Suppose you would take the system we have today, put all the stock of every company in a big fund and give everyone equal voting rights in, and profits from, the fund.
That would be a very anarcho-communist world. All economic power would be with the people, not the state, evenly divided, so no one would be richer than anyone else.
But others would call it capitalism because it would be the exact same system we have today.
The BRICS are already trading without dollars. They might price things in USD, but the actual trades don't use USD.
But is he really gonna tariff 55% of the global population?
The world economy will just adjust to operate without the USA. It will be painful and take a few years, but it will also be irreversible.
To be frank, we don't need a global reserve currency in this digital age.
Businesses and consumers can cheaply trade any currency pairs with minimal costs.
My (great)-grandparents were part of the Dutch resistance during WW2. Along with a full 1.5% of the population.
Most people will not do anything, even if they are literally rounding up people for a genocide.
On the more positive side, a lot of people will support the resistance in small ways.
The number of people who actually, whole heartedly collaborated with the Nazi's was quite small.
Even some of the German soldiers stationed in their village would turn a blind eye. Some of them realized they were on the wrong side and they just did the bare minimum of what they needed to do to not get in trouble and not get killed.
And if a single person does it a lot, then the tax authorities can easily examine their spending and prove that they are spending more than they are officially earning. And then they can apply punitive measures.
He's trying to get foreigners out of the USA and trying to placate his right wing at the same time.
Honestly, I don't think getting a student visa cancelled is that bad. There are universities in other countries eager to accept foreign students and the tuition they pay.
Even China has a huge program to attract foreign students. I know people who studied there.
"Big Tech" is Apple, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and Meta. Companies which were fully allied with the Democrats, and which were king of the tech hill until now.
Musk, Thiel and Ellison (Tesla, Palantir and Oracle) are allied with Trump. Lets call them "Tech B".
Vance is doing code speak for: Tech B is gonna break Big Tech up and take top spot.
And Big Tech knows this, which is why they are scrambling to get into Trumps good graces and trying to get Trump on their side.
They have more money and influence right now and they are trying to leverage that to keep top spot.
And Trump is just letting the two teams bid up each other for his favour.
The company will only reduce margin if they expect to lose volume and if they expect that they can regain sufficient volume by reducing margin to make up for the loss in margin.
And the reduction in volume will only happen if there are alternatives for consumers, including the alternative to not buy.
When consumers need the tariffed good regardless of price, the company will not reduce margin.
(Yeah, it's complex math).
Long story short, someone else said it better, a tariff works well, with little impact on consumers, when there is a comparable non-tariffed alternative.
At the other end of that spectrum, i.e. an essential good with no non-tariffed alternative, the tariff cost is fully borne by consumers.
Finally, in the case of TSMC, their main product right now are the most advanced AI chips for which there is no US alternative. And US Big Tech needs volume that the US cannot produce.
I don't disagree, but I have never understood why Putin attacked in 2022 and not in 2016-2020. The original war in Ukraine started in 2014.
My best guess is, he thought he could rig an election or corrupt Zelensky and only invaded when that didn't work. And maybe he was confident Trump would win a second term.
He might have also been doubting the possibility of Trump winning in 2024 and he saw Ukraine getting stronger and integrating with the West day by day.
Thing is, his real goal is to fuck up that alliance.
Trump has been compromised by the Russians ever since they bailed him out in the 90s. He is actively dismantling American global power, just in a way that is wrapped in a US flag so that the voters don't realize it.
Extra funds are only useful if they can provide a competitive advantage.
Otherwise those investments will not have a positive ROI.
The case until now was built on the premise that US tech was years ahead and that AI had a strong moat due to high computer requirements for AI.
We now know that that isn't true.
If high compute enables a significant improvement in AI, then that old case could become true again. But the prospects of such a reality happening and staying just got a big hit.
I think we are in for a dot-com type bubble burst, but it will take a few weeks to see if that's gonna happen or not.
Climate change has a relatively cheap and easy solution.
Aresol sprays can buy a few decades of time if things get too hot.
We already have cheap solar and cheap batteries are becoming a reality. We only need a cheap, non-intermittent energy source to provide baseload energy.
Cheap nuclear power is possible and can fill that niche - we had the tech in the past and China has it today.
For about $1T a fleet of reactors could be built to extract all the excess carbon from the atmosphere in 50 years, working in tandem with cheap solar energy and cheap batteries to power human civilization.
There could be some trickery on the training side, i.e. maybe they spent way more than $6M to train it.
But it is clear that they did it without access to the infra that big tech has.
And on the run side, we can all verify how well it runs and people are also running it locally without internet access. There is no trickery there.
They are 20x cheaper than OpenAI if you run it on their servers and if you run it yourself, you only need a small investment in relatively affordable servers.
It depends on what you consider capitalism.
Suppose you would take the system we have today, put all the stock of every company in a big fund and give everyone equal voting rights in, and profits from, the fund.
That would be a very anarcho-communist world. All economic power would be with the people, not the state, evenly divided, so no one would be richer than anyone else.
But others would call it capitalism because it would be the exact same system we have today.