Wednesday, July 02, 2025

2: Ukraine

Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
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
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
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

Can Trump strip Musk and Mamdani of their US citizenship?
Israeli official says country has accepted 60-day Gaza ceasefire deal detailed by Trump
Judge blocks Trump’s rule barring migrants at US-Mexico border from claiming asylum
Iran ready to enrich uranium to bomb-grade levels: "we can do that"

The Masterplan for Ukraine to Win the War Against Russia "Western half-measures have prolonged the war" and Ukraine can still win, but only with a "fundamental shift in Western strategy." ....... instead of providing too much aid, the West has provided too little, too late, and a large boost in military and economic pressure now could force a favorable outcome. .......... Russia has been ramping up drone attacks, while also making slow advances along the front lines, and recently seized a key lithium field in Eastern Ukraine, one seen as key to Ukraine’s mineral deal with the U.S. ........ Russia is much weaker economically than many analysts realize, and hard-hitting sanctions and export controls can still cripple its war economy ........ “Ukraine is fighting smartly and could turn the tide on the battlefield with more high-end drones, air defense systems, long-range missiles, and munitions. With a change of strategy, Ukraine can still win the war in the near term—if both Europe and the United States decide to give it the assistance it needs.” ....... and NATO appearing to pivot away from Ukraine at its most recent summit, where it appeared the primary agenda of most NATO nations was keeping the American president happy. ........ Putin was “personally invested in keeping Ukraine from becoming a European democracy, no matter the cost.” ......... “By assigning no agency to Ukraine or its foreign partners, it presumes that Ukrainian victory is a fantasy born of Western delusion, and it is a view that risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he writes. “Both assumptions, meanwhile, rest on an excessively narrow reading of battlefield dynamics and a limited understanding of the policy options available to Ukraine’s backers.” ......... The author points to “impressive victories” by Ukraine, which include repelling the initial invasion, capturing land in the Kharkiv region, and the recent Operation Spider Web drone attack. The problem, he writes, is that Ukraine has often waited too long for delivery of weapons that have matched what the Russians are throwing at them. ............. Instead of prolonging the war by giving Ukraine too much military assistance, Kyiv’s foreign allies have prolonged it by giving too little, and often with significant delays” ........ “Despite these missteps, victory for Ukraine—minimally defined as preserving its sovereignty and continuing to chart a course toward NATO and EU membership—is still squarely within reach. Achieving it, however, requires a fundamental shift in Western strategy, one that combines a large boost in military assistance with more robust economic measures to constrain Russia’s war economy.”

ICE-Tracking App Surges in Popularity Following MAGA Meltdown
The Iranian Regime Has Already Fallen. The New Regime Is Worse.
Trump Kills Key Weapons Shipments to Ukraine as Putin Unleashes Hell
Italy could lose 20 billion euros in exports, 118,000 jobs with US tariffs, industry head says
Kirsten Gillibrand apologizes to Zohran Mamdani over ‘jihad’ claim

Trump's policies already cost US companies $82 billion — and that could 'more than double' tariffs and mass deportations will hurt American businesses and that the draconian Medicaid and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) cuts in his megabill will imperil vulnerable Americans. ........ Trump's tariffs "add about $82 billion in total new costs for all mid-sized U.S. companies, per a new estimate — a sum that would more than double if rates return to levels seen at the height of trade tensions in April." ........ Those tariff-related expenses, according to Brown, "could force" business owners "to shrink costs elsewhere, perhaps via layoffs." ....... "The cost amounts to 3 percent of their payroll — it's meaningful that they are paying that much to compensate for the tariffs." ...... Trump's "immigration crackdown is hitting key pockets of the economy, disrupting workplaces and communities around the country." ......... The sharp fall in immigration this year threatens to slow down economic growth, particularly in the sectors and cities that relied on newcomers to the U.S. in recent years…. There will be fewer workers to produce goods and services, slowing down growth and putting pressure on wages." ......... the U.S. economy "will find itself slightly diminished in the long run, and inflation will run a touch higher." ....... The 'big, beautiful bill' that passed the Senate contains about $175 billion for even more immigration enforcement.

We are going to have a deal, says Trump amid India-US trade deadlock India was ready to lower taxes for US companies, which could clear the path for an agreement staving off the 26% rate he announced on April 2. The reciprocal tariffs were suspended for 90 days by Trump, but the 10 percent baseline tariff continued to be in effect. ........ India has refused to budge on dairy, a sector employing over 80 million people in India, many of them smallholder farmers. ........ "We've dealt with Japan. I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," Trump said as he returned to Washington from a trip to Florida....... He claimed that Japan was rejecting American-grown rice, a demand Washington made that he called "an easy one," while selling millions of cars in the US.

#WATCH | On trade deals with India, US President Donald Trump says, "I think we are going to have a deal with India. And that is going to be a different kind of a deal. It is going to be a deal where we are able to go in and compete. Right now, India does not accept anybody in. I… pic.twitter.com/6c199NGm8B
— ANI (@ANI) July 1, 2025

Why Tariffs Are a Bad Idea — Even When They Raise Money

In the world of economic policy, few ideas are as persistent — and as misleading — as tariffs. Often sold as a way to protect domestic industries and generate government revenue, tariffs are, in truth, a drag on growth, innovation, and everyday affordability. And the math doesn’t lie: even when tariffs bring in billions, the economic damage they cause outweighs any revenue gains.

It’s time to call it clearly — tariffs are bad economics. So bad, in fact, that countries would be better off unilaterally reducing their own tariffs — even if other countries don’t reciprocate. Let’s break down why.

The Illusion of Revenue: $30B a Month, But at What Cost?

Let’s say the U.S. government imposes tariffs that bring in $30 billion per month, or $360 billion per year. Sounds like a windfall, right?

But consider this: the U.S. GDP is approximately $30 trillion. A 1% drop in GDP—caused by disruptions to trade, higher input costs, inflation, and retaliation—translates to a $300 billion loss in total economic output.

So even if tariffs “earn” $360 billion, they may be causing a $300 billion loss in growth. That’s a razor-thin $60 billion difference — and it vanishes the moment you account for rising prices, lost jobs, delayed investments, and reduced tax revenues elsewhere in the economy.

Tariffs Feed Inflation

When tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, they ripple through the economy in the form of higher prices for consumers and businesses. Everything from electronics to construction materials to food gets more expensive.

Inflation eats into wages and savings, driving up the cost of living. Central banks respond by raising interest rates, which increases borrowing costs for mortgages, cars, and business expansion. Tariffs become an indirect tax on the entire population — especially the working class and small businesses.

Small Businesses and Manufacturers Take the Hit

Many small and medium-sized American businesses rely on imported materials or components to produce their goods. When tariffs make those imports more expensive, margins shrink. Small businesses don’t have the pricing power of giant corporations, so they are forced to absorb losses, cut staff, or shut down entirely.

Even domestic manufacturers, the supposed “winners” of tariffs, often get hurt. Why? Because they depend on global supply chains. They import machinery, electronics, and raw materials to build their final products. Tariffs disrupt those flows and raise their costs, making their products less competitive both at home and abroad.

Lost Tax Revenues and Reduced Investment

Tariffs aren’t just bad for businesses — they’re bad for government budgets too.

When GDP growth slows by even 1%, the government loses billions in tax revenue:

Lower business profits → less corporate tax
Fewer jobs or wage growth → less income tax
Reduced consumer spending → less sales tax

Meanwhile, uncertainty caused by tariffs makes companies delay or cancel investments. No one wants to build a factory when global supply chains are unpredictable. Capital that could have gone to innovation sits idle.

What the Economists Say: A Rare Consensus

In an era where economists often disagree, the consensus on tariffs is overwhelming: they are inefficient, distortionary, and harmful to long-term prosperity.

A 2018 survey of top U.S. economists by the University of Chicago found zero who agreed that tariffs improve domestic welfare.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has called tariffs “an exercise in self-harm.”
The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the Trump-era tariffs cost American consumers $57 billion annually, while saving only a tiny fraction of jobs — at a cost of millions of dollars per job saved.

The Case for Unilateral Tariff Reduction

What if the U.S. reduced or eliminated tariffs — even if other countries didn’t?

It turns out that’s still a smart move. Why?

Cheaper imports benefit consumers and businesses.
Lower production costs make U.S. companies more competitive globally.
Efficiency gains allow industries to specialize and scale.
Greater openness encourages innovation, collaboration, and investment.

This is not a fringe view. Countries like Singapore and Hong Kong have long practiced near-zero tariffs and have thrived. The U.K., post-Brexit, has lowered tariffs on numerous goods to reduce inflation and improve supply chains, regardless of what trading partners do.

When a country opens its economy, it helps itself first — and creates a positive ripple effect for global trade.

Conclusion: Tariffs Are Taxes That Hurt Us All

Tariffs may raise money for the government, but they do so by making life more expensive, hurting small businesses, and slowing the economy. They are a tax in disguise — a tax on every imported good, every consumer, and every company trying to grow and compete.

The evidence is clear. The economic logic is clear. The global experience is clear.

It’s time to move beyond protectionist fantasies and embrace what works:

Open trade, lower tariffs, stronger growth.

Even if other countries don’t follow suit — we should lead.

क्यों टैरिफ एक बुरा विचार हैं — भले ही वे सरकार के लिए पैसे लाएँ

आर्थिक नीतियों की दुनिया में शायद ही कोई विचार टैरिफ जितना पुराना और उतना ही गुमराह करने वाला हो। अक्सर इन्हें घरेलू उद्योगों की रक्षा करने और सरकारी राजस्व बढ़ाने के तरीके के रूप में पेश किया जाता है, लेकिन वास्तव में टैरिफ विकास, नवाचार और रोजमर्रा की चीजों की किफायती उपलब्धता को नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं। और गणित तो बिल्कुल साफ है: भले ही टैरिफ अरबों डॉलर जुटाएँ, वे उससे कहीं अधिक आर्थिक नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं।

सच्चाई यह है कि टैरिफ खराब अर्थशास्त्र हैं। इतने खराब कि देश अपने टैरिफ खुद ही कम कर लें — भले ही दूसरे देश ऐसा न करें — फिर भी उनका लाभ होता है। आइए समझते हैं क्यों।

आमदनी का भ्रम: हर महीने $30 बिलियन, लेकिन किस कीमत पर?

मान लीजिए अमेरिकी सरकार टैरिफ से हर महीने $30 बिलियन जुटा रही है — यानी सालाना $360 बिलियन।

बिल्कुल फायदे का सौदा लगता है, है ना?

लेकिन सोचिए: अमेरिका की GDP लगभग $30 ट्रिलियन है। अगर टैरिफ और उससे पैदा हुई आर्थिक अनिश्चितता के चलते GDP 1% कम हो जाए, तो इसका मतलब है $300 बिलियन का नुकसान।

तो भले ही टैरिफ $360B ला रहे हों, अगर $300B की विकास दर छिन जाए, तो असली "फायदा" सिर्फ $60 बिलियन का बचता है — और यह भी छलावा है जब हम देखें कि इससे कीमतें बढ़ती हैं, रोजगार जाते हैं, निवेश रुकता है और दूसरे टैक्स कम होते हैं।

टैरिफ महंगाई बढ़ाते हैं

जब टैरिफ आयातित सामान की लागत बढ़ा देते हैं, तो उसका असर पूरे बाजार पर पड़ता है — उपभोक्ताओं और व्यवसायों दोनों पर।

हर चीज महंगी हो जाती है: इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स, मशीनरी, निर्माण सामग्री और यहाँ तक कि खाद्य वस्तुएँ भी।

इससे महंगाई बढ़ती है, जिससे लोगों की खरीदने की शक्ति घटती है। फिर ब्याज दरें बढ़ती हैं, जिससे मकान खरीदना, गाड़ी लेना और व्यापार शुरू करना और मुश्किल हो जाता है।

छोटे व्यवसायों और मैन्युफैक्चरिंग को झटका

कई छोटे और मध्यम व्यवसाय आयातित कच्चे माल पर निर्भर करते हैं। जब टैरिफ की वजह से ये महंगे हो जाते हैं, तो मुनाफा घटता है। छोटे व्यवसायों के पास कीमतें बढ़ाने की क्षमता नहीं होती, इसलिए उन्हें नुकसान झेलना पड़ता है, कर्मचारियों को हटाना पड़ता है, या बंद ही करना पड़ता है।

यहाँ तक कि घरेलू निर्माता भी प्रभावित होते हैं, क्योंकि उनके सप्लाई चेन भी वैश्विक होते हैं। अगर आयातित पार्ट्स महंगे हो जाएँ, तो उनके उत्पाद भी महंगे हो जाते हैं — जिससे विदेशों में प्रतिस्पर्धा करना मुश्किल हो जाता है।

टैक्स की हानि और निवेश में गिरावट

टैरिफ से सिर्फ व्यापार को ही नहीं, सरकारी टैक्स सिस्टम को भी नुकसान होता है।

जैसे ही GDP धीमी होती है, सरकार को इन स्रोतों से टैक्स कम मिलते हैं:

कम मुनाफा → कम कॉर्पोरेट टैक्स
कम वेतन या नौकरियाँ → कम इनकम टैक्स
कम खरीदारी → कम सेल्स टैक्स

उधर, टैरिफ से पैदा हुई अनिश्चितता के कारण कंपनियाँ निवेश टाल देती हैं। कोई भी कंपनी ऐसी स्थिति में नया प्लांट नहीं लगाना चाहती जब उसे नहीं पता कि अगले साल कौन सी चीज़ पर टैक्स लगने वाला है।

अर्थशास्त्रियों की राय: दुर्लभ सहमति

आज के ज़माने में जब अधिकांश अर्थशास्त्रियों में सहमति दुर्लभ है, टैरिफ पर अद्भुत सहमति है:
टैरिफ नुकसानदेह हैं — वे बाजार को बिगाड़ते हैं, कुशलता घटाते हैं, और उपभोक्ताओं को चोट पहुंचाते हैं।

शिकागो विश्वविद्यालय की एक सर्वे में एक भी अर्थशास्त्री ने यह नहीं कहा कि टैरिफ से जनता का भला होता है।
नोबेल पुरस्कार विजेता पॉल क्रुगमैन ने टैरिफ को “आत्म-हत्या जैसा कदम” कहा है।
पीटरसन इंस्टिट्यूट के अनुसार, ट्रम्प युग के टैरिफ ने अमेरिकी उपभोक्ताओं को हर साल $57 बिलियन का नुकसान पहुंचाया, और हर एक नौकरी बचाने में लाखों डॉलर खर्च हुए।

एकतरफा टैरिफ कटौती भी समझदारी है

क्या हो अगर अमेरिका अपने टैरिफ खुद ही घटा दे, भले ही दूसरा देश ऐसा न करे?

यह भी फायदेमंद है। क्यों?

सस्ते आयात से उपभोक्ता और कारोबारी दोनों को राहत मिलती है।
कम लागत से अमेरिकी कंपनियाँ ज्यादा प्रतिस्पर्धी बनती हैं।
बेहतर दक्षता से उद्योगों को बड़ा होने और विकसित होने का मौका मिलता है।
खुलेपन से नवाचार, साझेदारी और निवेश बढ़ता है।

सिंगापुर, हांगकांग जैसे देशों ने लंबे समय से टैरिफ कम रखे हैं — और उन्होंने बहुत फायदा देखा है।

निष्कर्ष: टैरिफ एक छिपा हुआ टैक्स है जो सभी को नुकसान देता है

टैरिफ सरकार के लिए पैसा ला सकते हैं, लेकिन यह पैसा ज्यादा महंगे सामान, आर्थिक मंदी और छंटनियों की कीमत पर आता है। यह एक छुपा हुआ टैक्स है — हर उपभोक्ता, हर छोटे व्यापारी और हर उत्पादक पर।

तथ्य साफ हैं। गणित साफ है। वैश्विक अनुभव भी साफ है।

अब समय है कि हम प्रोटेक्शनिज़्म के इस झूठ से बाहर आएँ और उस दिशा में जाएँ जो वास्तव में काम करती है:

खुला व्यापार, कम टैरिफ, तेज़ विकास।

चाहे बाकी देश साथ न दें — हमें नेतृत्व करना चाहिए।

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1VhAMj
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade https://t.co/twyC7Gb5Mt
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9mdzvC
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel) https://t.co/33eFTUwu2V
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Empty Country https://t.co/yMDHpkDqEA
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Deported https://t.co/KrjKa39Kon
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

The Garden Of Last Debates https://t.co/T9BQEDlOgd
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy https://t.co/8aGH1VhAMj
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade https://t.co/twyC7Gb5Mt
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Trump’s Trade War https://t.co/jujJ9mdzvC
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel) https://t.co/33eFTUwu2V
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

The Garden Of Last Debates https://t.co/T9BQEDlOgd
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Empty Country https://t.co/yMDHpkDqEA
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Deported https://t.co/KrjKa39Kon
— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 2, 2025

Trump's policies already cost US companies $82 billion — and that could 'more than double' tariffs and mass deportations will hurt American businesses and that the draconian Medicaid and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) cuts in his megabill will imperil vulnerable Americans. ........ Trump's tariffs "add about $82 billion in total new costs for all mid-sized U.S. companies, per a new estimate — a sum that would more than double if rates return to levels seen at the height of trade tensions in April." ........ Those tariff-related expenses, according to Brown, "could force" business owners "to shrink costs elsewhere, perhaps via layoffs." ....... "The cost amounts to 3 percent of their payroll — it's meaningful that they are paying that much to compensate for the tariffs." ...... Trump's "immigration crackdown is hitting key pockets of the economy, disrupting workplaces and communities around the country." ......... The sharp fall in immigration this year threatens to slow down economic growth, particularly in the sectors and cities that relied on newcomers to the U.S. in recent years…. There will be fewer workers to produce goods and services, slowing down growth and putting pressure on wages." ......... the U.S. economy "will find itself slightly diminished in the long run, and inflation will run a touch higher." ....... The 'big, beautiful bill' that passed the Senate contains about $175 billion for even more immigration enforcement.

Barackface

Pages

Wednesday, July 02, 2025

2: Ukraine

Why Tariffs Are a Bad Idea — Even When They Raise Money

Why Tariffs Are a Bad Idea — Even When They Raise Money

The Illusion of Revenue: $30B a Month, But at What Cost?

Tariffs Feed Inflation

Small Businesses and Manufacturers Take the Hit

Lost Tax Revenues and Reduced Investment

What the Economists Say: A Rare Consensus

The Case for Unilateral Tariff Reduction

Conclusion: Tariffs Are Taxes That Hurt Us All

क्यों टैरिफ एक बुरा विचार हैं — भले ही वे सरकार के लिए पैसे लाएँ

आमदनी का भ्रम: हर महीने $30 बिलियन, लेकिन किस कीमत पर?

टैरिफ महंगाई बढ़ाते हैं

छोटे व्यवसायों और मैन्युफैक्चरिंग को झटका

टैक्स की हानि और निवेश में गिरावट

अर्थशास्त्रियों की राय: दुर्लभ सहमति

एकतरफा टैरिफ कटौती भी समझदारी है

निष्कर्ष: टैरिफ एक छिपा हुआ टैक्स है जो सभी को नुकसान देता है