Don't let Kallas, von der Leyen, Merz, Starmer and other US puppets fool you. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNRbuEh2r/

0 reply

1 recast

7 reactions

we are all dyor jurors in the court of public opinion ❝Unprecedented rains have filled up aquifers, river beds, and lakes across the Middle East over the last few weeks, alleviating a years-long drought that was largely attributed to climate change. A theory is catching fire that Iran managed to destroy radars and other US infrastructure that was manipulating the weather and blocking rains as part of and Israeli plot to weaken the Arab world and Iran and Turkey. I’m not a climate scientist, but I looked into this a little bit and it doesn’t seem scientifically sound at all. However, the theory is doing incredible damage to the US reputation across the region. If the US had a functioning, State Dept or international communications operation, it could push back.❞

2 replies

0 recast

4 reactions

❝energy famine for the Global South❞ https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/e0e58e4c-1202-4430-a591-09b2c2e73ce6

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

if you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

1 reply

1 recast

4 reactions

lmao https://x.com/clashreport/status/2046542115795050945?s=46&t=W7bPMXB_BVpjAZsKxVBhjQ

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

I'll never understand why @vitalik.eth defended Milei... This is the most corrupt and unhinged government that has ever existed.

2 replies

0 recast

5 reactions

Pretty sure during covid these folks were bailed out and seems quite opportunistic.. Nothing to see here. - This represents a substantial financial hit for carriers, where fuel can constitute up to a quarter of operating expenses. As a result, airlines are being compelled to raise fares and revise their financial outlooks. An energy chief warned that Europe only has around six weeks of jet fuel supply left in what he fears could be “the largest energy crisis we have ever faced”. All the airlines cancelling flights and adding extra charges amid jet fuel crisis https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/airline-flight-cancellations-iran-easyjet-lufthansa-fuel-shortage-b2960844.html

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

https://x.com/livelyoongi/status/2045732793490223220

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Republicans don't even respond when you ask them about the Strait of Hormuz anymore they just look at you like this

1 reply

0 recast

19 reactions

Although I think Jacek makes a very well researched, very well structured and very eloquent point in his recent cast, I could not agree less with him. The very thing he responds to, Elon Musk calling for a high UBI, is the very proof that Friedman's ideas do no longer hold water. Sure, initially, many decades ago, Friedman's idea may have given birth to some good functioning policies and institutions, but he clearly based his views for economic systems on a key assumptions that the actors within that system were all rational and acting in good faith. We have since seen that either that was never the case, or his ideas have also given birth to a form of capitalism that is making very few very rich, because they can manouvre themselves into a position where they can extract maximum value against minimum cost from the systems they operate in. Case in point, the call from Musk for that 60-70 K UBI. This has nothing to do with socialism. Musk is investint heavily in not only developing AI systems, but also in building compute for these systems. To extract even more value from the global economic system, he needs these investments to generate good returns. That can only be achieved when AI reaches the full potential as he sees it, and that will mean less jobs that generate a living wage for workers. That would also mean that general purchasing power will go down, and there is not enough value created in the wider economic system to extract with his AI and compute.  The call for that UBI is not socialism, it's hyper-extractional-capitalism. It is a free market in which the actors that get richer are not rational and not acting in good faith for the betterment of the entire system. It's a free market in which the richest extract as much value as they can and divert costs to the rest of the system as much as they can. This is something Friedman has clearly not foreseen. And this is why we need new thinking, new paradigms, new policies, new institutions that take this into account. Thinking that balances incentives to contribute value with corrections for extractive, bad-faith actors. In the current systems, inspired by outdated thinking like that from Friedman, money is the only way that value is expressed. And that is leading, also - and maybe especially - in free markets, to corruption and siloed thinking and acting. Given the state of many societies and communities in these times, that has clearly and evidently failed. Mentioning Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan or the debilitating culture wars in the US is highlighting the tip of the iceberg of proof for that. We need to move to ideas and paradigms that find different measures of value than just money. General health of a population, ecological signifiers perhaps (healthy growth of the cod population in the North Sea comes to mind, as many fishermen now see themselves struggling, because there is not enough adult cod to fish to make a living, so they have become vulnerable to drug smugglers). Free markets, free global trade, are not the problem, though, it's the actors within them that need to be curtailed. So where communism (not socialism, communism) has failed, and capitalism is failing, we need a new ideology that takes into account the actual situation of how our world is working now, and not the ideological situation of a modelled system from last millennium. https://farcaster.xyz/jacek/0xfe3c63c4

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2045141798406758871?s=20

3 replies

0 recast

26 reactions

Any bets on how soon someone in the Trump regime floats the idea of charging extra for priority delivery like Uber Eats? [Reuters] US to delay weapons deliveries to some European countries due to Iran war, sources say ❝The delays underline the degree to which the ​war against Iran, which began with U.S.-Israeli air strikes on February 28, has begun to stretch U.S. supplies of some critical weaponry and ammunition. European officials complain the delays are putting them in a difficult position. Under the FMS program, foreign countries purchase U.S.-made weapons with the ​logistical assistance and consent of the U.S. government. Washington has pushed European NATO partners to purchase more U.S.-made materiel ​under President Donald Trump, including through the FMS program, as part of a bid to shift the responsibility for Europe's conventional defense ‌away ⁠from the U.S. and onto European partners. But such weapons deliveries are often delayed, causing frustration in European capitals, where some officials are increasingly looking at weapons systems made within Europe. U.S. officials say the weapons are needed for the war in the Middle East, and they fault European nations for not helping the U.S. and Israel open the Strait of Hormuz. Even before the Iran war, ​the U.S. had already drawn ​down billions of dollars' ⁠worth of weapons stockpiles, including artillery systems, ammunition and anti-tank missiles since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and Israel began military operations in Gaza in late 2023.❞ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-officials-tell-european-countries-expect-weapons-delivery-delays-sources-say-2026-04-16/

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

[Foreign Policy] The Use and Abuse of ‘Narco-Terrorism’ "From Afghanistan to Venezuela, the misleading term has inspired decades of misguided policies against real problems." ❝While evidence clearly indicates that links exist between drug traffickers and terrorist and guerrilla groups, the suggestion of a strictly symbiotic relationship between them is misleading. This faulty diagnosis not only obscures real problems but also leads to inappropriate policy responses. At worst, governments have used the term narco-terrorism to provide political cover to deploy military, and often lethal, force to law enforcement matters. This is not only counterproductive—in many cases, it is also unlawful. History has shown that conflating the “war on drugs” with the “war on terror” has been ineffective in addressing both narcotics challenges and terrorism. Killing so-called kingpin traffickers in Colombia and bombing supposed narcotics factories in Afghanistan have not resulted in a lasting reduction of the drugs trade, in either Latin America or Southwest Asia. Infrastructure and individuals have been destroyed. But the underlying socioeconomic and political issues that enable the narcotics industry trade to flourish remain intact. The Trump administration is the latest in a long line of governments to use the term narco-terrorism to justify unprecedented action against drug traffickers. However, some indications suggest that the United States’s recent deployment of this narrative may be the prelude to something much darker. The substantial U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, which far exceeds what is required for counternarcotics operations, has fueled speculation that the Trump administration intends to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom Washington has branded a “narco-terrorist.” It is eerily reminiscent of the 1989 invasion of Panama, when U.S. troops ousted Gen. Manuel Noriega and put him on trial for narco-trafficking, among other crimes. While Trump has recently cast doubt on using military force to oust Maduro, the misguided bombing of suspected drug runners in the region is poised to continue. “Narco-terrorism” is a dangerous myth that the United States is unwilling to quit.❞ https://archive.is/FVqXN

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

[Financial Times | Opinion] The Iran war will damage the petrodollar "Grand bargain that has underpinned US Treasury demand since 1974 is coming undone" ❝The Iran war is testing the foundations of the petrodollar system that has since 1974 been at the basis of an oil-for-security bargain between the US and Gulf states. Growing US energy independence had already reduced the country’s importance as a buyer of Gulf oil. Now, the Trump administration’s decision to kick the hornet’s nest in the Middle East has shown that, far from being a security guarantor, the US could be a source of instability and strife. The pact is starting to look unviable. The US has a lot to lose from its demise. Through the arrangement, which was negotiated by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger in the wake of the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971 and the oil shock of 1973, Saudi Arabia sold oil to the world exclusively in US dollars and funnelled the proceeds back into dollar assets. In return, Riyadh received military hardware and security guarantees from Washington. The agreement was a diplomatic coup. It brought the Arab kingdom and, eventually, other Gulf countries firmly into Washington’s circle of allies. More importantly, it generated an enormous reservoir of demand for US military hardware and dollar assets, ensuring that US borrowing costs stayed lower than would otherwise have been possible and preserving America’s “exorbitant privilege” into the fiat currency era. “It is no exaggeration to say that the petrodollar system was at the heart of the US’s economic model: funding innovation and growth at an artificially low cost of capital,” says Kallum Pickering, chief economist at Peel Hunt. The deal worked for several decades. But even before the Iran war broke out, some of its premises had started to weaken. In the 1970s, the US was by far the world’s biggest buyer of crude oil. But in the early 2010s, the shale revolution dramatically expanded domestic production so the country’s demand for energy imports began to fall. In 2017, China replaced the US as the world’s leading crude importer. And in 2020, the US became a net liquid fuels exporter for the first time. Under the Trump administration’s policy of “energy dominance”, the US’s withdrawal from international energy markets is set to proceed apace. The US president has expanded access to federal land and drilling permits to encourage the development of oilfields at home. And following President Nicolás Maduro’s ousting earlier this year, US oil majors are set to take over Venezuela’s energy resources. Washington’s intentions are clear: it aims to further reduce US reliance on energy supplies outside of its direct control. For Gulf countries, this means the US’s custom can no longer be taken for granted. The war has also delivered a blow to the security leg of the deal. The US defence umbrella has fallen short in protecting Washington’s Gulf allies from Iranian attacks. Dozens of people across the region have been killed and critical civilian infrastructure hit. Iran has also targeted Gulf energy production sites with astounding consequences: its attack on Qatar’s Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas (LNG) hub has taken out nearly one-fifth of the country’s gas production capacity, with the damage expected to last up to five years. But beyond the failure of US defensive capabilities, the war has revealed a much more serious and fundamental problem with the petrodollar arrangement in the age of President Donald Trump. The US administration, alongside Israel, was the aggressor in the conflict. It acted without warning its regional allies and in disregard of their interests. Long after the war, they will be left counting the damage. And perhaps worse than the direct costs of the attacks will be the impact on the region’s economic model. Gulf countries had burgeoning plans to diversify away from energy exports to become thriving hubs for international finance, trade and tech. With every strike, these prospects diminish. “With the Gulf’s core economic assets under continual attack, it’s hard to imagine that the credibility of longstanding US security commitments is not being eroded,” says Navin Girishankar, president of the Economic Security and Technology Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A security arrangement that relies on the US is now starting to look like a liability. Mallika Sachdeva, of Deutsche Bank, says that the “Gulf states could re-evaluate their security relationship with the US. They could diversify and localise their defence arrangements — and redeploy their substantial dollar savings for this purpose.” The region’s economies may not quite have the heft of Japan or China in the US Treasury market, but they are still significant. At the end of January, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates collectively held around $250bn in US debt securities, according to US Treasury data. This figure excludes other Gulf countries’ holdings and the region’s portfolio holdings of other US assets, which are also at risk of liquidation. The petrodollar system was founded on the premise that the US would buy Gulf oil in exchange for security. Under Trump, the US imports less and seems uninterested in providing security to allies. Indeed, it appears prepared to undermine global security in pursuit of its narrow interests. The petrodollar is in deep trouble — and with it, the mechanism of dollar recycling that has underpinned lower US borrowing costs for the past 50 years. Yet another pillar of US economic supremacy is coming undone.❞ https://archive.is/7mt2E

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

❝I post based on my theory of change, which is that we should focus our voices and political activism on what we can effect. ... I’m focused on how I, as an American, can help Iranians – and that’s by ending this war, lifting the sanctions, and giving them room to breathe and fight for their own future.❞ https://x.com/alexshams_/status/2044877982343311418?s=20

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction