती है: मज़दूरी। श्रमिक भी वैश्विक आपूर्ति श्रृंखला का हिस्सा हैं।

ट्रंप प्रशासन की अप्रवासन पर सख्त नीति सिर्फ अमानवीय नहीं है, बल्कि वैश्विक व्यापार को भी नुकसान पहुंचाती है। अमेरिका की कृषि, निर्माण, और सेवा अर्थव्यवस्था में आप्रवासी श्रमिकों की प्रमुख भूमिका है।

अगर इन्हें बिना सोचे-समझे उठाकर बाहर किया जाएगा, तो आर्थिक और मानवीय संकट दोनों पैदा होंगे। इसलिए वैश्विक मज़दूरी व्यापार के लिए भी नियम और गरिमा की ज़रूरत है।

इस विषय को लेकर कुछ किताबें ज़रूर पढ़ें:

• Deported (उपन्यास)

• Empty Country (उपन्यास)

• Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (उपन्यास)

---

अमेरिका क्या कर सकता है?

सेवाओं, टेक्नोलॉजी, ऊर्जा और वित्तीय क्षेत्रों में अमेरिका अब भी दुनिया में सबसे आगे है। जैसा कि इस ब्लॉग पोस्ट में बताया गया है —
The Top Prize: Why the U.S. Economy Still Leads the World
—अमेरिका की असली ताकत मूल्य वर्धित निर्यात है: सॉफ्टवेयर, हॉलीवुड, शिक्षा, और वित्तीय सेवाएं।

फिर भी ट्रंप प्रशासन सिर्फ माल के व्यापार घाटे की बात करता है। जबकि सच्चाई यह है कि अमेरिका का सेवा क्षेत्र में बड़ा व्यापार अधिशेष है। अगर हम सामान, सेवाएं, प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश और बौद्धिक संपदा को एक साथ जोड़ें, तो शायद अमेरिका घाटे में नहीं बल्कि लाभ में भी हो सकता है।

लेकिन इसका हल सिर्फ संख्याओं में नहीं है। एक नई वैश्विक व्यापार संरचना में है, जो सभी को साथ लेकर चले।

---

न्यायपूर्ण और समृद्ध व्यापार प्रणाली की ओर

अगर हम अमेरिका में विनिर्माण को फिर से जीवित करना चाहते हैं, वैश्विक मज़दूरी को गरिमा देना चाहते हैं, और एक टिकाऊ व्यापार व्यवस्था चाहते हैं, तो हमें व्यापार की मूल परिभाषा को पुनः गढ़ना होगा।

यह किताबें उस चर्चा को शुरू करने के लिए उपयोगी होंगी:

📘 Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
📘 The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
📘 Trump’s Trade War
📘 The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism

---

निष्कर्ष: अगली ब्रेटन वुड्स बैठक की ज़रूरत

1944 में हमने डॉलर को चुना। अब उसकी कीमत चुका रहे हैं।

आज ज़रूरत है एक नई ब्रेटन वुड्स जैसी बैठक की—जहाँ कोई एक देश नहीं, बल्कि दुनिया के सभी प्रमुख देश एक न्यायपूर्ण, समावेशी, और स्थायी वैश्विक व्यापार व्यवस्था बनाएं।

G30 वह भविष्य है। बहुपक्षीयता ही रास्ता है। मानव गरिमा के साथ श्रम व्यापार की आवश्यकता है। और अमेरिकी विनिर्माण को वापस लाने का तरीका स्मार्ट नीति और साझेदारी है, न कि पुरानी सोच और ज़बरदस्ती।

आइए, इस बातचीत की शुरुआत करें।

✍️ पढ़ें, साझा करें, और संगठित हों। जिस व्यापार प्रणाली की दुनिया को ज़रूरत है, वह खुद नहीं बनेगी।

Rethinking Trade: Why the Dollar, the WTO, and Trump’s Policies Broke U.S. Manufacturing—and How a G30 Can Rebuild It https://t.co/Eh1x5kOxQg

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9md1G4

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

5/ Tariffs did not fix the trade deficit.
They raised prices, disrupted supply chains, and sowed mistrust—without fundamentally reshoring jobs.

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1Vh2WL

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1Vh2WL

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9md1G4

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

12/ Bottom line:
🔁 We need a new Bretton Woods.
🌐 One that centers cooperation over coercion.
🧑‍🏭 Where labor is treated with dignity.
🏭 Where U.S. manufacturing rises again—not by fear, but by fairness.

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Rethinking Trade: Why the Dollar, the WTO, and Trump’s Policies Broke U.S. Manufacturing—and How a G30 Can Rebuild It https://t.co/Eh1x5kOxQg
Thoughts? Comments?

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

1/ अमेरिकी विनिर्माण को किसने सबसे ज़्यादा नुकसान पहुँचाया?
सिर्फ चीन नहीं। सिर्फ वैश्वीकरण नहीं।
👉 असली वजह है डॉलर की विशेष वैश्विक स्थिति, जिसके खिलाफ कीन्स ने 1944 में चेतावनी दी थी।

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

2/ ब्रेटन वुड्स में कीन्स ने बैंकॉर नामक एक वैश्विक मुद्रा का सुझाव दिया था।
अमेरिका ने डॉलर को थोप दिया।
नतीजा? अमेरिका को दुनिया को डॉलर देने के लिए लगातार व्यापार घाटा झेलना पड़ा।

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9md1G4

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

6/ अमेरिका की असली ताकत कहाँ है?
👉 सेवाएं, बौद्धिक संपदा, फाइनेंस, टेक्नोलॉजी, शिक्षा
इसलिए अमेरिका को सामान में घाटा लेकिन सेवाओं में बड़ा अधिशेष है।

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

8/ अब समय है G7 और BRICS को पीछे छोड़ने का।
समाधान है G30: PPP के हिसाब से 30 सबसे बड़ी अर्थव्यवस्थाओं का साझा मंच।
📘 पढ़ें: https://t.co/K9Ovrd24nq

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1Vh2WL

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9md1G4

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

12/ निष्कर्ष:
🔁 हमें चाहिए नई ब्रेटन वुड्स बैठक
🌐 जहाँ सहयोग हो, दमन नहीं
🧑‍🏭 जहाँ श्रमिकों को गरिमा मिले
🏭 जहाँ अमेरिका का विनिर्माण न्याय और नीति से दोबारा खड़ा हो

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

The Top Prize: Why the U.S. Economy Still Wants (and Needs) Trade

 

The Top Prize: Why the U.S. Economy Still Wants (and Needs) Trade

The United States economy is often seen as the ultimate prize in global commerce—and for good reason. With a GDP hovering near $30 trillion, a population of over 330 million, and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, the U.S. is an irresistible market for businesses worldwide. American consumers are habitual spenders, not savers. Access to easy credit, a culture of consumption, and the world’s largest middle class purchasing power make the U.S. a honey pot for those seeking to sell goods, services, or financial products.

But there’s a deeper layer to this story—one that goes beyond the simple metric of who’s selling into the American market. When we zoom out and look at global trade in its entirety, including:

• Goods and services imports/exports

• Foreign direct investment (FDI)

• Licensing and royalties

• Financial flows

• Intellectual property monetization

• Multinational corporate operations abroad

—we start to see a vast, interconnected trading system where the U.S. isn't just a buyer. It's a dominant seller, investor, and profit-maker.

---

America, the Global Seller Too

Take U.S. multinationals. Apple, Google, Microsoft, McDonald’s, and hundreds of others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign markets, often reinvesting those profits overseas or parking them in tax-friendly jurisdictions. Whether it's Boeing jets in the Middle East, Pfizer pharmaceuticals in Europe, or Hollywood movies in Asia, America’s economic reach is planetary.

Then there’s services trade, often overlooked. The U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of higher education, financial services, software, entertainment, insurance, legal services, and management consulting. Not to mention Wall Street’s gravitational pull on global capital.

And if the U.S. didn’t impose export controls on dual-use technologies, AI chips, semiconductors, aerospace engineering, and advanced defense tech, its trade surplus in high-tech goods would be even more colossal.

---

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Here’s the math on total U.S. trade engagement, broadly defined:

• Goods exports (2023): $2.0 trillion

• Services exports: $1.0 trillion

• U.S. FDI abroad: $6.6 trillion (assets)

• Royalties and license fees received: $130+ billion/year

• Global profits of U.S. MNCs: $500+ billion/year

• Cross-border financial flows: in the trillions, annually

Even if the U.S. runs a goods trade deficit, it runs a services trade surplus, dominates in FDI outflows, and rakes in global profits through intellectual property and financial instruments. When taken in total, America’s net economic reach dwarfs most countries’ entire GDPs.

---

Enter David Ricardo: The Law of Comparative Advantage Still Rules

All of this grandeur doesn’t negate one of the most important truths in economic history: trade is not a zero-sum game. In the early 19th century, British economist David Ricardo famously showed that nations benefit from trading even if one of them is more efficient at producing everything. Why? Because each nation gains by specializing in what it does best and trading for the rest.

This law of comparative advantage is as true today as it was in Ricardo’s time. Even the world’s most powerful economy benefits from specialization and exchange. The U.S. doesn't need to make everything. It thrives when it focuses on innovating, designing, financing, and branding, and lets other nations manufacture or supply certain inputs more cheaply.

---

Tariffs Hurt Everyone — Including the U.S.

Rising tariffs and protectionism might sound like economic self-defense, but in reality, they’re self-inflicted wounds. Tariffs:

• Raise prices for American consumers

• Disrupt supply chains

• Trigger retaliatory tariffs from other nations

• Harm U.S. exporters, farmers, and manufacturers

• Encourage inefficiency at home

Global trade is like the flow of electricity—it finds the most efficient path. When the U.S. interrupts that flow, it doesn’t just harm foreign competitors. It raises costs, lowers growth, and inhibits innovation at home.

---

A Win-Win World: Lower Tariffs, Higher Prosperity

If the U.S. wants to retain global leadership, the path forward is clear: more trade, not less. Lowering tariffs across the board—especially on green tech, digital services, and strategic components—will:

• Strengthen alliances

• Improve supply chain resilience

• Create jobs in high-value industries

• Help emerging markets grow (and become better customers)

And it doesn’t hurt that every major economic power benefits too, from India to Europe to the Global South. Global prosperity expands markets for U.S. goods and services. It's not charity. It’s strategy.

---

Final Word: The U.S. Is the Top Prize, But It Still Needs the Game

Yes, the U.S. is the largest market, the biggest spender, and the dominant financial power. But it cannot go it alone. Autarky is not an option in a complex, interdependent world.

David Ricardo’s insight still holds: prosperity comes not from hoarding your advantages, but from trading them. The future belongs to those who understand this—and build a global economy based not on walls and tariffs, but on trust, specialization, and open exchange.

Let the world trade freely—and let America lead the way.

सबसे बड़ा इनाम: क्यों अमेरिका अब भी व्यापार करना चाहता है (और उसे इसकी ज़रूरत है)

अमेरिकी अर्थव्यवस्था को वैश्विक व्यापार की दुनिया में अक्सर सबसे बड़े इनाम की तरह देखा जाता है—और इसके पीछे ठोस कारण हैं। लगभग $30 ट्रिलियन डॉलर की GDP, 33 करोड़ से अधिक जनसंख्या, और दुनिया में सबसे ऊंची प्रति व्यक्ति आय के साथ, अमेरिका वैश्विक कंपनियों के लिए एक अनूठा बाज़ार है। अमेरिकी उपभोक्ता खर्च करने वाले हैं, बचत करने वाले नहीं। आसान कर्ज़, उपभोग की संस्कृति, और दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा मिडल क्लास खर्च करने की क्षमता अमेरिका को एक ऐसा बाजार बनाते हैं जिसे कोई भी व्यापारी नजरअंदाज नहीं कर सकता।

लेकिन इस कहानी का एक और गहरा पक्ष है—जो सिर्फ अमेरिका को सामान बेचने तक सीमित नहीं है। जब हम वैश्विक व्यापार को पूरे संदर्भ में देखते हैं, जिसमें शामिल हैं:

• सामान और सेवाओं का आयात-निर्यात

• प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश (FDI)

• लाइसेंसिंग और रॉयल्टी

• वित्तीय प्रवाह

• बौद्धिक संपदा से आय

• विदेशों में कार्यरत अमेरिकी बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियां (MNCs)

—तब हमें एक विस्तृत, आपस में जुड़ी हुई वैश्विक व्यापार प्रणाली दिखती है, जहां अमेरिका केवल खरीदार नहीं, बल्कि सबसे बड़ा विक्रेता, निवेशक, और लाभार्थी भी है।

---

अमेरिका: केवल ग्राहक नहीं, एक वैश्विक विक्रेता भी

अमेरिकी बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियों को लें—Apple, Google, Microsoft, McDonald’s, और सैकड़ों अन्य—जो हर साल विदेशी बाज़ारों से सैकड़ों अरब डॉलर कमाते हैं। ये कंपनियां अक्सर वो मुनाफा वहीं दोबारा निवेश करती हैं या टैक्स-फ्रेंडली देशों में रखती हैं। चाहे वो मध्य-पूर्व में Boeing के विमान हों, यूरोप में Pfizer की दवाएं, या एशिया में हॉलीवुड फिल्में, अमेरिका की आर्थिक पहुँच वैश्विक स्तर पर फैली हुई है।

और सेवाओं का व्यापार तो अक्सर चर्चा में ही नहीं आता, जबकि अमेरिका इसमें दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा निर्यातक है—उच्च शिक्षा, वित्तीय सेवाएं, सॉफ्टवेयर, मनोरंजन, बीमा, कानूनी सलाह, प्रबंधन परामर्श—इन सबका विशाल वैश्विक बाजार है।

अगर अमेरिका अपने हाई-टेक उत्पादों, जैसे कि AI चिप्स, रक्षा तकनीक, एयरोस्पेस, आदि पर निर्यात प्रतिबंध न लगाता, तो उसका तकनीकी व्यापार घाटा नहीं, भारी सरप्लस होता।

---

आँकड़े क्या कहते हैं?

आइए देखें कि अमेरिका कुल व्यापार में कितना शामिल है:

• सामान का निर्यात (2023): $2 ट्रिलियन

• सेवाओं का निर्यात: $1 ट्रिलियन

• FDI (विदेशों में अमेरिकी निवेश): $6.6 ट्रिलियन

• रॉयल्टी और लाइसेंस फीस आय: $130+ बिलियन प्रति वर्ष

• MNCs का वैश्विक मुनाफा: $500+ बिलियन प्रति वर्ष

• वित्तीय प्रवाह: कई ट्रिलियन डॉलर सालाना

हालांकि अमेरिका वस्तुओं के व्यापार में घाटा झेलता है, वह सेवाओं में लाभ कमाता है, दुनिया भर में निवेश करता है, और बौद्धिक संपदा तथा वित्तीय उपकरणों से अरबों डॉलर कमाता है। कुल मिलाकर देखा जाए, तो अमेरिका की वैश्विक आर्थिक पकड़ अधिकांश देशों की पूरी GDP से भी बड़ी है।

---

डेविड रिकाडो अब भी सही हैं: तुलनात्मक लाभ का सिद्धांत

इतनी समृद्धि के बावजूद, एक प्राचीन सत्य आज भी कायम है: व्यापार शून्य-योग खेल नहीं है। 19वीं सदी में ब्रिटिश अर्थशास्त्री डेविड रिकाडो ने सिद्ध किया था कि अगर एक देश हर चीज़ में बेहतर हो फिर भी व्यापार से उसे लाभ होता है, क्योंकि देश अपनी विशेषज्ञता वाले क्षेत्र में फोकस करता है और बाकी चीजें व्यापार से प्राप्त करता है।

आज के वैश्विक युग में भी यही सिद्धांत लागू होता है। अमेरिका को सब कुछ खुद बनाने की ज़रूरत नहीं है। वह नई खोजों, डिज़ाइन, फाइनेंस, और ब्रांडिंग में अग्रणी है, जबकि बाकी देश कुछ वस्तुओं का निर्माण अधिक दक्षता से कर सकते हैं।

---

टैरिफ अमेरिका को भी नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं

जब अमेरिका टैरिफ बढ़ाता है और संरक्षणवाद की ओर झुकता है, तो यह आत्म-क्षति के समान होता है। टैरिफ:

• उपभोक्ता कीमतें बढ़ाते हैं

• सप्लाई चेन को बाधित करते हैं

• विदेशों से प्रतिशोधात्मक शुल्क लाते हैं

• निर्यातकों, किसानों, और निर्माताओं को नुकसान पहुँचाते हैं

• घरेलू अक्षम उद्योगों को संरक्षण देते हैं

वैश्विक व्यापार एक तरह से बिजली के बहाव जैसा होता है—यह सबसे कुशल मार्ग खोज लेता है। जब अमेरिका इस प्रवाह को रोकता है, तो नुकसान केवल विदेशों को नहीं होता—अमेरिकी अर्थव्यवस्था भी महंगी, धीमी और कम प्रतिस्पर्धी हो जाती है।

---

मुक्त व्यापार से अमेरिका और दुनिया दोनों को लाभ

यदि अमेरिका वैश्विक नेतृत्व कायम रखना चाहता है, तो रास्ता स्पष्ट है—अधिक व्यापार, कम टैरिफ। विशेष रूप से ग्रीन टेक्नोलॉजी, डिजिटल सेवाओं, और रणनीतिक उत्पादों पर शुल्क कम करने से:

• सहयोगी देशों से रिश्ते मजबूत होंगे

• सप्लाई चेन और मजबूत बनेंगी

• उच्च मूल्य क्षेत्रों में नौकरियाँ बढ़ेंगी

• विकासशील देश ग्राहक बनकर उभरेंगे

यह कोई दान नहीं, बल्कि रणनीति है। समृद्धि फैलती है तो बाजार भी फैलते हैं। और वह अमेरिका के लिए लाभ का चक्र बन जाता है।

---

निष्कर्ष: अमेरिका सबसे बड़ा बाजार है, पर उसे वैश्विक खेल की ज़रूरत है

हां, अमेरिका सबसे बड़ा बाज़ार है, सबसे बड़ा खर्च करने वाला है, और सबसे बड़ा निवेशक है। लेकिन वह अकेला नहीं चल सकता। आत्मनिर्भरता (Autarky) आज के जुड़े हुए विश्व में कोई विकल्प नहीं है।

डेविड रिकाडो का सिद्धांत आज भी वैध है: समृद्धि आती है अपने लाभ साझा करके, उन्हें छिपाकर नहीं। जो देश यह समझते हैं और खुले व्यापार को अपनाते हैं, भविष्य उन्हीं का होगा।

दुनिया को मुक्त रूप से व्यापार करने दो—और अमेरिका को इसका नेतृत्व करने दो।

The Top Prize: Why the U.S. Economy Still Wants (and Needs) Trade https://t.co/7R3FbNOifx

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade https://t.co/twyC7GaxWV

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

2/
With a $30T+ economy, 330M+ consumers, sky-high per capita income, and easy access to credit—America is a dream market for exporters worldwide.
If you can sell in the U.S., you’ve made it.

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9mdzvC

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

6/
Let’s do the math:
Goods exports: $2T

Services exports: $1T

Royalties: $130B

FDI assets: $6.6T

MNC global profits: $500B+

This is global economic dominance.

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

9/
Trade is like electricity.
It flows where it’s efficient.
Try to block it, and you raise costs for everyone—especially yourself.

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1Vh2WL

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

12/
In conclusion:
🇺🇸 is the top prize—but it still needs the game.
Trade is not charity.
Trade is strategy.
And free trade—done right—makes the whole world richer.

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

सबसे बड़ा इनाम: क्यों अमेरिका अब भी व्यापार करना चाहता है (और उसे इसकी ज़रूरत है) https://t.co/7R3FbNNKpZ

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1VhAMj

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9mdzvC

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

6/
गणना करें तो:
वस्तु निर्यात: $2 ट्रिलियन

सेवा निर्यात: $1 ट्रिलियन

रॉयल्टी आय: $130B

विदेशी निवेश संपत्ति: $6.6 ट्रिलियन

MNC मुनाफा: $500B+

यह है वैश्विक आर्थिक प्रभुत्व।

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9mdzvC

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

11/
हाँ, अमेरिका सबसे बड़ा उपभोक्ता बाजार है।
लेकिन इसका मतलब यह नहीं कि वो अकेला चल सकता है।
नेतृत्व का मतलब है: वैश्विक सहयोग।

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025

अमेरिका नेतृत्व करे। दुनिया व्यापार करे। 🌍#व्यापार #अमेरिका #ComparativeAdvantage #वैश्विकअर्थव्यवस्था #टैरिफ #मुक्त_व्यापार

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 9, 2025