Barackface

Thursday, May 15, 2025

15: UAE

The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

Trump’s birthright citizenship case heads to the Supreme Court. Their decision could reshape presidential power.
Putin and Trump leave Zelenskyy in the dust, skipping peace talks in Turkey
Trump undercuts Ukraine Istanbul talks before they even start
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.

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. ..........

Your thoughts on this?
Challenges In AI Safety https://t.co/o7SR4ZM2ic
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025

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. #GAAD https://t.co/W6YW81e962
— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) May 15, 2025

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.

Ukraine is represented by… pic.twitter.com/P0uFaOSlhj
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) May 15, 2025

Marc Andreessen: “So what’s happening right now is openAI is growing up to become Google and Google is reinventing itself to be openAI.”

its so over / we’re so back pic.twitter.com/82NTYiA7vs
— NIK (@ns123abc) May 15, 2025

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

Still got 0 users?

Stop building more features.

- Post on Reddit until you get banned
- Answer Quora questions
- Cold email potential users
- Join Slack and community forums

That’s how I got my first 100 users.
— Baretto (tiny.host)⚡ (@_baretto) May 14, 2025

But the acceleration is not happening.
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 15, 2025

great advise by @sama pic.twitter.com/5votKWcrVu
— Kashvi Sharma (@coderkashvi) May 14, 2025

Yvette Cooper talks like the UK is rich country.

It's a bankrupt one. Hugely in debt and being flooded by violent third worlders who we then have to provide free healthcare for.

Close the borders. If you want to "work upstream" after that... fine.
— Psyllium Husk (@cso4x) May 12, 2025

great advise by @sama pic.twitter.com/5votKWcrVu
— Kashvi Sharma (@coderkashvi) May 14, 2025

Your startup has a 1000% higher chance of success if you stop overthinking everything and just ship it. pic.twitter.com/oGs8LkSRc7
— Andrew Gazdecki (@agazdecki) May 14, 2025

Stop overbuilding

Launch fast

Let the market decide

Fail quickly to win faster

Took me 7 failed apps to learn this lesson
— Hunter Isaacson (@hunterjisaacson) May 14, 2025

What Would a Truly Great Global Trade Architecture Look Like?

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.

Velocity Money: Crypto, Karma, and the End of Traditional Economics
The Next Decade of Biotech: Convergence, Innovation, and Transformation
Beyond Motion: How Robots Will Redefine The Art Of Movement
ChatGPT For Business: A Workbook
Becoming an AI-First Organization
Quantum Computing: Applications And Implications
Challenges In AI Safety
AI-Era Social Network: Reimagined for Truth, Trust & Transformation

Pages