AGI is gonna change everything so completely that nothing you do now gives you any real edge. No move matters. Just live your life. It’s summer. Touch grass, learn something, enjoy the moment, and let it all go.
Stablecoins aren’t just the future of money—they’re the future of U.S. monetary influence. Backed by dollars and Treasuries, they bring speed, transparency, and economic leverage in a world shifting to digital rails.
If America doesn’t lead this wave, who will?
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025
The fact that personalized AI education gets kids to the top 1-2% in the nation academically is very cool.
The reality that this happens in only two hours a day should make us rethink everything.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025
Humanoid robots will replace all human manual labor in five years.
Easily.
Some manual work will be replaced by automated machines. Drivers will be replaced by autonomous vehicles. But the human form is the most versatile for performing all kinds of work. That is probably why…
— David Scott Patterson (@davidpattersonx) May 15, 2025
BREAKING: The world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, in Dubai just lit up in the American 🇺🇸 flag on the occasion of President Trump’s visit tonight to the UAE. pic.twitter.com/DqFgM3AVV7
— حسن سجواني 🇦🇪 Hassan Sajwani (@HSajwanization) May 15, 2025
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025
This morning at breakfast in Doha, my waiter told me to thank President Trump for him.
I asked him why.
He told me he is from Kashmir, and he has been unable to return home in recent weeks due to the India-Pakistan conflict. But he was just notified that he’s now able to…
— Karoline Leavitt (@karolineleavitt) May 15, 2025
Every company on earth is going to take advantage of the tariffs to raise prices.
Even with the tariffs paused now.
Consumers are going to pay for a policy that doesn’t even exist.
It’s hard to put into words just how self defeating April 2025 was.
— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) May 15, 2025
this dude swiped right 2 million times & got one date. he’s not just some unlucky guy, he is the norm.. like imagine the money he spent over five years, probably a small fortune. this is obvious but what’s actually nonobvious is that his behavior unlocked an entirely new revenue… pic.twitter.com/OYy0V50L1o
I just failed a student for submitting an AI-written research paper, and she sent me an obviously AI-written email apologizing, asking if there is anything she can do to improve her grade. We are through the looking-glass, folks.
— Stephen Cicirelli (@SteveCicirelli) May 15, 2025
........... Onshoring or relocation of manufacturing to a home country is a very complex decision for companies. It is based on the costs of doing business in different countries; tariff and non-tariff barriers of doing business; proximity of production to markets; availability and cost of resources such as raw materials, finance and labor; and companies’ long-term strategies. ......... Onshoring decision analysis itself takes months if not years, and must be cleared by multiple levels within organizations, and by country regulatory agencies at local and national levels. ........ reshoring to America will require investments in land, buildings, equipment and workforces within the U.S. Higher costs on these was a major reason why offshoring occurred in the first place. Costs of all these factors of production have escalated over the past few decades. With under 17 percent of the U.S. economy in the manufacturing sector, some of these factors, and a manufacturing ecosystem, are simply no longer available in America. .......... Reshoring would also require rebuilding the supply chain. Global supply chains are complex and multi-leveled. There are many layers of suppliers based in different countries with different tariff rates. Large companies have thousands of suppliers. Renegotiating contracts can take months or even years. Higher tariffs will increase the cost of supplies from even home-based suppliers, if those suppliers are using imported goods. ........... A third complexity that companies cannot necessarily trust that the current Trump tariffs will remain stable for long enough to match corporate calculations for return on investment. Large-scale investments involved in moving manufacturing across nations run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. These sunk costs take upwards of 10 years to recoup. .......... Trump’s flip-flopping on tariff rates, application dates, delays and reversals in his first administration — and his current attitude that countries can individually negotiate lower tariff deals with him — presents no guarantee of stability. Instead, it injects enormous uncertainty into the decision for any corporate board to accept. Shareholders would likely sue corporate boards that approve such uncertain investments. ..........
the hope that tariffs will lead to onshoring of manufacturing to the U.S. is a fantasy.
......... What can companies to do to minimize the disruption from these tariffs? There are many variations of onshoring that they can consider — re-shoring, friend-shoring, partial onshoring. Companies can re-shore from a present location to a lower-tariffed nation in their current vicinity. They can move to tariff-advantaged friendlier shores. ..... the most likely response for now is for companies to continue rationalizing and diversifying their supply chains.
Trump's tariff strategy can work but America still needs deeper economic reform President Donald Trump’s tariff diplomacy has been a shock treatment to the global economic order, intended as a kind of radiation and chemotherapy to kill the cancer that created the Rust Belt. But overdoing the treatment can kill the patient instead, without removing the carcinogens in the economy. Fortunately, the administration’s negotiators have called a truce, and we can reevaluate the treatment’s effectiveness. .......... President Trump has also used the threat of tariffs very effectively to help secure America’s southern border and stem the flow of fentanyl, which had become the number-one killer of young people. .......... the drama around tariffs has had side effects, like chemotherapy killing off healthy cells in the body. This collateral damage could be found in survey data from the regional Federal Reserve Banks and purchasing manager indexes, all of which pointed to sharp declines in business optimism and planned capital expenditures. ........ the on-again-off-again nature of these tariffs has made it extraordinarily difficult for businesses and consumers to plan. There has also been substantial turbulence in Treasury markets, gold prices, and equities. ........ Just throwing tariffs at the problem is like undergoing chemotherapy and radiation without any lifestyle changes. Imagine enduring all the painful side effects of such treatments while smoking cigarettes, maintaining a poor diet, avoiding exercise, and exposing yourself to asbestos and too much sunlight—that’s the equivalent of what’s happening today!........ the regulatory compliance cost for manufacturers in America is about $50,000 to $60,000 per worker, and then there’s a tax burden on top of that. Reducing trade abuses is insufficient to reform the domestic policies which have made American workers unemployable in many industries.
The real breakthrough in U.S.–China trade talks is much bigger than just tariffs Quietly, Washington and Beijing agreed to establish a formal "trade consultation mechanism," a permanent bilateral platform to hold structured talks on currency policies, market access, and non-tariff barriers. While bureaucratic in tone, this institutional move may prove to be the most consequential economic shift in years. ......... The U.S.–China imbalance isn’t simply a matter of bad trade deals or American overconsumption. It’s a structural problem embedded in the international monetary framework, and for the first time in a generation, both countries appear ready to talk about it seriously. ........... This deeper imbalance is something Stephen Miran—who now serves as chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers—laid out in extraordinary detail in a 41-page report published in November 2024. Titled "A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System," the paper explains how the current dollar-centric model locks the United States into persistent trade deficits while encouraging surplus economies like China to underconsume and overproduce. These excess savings are then recycled into U.S. financial assets, particularly Treasuries, which props up the dollar and erodes American manufacturing. ......... The result? A lopsided economic order where the U.S. acts as consumer of last resort and global debtor-in-chief, while countries like China flood the world with goods but face chronic domestic stagnation. .......... a "Triffin World," referencing economist Robert Triffin’s famous dilemma: When a national currency is also a global reserve, it eventually becomes impossible to balance domestic and international obligations. To satisfy global demand for safe assets, the U.S. must run deficits, which hollow out its own economy. Meanwhile, surplus nations avoid necessary reforms at home because the system rewards their export-heavy models. ........... What Miran proposes is a structural recalibration—realigning currency values to reflect underlying economic conditions, discouraging excessive reserve accumulation, and encouraging more balanced capital flows. ............. The fact that this new U.S.–China mechanism explicitly includes discussions on currency and non-tariff measures suggests that Miran’s framework is already influencing policy. This is more than a détente—it’s the first real move to unwind Bretton Woods II. ..........
Could it be deliberate? As in, a decision that more people should see it? Just like you open up Twitter and the first thing you see is an Elon Musk tweet.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025
For 40 years, we’ve believed the best technology is built with accessibility in mind.
We’re proud to share new accessibility features to help more people navigate the world, express themselves, and stay connected. #GAADhttps://t.co/W6YW81e962
First and foremost, I want to thank President @RTErdogan for organizing the opportunity for direct negotiations – that was exactly the signal we had received. The Ukrainian side confirmed its readiness, and today, we are here in the capital, in Ankara.
But I'd still make an argument for a Wikipedia killer, a Khan Academy disruptor (note: I am fans of both). There is still massive room to present well. What AI generates is like accessing a database.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025
What Would a Truly Great Global Trade Architecture Look Like?
Imagine a world where trade isn't a zero-sum game but a collaborative engine for shared prosperity, sustainability, and innovation. A world where both the rich and the poor win. Where technological progress doesn't deepen inequality but closes the gap. Where economic integration respects sovereignty and uplifts the weakest. That world demands a new global trade architecture—radically reimagined, boldly inclusive, and fundamentally just.
Today’s system, built on 20th-century frameworks like the WTO and Bretton Woods institutions, is increasingly outdated. The dominance of the U.S. dollar, the rigidity of old trade deals, the exploitation of labor in the Global South, and the ecological blind spots of modern capitalism are symptoms of a deeper problem: the system was never built to serve everyone equally.
But what if we rebuilt it from scratch?
1. A Multipolar Currency System
The dollar-centric system gives the U.S. immense power—over sanctions, debt, and trade. But it also creates fragility, as seen in the weaponization of finance and the vulnerability of developing countries to dollar shortages. A truly fair trade architecture would move toward a multipolar currency system, where regional currency blocs (e.g., the euro, yuan, rupee, and a digital BRICS token) operate in parallel.
This doesn’t mean war on the dollar—it means optionality. It means a Digital SDR 2.0—a new synthetic reserve asset governed by a reformed IMF or a new global financial body that reflects current economic realities. Such a system could price commodities in a basket of currencies, reduce dependency on any single economy, and give developing countries more autonomy.
2. Tiered Tariff and Access System for Global Equity
Not all countries are equal in their starting points. So why should they all be treated the same in trade? A just system would introduce a Tiered Trade Framework:
Tier 1: Least developed countries receive zero tariffs, technology transfer incentives, and favorable access to capital and IP.
Tier 2: Middle-income countries get reduced tariffs and support to move up value chains.
Tier 3: Advanced economies operate on a level playing field with each other but contribute to a Global Trade Equity Fund to support sustainable development and logistics infrastructure in the poorest regions.
This is affirmative action at a planetary level—necessary, overdue, and ultimately beneficial for global stability.
3. Trade for Climate and Labor Justice
Trade agreements must include binding climate and labor clauses. No nation should gain a competitive edge by destroying its forests or exploiting its workers. A new architecture would penalize carbon leakage and illegal labor practices with automated sanctions and redirect the penalties to a Climate Reparations and Adaptation Fund.
Green exports would be incentivized. Countries investing in renewable energy, regenerative agriculture, or circular economies would receive fast-track trade approval and tariff discounts. Environmental trade courts could resolve disputes based on science, not geopolitics.
4. Decentralized Trade Dispute Mechanisms
Today’s WTO appellate system is paralyzed. A new architecture would implement regional and thematic arbitration panels, powered by AI-assisted legal reasoning and blockchain for transparency. Disputes would be resolved in months, not years.
Moreover, citizen juries and global observers could be involved in sensitive decisions involving human rights or environmental concerns, adding legitimacy and ethical accountability to economic rulings.
5. Universal Digital Trade Identity and Inclusion
Billions are still unbanked and disconnected. A bold trade framework would enshrine Universal Digital Trade Identity—secure, portable, privacy-respecting credentials enabling individuals and small businesses to engage in global commerce. This could ride on infrastructure like India’s Aadhaar+UPI stack, adapted globally via open protocols.
Trade is not just between nations—it’s between people. Decentralized commerce platforms, powered by smart contracts, AI translators, and mobile micro-logistics, would make even a rural weaver in Malawi a global trader.
6. Reformed China, Responsive America, Empowered South
A global deal would require hard reforms in every direction.
China must address forced technology transfers, state subsidies, and digital opacity. In return, it gains full legitimacy in shaping new rules.
The U.S. must loosen its grip on global financial levers and shift toward partnership over dominance. It could become a climate-tech exporter, not just a rule enforcer.
Africa, South Asia, and Latin America must rise from dependency to agency. Their voice should count more in global bodies. Their firms must be integrated into value chains, not stuck in commodity traps.
7. Planetary Marshall Plan
Global trade must be underpinned by global investment. A "Marshall Plan for the Earth" would inject trillions into resilient infrastructure, education, health, and internet access. This wouldn’t be charity—it would be smart trade stimulus. A better-educated, healthier, digitally connected world is a bigger market for all.
Funding could come from a mix of carbon taxes, wealth levies on MNCs, and sovereign contributions. The returns? Peace, prosperity, and planetary survival.
Conclusion: The Deal of the Century
This isn’t utopian. It’s necessary. The post-WWII order was built in the rubble of crisis. Today, we face polycrisis—climate, inequality, AI disruption, geopolitical fragmentation. We can either compete ourselves into collapse or cooperate into renaissance.
A new global trade architecture must be:
Multipolar, not monopolized
Inclusive, not extractive
Green, not growth-at-any-cost
Transparent, not opaque
Efficient, but also ethical
Let every nation sit at the table not as beggars or bullies—but as co-authors of a better global deal. The world is overdue for a Bretton Woods 2.0. Let's write it together.
For 40 years, we’ve believed the best technology is built with accessibility in mind.
We’re proud to share new accessibility features to help more people navigate the world, express themselves, and stay connected. #GAADhttps://t.co/W6YW81e962
From China to India: Apple’s Supply Chain Shift and the American Manufacturing Mirage
For over a decade, Apple’s iPhones have been synonymous with China—not because they are designed there, but because they are built there. The sleek devices that power much of modern life emerge from sprawling mega-factories operated by Foxconn and other contract manufacturers in Chinese cities like Zhengzhou and Shenzhen. But the winds are shifting. With rising geopolitical tensions, supply chain risks, and a changing global economy, Apple is now looking more seriously at India. President Donald Trump, however, has been vocal in opposing this pivot, pushing instead for Apple to manufacture at home in the United States. But is that realistic? Why China in the first place? Why India now? And can the U.S. realistically reclaim the iPhone?
Why China?
1. Scale and Specialization:
China’s dominance in electronics manufacturing is not an accident. Over decades, the country developed massive clusters of specialized suppliers, a deep bench of skilled labor, and infrastructure that rivals the best in the world. Cities like Shenzhen aren’t just home to factories—they are ecosystems. If Apple needs a particular screw, hinge, or chip adapter, it can be sourced within a few hours’ drive. The ability to ramp up production by hundreds of thousands of units within days is a capability few countries can match.
2. Labor Supply and Cost:
Although labor costs have risen in China, they’re still lower than the U.S., and importantly, the Chinese workforce is highly experienced in electronics assembly. Foxconn alone employs hundreds of thousands of workers at its iPhone factories, operating with military-style efficiency.
3. Government Support:
Chinese local and central governments have provided subsidies, tax breaks, land, and other incentives to tech manufacturers. The “Made in China” push is a coordinated national priority, which has aligned well with Apple’s logistical needs.
Why India Now?
1. Diversification Strategy:
COVID-19 exposed the fragility of overconcentration in one country. Apple, like many multinationals, realized that putting all its manufacturing eggs in China’s basket was risky. Geopolitical tensions—especially the U.S.-China trade war—added urgency. India offers an alternative that could mitigate these risks.
2. Government Incentives:
The Indian government has rolled out Production Linked Incentives (PLIs) and other programs to woo global manufacturers. These programs offer cash incentives based on output, along with land and tax concessions.
3. Growing Domestic Market:
India is expected to become the second-largest smartphone market in the world. Apple’s local production in India not only reduces tariffs on imported devices but also positions it well to serve this massive consumer base.
4. Young Labor Force:
India has a demographic advantage—millions of young workers entering the labor market every year. With training, they can become a reliable source of skilled labor.
5. Foxconn and Tata Collaboration:
Apple is not going it alone. Taiwanese giant Foxconn is already operating in India and expanding. Tata Group, one of India’s largest conglomerates, is joining hands with Apple’s suppliers to build out manufacturing capabilities.
Trump’s Opposition: Made in America?
Donald Trump has consistently pushed for manufacturing to return to the United States. His "America First" platform calls for companies like Apple to create jobs domestically. While emotionally and politically appealing, the economics and logistics of this are more complex.
What Would It Take to Build iPhones in the US?
1. Labor Costs:
Wages in the U.S. are significantly higher than in China or India. An iPhone assembled in the U.S. would likely cost significantly more to produce—costs that might be passed on to consumers.
2. Lack of Manufacturing Ecosystem:
The U.S. does not have the kind of dense, interlinked supplier networks that exist in Shenzhen or even emerging clusters in India. Rebuilding such a network would take years and billions of dollars in investment.
3. Workforce Challenges:
U.S. workers are not trained in high-volume electronics assembly at scale. Training a new workforce and changing cultural attitudes toward factory jobs would be a major endeavor.
4. Regulatory and Infrastructure Costs:
Environmental regulations, zoning restrictions, and bureaucratic delays would make large-scale factory construction and operation more challenging compared to China or India.
Is U.S. iPhone Manufacturing Realistic?
In niche areas—like high-end Mac Pro assembly—yes, and Apple has already dabbled in that. But for mass production of hundreds of millions of iPhones per year? Not yet. It would require massive policy intervention, long-term industrial planning, and a cultural shift. While not impossible, it's far from economically viable in the short term.
Conclusion: A New Global Balance
Apple’s pivot from China to India is not a rejection of China’s capabilities but a strategic diversification driven by risk management, cost optimization, and political calculation. India is not yet a full replacement for China—but it's on the path. As for the U.S., the dream of Made-in-America iPhones remains largely aspirational, unless there’s a seismic shift in manufacturing economics and policy.
In the coming decade, Apple may evolve into a truly global manufacturer—designing in California, assembling in India, and still keeping a foot in China. And that, perhaps, is the new face of globalization in the 21st century.
Opinion: Trump’s tariffs won’t bring manufacturing back to America The tariffs invoked retaliation of a 125 percent tariff from China, America’s largest trading partner. They broke an 80-year bond of friendship with our neighbor and closest ally, Canada. They have left our allies in Europe perplexed to embittered. The fallout is not over yet. ........... The economic rationale for the tariffs is they will bring back manufacturing to the U.S. The architect of this outmoded idea is the economist Peter Navarro. His theory is that as goods become more expensive to import into the U.S., companies will start relocating their manufacturing here — an idea called “onshoring” of manufacturing. .........
the idea of onshoring is a fallacy.
........... Onshoring or relocation of manufacturing to a home country is a very complex decision for companies. It is based on the costs of doing business in different countries; tariff and non-tariff barriers of doing business; proximity of production to markets; availability and cost of resources such as raw materials, finance and labor; and companies’ long-term strategies. ......... Onshoring decision analysis itself takes months if not years, and must be cleared by multiple levels within organizations, and by country regulatory agencies at local and national levels. ........ reshoring to America will require investments in land, buildings, equipment and workforces within the U.S. Higher costs on these was a major reason why offshoring occurred in the first place. Costs of all these factors of production have escalated over the past few decades. With under 17 percent of the U.S. economy in the manufacturing sector, some of these factors, and a manufacturing ecosystem, are simply no longer available in America. .......... Reshoring would also require rebuilding the supply chain. Global supply chains are complex and multi-leveled. There are many layers of suppliers based in different countries with different tariff rates. Large companies have thousands of suppliers. Renegotiating contracts can take months or even years. Higher tariffs will increase the cost of supplies from even home-based suppliers, if those suppliers are using imported goods. ........... A third complexity that companies cannot necessarily trust that the current Trump tariffs will remain stable for long enough to match corporate calculations for return on investment. Large-scale investments involved in moving manufacturing across nations run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. These sunk costs take upwards of 10 years to recoup. .......... Trump’s flip-flopping on tariff rates, application dates, delays and reversals in his first administration — and his current attitude that countries can individually negotiate lower tariff deals with him — presents no guarantee of stability. Instead, it injects enormous uncertainty into the decision for any corporate board to accept. Shareholders would likely sue corporate boards that approve such uncertain investments. ..........
the hope that tariffs will lead to onshoring of manufacturing to the U.S. is a fantasy.
......... What can companies to do to minimize the disruption from these tariffs? There are many variations of onshoring that they can consider — re-shoring, friend-shoring, partial onshoring. Companies can re-shore from a present location to a lower-tariffed nation in their current vicinity. They can move to tariff-advantaged friendlier shores. ..... the most likely response for now is for companies to continue rationalizing and diversifying their supply chains.
Trump's tariff strategy can work but America still needs deeper economic reform President Donald Trump’s tariff diplomacy has been a shock treatment to the global economic order, intended as a kind of radiation and chemotherapy to kill the cancer that created the Rust Belt. But overdoing the treatment can kill the patient instead, without removing the carcinogens in the economy. Fortunately, the administration’s negotiators have called a truce, and we can reevaluate the treatment’s effectiveness. .......... President Trump has also used the threat of tariffs very effectively to help secure America’s southern border and stem the flow of fentanyl, which had become the number-one killer of young people. .......... the drama around tariffs has had side effects, like chemotherapy killing off healthy cells in the body. This collateral damage could be found in survey data from the regional Federal Reserve Banks and purchasing manager indexes, all of which pointed to sharp declines in business optimism and planned capital expenditures. ........ the on-again-off-again nature of these tariffs has made it extraordinarily difficult for businesses and consumers to plan. There has also been substantial turbulence in Treasury markets, gold prices, and equities. ........ Just throwing tariffs at the problem is like undergoing chemotherapy and radiation without any lifestyle changes. Imagine enduring all the painful side effects of such treatments while smoking cigarettes, maintaining a poor diet, avoiding exercise, and exposing yourself to asbestos and too much sunlight—that’s the equivalent of what’s happening today!........ the regulatory compliance cost for manufacturers in America is about $50,000 to $60,000 per worker, and then there’s a tax burden on top of that. Reducing trade abuses is insufficient to reform the domestic policies which have made American workers unemployable in many industries.
