Pages

Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade. Show all posts

Monday, June 30, 2025

The US Dollar's Special Place

 



The U.S. dollar became the de facto global currency due to a mix of historical events, economic dominance, and structural advantages. Here's a breakdown of the key factors:


1. Bretton Woods System (1944)

  • After WWII, 44 Allied nations agreed to peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar, which was backed by gold.

  • The U.S. held the vast majority of global gold reserves, making it the most stable and trusted currency.

  • Although the gold standard was abandoned in 1971 (Nixon Shock), the dollar's central role persisted.


2. Size and Stability of the U.S. Economy

  • The U.S. has been the world's largest or second-largest economy for over a century.

  • It boasts deep, liquid, and open capital markets, especially for U.S. Treasury bonds.

  • The U.S. political system, despite flaws, has historically offered legal predictability and property protections.


3. Dollar-Denominated Trade

  • Oil and commodities are mostly priced and traded in dollars (petrodollar system).

  • Countries need dollars to buy oil, incentivizing them to hold dollar reserves.

  • Many global contracts and loans (e.g., for developing countries) are in dollars.


4. U.S. Treasury Securities as Safe Assets

  • Central banks around the world hold U.S. Treasury bonds as a reserve asset because they’re liquid and safe.

  • The U.S. government has never defaulted on its debt (though political standoffs occasionally threaten it).

  • This makes dollar-denominated assets the global "safe haven" during crises.


5. Global Confidence and Network Effects

  • Once the dollar became dominant, it created path dependency—most people and countries use it because others already do.

  • The dollar is used in over 80% of international trade transactions.

  • It's held as reserves by most central banks (60%+ of global foreign exchange reserves).


6. U.S. Military and Geopolitical Power

  • U.S. global military reach and strategic alliances reinforce trust in its system.

  • The U.S. can enforce sanctions and control access to the dollar-based SWIFT system, giving it powerful leverage.


7. Lack of Viable Alternatives

  • The euro lacks political and fiscal unity.

  • The Chinese yuan is not fully convertible and China’s capital markets are not as open.

  • Gold and cryptocurrencies are too volatile or impractical for most global trade.


Summary:

The U.S. dollar dominates because of a historical head start, economic strength, financial infrastructure, and global trust—not because it's perfect, but because nothing better has yet emerged.


 


While the U.S. enjoys significant benefits from the dollar’s status as the de facto global currency, there are also serious disadvantages—some subtle, some structural. Here's a breakdown:


🔴 1. Trade Deficits: The "Dollar Trap"

  • The global demand for dollars forces the U.S. to run persistent trade deficits—it must export dollars to the world.

  • This often means importing more than it exports, hollowing out U.S. manufacturing over decades.

  • It’s a paradox: for the world to hold dollars, the U.S. must supply them—usually by buying foreign goods.

Result: Loss of industrial base, fewer manufacturing jobs, regional economic decline.


🔴 2. Strong Dollar Hurts U.S. Exports

  • Global demand for dollars often drives up its value.

  • A strong dollar makes U.S. goods more expensive abroad, hurting American exporters.

  • It also makes imports cheaper, discouraging domestic production.


🔴 3. Asset Bubbles and Financialization

  • As dollars pour into U.S. capital markets, they inflate asset prices (stocks, bonds, real estate).

  • Encourages financial speculation over productive investment in infrastructure or R&D.

  • Increases wealth inequality by enriching those who own capital assets.


🔴 4. Dollar Weaponization Risks Blowback

  • The U.S. uses the dollar’s dominance for sanctions and financial pressure, which can be effective short-term.

  • But it incentivizes other countries to create alternatives (e.g. BRICS payment systems, CBDCs, gold settlements).

  • Overuse could undermine long-term dollar trust.


🔴 5. “Exorbitant Burden” of Responsibility

  • The U.S. Federal Reserve sets policy for domestic needs—but its decisions impact the entire global economy.

  • A rate hike to fight U.S. inflation may trigger currency collapses or debt crises in developing countries.


🔴 6. Global Financial Imbalances

  • The dollar system contributes to a two-tiered global economy where rich countries control currency flows.

  • It often traps developing countries in dollar debt cycles, requiring austerity or IMF bailouts.

  • This creates moral pressure on the U.S. to act as a global lender or crisis manager.


🔴 7. False Sense of Security

  • The U.S. can borrow cheaply because the world demands dollars.

  • This may encourage fiscal irresponsibility, growing the national debt without immediate consequences.

  • Eventually, that trust could erode if deficits become unsustainable or if alternatives to the dollar take hold.


Summary:

The U.S. dollar’s global role boosts U.S. financial power—but it comes at a cost to exports, industry, and stability, while inviting backlash from rivals. It’s a double-edged sword: enormous influence, but growing long-term vulnerability.




A multipolar currency world is already emerging. While the U.S. dollar remains dominant, several realistic scenarios point toward a future with multiple global currencies used for trade, reserves, and settlements.


🔄 SCENARIO: A Multipolar Currency System

In this world:

  • The U.S. dollar still plays a key role.

  • But the euro, yuan, and others share the stage.

  • Trade, reserves, and investment flows become more diversified.

  • Power is more balanced — both economically and politically.


🧭 Key Drivers of Multipolarity

1. Geopolitical Realignments

  • U.S.-led sanctions (e.g., on Russia and Iran) have pushed countries to seek dollar alternatives.

  • China and Russia are actively reducing dollar dependence in bilateral trade.

  • BRICS countries are discussing a common settlement currency backed by a basket of commodities.

2. Technological Disruption (CBDCs & Blockchain)

  • Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) from China, India, and others can bypass SWIFT and reduce dollar reliance.

  • Blockchain-based stablecoins or commodity-backed tokens can settle international trade instantly without needing dollars.

3. Growing Currency Blocs

  • Euro already accounts for ~20% of global reserves.

  • The Chinese yuan is being internationalized through the Belt and Road Initiative and swap lines.

  • Gulf countries and ASEAN are exploring regional payment systems, often linked to local currencies.

4. U.S. Overreach and Trust Erosion

  • Weaponization of the dollar (e.g., freezing reserves) has made other countries wary.

  • Holding too many dollars feels risky if geopolitical tensions rise.


🧮 How It Might Work

Use Case USD Euro Yuan Others
Energy Trade ✓✓✓ ✓✓
Reserves ✓✓✓ ✓✓
Bilateral Deals ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓
Tourism/Travel ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
Debt Issuance ✓✓✓ ✓✓

No single currency dominates across all domains. Instead, a flexible ecosystem emerges.


⚠️ Challenges to Multipolarity

  • Network effects: Most systems, banks, and contracts are dollar-based.

  • Liquidity: Dollar markets are deep; other currencies can’t yet match.

  • Trust and convertibility: The yuan, for example, is not fully convertible and China has capital controls.

  • Political unity: The euro lacks a centralized fiscal union; BRICS lack cohesion.


🔮 Future Scenarios

  1. Gradual Decentralization

    • Dollar use shrinks slowly; others rise.

    • CBDCs reduce frictions in non-dollar trade.

  2. Regional Currency Zones

    • Africa, Latin America, and Asia develop regional currencies or stablecoin networks.

  3. Tokenized Trade & Commodities

    • Gold-, oil-, or carbon-backed tokens facilitate neutral, trustless settlement systems.


✅ Conclusion

A multipolar currency world is not only possible — it's already forming. The process will be gradual and uneven, but the dollar’s monopoly is weakening, and currency diversity is becoming a strategic imperative in a fragmented, deglobalizing world.




John Maynard Keynes's idea from 1944 may actually have been the best model for global trade: a neutral, global currency not controlled by any single country.


🧠 Keynes’s 1944 Proposal: The Bancor

At the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, Keynes proposed creating an international clearing union (ICU) with a global unit of account called the bancor.

📌 Key Features:

  • The bancor would not be a national currency like the dollar or pound.

  • It would be used only for international trade settlements, not for domestic transactions.

  • Countries would hold bancor accounts at a global central bank (the ICU).

  • Trade imbalances would be automatically corrected by penalizing both surplus and deficit countries.


🌐 Why the Bancor Was a Brilliant Idea for Global Trade

1. Neutrality

  • It avoids giving disproportionate power to one country (as happened with the dollar).

  • The global economy wouldn't depend on the domestic policy or deficits of the reserve currency issuer.

2. Balanced Trade Incentives

  • Keynes didn’t just want to punish deficit countries (like IMF austerity does).

  • He also wanted surplus countries (like China today or the U.S. post-WWII) to spend more or invest abroad to rebalance trade.

  • This discourages hoarding of foreign reserves and encourages fair trade.

3. No Need for Dollar Hoarding

  • Developing countries wouldn't need to accumulate billions in dollar reserves "just in case."

  • Less pressure to run export surpluses purely to get hard currency.

4. Reduced Global Imbalances

  • The bancor system would have automatic adjustments: limits on how much surplus or deficit a country could build up.

  • That could prevent crises like the Eurozone imbalance, or the U.S.-China trade gap.


🔴 Why It Didn’t Happen

  • The U.S., emerging from WWII as the dominant power, rejected it.

  • It insisted on using the U.S. dollar (tied to gold) as the backbone of the new global financial system.

  • As a result, global trade became dependent on the monetary and fiscal policy of one country — the U.S.


⚖️ What’s Best for Global Trade Today?

System Pros Cons
Dollar Hegemony Deep liquidity, stability Biased, creates global imbalances
Multipolar System Flexibility, competition Complexity, fragmentation
Bancor/Neutral Currency Fair, balanced, stable Needs global governance and trust

In principle, Keynes’s idea remains the most equitable and sustainable — especially in a world of multipolar powers (U.S., China, EU, BRICS). But it would require unprecedented international cooperation and a new global institution to administer it.


🧩 What Could a Modern Bancor Look Like?

  • Blockchain-based token issued by a global institution (e.g. a reformed IMF or a new BRICS+ clearing union)

  • Backed by a basket of currencies or commodities

  • Used only for cross-border settlements

  • With built-in rules to automatically penalize excessive trade surpluses and deficits


✅ Conclusion

Keynes’s bancor was ahead of its time — a neutral global reserve currency that promotes balanced trade. In an age of dollar fatigue and rising economic nationalism, a modernized version of the bancor could be the ideal framework for fair, sustainable global trade.




The Trump administration's desire to:

  1. Maintain the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, and

  2. Simultaneously achieve balanced trade with every single country,
    is inherently self-defeating. It's a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.


🧠 Why This Is a Contradiction

🔵 Reserve Currency Role Requires Trade Deficits

  • For the dollar to function as the world’s primary currency, the U.S. must export dollars to the rest of the world.

  • That usually happens through running trade deficits—importing more than it exports.

  • Countries need dollars to buy oil, repay debt, and build reserves. If the U.S. insists on balanced trade with each country, where would the world get those dollars?

🔁 Global dollar demand requires a U.S. trade deficit.


🔴 Bilateral Trade Balancing Undermines the System

  • The Trump-era strategy of bilateral trade negotiations (vs. multilateral frameworks like the WTO) ignores the reality of multilateral trade imbalances.

  • A country like Germany may run a big surplus with the U.S., but a deficit with China. The trade system is circular, not bilateral.

  • Trying to impose 1-to-1 balance with every partner is economically incoherent in a globally networked economy.


⚖️ Example: Dollar Hegemony vs. Balanced Trade

Policy Goal Implication
Preserve global dollar role Must keep trade deficits flowing to supply global demand
Balanced trade with all nations Implies trade surpluses or zero-sum balancing, which would reduce global dollar circulation

They cancel each other out.


🏛️ WTO Dismantling Makes It Worse

  • The WTO helps manage global trade under predictable rules. Its weakening under Trump increased trade uncertainty and undermined multilateral discipline.

  • Without a rules-based system, big countries can bully small ones, and currency manipulation and retaliation rise.

  • Ironically, this undermines trust in the dollar, especially if the U.S. itself is seen as destabilizing global trade norms.


🎯 Bottom Line

Yes — Trump’s trade and currency objectives are deeply at odds:

  • You can run global deficits to supply the world with dollars, or you can balance trade bilaterally, but not both.

  • You can dominate a rules-based system, or you can tear it down and go bilateral, but doing both makes the system weaker and less likely to support dollar supremacy.

In short, you can't run a global monetary system and a nationalist trade regime at the same time.






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

Sunday, June 29, 2025

India-U.S. Trade Deal: Status as of June 29, 2025



India-U.S. Trade Deal: Status as of June 29, 2025

As of June 29, 2025, India and the United States are deep into negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement, but significant challenges remain. Both nations are targeting the conclusion of the first phase of a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by September or October 2025, with the ambitious goal of increasing bilateral trade from $131.84 billion in 2024 to $500 billion by 2030.

🟢 Progress and Structure

Negotiations have made headway, especially after the Terms of Reference (ToR) were finalized in April 2025. These ToR cover 19 chapters, including:

  • Tariffs and non-tariff barriers

  • Digital trade and data flows

  • Market access for industrial and selected agricultural goods

  • Customs procedures

  • Technical standards

The negotiations are progressing in structured tranches, with hopes of securing an interim deal before the U.S.'s 90-day tariff moratorium ends on July 9, 2025.
Sources: Reuters, LiveMint

🔍 Key Negotiation Issues

Talks held in June 2025 centered on:

  • Digital commerce and cross-border data flows

  • Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards

  • Customs facilitation

  • Market access for agricultural and processed food products

India has offered concessions on U.S. tree nuts (almonds, pistachios, and walnuts), while resisting demands for:

  • Genetically Modified (GM) crops

  • Expanded dairy imports (especially cow milk)

  • Wheat exports from the U.S.

India is also seeking relief from:

  • The 26% reciprocal tariff the U.S. imposes on certain goods

  • The 50% tariff on Indian steel

The U.S., however, maintains a baseline 10% tariff on several Indian exports, citing reciprocity norms seen in recent trade agreements like the U.K.-U.S. mini deal.
Sources: NDTV, Reuters

⚠️ Challenges and Stalemates

The most contentious issues stalling a broader agreement include:

  • U.S. insistence on GM crop imports and relaxed medical device pricing rules

  • India’s data localization policies

  • India's reluctance to open sensitive sectors like agriculture and dairy due to domestic political and rural economic concerns

These sticking points have led observers to believe that a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is unlikely in the near term. A “mini deal” or interim agreement covering less controversial topics now seems more realistic.
Sources: Fortune India, The Hindu

🇺🇸 U.S. Position and Strategic Goals

The U.S. is driven by the need to:

  • Reduce the $45.7 billion trade deficit with India (2024 figure)

  • Secure reciprocal tariff reductions (India’s average tariffs are ~17% vs. U.S.’s 3.3%)

  • Gain access to India’s fast-growing digital economy

  • Support American exports in agriculture, tech, and pharma

The Biden-Trump coalition backing the deal (with Trump as a 2024 comeback president) emphasizes “America First” principles while maintaining open lines for strategic Indo-Pacific cooperation.
Sources: USTR

🇮🇳 India’s Objectives and Caution

India is pushing for:

  • Tariff exemptions on products like textiles, gems, jewelry, and pharmaceuticals

  • Protection of rural livelihoods

  • Retention of regulatory autonomy on sensitive sectors (like data governance)

  • Establishing itself as a reliable supply chain alternative to China

India is also concerned about becoming a transit hub for Chinese-origin goods, which may invite scrutiny under U.S. rules of origin.
Sources: Times of India

🗣️ Leadership Statements

  • President Donald Trump called the deal potentially a "very big one" during a recent rally.

  • External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar emphasized that negotiations are “complex” and follow a “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” principle.

  • U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated in June that the countries are “closer than ever” to an interim agreement.
    Sources: NDTV, Reuters

📉 Current Sentiment and Outlook

While there is cautious optimism, major hurdles persist. The July 9 tariff pause deadline is a key inflection point. Without an interim deal, trade tensions could escalate, particularly in sectors like steel, digital goods, and agri-exports.

Social media posts and diplomatic commentary suggest momentum toward a “phase one” agreement, likely limited to:

  • Industrial goods

  • Limited tariff reductions

  • Digital services groundwork

More contentious items are expected to be tabled for Phase Two or beyond.


Conclusion:
The India-U.S. trade deal negotiations have made concrete progress, but political sensitivities, especially on food security, digital sovereignty, and trade balance, continue to complicate matters. A narrow interim agreement before July 9 remains possible, but a full-scale FTA may take several more rounds of negotiation. For official updates, follow announcements from USTR and India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry.



To reach the ambitious $500 billion trade volume target by 2030, India and the United States are pursuing a multi-pronged strategy across key sectors, policy reforms, and investment promotion. The goal is to nearly quadruple trade from $131.84 billion in 2024 to $500 billion by 2030, implying a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of ~25%. Below is a detailed breakdown of how this might be achieved, including sectoral strategies and projections:


📊 Trade Volume Growth Projection (2024–2030)

Year Projected Trade Volume (US$ Billion) Growth Rate (%)
2024 131.84
2025 165.00 +25%
2026 206.25 +25%
2027 257.81 +25%
2028 322.26 +25%
2029 402.83 +25%
2030 500.00 +24%

🛠️ Strategic Levers to Reach $500B

1. Interim + Comprehensive Trade Agreement

  • A phased Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) will reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers.

  • First phase (2025): Focus on industrial goods, select agriculture, digital trade.

  • Second phase (2026–2028): Broaden to include dairy, pharmaceuticals, data, financial services.

  • Outcome: Freer flow of goods, predictable rules for businesses, dispute resolution mechanisms.


2. High-Growth Sectoral Expansion

Sector India’s Exports to U.S. (2024) Potential Growth by 2030
Pharmaceuticals ~$8B Expand to $25B+ (through FDA harmonization and generic approvals)
Textiles & Apparel ~$9B Grow to $20B (tariff reduction and value-added production)
Electronics & EVs ~$2B Expand to $20B (via PLI and U.S. investments)
Digital Services ~$35B Reach $100B (AI, fintech, cloud services)
Agriculture ~$3B Grow to $10B (nuts, spices, seafood)
Gems & Jewelry ~$11B Expand to $20B (tariff and transit reforms)

3. U.S. Export Expansion to India

Sector U.S. Exports to India (2024) 2030 Target Strategy
Agricultural goods ~$2.5B Grow to $10B (almonds, dairy, wheat)
LNG & energy tech ~$6B Expand to $25B (via energy partnership & renewables)
Defense & aerospace ~$3B Grow to $15B (via FMS, Make in India)
High-tech machinery ~$2B Grow to $10B (infrastructure push)
AI, cloud & semiconductors ~$1B Reach $15B (chip partnerships + IP collaboration)

🚀 Key Drivers for Acceleration

Digital Trade & Services

  • U.S. demand for Indian IT/AI talent and services surging

  • India’s push for data governance standards that satisfy U.S. firms

  • Expansion of cross-border SaaS, fintech, health tech services

Supply Chain Diversification

  • India to serve as a manufacturing hub under the China+1 strategy

  • U.S. firms to invest in Indian electronics, auto, and pharma parks

Energy Security & Green Transition

  • Joint investments in clean hydrogen, solar manufacturing, and grid tech

  • India to import more U.S. LNG, reduce Russian oil dependence

Investment-Led Trade Growth

  • Rise in FDI flows: U.S. to become India’s largest investor (surpassing Singapore)

  • Joint industrial parks, especially in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana

  • U.S. participation in India’s infrastructure push (ports, highways, smart cities)


🧱 Enablers Needed

  • Dispute settlement mechanism under BTA

  • Regulatory convergence in medical devices, food safety, telecom

  • Fast-track visa and talent mobility agreements

  • Infrastructure and logistics modernization in India

  • Exclusion of politically sensitive goods (e.g., GM crops) in early phases


🧮 Summary

To reach the $500B target by 2030, both sides must:

  • Finalize a phased trade deal with yearly targets

  • Invest heavily in logistics and supply chain infrastructure

  • Leverage digital services and high-tech trade

  • Remove sectoral bottlenecks and regulatory frictions

  • Boost private sector partnerships and FDI in core growth areas


Friday, June 13, 2025

13: Tariff

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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

13: Trump Polls

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
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

Russia’s War in Ukraine Is Now ‘Faltering’ Russian casualties reached the one million mark (killed and wounded) on June 12, 2025. .......... Russia has suffered these staggering personnel and equipment losses for minimal territorial gain, with its rate of advance in some areas slower than in World War I. ........... Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, but the war started eight years before that when they seized Crimea and parts of the Donbas, with the appearance of “little green men.” ....... While the war of attrition has stalemated both sides, the Russians insist they are winning with their propaganda releases, and the West has generally been swayed by this idea. President Trump insisted that Russia “holds all the cards.” ........ Russia has also lost 10,933 tanks, 22,786 armored fighting vehicles, 51,579 vehicles and fuel tanks, 29,063 artillery systems, 1,413 multiple launch rocket systems, 1,184 air defense systems, 416 airplanes, 337 helicopters, 40,435 drones, 3,337 cruise missiles, 28 ships and boats, and one submarine. ........ “The overall losses of the Russian occupying forces in manpower since the beginning of the full-scale invasion have reached 1 million,” The General Staff added. “More than 628,000 occurred in just the past year and a half.” ........... This year, Russia has been losing on average 1,286 soldiers per day. ...... None of the strategic objectives that Putin had set out to accomplish have been achieved. .......... Putin’s miscalculation of how the West would react has cost him a million casualties, an incredible number of vehicles, aircraft, ships, artillery, and equipment lost, and now NATO is on his border in the strategic Arctic region. ........ "The Russians were so concerned about the plan getting out and Ukraine being able to prepare that they actually didn't tell their soldiers. If you don't tell soldiers what they're about to do, they can't achieve their objective. There were actually some soldiers who thought they were there on an exercise. They didn't actually believe that a military operation was taking place. ....... Efforts to recruit new troops are slowing down, despite the government offering increased monetary incentives equal to three times the national average to join. The public is also opposed to another call-up of reserves. ......... The massive loss of tanks and armored vehicles is unsustainable. Numbers vary depending on the source, but Russia is bringing back old, obsolete Soviet stock for a reason. ........ growing numbers of Russians are unwilling to fight in the war. Some 81 percent of those aged between 18 and 30 oppose another round of mobilization to feed the “meat grinder” at the front ........ In a January 2025 poll, ending the conflict was the top priority for 68 percent of Russian respondents

Trump, on 'No Kings' Protests: 'I Don’t Feel Like a King'
Ban Trump? Top genocide scholar issues dire warning He is deploying troops to occupy opposition-held cities, openly soliciting bribes from the world’s dictators and threatening to annex his democratic neighbors, all while sending people guilty of literally nothing to foreign prisons where they are expected to remain until the day they die. That’s it: that’s the case for treating President Donald Trump, the authoritarian head of an increasingly belligerent nation, like an international pariah. ......... Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, founding president of Genocide Watch, a group that aims to predict and punish targeted mass murder ........... a 10-stage guide to knowing how and when such killings are set in motion (one early sign: those in power likening members of an ostracized class to “animals, vermin, insects or disease”). ..........

Stanton insists that diplomacy with Trump is worse than a lost cause. The American president is no “ordinary adversary” who can be wined, dined and reasoned with, he said, but someone who “stands far outside the bounds of diplomacy and the rule of law between civilized nations.”

........... “He is a Nazi,” Stanton insisted. “Negotiating with Nazis didn’t prove useful in 1939. It won’t now either.” ............ The White House itself says Trump's threats are no joke, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt describing Canada as the “soon-to-be 51st state.” Carney’s predecessor also insisted that his American counterpart was deadly serious. ....... Justin Trudeau told business leaders earlier this year, saying he’s after the country’s mineral wealth and that his threats to annex the country are “a real thing.” .............. In 2014, after Russia illegally annexed Crimea, the world’s leading economies decided that it was no longer worth inviting Vladimir Putin to have tea and scones at the now-defunct G8; diplomacy in the decade before, clung to as the only means of preventing another armed conflict on European soil, had through the mirage of steady engagement blinded Western leaders to the possibility of an imminent war and soothed consciences as they deepened their dependence on Russian fossil fuels. ........... Trump is today lobbying for Russia’s return to the G7/G8 because, perhaps, he recognizes something that America’s erstwhile allies do not: that there is no difference, morally speaking, between the White House and the Kremlin, both of which desire a world where lip service to universal truths (and rights and wrongs) is dropped in favor of vulgar, thuggish self-interest, pursued without apology.

View on Threads
View on Threads
View on Threads
View on Threads

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
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

Saturday, June 07, 2025

Why India Must Be the New Britain—But on Equal Terms

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

Kash Patel On The Fentanyl Crisis
Kash Patel's Agroterrorism Accusations Against The CCP



Why India Must Be the New Britain—But on Equal Terms

In the 20th century, Britain was America’s closest ally—a political, military, and economic partner bound by shared values and strategic interests. As we move deeper into the 21st century, the global power axis is shifting. And now, India is poised to take on the mantle of America’s most consequential ally. But this partnership must be forged not out of nostalgia or geopolitical convenience, but with a clear-eyed understanding of economics, equity, and long-term opportunity.

A Partnership of Equals, Not Echoes

The US-India relationship cannot mirror the transatlantic alliance of the past. Britain, at the time of its special relationship with the U.S., was a wealthy post-imperial power with a comparable per capita income and advanced infrastructure. India, while on a trajectory of unprecedented growth, still grapples with vast income disparity. Its per capita income remains far below that of the U.S., and acknowledging this is not an act of inferiority—it’s a call to action.

This new alliance must operate on the principle of mutual upliftment. India brings youth, scale, talent, and geopolitical weight. The U.S. brings capital, technology, and institutional strength. Together, they can build the most powerful democratic partnership of the 21st century—but only if it's not patronizing, extractive, or one-sided.

The Case for Strategic FDI

One of the most effective ways to bridge the per capita income gap is through focused, strategic foreign direct investment (FDI). The U.S. and its allies must see India not just as a market, but as a manufacturing powerhouse in the making—a future factory of the free world.

Industrial corridors such as the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) are already designed with this ambition. With advanced logistics, modern urban centers, and connectivity built for scale, these corridors are ideal sites for American and global capital to flow into. But they need a deliberate push—an FDI Marshall Plan for India, if you will.

This is not charity. It’s smart strategy. Diversifying supply chains out of China is a geopolitical imperative. India, with its democratic institutions, rule of law, and massive labor pool, is the only viable alternative at scale. American capital has a chance to get in early, build strong roots, and co-develop the next wave of global production.

Investing in Infrastructure, Skilling, and Innovation

To make this work, investment must go beyond factories. It must target digital infrastructure, skilling programs, AI and semiconductor research, and clean energy ecosystems. India’s tech-savvy youth are a latent superpower waiting to be activated. A dollar invested today in India’s human capital will yield strategic and economic dividends for decades.

A New Strategic Blueprint

This is more than just business—it’s about building a new world order rooted in shared democratic values and mutual economic gain. A stronger India makes for a stronger Indo-Pacific. A wealthier Indian middle class becomes a global consumer base. An India that builds alongside the U.S., not below it, is a stabilizing force in an increasingly fragmented world.

If India is to be the new Britain, it must be with full sovereignty of vision and dignity of partnership. For America, this is not just about containing rivals—it’s about choosing the right friends, and backing them with purpose.

Now is the moment to go big. The future of the global economy might just be written in the industrial corridors between Delhi and Mumbai.






Wednesday, June 04, 2025

2026 US Senate Chances Should Trump Dip Below 30% Due To "Trade War"

 


Predicting political outcomes, especially Senate election results, is inherently uncertain and depends on numerous factors, including economic conditions, voter sentiment, candidate quality, and unforeseen events. If President Trump's popularity were to dip below 30% due to the trade war, it could create a challenging environment for Republicans, potentially benefiting Democrats in Senate races. However, the extent of Democratic gains would depend on the political landscape, the specific states in play, and how voters attribute blame for economic fallout from the trade war. Below, we will outline the context, potential gains, and a "most rosy" scenario for Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections.

Context: Trump’s Popularity and the Trade War
  • Popularity Below 30%: A presidential approval rating below 30% is historically low and often signals significant public dissatisfaction. For context, a CNN poll from April 28, 2025, showed 59% of Americans believed Trump’s policies worsened economic conditions, reflecting skepticism about his trade policies, including tariffs. If this disapproval deepens and pushes his overall popularity below 30%, it could erode Republican support, especially among independents and moderates.
  • Trade War Impact: Trump’s tariffs, such as 145% on Chinese imports and 25% on Canadian goods, have rattled markets, raised consumer prices, and prompted retaliation from allies like Canada and the EU. This has led to stock market declines, supply chain disruptions, and fears of recession, which could be blamed on Trump and, by extension, Republicans. A post on X from May 29, 2025, suggested voters might hold Trump and Republicans accountable for higher prices and fewer goods, potentially costing them in the midterms.
  • Midterm Dynamics: Midterm elections typically favor the opposition party, especially when the president’s approval is low. In 2026, with Trump in office, a backlash against his policies could amplify Democratic turnout and sway swing voters.
Senate Landscape in 2026
The 2026 midterm elections will involve 33 or 34 Senate seats (depending on special elections), with the exact map determined by the Class 2 senators elected in 2020, whose terms end in January 2027. Based on historical data and current control:
  • Current Senate Composition (2025): As of early 2025, Republicans hold a narrow Senate majority after gaining control in the 2024 elections.
  • 2026 Map: The 2026 map leans Republican-heavy, as many seats up for election were last contested in 2020, a strong year for Republicans due to Trump’s presidential win. Key states include:
    • Republican-Held Seats: Likely include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Competitive or potentially vulnerable seats might include:
      • Iowa: Sen. Joni Ernst faces reelection in a state that has trended Republican but could be competitive if economic issues (e.g., tariffs hurting agriculture) dominate.
      • Montana: Sen. Steve Daines won easily in 2020, but the state has a history of splitting tickets (e.g., Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, has won there).
      • Maine: Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate, could face a strong challenge if anti-Trump sentiment surges in this left-leaning state.
      • North Carolina: A swing state where economic fallout could make the seat competitive.
    • Democratic-Held Seats: Likely include Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Few of these are competitive, but Republicans might target:
      • Michigan: Sen. Gary Peters won by a narrow margin in 2020; a strong Republican wave could threaten this seat.
      • New Hampshire: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s seat could be in play in a GOP-favorable environment.
  • Competitive Dynamics: The map favors Republicans, with many seats in red states. However, a Trump approval rating below 30% could make typically safe seats (e.g., Iowa, Montana, or North Carolina) winnable for Democrats if voters blame Republicans for trade war-related economic pain.
Potential Democratic Gains
If Trump’s popularity dips below 30% due to a trade war, Democrats could see gains, but the extent depends on:
  • Voter Backlash: A 59% majority already views Trump’s policies as worsening the economy, and 72% expect short-term negative effects from tariffs. If prices for groceries, goods, and energy rise sharply, voters—especially independents and suburban Republicans—may turn against GOP incumbents.
  • Turnout: Low presidential approval often boosts opposition turnout. Democrats could mobilize their base and win over independents in states hit hard by tariffs (e.g., agricultural states like Iowa or manufacturing-heavy states like North Carolina).
  • Candidate Quality: Strong Democratic candidates in competitive states could capitalize on economic discontent, while weak Republican incumbents might struggle.
  • Projected Gains: Historical precedent suggests modest gains for the opposition in midterms. For example:
    • In 2006, Democrats gained 6 Senate seats amid Bush’s unpopularity (approval in the low 30s) and Iraq War discontent.
    • In 2018, Democrats gained 2 Senate seats despite a tough map, as Trump’s approval hovered around 40%.
    • With Trump below 30%, Democrats might realistically aim for 3 to 5 net gains, flipping seats in states like Maine, Iowa, Montana, or North Carolina, assuming they hold all their own competitive seats (e.g., Michigan, New Hampshire).
Most Rosy Scenario for Democrats
The “most rosy” scenario assumes an optimal confluence of factors for Democrats:
  • Trump’s Popularity Craters: Approval falls to the high 20s or below due to a prolonged trade war, with soaring inflation (e.g., food prices up, empty shelves from supply chain issues), stock market losses wiping out retirement savings, and a perceived recession.
  • Widespread Blame: Voters overwhelmingly blame Trump and Republicans, with 70%+ viewing tariffs as harmful to their finances and the economy, as hinted in polls. X posts suggest voters won’t blame foreign countries but rather Trump and the GOP.
  • High Democratic Turnout: Anti-Trump sentiment drives record midterm turnout among Democrats, young voters, and independents, especially in swing and red-leaning states.
  • Strong Candidates: Democrats field compelling, well-funded candidates in key races, while Republicans struggle to defend vulnerable incumbents.
  • Key Flips:
    • Maine: Susan Collins loses to a strong Democratic challenger as Maine’s left-leaning voters reject Trump’s economic policies.
    • Iowa: Joni Ernst is defeated as tariffs devastate Iowa’s agricultural economy, alienating farmers and rural voters.
    • Montana: Steve Daines loses in a state with a history of ticket-splitting, as economic pain and anti-Trump sentiment shift voters.
    • North Carolina: A swing state flips Democratic amid economic discontent and strong urban turnout.
    • Texas: Sen. John Cornyn faces an upset as tariffs hurt Texas’s export-heavy economy (e.g., energy, agriculture), and a diverse, energized Democratic base turns out.
    • Alaska: Sen. Dan Sullivan loses in an unlikely but possible upset, as trade war fallout (e.g., seafood exports to China) and a strong independent or Democratic candidate shift the race.
    • South Carolina: Sen. Lindsey Graham, closely tied to Trump, is toppled in a shock result as moderates and independents abandon him.
  • Holding Ground: Democrats defend all their seats, including Michigan and New Hampshire, with robust campaigns and high turnout.
  • Net Gains: In this rosy scenario, Democrats could gain 6 to 8 seats, flipping the Senate to a Democratic majority of 53-47 or 55-45 (assuming the current 2025 split is narrowly Republican, e.g., 51-49 or 52-48 after 2024 gains). This would require extraordinary conditions—economic chaos, unified Democratic messaging on the trade war, and weak Republican defenses.
Caveats and Limitations
  • Tough Map: The 2026 map includes many deep-red states (e.g., Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota) unlikely to flip even with Trump’s unpopularity.
  • Economic Uncertainty: If tariffs eventually stabilize markets or yield long-term gains (as some Republicans hope), voter anger might subside.
  • Other Issues: Immigration, crime, or other Trump priorities could overshadow the trade war, bolstering GOP turnout.
  • Data Gaps: No polls or analyses directly predict 2026 Senate outcomes tied to a sub-30% Trump approval. This is speculative, based on historical trends, current sentiment, and trade war impacts from 2025 sources.
Conclusion
If Trump’s popularity dips below 30% due to a trade war, Democrats could reasonably hope for 3 to 5 Senate seat gains in 2026, targeting vulnerable seats like Maine, Iowa, Montana, and North Carolina. In the most rosy scenario, with severe economic fallout, high turnout, and stellar candidates, Democrats might achieve 6 to 8 gains, flipping the Senate to a 53-47 or 55-45 majority. However, the Republican-leaning map and unpredictable variables make this an uphill battle, even under ideal conditions. For precise updates, monitor 2026 election polls, economic indicators, and candidate announcements closer to the midterms.