\r\n \r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n ![\"\"](\"/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-Everything-War-\u2014-Dana-Mattioli-penguin.co_.uk_.jpg\")
\r\n ![\"\"](\"/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Power-and-Progress-\u2014-Daron-Acemoglu-and-Simon-Johnson-shapingwork.mit_.edu_.jpg\")
\r\n ![\"\"](\"/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Gambling-Man_-The-Wild-Ride-of-Japans-Masayoshi-Son-\u2014-Lionel-Barber-penguin.co_.uk_.jpg\")
\r\n ![\"\"](\"/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Code-Dependent-\u2014-Madhumita-Murgia-us.macmillan.com_.jpg\")
\r\n ![\"\"](\"/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Project-Hail-Mary-\u2014-Andy-Weir-penguinrandomhouse.com_.jpg\")
\r\n ![\"\"](\"/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Blockchain-Chicken-Farm-and-Other-Stories-of-Tech-in-Chinas-Countryside-\u2014-Xiaowei-Wang-us.macmillan.com_.jpg\")
\r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n By Andreas Kluth
\nA WORRISOME parallel between the 1930s and the 2020s is that in both decades the multilateral institutions of the international system resemble the walking dead.
\nToday that applies to defensives alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as the bodies that regulate trade (the World Trade Organization or WTO), limit nuclear proliferation (a treaty abbreviated as NPT), and prosecute war crimes (the International Criminal Court, ICC). And of course it fits the United Nations, which is meant to guarantee the sovereignty of all member states and to prevent war.
\n\u201cWe basically have a zombie multilateral system,\u201d Rebecca Lissner told me. She was a top national-security advisor in the administration of Joe Biden and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.
\nIn the 1930s, the zombie was the League of Nations. It existed both on paper and inside grand digs in Geneva palaces but lacked support from major powers such as the United States and became irrelevant amid the aggression of authoritarian Japan, Italy, and Germany. Formally, the League lingered on, with employees and delegates and meetings, until it was finally abolished. That happened only in 1946, after World War II and the Holocaust; and after a new organization, the UN, was founded to take its place, this time with America\u2019s leadership and muscular support.
\nToday\u2019s crisis, like that of the 1930s, is not in the first instance about money. The secretary general of the UN did recently warn member states that the organization was near \u201cimminent financial collapse,\u201d as various contributors \u2014 notably the largest, the United States \u2014 are cutting or delaying payments. But NATO, for instance, is swimming in funds, with a recently expanded membership (of 32 countries now) that just pledged to allocate more money to defense.
\nThe problem is instead one of hollowing out, as the system\u2019s great powers ignore the spirit that once animated its institutions. Instead they heap scorn on them to please domestic audiences, while flouting their rules and norms. The effect is slow-motion euthanasia.
\nThe main objective of NATO is to deter aggression from Moscow. But US President Donald Trump disdains many of his allies \u2014 threatening Denmark with the annexation of Greenland, for example, or ordering the pullout of thousands of American troops from Germany to \u201cpunish\u201d it for not helping in Iran. He simultaneously appears to side more with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, than with Moscow\u2019s pro-Western victim, Ukraine.
\nAbove all, Trump is ambiguous about whether or not he would honor Article V, NATO\u2019s mutual-defense clause. \u201cWho today thinks that Trump would fight a war with Putin over Kaliningrad or a slice of Estonia? I certainly don\u2019t,\u201d Lissner told me. There goes deterrence. With its incessant hybrid warfare throughout Europe, Russia is already testing NATO\u2019s vital signs.
\nA similar evisceration is happening at the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is underway at the UN in New York until May 22. The last two RevCons, in 2015 and 2022, ended without a final document being agreed among the 191 parties. NPT watchers worry that this one will be the third, threatening the treaty\u2019s \u201csurvival.\u201d
\nThe NPT, which entered into force in 1970, is the overarching framework meant to guarantee three things: First, the five \u201clegitimate\u201d nuclear powers (the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain1) must work \u201cin good faith\u201d toward \u201cgeneral and complete disarmament.\u201d Second, all parties that don\u2019t have atomic weapons must forswear them. And third, all countries have the right to civilian nuclear technology (for power generation or medicine, say) under proper safeguards.
\nBut disarmament is no longer on the menu, which in turn makes proliferation likely. All of the treaty\u2019s nuclear powers (like the four atomic nations that aren\u2019t party to the treaty) are upgrading their arsenals. The last arms-control treaty between the two giants, the US and Russia, has expired. The direction points away from disarmament and toward arms races.
\nThat leaves all the other countries feeling \u201cbetrayed,\u201d says Kelsey Davenport at the Arms Control Association in Washington2. Worse, America\u2019s allies in Europe and Asia no longer trust the deterrent nuclear \u201cumbrella\u201d that the US has long extended over them (see Trump\u2019s comments about allies above). Once-taboo debates are raging from Japan and South Korea to Poland and Germany about acquiring national atomic deterrents, which would mean quitting the NPT.
\nTehran, which is now in an open-ended \u201cphony war\u201d with one nuclear power in the NPT (the US) and another outside of it (Israel), is permanently on the verge of quitting the treaty. If Iran does leave (as North Korea did in 2003, while watching the US prepare to attack Iraq), its neighbors in the Middle East will recalculate their own nuclear ambitions.
\nJust as the hollowing out of NATO and the NPT threatens the world\u2019s security, the slow demise of the World Trade Organization is reducing its prosperity. As one of the institutions created by an agreement signed during World War II in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, it was meant to guarantee relatively free and open trade and non-discrimination among trading partners. The idea was that countries whose exports face improper or arbitrary barriers could take their case to the WTO\u2019s Appellate Body for adjudication.
\nBut the great powers have started ignoring such niceties. China, which joined the WTO in 2001, never fit snugly into the regime. The bigger blow, though, was America\u2019s turn against its own brainchild. Since the administration of Barack Obama, the US has been blocking appointments to the Appellate Body (citing such reasons as \u201cjudicial overreach\u201d). Without a quorum of judges, the body has been unable to enforce its verdicts, leaving smaller trading nations unable to sue rapacious large countries. So much for the rules-based system.
\nThen Trump declared full-fledged trade war on most of the world, in effect resurrecting the \u201cbeggar-thy-neighbor\u201d protectionism of the 1930s which the Bretton Woods system was created to prevent. Now the era of open and non-discriminatory commerce is history. Michael Froman, who was US Trade Representative in the Obama administration and now leads the Council on Foreign Relations, concludes that \u201cthe global trading system as we have known it is dead.\u201d
\nIt\u2019s a similar story with international efforts to prosecute people who commit atrocities or war crimes. This tradition, which grew out of the US-led Nuremberg Trials, found expression in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which America helped create and which opened in 2002. But the US (like Russia, China, and Israel) never became a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the court. Instead, Trump has sanctioned its judges, prosecutors and other staff, hamstringing the tribunal\u2019s efforts.
\nThe outlook is just as bad for the mother of all post-war institutions, the one that was supposed to be a better and more resilient League of Nations. The UN has long been dysfunctional. According to Republicans such as Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that\u2019s because the UN has been \u201cfocusing on politicized mandates and woke ideology.\u201d That diagnosis isn\u2019t totally wrong, but it says more about America\u2019s culture wars than the UN system, which simply reflects a messy world.
\nThe real reason why the UN has been feckless in keeping or restoring peace is that three of the five veto-wielding great powers in the security council \u2014 the US, Russia, and China \u2014 keep blocking resolutions that would settle the conflicts or dangers that matter most, notably those in Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, or the Korean Peninsula. (The other two, France and Britain, haven\u2019t cast their veto since 1989.) They\u2019re also blocking any meaningful reforms of the UN system. So the UN\u2019s dysfunction is a symptom of the international system\u2019s maladies, not their cause.
\nThe slide into irrelevance of all these institutions, even as they continue to buzz with bureaucratic activity, amounts to a \u201cgreat unraveling,\u201d thinks Oona Hathaway, the president-elect of the American Society of International Law. It is showing up in less trade and dampened prosperity, and more death and suffering. From 1989 to 2014, fewer than 15,000 people a year died in battles between countries; since then, that average has risen to 100,000 a year. UN peacekeeping missions are down; global arms sales are up.
\nThe international system as the world has known it for eight decades was built by people who had seen a previous order fail and turn into purgatory. Its institutions, as a famous quote says in a hallway at the United Nations, were \u201cnot created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.\u201d If world leaders, and above all the people running the great powers, forget what happened when the League of Nations became a zombie, that may be where we\u2019re headed.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n1The five countries that had tested nuclear weapons before negotiations for the NPT began in the 1960s, with Russia counting as successor to the Soviet Union.
\n2Over 70 of them have signed a new compact, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which has technically been in force since January 2021 but, without support from the nuclear powers and their allies, has no chance of success.
\n", "content_text": "By Andreas Kluth\nA WORRISOME parallel between the 1930s and the 2020s is that in both decades the multilateral institutions of the international system resemble the walking dead.\nToday that applies to defensives alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as the bodies that regulate trade (the World Trade Organization or WTO), limit nuclear proliferation (a treaty abbreviated as NPT), and prosecute war crimes (the International Criminal Court, ICC). And of course it fits the United Nations, which is meant to guarantee the sovereignty of all member states and to prevent war.\n\u201cWe basically have a zombie multilateral system,\u201d Rebecca Lissner told me. She was a top national-security advisor in the administration of Joe Biden and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations.\nIn the 1930s, the zombie was the League of Nations. It existed both on paper and inside grand digs in Geneva palaces but lacked support from major powers such as the United States and became irrelevant amid the aggression of authoritarian Japan, Italy, and Germany. Formally, the League lingered on, with employees and delegates and meetings, until it was finally abolished. That happened only in 1946, after World War II and the Holocaust; and after a new organization, the UN, was founded to take its place, this time with America\u2019s leadership and muscular support.\nToday\u2019s crisis, like that of the 1930s, is not in the first instance about money. The secretary general of the UN did recently warn member states that the organization was near \u201cimminent financial collapse,\u201d as various contributors \u2014 notably the largest, the United States \u2014 are cutting or delaying payments. But NATO, for instance, is swimming in funds, with a recently expanded membership (of 32 countries now) that just pledged to allocate more money to defense.\nThe problem is instead one of hollowing out, as the system\u2019s great powers ignore the spirit that once animated its institutions. Instead they heap scorn on them to please domestic audiences, while flouting their rules and norms. The effect is slow-motion euthanasia.\nThe main objective of NATO is to deter aggression from Moscow. But US President Donald Trump disdains many of his allies \u2014 threatening Denmark with the annexation of Greenland, for example, or ordering the pullout of thousands of American troops from Germany to \u201cpunish\u201d it for not helping in Iran. He simultaneously appears to side more with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, than with Moscow\u2019s pro-Western victim, Ukraine.\nAbove all, Trump is ambiguous about whether or not he would honor Article V, NATO\u2019s mutual-defense clause. \u201cWho today thinks that Trump would fight a war with Putin over Kaliningrad or a slice of Estonia? I certainly don\u2019t,\u201d Lissner told me. There goes deterrence. With its incessant hybrid warfare throughout Europe, Russia is already testing NATO\u2019s vital signs.\nA similar evisceration is happening at the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is underway at the UN in New York until May 22. The last two RevCons, in 2015 and 2022, ended without a final document being agreed among the 191 parties. NPT watchers worry that this one will be the third, threatening the treaty\u2019s \u201csurvival.\u201d\nThe NPT, which entered into force in 1970, is the overarching framework meant to guarantee three things: First, the five \u201clegitimate\u201d nuclear powers (the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain1) must work \u201cin good faith\u201d toward \u201cgeneral and complete disarmament.\u201d Second, all parties that don\u2019t have atomic weapons must forswear them. And third, all countries have the right to civilian nuclear technology (for power generation or medicine, say) under proper safeguards.\nBut disarmament is no longer on the menu, which in turn makes proliferation likely. All of the treaty\u2019s nuclear powers (like the four atomic nations that aren\u2019t party to the treaty) are upgrading their arsenals. The last arms-control treaty between the two giants, the US and Russia, has expired. The direction points away from disarmament and toward arms races.\nThat leaves all the other countries feeling \u201cbetrayed,\u201d says Kelsey Davenport at the Arms Control Association in Washington2. Worse, America\u2019s allies in Europe and Asia no longer trust the deterrent nuclear \u201cumbrella\u201d that the US has long extended over them (see Trump\u2019s comments about allies above). Once-taboo debates are raging from Japan and South Korea to Poland and Germany about acquiring national atomic deterrents, which would mean quitting the NPT.\nTehran, which is now in an open-ended \u201cphony war\u201d with one nuclear power in the NPT (the US) and another outside of it (Israel), is permanently on the verge of quitting the treaty. If Iran does leave (as North Korea did in 2003, while watching the US prepare to attack Iraq), its neighbors in the Middle East will recalculate their own nuclear ambitions.\nJust as the hollowing out of NATO and the NPT threatens the world\u2019s security, the slow demise of the World Trade Organization is reducing its prosperity. As one of the institutions created by an agreement signed during World War II in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, it was meant to guarantee relatively free and open trade and non-discrimination among trading partners. The idea was that countries whose exports face improper or arbitrary barriers could take their case to the WTO\u2019s Appellate Body for adjudication.\nBut the great powers have started ignoring such niceties. China, which joined the WTO in 2001, never fit snugly into the regime. The bigger blow, though, was America\u2019s turn against its own brainchild. Since the administration of Barack Obama, the US has been blocking appointments to the Appellate Body (citing such reasons as \u201cjudicial overreach\u201d). Without a quorum of judges, the body has been unable to enforce its verdicts, leaving smaller trading nations unable to sue rapacious large countries. So much for the rules-based system.\nThen Trump declared full-fledged trade war on most of the world, in effect resurrecting the \u201cbeggar-thy-neighbor\u201d protectionism of the 1930s which the Bretton Woods system was created to prevent. Now the era of open and non-discriminatory commerce is history. Michael Froman, who was US Trade Representative in the Obama administration and now leads the Council on Foreign Relations, concludes that \u201cthe global trading system as we have known it is dead.\u201d\nIt\u2019s a similar story with international efforts to prosecute people who commit atrocities or war crimes. This tradition, which grew out of the US-led Nuremberg Trials, found expression in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which America helped create and which opened in 2002. But the US (like Russia, China, and Israel) never became a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the court. Instead, Trump has sanctioned its judges, prosecutors and other staff, hamstringing the tribunal\u2019s efforts.\nThe outlook is just as bad for the mother of all post-war institutions, the one that was supposed to be a better and more resilient League of Nations. The UN has long been dysfunctional. According to Republicans such as Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that\u2019s because the UN has been \u201cfocusing on politicized mandates and woke ideology.\u201d That diagnosis isn\u2019t totally wrong, but it says more about America\u2019s culture wars than the UN system, which simply reflects a messy world.\nThe real reason why the UN has been feckless in keeping or restoring peace is that three of the five veto-wielding great powers in the security council \u2014 the US, Russia, and China \u2014 keep blocking resolutions that would settle the conflicts or dangers that matter most, notably those in Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, or the Korean Peninsula. (The other two, France and Britain, haven\u2019t cast their veto since 1989.) They\u2019re also blocking any meaningful reforms of the UN system. So the UN\u2019s dysfunction is a symptom of the international system\u2019s maladies, not their cause.\nThe slide into irrelevance of all these institutions, even as they continue to buzz with bureaucratic activity, amounts to a \u201cgreat unraveling,\u201d thinks Oona Hathaway, the president-elect of the American Society of International Law. It is showing up in less trade and dampened prosperity, and more death and suffering. From 1989 to 2014, fewer than 15,000 people a year died in battles between countries; since then, that average has risen to 100,000 a year. UN peacekeeping missions are down; global arms sales are up.\nThe international system as the world has known it for eight decades was built by people who had seen a previous order fail and turn into purgatory. Its institutions, as a famous quote says in a hallway at the United Nations, were \u201cnot created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.\u201d If world leaders, and above all the people running the great powers, forget what happened when the League of Nations became a zombie, that may be where we\u2019re headed.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION\n1The five countries that had tested nuclear weapons before negotiations for the NPT began in the 1960s, with Russia counting as successor to the Soviet Union.\n2Over 70 of them have signed a new compact, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which has technically been in force since January 2021 but, without support from the nuclear powers and their allies, has no chance of success.", "date_published": "2026-05-07T00:04:52+08:00", "date_modified": "2026-05-06T19:52:24+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/hand-protruding-ground.jpg", "tags": [ "Andreas Kluth", "BloombergMake primary", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "A WORRISOME parallel between the 1930s and the 2020s is that in both decades the multilateral institutions of the international system resemble the walking dead." }, { "id": "/?p=727046", "url": "/bloomberg/2026/01/29/727046/the-ai-memory-crunch-is-coming-for-your-wallet/", "title": "The AI memory crunch is coming for your wallet", "content_html": "By Dave Lee
\nONE frustrating characteristic of the AI boom seems to be that everyone must pay for it, regardless of any interest in using it. For some, it will be through rising utility bills as data centers strain the grid. For even more of us, it will be increasing costs of just about every electronic product you can think of: laptops, smartphones, televisions \u2014 perhaps even cars.
\nThe reason is a dire global shortage of memory chips that\u2019s projected to intensify this year and beyond, crippling the tech supply chain for everyone except the largest and richest AI hyperscalers that can buy their way to the front of the line. The clamor for these key components has paved the way for the \u201clongest and most stable upturn in history,\u201d Chae Minsook, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securities, wrote in a note.
\nThe shortage is due to shifting priorities among the three largest memory makers. SK Hynix, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., which are collectively responsible for more than 90% of global production of dynamic random access memory (DRAM), have diverted capacity to building the high-bandwidth memory (HBM) needed for AI chips, enjoying much higher profit margins as they go. Describing it as a \u201chyper-bull\u201d market, Counterpoint Research highlighted the cost of 64GB RDIMM, a type of memory used in servers, \u201cwhich jumped from $255 in Q3 2025 to $450 in Q4 2025\u201d and is \u201ctargeted to reach $700 by March 2026.\u201d
\nThis month, Samsung reported a tripling of quarterly profits off the back of soaring memory prices. The Korean giant is also on the cusp of a huge deal to supply memory to Nvidia Corp. Demand is far outstripping supply, however: SK Hynix, the market leader, said it had sold out its 2026 allocation of memory already. Analysts with Capital Securities project the memory crunch will last through 2027.
\nThe reallocation of resources means the kind of memory found in other tech products is now in extremely short supply, a fact you might come face-to-face with the next time you try to buy a piece of consumer technology. \u201cThis is a zero-sum game,\u201d noted analysts at IDC. \u201cEvery wafer allocated to an HBM stack for an Nvidia GPU is a wafer denied\u201d to a smartphone or laptop.
\nThe impacts are set to weigh heavily throughout earnings season for tech companies exposed to memory price pressures. Intel Corp., which produces CPUs for the majority of PCs sold worldwide, warned on Thursday that memory shortages \u201ccould limit our revenue opportunity this year.\u201d Smaller players in the market were \u201cscrambling\u201d to find memory, Chief Executive Officer Lip-Bu Tan said, affecting their ability to finish making products that use Intel chips.
\nLeading device makers have made efforts to mitigate the shortage, but even the most aggressive stockpilers can only do so much. Lenovo, the world\u2019s largest PC maker, has stashed away memory at about 50% above its usual levels, its chief financial officer told Bloomberg, but added the company would need to work at balancing price and availability in 2026. Samsung has the benefit of being able to make chips for itself, but its president, Wonjin Lee, acknowledged that \u201cwe\u2019re going to be at a point where we have to actually consider repricing our products.\u201d
\nApple, Inc.\u2019s premium price point and long-term supply agreements give it some insulation. But UBS analyst David Vogt warned that \u201crisk does increase in the June and September quarters as production of the next gen of iPhones ramp, impacting cost and margin.\u201d
\nEstimates from Bloomberg Intelligence suggest PC prices could rise as much as 20%. Smartphones could experience a similar increase, IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo told me, with a disproportionate impact on lower-end models that stand to get both more expensive and less powerful. Chinese smartphone makers, the backbone of the budget Android market, are \u201cslashing their 2026 shipment targets by tens of millions of units,\u201d according to the South China Morning Post. Overall, IDC projected a decline in the global market for smartphones and PCs.
\nIn addition, analysts at UBS have warned that auto production could be disrupted in the second quarter, with the price of memory chips used in cars doubling.
\nThe obvious way out of the memory crunch is to make more of it. Efforts are well underway, but it will be a while before the additional capacity makes a difference. Micron, for instance, has used money from President Joe Biden\u2019s Chips Act to build a new facility in Idaho, though it won\u2019t come online until 2027. The company\u2019s promised $200-billion investment in the US has a timeline best laid out in decades. Micron also signed a letter of intent to buy a chip fabrication site in Taiwan for $1.8 billion, expecting \u201cmeaningful\u201d output in the second half of next year, Bloomberg reported. Counterpoint Research projected DRAM production will increase 24% in 2026 compared with output last year, well short of demand.
\nWhile we wait for all that, the market for secondhand tech is already booming. New York-based Computer Overhauls, a seller of secondhand computing products, said it was seeing unprecedented increases in value for DRAM, a component that often went overlooked when stripping old PCs for parts. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t even something we paid a whole lot of attention to because the value was relatively minimal,\u201d said Adam Sanderson, the store\u2019s founder. \u201cWe sold a 16 gig set for $160 today; a year or so ago it certainly wouldn\u2019t have been anywhere near that.\u201d
\nBig Data Supply, Inc., a California-based recycler of old data center equipment, told me revenue for January is up 300%, driven largely by secondhand memory gaining new appeal. \u201cWith the amount of inbound inquiries, it feels like there is no end in near sight,\u201d said Brian Musil, the company\u2019s CEO.
\nNo end in near sight is the most often-repeated phrase from those watching the industry closely. Consumers would be wise to get ahead on any big tech purchases now before what seems certain to be sweeping price increases across the board. For the foreseeable future, the AI boom will turn on its head our expectation that technology gets both cheaper and more powerful as time goes on. The memory crunch is just one more way in which consumers are carrying some of the burden for AI giants\u2019 rush to build out their ambitions.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Dave Lee\nONE frustrating characteristic of the AI boom seems to be that everyone must pay for it, regardless of any interest in using it. For some, it will be through rising utility bills as data centers strain the grid. For even more of us, it will be increasing costs of just about every electronic product you can think of: laptops, smartphones, televisions \u2014 perhaps even cars.\nThe reason is a dire global shortage of memory chips that\u2019s projected to intensify this year and beyond, crippling the tech supply chain for everyone except the largest and richest AI hyperscalers that can buy their way to the front of the line. The clamor for these key components has paved the way for the \u201clongest and most stable upturn in history,\u201d Chae Minsook, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securities, wrote in a note.\nThe shortage is due to shifting priorities among the three largest memory makers. SK Hynix, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., which are collectively responsible for more than 90% of global production of dynamic random access memory (DRAM), have diverted capacity to building the high-bandwidth memory (HBM) needed for AI chips, enjoying much higher profit margins as they go. Describing it as a \u201chyper-bull\u201d market, Counterpoint Research highlighted the cost of 64GB RDIMM, a type of memory used in servers, \u201cwhich jumped from $255 in Q3 2025 to $450 in Q4 2025\u201d and is \u201ctargeted to reach $700 by March 2026.\u201d\nThis month, Samsung reported a tripling of quarterly profits off the back of soaring memory prices. The Korean giant is also on the cusp of a huge deal to supply memory to Nvidia Corp. Demand is far outstripping supply, however: SK Hynix, the market leader, said it had sold out its 2026 allocation of memory already. Analysts with Capital Securities project the memory crunch will last through 2027.\nThe reallocation of resources means the kind of memory found in other tech products is now in extremely short supply, a fact you might come face-to-face with the next time you try to buy a piece of consumer technology. \u201cThis is a zero-sum game,\u201d noted analysts at IDC. \u201cEvery wafer allocated to an HBM stack for an Nvidia GPU is a wafer denied\u201d to a smartphone or laptop.\nThe impacts are set to weigh heavily throughout earnings season for tech companies exposed to memory price pressures. Intel Corp., which produces CPUs for the majority of PCs sold worldwide, warned on Thursday that memory shortages \u201ccould limit our revenue opportunity this year.\u201d Smaller players in the market were \u201cscrambling\u201d to find memory, Chief Executive Officer Lip-Bu Tan said, affecting their ability to finish making products that use Intel chips.\nLeading device makers have made efforts to mitigate the shortage, but even the most aggressive stockpilers can only do so much. Lenovo, the world\u2019s largest PC maker, has stashed away memory at about 50% above its usual levels, its chief financial officer told Bloomberg, but added the company would need to work at balancing price and availability in 2026. Samsung has the benefit of being able to make chips for itself, but its president, Wonjin Lee, acknowledged that \u201cwe\u2019re going to be at a point where we have to actually consider repricing our products.\u201d\nApple, Inc.\u2019s premium price point and long-term supply agreements give it some insulation. But UBS analyst David Vogt warned that \u201crisk does increase in the June and September quarters as production of the next gen of iPhones ramp, impacting cost and margin.\u201d\nEstimates from Bloomberg Intelligence suggest PC prices could rise as much as 20%. Smartphones could experience a similar increase, IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo told me, with a disproportionate impact on lower-end models that stand to get both more expensive and less powerful. Chinese smartphone makers, the backbone of the budget Android market, are \u201cslashing their 2026 shipment targets by tens of millions of units,\u201d according to the South China Morning Post. Overall, IDC projected a decline in the global market for smartphones and PCs.\nIn addition, analysts at UBS have warned that auto production could be disrupted in the second quarter, with the price of memory chips used in cars doubling.\nThe obvious way out of the memory crunch is to make more of it. Efforts are well underway, but it will be a while before the additional capacity makes a difference. Micron, for instance, has used money from President Joe Biden\u2019s Chips Act to build a new facility in Idaho, though it won\u2019t come online until 2027. The company\u2019s promised $200-billion investment in the US has a timeline best laid out in decades. Micron also signed a letter of intent to buy a chip fabrication site in Taiwan for $1.8 billion, expecting \u201cmeaningful\u201d output in the second half of next year, Bloomberg reported. Counterpoint Research projected DRAM production will increase 24% in 2026 compared with output last year, well short of demand.\nWhile we wait for all that, the market for secondhand tech is already booming. New York-based Computer Overhauls, a seller of secondhand computing products, said it was seeing unprecedented increases in value for DRAM, a component that often went overlooked when stripping old PCs for parts. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t even something we paid a whole lot of attention to because the value was relatively minimal,\u201d said Adam Sanderson, the store\u2019s founder. \u201cWe sold a 16 gig set for $160 today; a year or so ago it certainly wouldn\u2019t have been anywhere near that.\u201d\nBig Data Supply, Inc., a California-based recycler of old data center equipment, told me revenue for January is up 300%, driven largely by secondhand memory gaining new appeal. \u201cWith the amount of inbound inquiries, it feels like there is no end in near sight,\u201d said Brian Musil, the company\u2019s CEO.\nNo end in near sight is the most often-repeated phrase from those watching the industry closely. Consumers would be wise to get ahead on any big tech purchases now before what seems certain to be sweeping price increases across the board. For the foreseeable future, the AI boom will turn on its head our expectation that technology gets both cheaper and more powerful as time goes on. The memory crunch is just one more way in which consumers are carrying some of the burden for AI giants\u2019 rush to build out their ambitions.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2026-01-29T00:02:13+08:00", "date_modified": "2026-01-28T18:13:59+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/portrait-asian-woman-glasses-sitting-with-laptop-looking-surprised-amazed-by-promotion.jpg", "tags": [ "Dave Lee", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "ONE frustrating characteristic of the AI boom seems to be that everyone must pay for it, regardless of any interest in using it. For some, it will be through rising utility bills as data centers strain the grid. For even more of us, it will be increasing costs of just about every electronic product you can think of: laptops, smartphones, televisions \u2014 perhaps even cars." }, { "id": "/?p=724506", "url": "/bloomberg/2026/01/16/724506/chinas-new-growth-strategy-needs-a-reality-check/", "title": "China\u2019s new growth strategy needs a reality check", "content_html": "By Juliana Lio
\nWHILE the world is rightly waking up to the implications of China\u2019s rising technological prowess, it\u2019s time for a reality check. Reorientation toward an innovation-driven, security-focused growth model has not yet paid off, at least not economically.
\nFresh analysis of official data by the Rhodium Group, a research firm, offers a granular look at the current growth trajectory, revealing something alarming but not entirely surprising. The so-called \u201cnew quality productive forces\u201d \u2014 a term popularized by President Xi Jinping to describe high-tech industries such as electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and robotics \u2014 aren\u2019t pulling their weight. Their contribution to economic activity is dwarfed by traditional engines such as property and infrastructure investment, years after they collapsed.
\nDelving into data released by the National Bureau of Statistics in November that show how industries interact with each other and the larger economy, the researchers found that the drop in activity from older industries has been six times larger than the gains from the new forces from 2023 to 2025.
\nSpecifically, the combined contribution of three legacy sectors \u2014 property, infrastructure, and internal-combustion cars \u2014 as a percentage of gross domestic product fell by six percentage points over that period.
\nAt the same time, the increase in economic activity from six newfangled growth drivers was less than one percentage point.
\nThis is a concerning trend, given China plans to officially cement the elevation of tech-driven growth through the passage of its next five-year plan in March. The new strategy was never solely about prosperity. It was always equally about security: ensuring Beijing can fend for itself in rivalry with the US.
\nBecause standing up to President Donald Trump\u2019s bullying trade tactics was almost entirely based on Beijing\u2019s industrial muscle and dominance in rare earths, there is widespread acceptance of this development blueprint. However, that does little to diminish the pain from job insecurity and consumption malaise \u2014 prolonged by Big Tech\u2019s inability to replace the once-mighty property sector.
\nThe electric vehicle industry is a prime example. Two decades after policymakers decided to overtake Western car giants by betting on electrification, China is undisputably the world leader. Of the 24 million passenger vehicles sold in the country last year, more than half were EVs. Because of a yearslong price war, most EVs are cheaper than their gasoline counterparts. This is not the norm in other countries, where they\u2019re generally more expensive.
\nAccording to Rhodium\u2019s calculations, even though the EV industry expanded significantly over the past two years, the total economic output from gasoline vehicles was still 232 billion yuan ($33 billion) higher because they actually cost more. The automotive sector\u2019s hyper-competitive and saturated nature is why the government has had to bring back a \u201ccash-for-clunkers\u201d trade-in program for cars and other consumer goods for the third year in a row.\u00a0 \u00a0
\nBilled as a consumer subsidy, in reality this scheme offers support to the industrial giants so important for the country\u2019s future. But for many, especially EV makers like BYD Co., the key to higher prices, margins, and profits lies overseas. That\u2019s why the European Union\u2019s\u00a0 agreement this week to set up a mechanism for companies to offer voluntary limits on car shipments from China is such welcome news. Though it\u2019s still early days, any deal to swap steep tariffs with minimum pricing commitments would be a boon for automakers.
\nEven though the contribution of the high-tech industries appears limited for now, it may not always be the case. The auto sector, for one, must still undergo a period of consolidation. In theory, the survivors should eventually be able to command premium prices and truly move up the value chain.
\nBut until that process is repeated across the various industries, they may struggle to meet expectations for economic output. The solution is not for the Chinese leadership to backtrack but to make a solid commitment to increase consumption. At a minimum, they should be subsidizing a broader range of goods and services to woo hesitant shoppers. It will take time for China\u2019s industrial giants to get to the point where they can truly propel growth. Policymakers should acknowledge that and give their long-suffering citizens a break.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Juliana Lio\nWHILE the world is rightly waking up to the implications of China\u2019s rising technological prowess, it\u2019s time for a reality check. Reorientation toward an innovation-driven, security-focused growth model has not yet paid off, at least not economically.\nFresh analysis of official data by the Rhodium Group, a research firm, offers a granular look at the current growth trajectory, revealing something alarming but not entirely surprising. The so-called \u201cnew quality productive forces\u201d \u2014 a term popularized by President Xi Jinping to describe high-tech industries such as electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and robotics \u2014 aren\u2019t pulling their weight. Their contribution to economic activity is dwarfed by traditional engines such as property and infrastructure investment, years after they collapsed.\nDelving into data released by the National Bureau of Statistics in November that show how industries interact with each other and the larger economy, the researchers found that the drop in activity from older industries has been six times larger than the gains from the new forces from 2023 to 2025.\nSpecifically, the combined contribution of three legacy sectors \u2014 property, infrastructure, and internal-combustion cars \u2014 as a percentage of gross domestic product fell by six percentage points over that period.\nAt the same time, the increase in economic activity from six newfangled growth drivers was less than one percentage point.\nThis is a concerning trend, given China plans to officially cement the elevation of tech-driven growth through the passage of its next five-year plan in March. The new strategy was never solely about prosperity. It was always equally about security: ensuring Beijing can fend for itself in rivalry with the US.\nBecause standing up to President Donald Trump\u2019s bullying trade tactics was almost entirely based on Beijing\u2019s industrial muscle and dominance in rare earths, there is widespread acceptance of this development blueprint. However, that does little to diminish the pain from job insecurity and consumption malaise \u2014 prolonged by Big Tech\u2019s inability to replace the once-mighty property sector.\nThe electric vehicle industry is a prime example. Two decades after policymakers decided to overtake Western car giants by betting on electrification, China is undisputably the world leader. Of the 24 million passenger vehicles sold in the country last year, more than half were EVs. Because of a yearslong price war, most EVs are cheaper than their gasoline counterparts. This is not the norm in other countries, where they\u2019re generally more expensive.\nAccording to Rhodium\u2019s calculations, even though the EV industry expanded significantly over the past two years, the total economic output from gasoline vehicles was still 232 billion yuan ($33 billion) higher because they actually cost more. The automotive sector\u2019s hyper-competitive and saturated nature is why the government has had to bring back a \u201ccash-for-clunkers\u201d trade-in program for cars and other consumer goods for the third year in a row.\u00a0 \u00a0\nBilled as a consumer subsidy, in reality this scheme offers support to the industrial giants so important for the country\u2019s future. But for many, especially EV makers like BYD Co., the key to higher prices, margins, and profits lies overseas. That\u2019s why the European Union\u2019s\u00a0 agreement this week to set up a mechanism for companies to offer voluntary limits on car shipments from China is such welcome news. Though it\u2019s still early days, any deal to swap steep tariffs with minimum pricing commitments would be a boon for automakers.\nEven though the contribution of the high-tech industries appears limited for now, it may not always be the case. The auto sector, for one, must still undergo a period of consolidation. In theory, the survivors should eventually be able to command premium prices and truly move up the value chain.\nBut until that process is repeated across the various industries, they may struggle to meet expectations for economic output. The solution is not for the Chinese leadership to backtrack but to make a solid commitment to increase consumption. At a minimum, they should be subsidizing a broader range of goods and services to woo hesitant shoppers. It will take time for China\u2019s industrial giants to get to the point where they can truly propel growth. Policymakers should acknowledge that and give their long-suffering citizens a break. \nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2026-01-16T00:03:53+08:00", "date_modified": "2026-01-15T18:26:46+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/body-car-conveyor-modern-assembly-cars-plant-automated-build-process-car-body.jpg", "tags": [ "Juliana Lio", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "WHILE the world is rightly waking up to the implications of China\u2019s rising technological prowess, it\u2019s time for a reality check. Reorientation toward an innovation-driven, security-focused growth model has not yet paid off, at least not economically." }, { "id": "/?p=724217", "url": "/bloomberg/2026/01/15/724217/the-dubious-art-of-explaining-what-trump-really-means/", "title": "The dubious art of explaining what Trump \u2018really means\u2019", "content_html": "By David M. Drucker
\nPROMINENT Republicans insist on treating President Donald Trump like a child or a clueless old man, telling Americans that he does not mean what he says \u2014 despite the commander in chief making quite clear he means exactly that.
\nTrump\u2019s threat to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark, a US ally via the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a recent example. \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s a threat,\u201d Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama told The Bulwark. \u201cI think it\u2019s a promise that we\u2019ll offer some money for it.\u201d Senator John Kennedy offered his own, colorful reimagining of the president\u2019s saber rattling. \u201cEven a modestly intelligent ninth grader knows that to invade Greenland would be weapons-grade stupid. Now, President Trump is not weapons-grade stupid,\u201d the Louisiana Republican told CNN. Trump, Kennedy added, does \u201cnot plan to invade Greenland. That does not mean they\u2019re not going to seek a legal, formal partnership with Greenland.\u201d
\nTrump\u2019s subsequent comments on the matter? All options are on the table, including a military invasion. \u201cWe are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,\u201d the president told reporters during a White House news conference last week. \u201cIf we don\u2019t do it the easy way we\u2019re going to do it the hard way.\u201d
\nThe phenomenon of redefining Trump\u2019s rhetoric was somewhat understandable during his first presidency. He was new to elected office and still learning how the federal government operated. Although still somewhat infantilizing of a man who had reached high office, Republicans uncomfortable with the president\u2019s rhetoric could theoretically make the case that Trump didn\u2019t understand the implications of what he was saying, or of his policy proposals.
\nBut as we head toward Year 2 of his second presidency, those excuses have worn thin. Trump has plenty of on-the-job experience and has demonstrated an understanding of executive power, so much so that he rejects most limits on it.
\nWhat gives? In my experience, it\u2019s about political expediency. Republicans\u2019 clumsy verbal cartwheels are obvious attempts to avoid publicly disagreeing with Trump while simultaneously attempting to avoid publicly agreeing with him.
\nIt\u2019s been more of the same regarding what\u2019s next for Venezuela following an American military operation that led to the capture of dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife and their arrest by federal law enforcement. During a Jan. 3 news conference , Trump, 79, said the US is \u201cgoing to run\u201d the South American nation \u201cuntil such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.\u201d
\nThe president elaborated under questioning by reporters, suggesting his declaration was hardly flippant. \u201cIt\u2019s largely going to be, for a period of time, the people that are standing right behind me,\u201d Trump said, when asked who inside the US government would be running Venezuela.
\nFlanking Trump on stage: Air Force General Dan Cain, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others.
\nYet the very next day, Rubio revised his boss\u2019 remarks. \u201cWhat we are running is the direction that this is going to move, going forward. And that is, we have leverage. This leverage we are using and we intend to use,\u201d the secretary said Jan. 4 in an interview on the ABC News public affairs program This Week. To be fair, Rubio\u2019s argument wasn\u2019t wholly inaccurate.
\nBut: Want to guess what Trump said later that day when asked, during a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One , if Washington was running the show in Caracas? \u201cDon\u2019t ask me who\u2019s in charge because I\u2019ll give you an answer and it will be very controversial,\u201d Trump said. When asked what he meant, the president was blunt: \u201cIt means we\u2019re in charge. We\u2019re in charge.\u201d
\nNaturally, Trump\u2019s unequivocal comments didn\u2019t discourage Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from claiming the president\u2019s rhetoric was equivocal. \u201cI think that\u2019s a matter of interpretation,\u201d the Idaho Republican told NOTUS,\u00a0 when asked what the commander in chief meant by repeatedly saying the US is \u201crunning\u201d Venezuela.
\nShawn J. Parry-Giles, a University of Maryland professor who studies political communication and rhetoric, explained the ongoing dilemma posed by Trump and his penchant for provocative rhetoric and proposals.
\n\u201cHis messaging puts members of his party in difficult positions. They manage the rhetorical and political messiness by providing different interpretations that reshape the message into one they can support that appears more reasoned and grounded in legal [and] political principles,\u201d said Parry-Giles, director of the Rosenker Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership . \u201cThis is also happening with members of his cabinet. They are trying to reshape his messages into something that would be more acceptable politically.\u201d
\nThey\u2019re hoping to \u201csend\u201d Trump \u201ca subtle message of how the president would better express his views,\u201d she added, while maintaining a sense of decorum that the commander in chief does not. \u201cHe routinely flouts such decorous practices,\u201d Parry-Giles said.
\nAll true and all understandable.
\nBut after all this time, it should be crystal clear to Republicans \u2014 on Capitol Hill and everywhere else \u2014 that Trump knows what he\u2019s saying and knows what he\u2019s doing (or what he wants to do.) When he speaks and when he acts, it\u2019s with deliberate intent. Congressional Republicans who oppose an American invasion of Greenland might want to ponder that rather than soothe themselves with fantasies that Trump\u2019s tough talk is about \u201cleverage.\u201d
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By David M. Drucker\nPROMINENT Republicans insist on treating President Donald Trump like a child or a clueless old man, telling Americans that he does not mean what he says \u2014 despite the commander in chief making quite clear he means exactly that.\nTrump\u2019s threat to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark, a US ally via the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a recent example. \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s a threat,\u201d Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama told The Bulwark. \u201cI think it\u2019s a promise that we\u2019ll offer some money for it.\u201d Senator John Kennedy offered his own, colorful reimagining of the president\u2019s saber rattling. \u201cEven a modestly intelligent ninth grader knows that to invade Greenland would be weapons-grade stupid. Now, President Trump is not weapons-grade stupid,\u201d the Louisiana Republican told CNN. Trump, Kennedy added, does \u201cnot plan to invade Greenland. That does not mean they\u2019re not going to seek a legal, formal partnership with Greenland.\u201d\nTrump\u2019s subsequent comments on the matter? All options are on the table, including a military invasion. \u201cWe are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,\u201d the president told reporters during a White House news conference last week. \u201cIf we don\u2019t do it the easy way we\u2019re going to do it the hard way.\u201d\nThe phenomenon of redefining Trump\u2019s rhetoric was somewhat understandable during his first presidency. He was new to elected office and still learning how the federal government operated. Although still somewhat infantilizing of a man who had reached high office, Republicans uncomfortable with the president\u2019s rhetoric could theoretically make the case that Trump didn\u2019t understand the implications of what he was saying, or of his policy proposals.\nBut as we head toward Year 2 of his second presidency, those excuses have worn thin. Trump has plenty of on-the-job experience and has demonstrated an understanding of executive power, so much so that he rejects most limits on it.\nWhat gives? In my experience, it\u2019s about political expediency. Republicans\u2019 clumsy verbal cartwheels are obvious attempts to avoid publicly disagreeing with Trump while simultaneously attempting to avoid publicly agreeing with him.\nIt\u2019s been more of the same regarding what\u2019s next for Venezuela following an American military operation that led to the capture of dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife and their arrest by federal law enforcement. During a Jan. 3 news conference , Trump, 79, said the US is \u201cgoing to run\u201d the South American nation \u201cuntil such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.\u201d\nThe president elaborated under questioning by reporters, suggesting his declaration was hardly flippant. \u201cIt\u2019s largely going to be, for a period of time, the people that are standing right behind me,\u201d Trump said, when asked who inside the US government would be running Venezuela.\nFlanking Trump on stage: Air Force General Dan Cain, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others.\nYet the very next day, Rubio revised his boss\u2019 remarks. \u201cWhat we are running is the direction that this is going to move, going forward. And that is, we have leverage. This leverage we are using and we intend to use,\u201d the secretary said Jan. 4 in an interview on the ABC News public affairs program This Week. To be fair, Rubio\u2019s argument wasn\u2019t wholly inaccurate.\nBut: Want to guess what Trump said later that day when asked, during a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One , if Washington was running the show in Caracas? \u201cDon\u2019t ask me who\u2019s in charge because I\u2019ll give you an answer and it will be very controversial,\u201d Trump said. When asked what he meant, the president was blunt: \u201cIt means we\u2019re in charge. We\u2019re in charge.\u201d\nNaturally, Trump\u2019s unequivocal comments didn\u2019t discourage Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from claiming the president\u2019s rhetoric was equivocal. \u201cI think that\u2019s a matter of interpretation,\u201d the Idaho Republican told NOTUS,\u00a0 when asked what the commander in chief meant by repeatedly saying the US is \u201crunning\u201d Venezuela.\nShawn J. Parry-Giles, a University of Maryland professor who studies political communication and rhetoric, explained the ongoing dilemma posed by Trump and his penchant for provocative rhetoric and proposals.\n\u201cHis messaging puts members of his party in difficult positions. They manage the rhetorical and political messiness by providing different interpretations that reshape the message into one they can support that appears more reasoned and grounded in legal [and] political principles,\u201d said Parry-Giles, director of the Rosenker Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership . \u201cThis is also happening with members of his cabinet. They are trying to reshape his messages into something that would be more acceptable politically.\u201d\nThey\u2019re hoping to \u201csend\u201d Trump \u201ca subtle message of how the president would better express his views,\u201d she added, while maintaining a sense of decorum that the commander in chief does not. \u201cHe routinely flouts such decorous practices,\u201d Parry-Giles said.\nAll true and all understandable.\nBut after all this time, it should be crystal clear to Republicans \u2014 on Capitol Hill and everywhere else \u2014 that Trump knows what he\u2019s saying and knows what he\u2019s doing (or what he wants to do.) When he speaks and when he acts, it\u2019s with deliberate intent. Congressional Republicans who oppose an American invasion of Greenland might want to ponder that rather than soothe themselves with fantasies that Trump\u2019s tough talk is about \u201cleverage.\u201d\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2026-01-15T00:02:55+08:00", "date_modified": "2026-01-14T18:57:58+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Trump.jpg", "tags": [ "David M. Drucker", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "PROMINENT Republicans insist on treating President Donald Trump like a child or a clueless old man, telling Americans that he does not mean what he says \u2014 despite the commander in chief making quite clear he means exactly that." }, { "id": "/?p=720926", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/12/26/720926/dismiss-the-doomsday-clock-at-your-own-peril/", "title": "Dismiss the doomsday clock at your own peril", "content_html": "By Andreas Kluth
\nWE\u2019RE ONCE AGAIN approaching the annual resetting of the Doomsday Clock. Last January, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a group of very smart people, moved the hands of their metaphorical clock to 89 seconds to midnight, where midnight represents doomsday, apocalypse, Armageddon, extinction, or whatever you want to call it.
\nIt\u2019s 89 seconds! That\u2019s the closest to midnight the clock has ever stood. What will the board, looking back at 2025, say on Jan. 27, 2026?
\nYou can dismiss this timepiece trope as a gimmick, but you\u2019d do so at your own intellectual risk. The Bulletin and its clock started with Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer and the other scientists who were genius enough to invent nuclear weapons and wise enough to regret their invention. To prod citizens and leaders into changing course, they came up with this metaphor of an existential countdown. At the outset, in 1947, they set the hands at 7 minutes to midnight.
\nIt would take decades for the board to start factoring in climate change, biotechnology and pandemics, artificial intelligence and disinformation, and all the other dangers that today, underneath and beyond the headlines, menace our species in ways that we barely understand. The new and salient worry at the time was of course the use of fission to destroy entire cities (two were already in ashes), and potentially whole civilizations.
\nAnd so the clock began filtering world events, like a scientific fan that winnows substance from trivia. In 1949, after the Soviets joined the US as a nuclear power, the hands moved to 3 minutes. In 1953 they stood at 2, after tests of the first thermonuclear bomb (in which a Hiroshima-style fission blast is \u201cmerely\u201d the trigger for a vastly larger fusion burst, in effect a sun burning on earth).
\nHumanity seemed to keep hurtling toward midnight, with more countries getting nukes, and even more pursuing them. In 1962, the world came close to atomic holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
\nThat gaze into the abyss, though, had a positive effect: It stirred world leaders into action. During the 1960s, the Partial Test Ban Treaty ended most nuclear testing above ground. Almost all countries adopted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which nations without nukes pledged never to make them, and the five \u201clegitimate\u201d nuclear powers promised to start disarming. In the early 1970s, the US and the Soviet Union inked the first bilateral treaties to limit their two-way arms race. Between 1963 and 1972, the clock\u2019s hands moved between 12 and 10 minutes to midnight \u2014 not great, but better.
\nBut world affairs went in the wrong direction again. India got the bomb, and Pakistan would later follow suit. The two superpowers, far from disarming as the NPT obliged them to do, kept upgrading their arsenals, with demonic innovations such as MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Detente gave way to confrontation, and by 1984, the clock stood at 3 minutes.
\nThen the Cold War began thawing. In 1988, the clock went back to 6 minutes, after the US and the Soviet Union signed the first treaty ever to ban an entire category of nuclear weapons (those mounted on intermediate-range missiles). In 1990, it hit 10 minutes, after the Berlin Wall crumbled, and with it the Iron Curtain.
\nIn 1991, the clock touched 17 minutes, the farthest from midnight it has ever been. Intellectuals celebrated the \u201cend of history\u201d and the apparent dawn of pacific and liberal democracy for all humanity. At long last, the superpowers junked thousands of their nukes, as they had implicitly promised in the NPT. And they stopped all explosive testing of nukes, even underground.
\nThe era of good feelings didn\u2019t last long, though. By the late 1990s, both India and Pakistan tested fission bombs. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, caused anxiety that \u201cloose nukes\u201d might fall into the hands of non-state actors with nothing to lose. North Korea tested its first warhead, becoming the ninth nuclear power.
\nAnd climate change joined the board\u2019s, and world\u2019s, worry list. It threatens catastrophe first gradually, then suddenly: by damaging ecosystems; causing floods, storms and droughts (and thus famines); and seeding more pestilence, as species come into contact with new organisms and the thawing permafrost burps out pathogens frozen for millennia. By 2007, the clock was at 5 minutes to midnight; in 2015 at 3.
\nIn 2020, during the first administration of Donald Trump and a pandemic, the board switched to quoting the time in seconds: 100 to midnight. It identified yet another threat in the form of \u201ccyber-enabled information warfare.\u201d Memes, disinformation and conspiracy theories now spread like viruses, confusing, distracting and polarizing societies and making them \u201cunable to respond\u201d to the existential challenges posed by nukes and the climate.
\nIn 2023, the clock moved to 90 seconds to midnight, after Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and broke the ultimate taboo of the nuclear age by threatening to use nukes.
\nAnd this year, it ticked forward another second. Trump was not the reason \u2014 he had been inaugurated only a week before the announcement. It was instead the urgency of all the existing threats, and the specter of hidden feedback loops and possible \u201ccascades\u201d associated with our emerging \u201cpolycrisis.\u201d
\nAnd now, one year on? It seems to me that every threat the Bulletin described in 2025 has gotten more dire.
\nNuclear risk, which was relatively easy to comprehend during the Cold War, is now diffuse. The last arms-control treaty between the US and Russia expires in February, and both countries are \u201cmodernizing\u201d their arsenals, with new warheads, bombers, missiles and submarines.
\nChina is adding to its stockpile to catch up with the big two. North Korea is arming; Pakistan and India are always close to fighting, and sometimes at it. Worse yet, artificial intelligence threatens to make many kinds of weapons \u201cautonomous\u201d and shrink decision times in a nuclear crisis to minutes \u2014 the insanity of the resulting psychological stresses has even made it to Hollywood.
\nTrump has probably made one part of the problem better, if only temporarily: He bombed Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities, setting back its efforts to build a bomb. But he has also increased the risk of general proliferation (and of the NPT\u2019s slow death), by disdaining America\u2019s traditional allies and making them doubt the US \u201cnuclear umbrella\u201d that allegedly protects them. From Europe to Asia and the Middle East, more countries are now considering going nuclear, just as experts are advising them.
\nTrump also appears close to breaking another nuclear taboo, the moratorium on explosive testing. If the US were to detonate nukes again, China, Russia and other countries would follow suit. And all major nuclear powers are designing new, more maneuverable and faster missiles to deliver death on earth, while looking to outer space as the next domain of warfare.
\nMeanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions keep increasing and the weather is getting more destructive. And yet America, the world largest emitter historically and the second largest (after China) currently, has officially lost interest.
\nAs the new National Security Strategy puts it, \u201cWe reject the disastrous \u2018climate change\u2019 and \u2018Net Zero\u2019 ideologies.\u201d The Trump administration boycotted the 30th climate conference of the United Nations in 2025 and will formally exit the Paris Agreement, a treaty to control global warming, on Jan. 27, 2026 \u2014 the very day when the Doomsday Clock will be reset.
\nAlso in January, the US will formally quit the World Health Organization, whose role is in part to look out for, and save us from the next pandemic. At home, Trump has put antivaxxers and quacks in charge of public health. That segues to the other threat the Bulletin worried about last time: misinformation and disinformation. They are \u201cpotent threat multipliers,\u201d John Mecklin, the editor, wrote, because they \u201cblur the line between truth and falsehood.\u201d
\nSince he said that, the blurring seems to have made us all but blind. The board will make its own decision about the clock. If you ask me, it feels like one minute to midnight \u2014 or less.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Andreas Kluth\nWE\u2019RE ONCE AGAIN approaching the annual resetting of the Doomsday Clock. Last January, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a group of very smart people, moved the hands of their metaphorical clock to 89 seconds to midnight, where midnight represents doomsday, apocalypse, Armageddon, extinction, or whatever you want to call it.\nIt\u2019s 89 seconds! That\u2019s the closest to midnight the clock has ever stood. What will the board, looking back at 2025, say on Jan. 27, 2026?\nYou can dismiss this timepiece trope as a gimmick, but you\u2019d do so at your own intellectual risk. The Bulletin and its clock started with Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer and the other scientists who were genius enough to invent nuclear weapons and wise enough to regret their invention. To prod citizens and leaders into changing course, they came up with this metaphor of an existential countdown. At the outset, in 1947, they set the hands at 7 minutes to midnight.\nIt would take decades for the board to start factoring in climate change, biotechnology and pandemics, artificial intelligence and disinformation, and all the other dangers that today, underneath and beyond the headlines, menace our species in ways that we barely understand. The new and salient worry at the time was of course the use of fission to destroy entire cities (two were already in ashes), and potentially whole civilizations.\nAnd so the clock began filtering world events, like a scientific fan that winnows substance from trivia. In 1949, after the Soviets joined the US as a nuclear power, the hands moved to 3 minutes. In 1953 they stood at 2, after tests of the first thermonuclear bomb (in which a Hiroshima-style fission blast is \u201cmerely\u201d the trigger for a vastly larger fusion burst, in effect a sun burning on earth).\nHumanity seemed to keep hurtling toward midnight, with more countries getting nukes, and even more pursuing them. In 1962, the world came close to atomic holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis.\nThat gaze into the abyss, though, had a positive effect: It stirred world leaders into action. During the 1960s, the Partial Test Ban Treaty ended most nuclear testing above ground. Almost all countries adopted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which nations without nukes pledged never to make them, and the five \u201clegitimate\u201d nuclear powers promised to start disarming. In the early 1970s, the US and the Soviet Union inked the first bilateral treaties to limit their two-way arms race. Between 1963 and 1972, the clock\u2019s hands moved between 12 and 10 minutes to midnight \u2014 not great, but better.\nBut world affairs went in the wrong direction again. India got the bomb, and Pakistan would later follow suit. The two superpowers, far from disarming as the NPT obliged them to do, kept upgrading their arsenals, with demonic innovations such as MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Detente gave way to confrontation, and by 1984, the clock stood at 3 minutes.\nThen the Cold War began thawing. In 1988, the clock went back to 6 minutes, after the US and the Soviet Union signed the first treaty ever to ban an entire category of nuclear weapons (those mounted on intermediate-range missiles). In 1990, it hit 10 minutes, after the Berlin Wall crumbled, and with it the Iron Curtain.\nIn 1991, the clock touched 17 minutes, the farthest from midnight it has ever been. Intellectuals celebrated the \u201cend of history\u201d and the apparent dawn of pacific and liberal democracy for all humanity. At long last, the superpowers junked thousands of their nukes, as they had implicitly promised in the NPT. And they stopped all explosive testing of nukes, even underground.\nThe era of good feelings didn\u2019t last long, though. By the late 1990s, both India and Pakistan tested fission bombs. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, caused anxiety that \u201cloose nukes\u201d might fall into the hands of non-state actors with nothing to lose. North Korea tested its first warhead, becoming the ninth nuclear power.\nAnd climate change joined the board\u2019s, and world\u2019s, worry list. It threatens catastrophe first gradually, then suddenly: by damaging ecosystems; causing floods, storms and droughts (and thus famines); and seeding more pestilence, as species come into contact with new organisms and the thawing permafrost burps out pathogens frozen for millennia. By 2007, the clock was at 5 minutes to midnight; in 2015 at 3.\nIn 2020, during the first administration of Donald Trump and a pandemic, the board switched to quoting the time in seconds: 100 to midnight. It identified yet another threat in the form of \u201ccyber-enabled information warfare.\u201d Memes, disinformation and conspiracy theories now spread like viruses, confusing, distracting and polarizing societies and making them \u201cunable to respond\u201d to the existential challenges posed by nukes and the climate.\nIn 2023, the clock moved to 90 seconds to midnight, after Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and broke the ultimate taboo of the nuclear age by threatening to use nukes.\nAnd this year, it ticked forward another second. Trump was not the reason \u2014 he had been inaugurated only a week before the announcement. It was instead the urgency of all the existing threats, and the specter of hidden feedback loops and possible \u201ccascades\u201d associated with our emerging \u201cpolycrisis.\u201d\nAnd now, one year on? It seems to me that every threat the Bulletin described in 2025 has gotten more dire.\nNuclear risk, which was relatively easy to comprehend during the Cold War, is now diffuse. The last arms-control treaty between the US and Russia expires in February, and both countries are \u201cmodernizing\u201d their arsenals, with new warheads, bombers, missiles and submarines.\nChina is adding to its stockpile to catch up with the big two. North Korea is arming; Pakistan and India are always close to fighting, and sometimes at it. Worse yet, artificial intelligence threatens to make many kinds of weapons \u201cautonomous\u201d and shrink decision times in a nuclear crisis to minutes \u2014 the insanity of the resulting psychological stresses has even made it to Hollywood.\nTrump has probably made one part of the problem better, if only temporarily: He bombed Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities, setting back its efforts to build a bomb. But he has also increased the risk of general proliferation (and of the NPT\u2019s slow death), by disdaining America\u2019s traditional allies and making them doubt the US \u201cnuclear umbrella\u201d that allegedly protects them. From Europe to Asia and the Middle East, more countries are now considering going nuclear, just as experts are advising them.\nTrump also appears close to breaking another nuclear taboo, the moratorium on explosive testing. If the US were to detonate nukes again, China, Russia and other countries would follow suit. And all major nuclear powers are designing new, more maneuverable and faster missiles to deliver death on earth, while looking to outer space as the next domain of warfare.\nMeanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions keep increasing and the weather is getting more destructive. And yet America, the world largest emitter historically and the second largest (after China) currently, has officially lost interest.\nAs the new National Security Strategy puts it, \u201cWe reject the disastrous \u2018climate change\u2019 and \u2018Net Zero\u2019 ideologies.\u201d The Trump administration boycotted the 30th climate conference of the United Nations in 2025 and will formally exit the Paris Agreement, a treaty to control global warming, on Jan. 27, 2026 \u2014 the very day when the Doomsday Clock will be reset.\nAlso in January, the US will formally quit the World Health Organization, whose role is in part to look out for, and save us from the next pandemic. At home, Trump has put antivaxxers and quacks in charge of public health. That segues to the other threat the Bulletin worried about last time: misinformation and disinformation. They are \u201cpotent threat multipliers,\u201d John Mecklin, the editor, wrote, because they \u201cblur the line between truth and falsehood.\u201d\nSince he said that, the blurring seems to have made us all but blind. The board will make its own decision about the clock. If you ask me, it feels like one minute to midnight \u2014 or less.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-12-26T00:01:14+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-12-25T17:03:30+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Bloomberg-445610484.jpg", "tags": [ "Andreas Kluth", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "WE\u2019RE ONCE AGAIN approaching the annual resetting of the Doomsday Clock. Last January, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a group of very smart people, moved the hands of their metaphorical clock to 89 seconds to midnight, where midnight represents doomsday, apocalypse, Armageddon, extinction, or whatever you want to call it." }, { "id": "/?p=718607", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/12/15/718607/the-hard-truth-behind-the-us-indo-pacific-strategy/", "title": "The hard truth behind the US-Indo Pacific strategy", "content_html": "By Mihir Sharma
\nMOST of the world knows how to respond to the US\u2019 new National Security Strategy. As my colleague Marc Champion has written, Russia loves it. Liberal Europeans are dismayed, and the Gulf monarchies overjoyed.
\nIn the rest of Asia \u2014 and what, until now, Washington has called the Indo-Pacific \u2014 the dominant emotion is uneasiness. There are words, phrases, and entire sections in the document that are exactly what we want to hear. But the underlying worldview is at odds with its rhetoric.
\nThe strategy promises that the US will build a military capable of deterrence in the First Island Chain and the Taiwan Strait, and an insistence that the South China Sea cannot be controlled by any one actor. There is a promise to defend \u201cglobal and regional balances of power,\u201d and to fight \u201cpredatory\u201d economic practices.
\nThe Indo-Pacific shares all these priorities, and many are relieved that the second Trump administration has taken the trouble to restate them. And yet there\u2019s disquiet, because some of these commitments look like they have been grafted on to a strategy that could push American policy in a fundamentally different direction.
\nThis is a startlingly ideological document even by the standards of today\u2019s Washington. It extends MAGA domestic obsessions \u2014 the border, DEI, climate denialism \u2014 beyond America\u2019s shores. US soft power is listed as one of its greatest assets, without the recognition that illiberalism and xenophobia erode its value daily.
\nBut MAGA\u2019s most dangerous export, as far as the security of the Indo-Pacific is concerned, is its distaste for the liberal order.
\nAmerica might not always have lived up to its ideals, but since the Second World War, it has defined its role in the world around promoting them \u2014 defending the practice of liberal democracy and evangelizing the benefits of global norms. They include shared prosperity, for both Americans and the citizens of partner nations.
\nIt is here that the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) makes its most impactful break with the past. The security and stability of the Indo-Pacific may remain a stated priority, but not because freedom and openness will enrich the region and keep it loyal to the rules-based order that benefits Americans more than anyone else. Instead, a much narrower and more fragile link is being drawn, between deterring China and Trump-era economic priorities: Big Tech profits, the securing of global resources, and a \u201crebalanced\u201d global economy that forces production back onshore.
\nThis link could snap at any time \u2014 particularly if Trump is deceived into thinking that cooperation with Xi Jinping won\u2019t cost the US in the short run, while confronting Beijing\u2019s designs in Asia might. He\u2019s certainly being tempted down that path: Nvidia Corp. being granted permission to sell high-end chips to China is not a good sign. Trump has said it\u2019s \u201cgood business,\u201d as long as the federal government gets a 25% cut. A short-term revenue boost is sufficient to risk America\u2019s tech leadership, apparently. How can we take the solemn pronouncements in the NSS seriously?
\nThe president\u2019s mercantilist instincts are well-known. This piece of paper reminds us that he also believes in another throwback theory, that of spheres of influence. The strategy states that \u201cthe outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations.\u201d
\nA revanchist Russia won\u2019t be the only beneficiary of this belief. China is larger, richer, and stronger than anyone else in its region; why not permit it a sphere of influence in Asia, if it gives Trump an economic deal \u201cbetter\u201d than his predecessors could extract? Beijing might break that promise later, but by then it will be some other administration\u2019s problem.
\nOver the past few decades, a bipartisan consensus had developed in Washington that China was a systemic rival, and not just another economic challenger. But those running policy in the second Trump term are arguing from different premises. It\u2019s centered on domestic economic considerations and not to preserve the world order. They do not fear the loss of global leadership; they might even welcome the dissolution of current economic arrangements. All they want is to contain the economic shocks accompanying China\u2019s rise.
\nWritten into the silences in this document is an unpalatable truth: An establishment in Washington that intimidates large companies, that conscripts tech into politics, that guards its domestic markets and weaponizes its trade will hardly see the Chinese system as an ideological threat.
\nThis is what unnerves Asian capitals. One day soon, MAGA\u2019s ideologues and populists may decide that granting Beijing overlordship of Asia will not affect jobs or profits in the US. From that day on, they will not lift a finger in defense of the Indo-Pacific.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Mihir Sharma\nMOST of the world knows how to respond to the US\u2019 new National Security Strategy. As my colleague Marc Champion has written, Russia loves it. Liberal Europeans are dismayed, and the Gulf monarchies overjoyed.\nIn the rest of Asia \u2014 and what, until now, Washington has called the Indo-Pacific \u2014 the dominant emotion is uneasiness. There are words, phrases, and entire sections in the document that are exactly what we want to hear. But the underlying worldview is at odds with its rhetoric.\nThe strategy promises that the US will build a military capable of deterrence in the First Island Chain and the Taiwan Strait, and an insistence that the South China Sea cannot be controlled by any one actor. There is a promise to defend \u201cglobal and regional balances of power,\u201d and to fight \u201cpredatory\u201d economic practices.\nThe Indo-Pacific shares all these priorities, and many are relieved that the second Trump administration has taken the trouble to restate them. And yet there\u2019s disquiet, because some of these commitments look like they have been grafted on to a strategy that could push American policy in a fundamentally different direction.\nThis is a startlingly ideological document even by the standards of today\u2019s Washington. It extends MAGA domestic obsessions \u2014 the border, DEI, climate denialism \u2014 beyond America\u2019s shores. US soft power is listed as one of its greatest assets, without the recognition that illiberalism and xenophobia erode its value daily.\nBut MAGA\u2019s most dangerous export, as far as the security of the Indo-Pacific is concerned, is its distaste for the liberal order.\nAmerica might not always have lived up to its ideals, but since the Second World War, it has defined its role in the world around promoting them \u2014 defending the practice of liberal democracy and evangelizing the benefits of global norms. They include shared prosperity, for both Americans and the citizens of partner nations.\nIt is here that the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) makes its most impactful break with the past. The security and stability of the Indo-Pacific may remain a stated priority, but not because freedom and openness will enrich the region and keep it loyal to the rules-based order that benefits Americans more than anyone else. Instead, a much narrower and more fragile link is being drawn, between deterring China and Trump-era economic priorities: Big Tech profits, the securing of global resources, and a \u201crebalanced\u201d global economy that forces production back onshore.\nThis link could snap at any time \u2014 particularly if Trump is deceived into thinking that cooperation with Xi Jinping won\u2019t cost the US in the short run, while confronting Beijing\u2019s designs in Asia might. He\u2019s certainly being tempted down that path: Nvidia Corp. being granted permission to sell high-end chips to China is not a good sign. Trump has said it\u2019s \u201cgood business,\u201d as long as the federal government gets a 25% cut. A short-term revenue boost is sufficient to risk America\u2019s tech leadership, apparently. How can we take the solemn pronouncements in the NSS seriously?\nThe president\u2019s mercantilist instincts are well-known. This piece of paper reminds us that he also believes in another throwback theory, that of spheres of influence. The strategy states that \u201cthe outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations.\u201d\nA revanchist Russia won\u2019t be the only beneficiary of this belief. China is larger, richer, and stronger than anyone else in its region; why not permit it a sphere of influence in Asia, if it gives Trump an economic deal \u201cbetter\u201d than his predecessors could extract? Beijing might break that promise later, but by then it will be some other administration\u2019s problem.\nOver the past few decades, a bipartisan consensus had developed in Washington that China was a systemic rival, and not just another economic challenger. But those running policy in the second Trump term are arguing from different premises. It\u2019s centered on domestic economic considerations and not to preserve the world order. They do not fear the loss of global leadership; they might even welcome the dissolution of current economic arrangements. All they want is to contain the economic shocks accompanying China\u2019s rise.\nWritten into the silences in this document is an unpalatable truth: An establishment in Washington that intimidates large companies, that conscripts tech into politics, that guards its domestic markets and weaponizes its trade will hardly see the Chinese system as an ideological threat.\nThis is what unnerves Asian capitals. One day soon, MAGA\u2019s ideologues and populists may decide that granting Beijing overlordship of Asia will not affect jobs or profits in the US. From that day on, they will not lift a finger in defense of the Indo-Pacific.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-12-15T00:04:26+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-12-14T18:57:37+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/US-Capitol.jpg", "tags": [ "Mihir Sharma", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "MOST of the world knows how to respond to the US\u2019 new National Security Strategy. As my colleague Marc Champion has written, Russia loves it. Liberal Europeans are dismayed, and the Gulf monarchies overjoyed." }, { "id": "/?p=710580", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/11/07/710580/vanke-is-reigniting-the-debate-china-wants-to-bury/", "title": "Vanke is reigniting the debate China wants to bury", "content_html": "By Shuli Ren
\nCHINA seems to find solutions to the world\u2019s thorniest economic problems. Its exports juggernaut is marching on despite President Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs. The domestic AI industry is booming without Nvidia Corp.\u2019s high-end chips.
\nBut once in a while, a dormant zombie comes back to haunt it, serving as a reminder to global investors that the government hasn\u2019t dealt with its most pressing economic issues even as the stock market rallies.
\nShenzhen-based China Vanke Co., one of the nation\u2019s biggest developers, is this zombie. Shenzhen Metro Group Co., a state-owned enterprise that is its largest shareholder with a 27% stake, seems to have had a change of heart lately on how much financial support it\u2019s willing to give.
\nThe urban rail operator, owned by the city government, is asking Vanke to retroactively pledge collateral for existing unsecured loans worth 20.4 billion yuan ($2.9 billion). It\u2019s also setting a cap on the loan facilities it will provide.
\nThis came as a shock. Throughout the year, Shenzhen Metro has been seen as the entity the city government will use to rescue Vanke. As of Oct. 30, roughly 70% of its loans were unsecured, in what investors perceive as the most concrete sign of an informal bailout.
\nThe burning question now is who will be responsible for Vanke\u2019s bills. The company needs to repay 5.7 billion yuan of public bonds in December, and another 7.7 billion yuan in the first half of 2026. As of June, the developer\u2019s cash pile was only able to cover 44% of its short-term debt, the lowest since data became available in 1992.
\nIt\u2019s understandable why Shenzhen Metro is balking. Vanke is growing into an ever-expanding black hole. Contracted sales are at risk of falling by 40% this year, creating a cash shortfall north of 100 billion yuan, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Without the Shenzhen government\u2019s support, Vanke may not be able to survive, and its bondholders could be staring at debt restructuring \u2014 or even worse, default.
\nFive years into a property downturn, Beijing has been using partial, unofficial bailouts to diffuse potential financial crisis caused by developer blowups. Shenzhen Metro, for instance, is widely seen as the lender of last resort to Vanke, even though its stake could classify the SOE as a passive investor.
\nUntil recently, this half-baked effort has worked reasonably well. The pace of corporate delinquencies has slowed. Meanwhile, the biggest developers that defaulted have largely hobbled toward the end of their restructuring, as creditors accept more onerous terms.
\nBeijing, in turn, is more than happy to declare mission accomplished. In recent policy meetings, the property recovery was put on the back burner, while technology and innovation took the center stage. Unlike last year, the government no longer pledges to \u201chalt the real estate market decline.\u201d
\nBut this big headache won\u2019t go away on its own. New-home sales extended a slump in October, falling 42% from a year earlier, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In other words, Vanke is the norm, not an exception.
\nMeanwhile, the latest kerfuffle is reigniting a debate over how Beijing plans to diffuse the developer time bomb. Some believe there\u2019s no too-big-to-fail in China, and that the likes of Vanke will eventually ask to extend their borrowings or spiral into a default. Others have more political stability in mind. In their view, the government doesn\u2019t want to rock the boat any further and will find another SOE to come in as a liquidity provider.
\nEither way, Shenzhen\u2019s reluctance to give unconditional love to Vanke shows that China\u2019s real estate woes are deepening. Beijing can\u2019t just turn the page yet.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION\u00a0
\n", "content_text": "By Shuli Ren\nCHINA seems to find solutions to the world\u2019s thorniest economic problems. Its exports juggernaut is marching on despite President Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs. The domestic AI industry is booming without Nvidia Corp.\u2019s high-end chips. \nBut once in a while, a dormant zombie comes back to haunt it, serving as a reminder to global investors that the government hasn\u2019t dealt with its most pressing economic issues even as the stock market rallies.\nShenzhen-based China Vanke Co., one of the nation\u2019s biggest developers, is this zombie. Shenzhen Metro Group Co., a state-owned enterprise that is its largest shareholder with a 27% stake, seems to have had a change of heart lately on how much financial support it\u2019s willing to give.\nThe urban rail operator, owned by the city government, is asking Vanke to retroactively pledge collateral for existing unsecured loans worth 20.4 billion yuan ($2.9 billion). It\u2019s also setting a cap on the loan facilities it will provide.\nThis came as a shock. Throughout the year, Shenzhen Metro has been seen as the entity the city government will use to rescue Vanke. As of Oct. 30, roughly 70% of its loans were unsecured, in what investors perceive as the most concrete sign of an informal bailout.\nThe burning question now is who will be responsible for Vanke\u2019s bills. The company needs to repay 5.7 billion yuan of public bonds in December, and another 7.7 billion yuan in the first half of 2026. As of June, the developer\u2019s cash pile was only able to cover 44% of its short-term debt, the lowest since data became available in 1992.\nIt\u2019s understandable why Shenzhen Metro is balking. Vanke is growing into an ever-expanding black hole. Contracted sales are at risk of falling by 40% this year, creating a cash shortfall north of 100 billion yuan, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Without the Shenzhen government\u2019s support, Vanke may not be able to survive, and its bondholders could be staring at debt restructuring \u2014 or even worse, default. \nFive years into a property downturn, Beijing has been using partial, unofficial bailouts to diffuse potential financial crisis caused by developer blowups. Shenzhen Metro, for instance, is widely seen as the lender of last resort to Vanke, even though its stake could classify the SOE as a passive investor. \nUntil recently, this half-baked effort has worked reasonably well. The pace of corporate delinquencies has slowed. Meanwhile, the biggest developers that defaulted have largely hobbled toward the end of their restructuring, as creditors accept more onerous terms.\nBeijing, in turn, is more than happy to declare mission accomplished. In recent policy meetings, the property recovery was put on the back burner, while technology and innovation took the center stage. Unlike last year, the government no longer pledges to \u201chalt the real estate market decline.\u201d\nBut this big headache won\u2019t go away on its own. New-home sales extended a slump in October, falling 42% from a year earlier, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In other words, Vanke is the norm, not an exception.\nMeanwhile, the latest kerfuffle is reigniting a debate over how Beijing plans to diffuse the developer time bomb. Some believe there\u2019s no too-big-to-fail in China, and that the likes of Vanke will eventually ask to extend their borrowings or spiral into a default. Others have more political stability in mind. In their view, the government doesn\u2019t want to rock the boat any further and will find another SOE to come in as a liquidity provider.\nEither way, Shenzhen\u2019s reluctance to give unconditional love to Vanke shows that China\u2019s real estate woes are deepening. Beijing can\u2019t just turn the page yet.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION\u00a0", "date_published": "2025-11-07T00:01:22+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-11-06T19:37:47+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Vanke.jpg", "tags": [ "Shuli Ren", "Bloomberg", "Opinion" ], "summary": "CHINA seems to find solutions to the world\u2019s thorniest economic problems. Its exports juggernaut is marching on despite President Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs. The domestic AI industry is booming without Nvidia Corp.\u2019s high-end chips." }, { "id": "/?p=703869", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/10/09/703869/hubris-at-the-top-could-start-a-major-war/", "title": "Hubris at the top could start a major war", "content_html": "By Andreas Klutch
\nAS THE WORLD (including the self-styled peacemaker-in-chief in the White House) holds its breath for the announcement of this year\u2019s Nobel Peace Prize, spare a moment to ponder the growing risk of war, including world war.
\nEven a cursory scan of today\u2019s major military powers suggests that both their leaders and policy elites are dangerously overconfident, and could \u2014 as in 1914, say \u2014 sleepwalk into disaster out of what international-relations scholars call mutual optimism.
\nIf you\u2019re not worried yet, consider a study, the largest and most international of its kind, that comes to exactly this conclusion. Jeffrey Friedman at Dartmouth College just published the findings of surveys he\u2019s been giving (between roughly 2016 and 2022) to about 2,000 national-security officials from more than 40 Western countries \u2014 men and women, North Americans and Europeans, civilians and service members.
\nFriedman\u2019s questions took the form of statements to which the officials had to attach probabilities. A few samples: The United States is the only country in the world that has stealth aircraft. (The correct answer is no.) There are more active-duty military personnel in the European Union than in Russia (yes). Jihadi terrorists in the preceding years killed more people in France than in the US (yes). There are more refugees from Syria than from Venezuela (at the time, yes).
\nStarting in 2020, Friedman told me, he started asking every question in two versions. For example, half of the participants received this variant: \u201cWhat are the chances that Boko Haram has killed more civilians than ISIS since 2010?\u201d The other half got: \u201cWhat are the chances that ISIS has killed more civilians than Boko Haram since 2010?\u201d
\nAs you\u2019ve guessed, Friedman wasn\u2019t after quizzing the officials\u2019 knowledge, but after gauging what I think of as their \u201cintellectual humility\u201d (or its absence, hubris). And the data were clear: Participants were wildly overconfident.
\nWhen participants estimated that statements had a 90% chance of being true, those statements were true just 58% of the time \u2014 basically, a coin flip. Even when participants felt completely certain \u2014 assigning a zero or 100% chance \u2014 they were wrong more than 25% of the time. There was no difference between men and women, Americans and Europeans, brass and civilians.
\nMoreover, the participants weren\u2019t just wrong randomly, but prone to false positives in particular \u2014 that was the point of flipping the questions. You\u2019d think that if you ask a large number of rational experts to assign probabilities to either ISIS or Boko Haram being more lethal than the other, the averages should sum to 100%. But they consistently (for 244 of the 280 questions in the experiment) added up to much more.
\nIn other contexts, such bias toward false positives suggests that people are more likely, say, to send an innocent person to prison than to set a guilty person free.
\nIn international relations it helps explain, for example, why advisers in the White House in 2002 felt certain that Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons (when he wasn\u2019t) and were confident that they could not only topple his regime but also stabilize and democratize Iraq quickly (when they couldn\u2019t).
\nIn venturing hypotheses for this perilous cognitive asymmetry, Friedman points to the work of psychologists such as the late Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, the world champions of exposing cognitive biases. One is the availability heuristic, our human tendency to exaggerate the probability of whatever comes readily to mind, and to brush aside other possibilities.
\nIn 2002, for example, it was much easier to imagine that Saddam was importing aluminum tubes to build centrifuges for enriching uranium than to consider that he just wanted the metal to make conventional rockets (which turned out to be the case) or something else entirely.
\nAnother trap is the so-called acquiescence bias, our tendency to say yes before even considering the content of a proposition. This gets worse by multiples when you add groupthink, peer pressure, or outright fear. That\u2019s why authoritarian regimes tend to err more disastrously than open societies do. Think of Vladimir Putin\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which his counsellors and generals assured him would take a matter of days.
\nThe bad news that follows from Friedman\u2019s research is twofold. First, memories of the last world war have faded, and the current generation of leaders and experts \u2014 from China and Russia to the US and elsewhere \u2014 is showing signs of waning humility and growing hubris, similar to European leaders in the summer of 1914.
\nSecond, the mightiest military power on the planet, the United States, is moving away from a culture of open and objective analysis and toward groupthink and motivated reasoning based on loyalty tests to the leader \u2014 what one might call a war on expertise.
\nThere\u2019s also good news, though. Friedman discovered in his surveys that you can dramatically boost humility and improve results by giving officials just two minutes of training, in effect priming them to be aware of their biases.
\nThe stakes in international relations are often war and peace, life and death. Consider some of the questions that the White House currently has to grapple with. Did the US in fact \u201cobliterate\u201d Iran\u2019s nuclear program, or merely set it back for a while? Is Russia waging hybrid war against European NATO countries only to harass the alliance, or to test its vulnerabilities for a full-bore attack? Does North Korea have plans to attack the South, or China to seize Taiwan? If it comes to war, who would be more likely to win?
\nHere are my suggested lessons from Friedman\u2019s research to leaders of all countries: First, value expertise and recognize that its job is to tell truth to power, not to flatter you. Second, don\u2019t allow advisers to present single scenarios, but insist on alternative hypotheses \u2014 then flip them, so that positives become negatives.
\nAbove all, don\u2019t reward confidence (and certainly not showmanship) among your officials, but humility. And always, always, always stay humble yourself.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Andreas Klutch\nAS THE WORLD (including the self-styled peacemaker-in-chief in the White House) holds its breath for the announcement of this year\u2019s Nobel Peace Prize, spare a moment to ponder the growing risk of war, including world war.\nEven a cursory scan of today\u2019s major military powers suggests that both their leaders and policy elites are dangerously overconfident, and could \u2014 as in 1914, say \u2014 sleepwalk into disaster out of what international-relations scholars call mutual optimism.\nIf you\u2019re not worried yet, consider a study, the largest and most international of its kind, that comes to exactly this conclusion. Jeffrey Friedman at Dartmouth College just published the findings of surveys he\u2019s been giving (between roughly 2016 and 2022) to about 2,000 national-security officials from more than 40 Western countries \u2014 men and women, North Americans and Europeans, civilians and service members.\nFriedman\u2019s questions took the form of statements to which the officials had to attach probabilities. A few samples: The United States is the only country in the world that has stealth aircraft. (The correct answer is no.) There are more active-duty military personnel in the European Union than in Russia (yes). Jihadi terrorists in the preceding years killed more people in France than in the US (yes). There are more refugees from Syria than from Venezuela (at the time, yes).\nStarting in 2020, Friedman told me, he started asking every question in two versions. For example, half of the participants received this variant: \u201cWhat are the chances that Boko Haram has killed more civilians than ISIS since 2010?\u201d The other half got: \u201cWhat are the chances that ISIS has killed more civilians than Boko Haram since 2010?\u201d\nAs you\u2019ve guessed, Friedman wasn\u2019t after quizzing the officials\u2019 knowledge, but after gauging what I think of as their \u201cintellectual humility\u201d (or its absence, hubris). And the data were clear: Participants were wildly overconfident.\nWhen participants estimated that statements had a 90% chance of being true, those statements were true just 58% of the time \u2014 basically, a coin flip. Even when participants felt completely certain \u2014 assigning a zero or 100% chance \u2014 they were wrong more than 25% of the time. There was no difference between men and women, Americans and Europeans, brass and civilians.\nMoreover, the participants weren\u2019t just wrong randomly, but prone to false positives in particular \u2014 that was the point of flipping the questions. You\u2019d think that if you ask a large number of rational experts to assign probabilities to either ISIS or Boko Haram being more lethal than the other, the averages should sum to 100%. But they consistently (for 244 of the 280 questions in the experiment) added up to much more.\nIn other contexts, such bias toward false positives suggests that people are more likely, say, to send an innocent person to prison than to set a guilty person free.\nIn international relations it helps explain, for example, why advisers in the White House in 2002 felt certain that Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons (when he wasn\u2019t) and were confident that they could not only topple his regime but also stabilize and democratize Iraq quickly (when they couldn\u2019t).\nIn venturing hypotheses for this perilous cognitive asymmetry, Friedman points to the work of psychologists such as the late Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, the world champions of exposing cognitive biases. One is the availability heuristic, our human tendency to exaggerate the probability of whatever comes readily to mind, and to brush aside other possibilities.\nIn 2002, for example, it was much easier to imagine that Saddam was importing aluminum tubes to build centrifuges for enriching uranium than to consider that he just wanted the metal to make conventional rockets (which turned out to be the case) or something else entirely.\nAnother trap is the so-called acquiescence bias, our tendency to say yes before even considering the content of a proposition. This gets worse by multiples when you add groupthink, peer pressure, or outright fear. That\u2019s why authoritarian regimes tend to err more disastrously than open societies do. Think of Vladimir Putin\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which his counsellors and generals assured him would take a matter of days.\nThe bad news that follows from Friedman\u2019s research is twofold. First, memories of the last world war have faded, and the current generation of leaders and experts \u2014 from China and Russia to the US and elsewhere \u2014 is showing signs of waning humility and growing hubris, similar to European leaders in the summer of 1914.\nSecond, the mightiest military power on the planet, the United States, is moving away from a culture of open and objective analysis and toward groupthink and motivated reasoning based on loyalty tests to the leader \u2014 what one might call a war on expertise.\nThere\u2019s also good news, though. Friedman discovered in his surveys that you can dramatically boost humility and improve results by giving officials just two minutes of training, in effect priming them to be aware of their biases.\nThe stakes in international relations are often war and peace, life and death. Consider some of the questions that the White House currently has to grapple with. Did the US in fact \u201cobliterate\u201d Iran\u2019s nuclear program, or merely set it back for a while? Is Russia waging hybrid war against European NATO countries only to harass the alliance, or to test its vulnerabilities for a full-bore attack? Does North Korea have plans to attack the South, or China to seize Taiwan? If it comes to war, who would be more likely to win?\nHere are my suggested lessons from Friedman\u2019s research to leaders of all countries: First, value expertise and recognize that its job is to tell truth to power, not to flatter you. Second, don\u2019t allow advisers to present single scenarios, but insist on alternative hypotheses \u2014 then flip them, so that positives become negatives.\nAbove all, don\u2019t reward confidence (and certainly not showmanship) among your officials, but humility. And always, always, always stay humble yourself.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-10-09T00:04:00+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-10-08T19:00:56+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Gold-and-silver-chess-on-chess-board.jpg", "tags": [ "Andreas Klutch", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "AS THE WORLD (including the self-styled peacemaker-in-chief in the White House) holds its breath for the announcement of this year\u2019s Nobel Peace Prize, spare a moment to ponder the growing risk of war, including world war." }, { "id": "/?p=697905", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/09/12/697905/its-business-as-usual-in-asia-after-ice-raids/", "title": "It\u2019s business as usual in Asia after ICE raids", "content_html": "By Juliana Liu
\nTO SOOTHE the ruffled feathers of a long-time ally, the Trump administration should waste no time working with Seoul to create a new visa category for skilled workers. That would get the $7.6-billion South Korean-owned manufacturing plant in Georgia that was raided by ICE up and running again, restoring a modicum of trust between the two countries.
\nAsian companies have committed, at least on paper, to hundreds of billions of dollars in MAGA projects. Despite concerns about a potential backlash, they\u2019ve so far remained calm and focused, no matter what Washington has thrown at them \u2014 even humiliating images of their countrymen paraded in chains. From Seoul to Taipei to Tokyo, pragmatism by CEOs and political leaders has been the order of the day. The US remains an irreplaceable market.
\nFor Hyundai Motor Co. and LG Energy Solution Ltd. \u2014 50-50 joint venture partners in the EV battery plant \u2014 expanding in the US is a no brainer. In July, Hyundai posted a solid quarter of earnings, buoyed by strong sales of EVs and hybrid cars in North America. Last year, the Korean carmaker and its affiliate Kia were together the fourth-biggest-selling group in the US, with 1.7 million deliveries, according to Motor Intelligence.
\nIn March, Hyundai announced an investment of $21 billion in the US over the next three years to expand production capacity. The factories would help it avoid President Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs on vehicles and steel. Indirectly, they also give Hyundai an edge over rivals like Ford Motor Co. that import some of their cars from Mexico.
\nFor LG Energy, the rationale for staying is no less compelling. The battery maker, which powers EVs and storage systems like Tesla\u2019s Megapacks, is building or running seven plants in the US and one in Canada. Each costs $4 billion to $5 billion. Despite some ups and downs in the clean-power industry, its North America President Bob Lee says he\u2019s still very bullish in the long run.
\nBut it\u2019s clear something has to change. South Korean firms have fessed up to sending skilled workers to the US on improper temporary visas to help build complex manufacturing plants. Now that the workaround is no longer tolerated, a more permanent solution in the form of short-term permits needs to be found, similar to what the US offers citizens of Singapore and Australia.
\nIt\u2019s worth noting that, for both Hyundai and LG Energy, part of the reason for their success in America is the absence of meaningful competition from Chinese rivals. Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., the world\u2019s largest battery maker, dwarfs LG Energy globally, but regulatory hurdles in the US effectively preclude it doing much business there. As for Hyundai, once a contender in the world\u2019s largest auto market, its sales languished in 33rd place last year, a victim of intense competition. Chinese cars, too, face barriers to entry in the US.
\nChina used to be a bread-and-butter market for Seoul\u2019s top companies. But as its own homegrown champions, from batteries to cellphones, have risen, South Korean firms have sought refuge elsewhere. Against this background, it\u2019s no surprise that President Lee Jae Myung\u2019s government has been so measured.
\nInstead of blasting the US about the ICE raid, which caused a loss of face for the young Seoul administration, the foreign ministry called the situation \u201cregrettable\u201d and requested the quick return of the detainees. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun is expected to meet Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday in Washington.
\nIt\u2019s not the first time an Asian leader has had to tap dance after a White House surprise.
\nIn March, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te was also forced to do damage control after an unexpected announcement by the Trump administration that chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) \u2014 the world\u2019s largest \u2014 was investing $100 billion in the US. Lai appeared next to the firm\u2019s Chief Executive Officer C.C. Wei in Taipei trying to reassure the public.
\nTheir concern? That TSMC\u2019s outlay would undermine its commitment to Taiwan. Opposition politician and former President Ma Ying-jeou wasted no time calling the landmark venture a \u201cprotection fee,\u201d an idea that seemed to be broadly accepted by the public.
\nHowever, Lai\u2019s government hasn\u2019t faced any lasting criticism. Compared to South Korea, a larger market with a more sizeable group of corporates, Taiwan confers a great deal of importance on TSMC: Its success is perceived to offer protection from a possible invasion by China.
\nLike Seoul, there\u2019s a feeling in Taipei and other global capitals that there are good reasons for behaving like it\u2019s business as usual, no matter what the Trump administration does \u2014 their version of \u201cKeep Calm and Carry On.\u201d
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Juliana Liu\nTO SOOTHE the ruffled feathers of a long-time ally, the Trump administration should waste no time working with Seoul to create a new visa category for skilled workers. That would get the $7.6-billion South Korean-owned manufacturing plant in Georgia that was raided by ICE up and running again, restoring a modicum of trust between the two countries.\nAsian companies have committed, at least on paper, to hundreds of billions of dollars in MAGA projects. Despite concerns about a potential backlash, they\u2019ve so far remained calm and focused, no matter what Washington has thrown at them \u2014 even humiliating images of their countrymen paraded in chains. From Seoul to Taipei to Tokyo, pragmatism by CEOs and political leaders has been the order of the day. The US remains an irreplaceable market.\nFor Hyundai Motor Co. and LG Energy Solution Ltd. \u2014 50-50 joint venture partners in the EV battery plant \u2014 expanding in the US is a no brainer. In July, Hyundai posted a solid quarter of earnings, buoyed by strong sales of EVs and hybrid cars in North America. Last year, the Korean carmaker and its affiliate Kia were together the fourth-biggest-selling group in the US, with 1.7 million deliveries, according to Motor Intelligence.\nIn March, Hyundai announced an investment of $21 billion in the US over the next three years to expand production capacity. The factories would help it avoid President Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs on vehicles and steel. Indirectly, they also give Hyundai an edge over rivals like Ford Motor Co. that import some of their cars from Mexico.\nFor LG Energy, the rationale for staying is no less compelling. The battery maker, which powers EVs and storage systems like Tesla\u2019s Megapacks, is building or running seven plants in the US and one in Canada. Each costs $4 billion to $5 billion. Despite some ups and downs in the clean-power industry, its North America President Bob Lee says he\u2019s still very bullish in the long run.\nBut it\u2019s clear something has to change. South Korean firms have fessed up to sending skilled workers to the US on improper temporary visas to help build complex manufacturing plants. Now that the workaround is no longer tolerated, a more permanent solution in the form of short-term permits needs to be found, similar to what the US offers citizens of Singapore and Australia. \nIt\u2019s worth noting that, for both Hyundai and LG Energy, part of the reason for their success in America is the absence of meaningful competition from Chinese rivals. Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., the world\u2019s largest battery maker, dwarfs LG Energy globally, but regulatory hurdles in the US effectively preclude it doing much business there. As for Hyundai, once a contender in the world\u2019s largest auto market, its sales languished in 33rd place last year, a victim of intense competition. Chinese cars, too, face barriers to entry in the US.\nChina used to be a bread-and-butter market for Seoul\u2019s top companies. But as its own homegrown champions, from batteries to cellphones, have risen, South Korean firms have sought refuge elsewhere. Against this background, it\u2019s no surprise that President Lee Jae Myung\u2019s government has been so measured.\nInstead of blasting the US about the ICE raid, which caused a loss of face for the young Seoul administration, the foreign ministry called the situation \u201cregrettable\u201d and requested the quick return of the detainees. Foreign Minister Cho Hyun is expected to meet Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday in Washington.\nIt\u2019s not the first time an Asian leader has had to tap dance after a White House surprise.\nIn March, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te was also forced to do damage control after an unexpected announcement by the Trump administration that chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) \u2014 the world\u2019s largest \u2014 was investing $100 billion in the US. Lai appeared next to the firm\u2019s Chief Executive Officer C.C. Wei in Taipei trying to reassure the public.\nTheir concern? That TSMC\u2019s outlay would undermine its commitment to Taiwan. Opposition politician and former President Ma Ying-jeou wasted no time calling the landmark venture a \u201cprotection fee,\u201d an idea that seemed to be broadly accepted by the public.\nHowever, Lai\u2019s government hasn\u2019t faced any lasting criticism. Compared to South Korea, a larger market with a more sizeable group of corporates, Taiwan confers a great deal of importance on TSMC: Its success is perceived to offer protection from a possible invasion by China.\nLike Seoul, there\u2019s a feeling in Taipei and other global capitals that there are good reasons for behaving like it\u2019s business as usual, no matter what the Trump administration does \u2014 their version of \u201cKeep Calm and Carry On.\u201d\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-09-12T00:03:30+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-09-11T19:26:14+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/LGES_IAA-exhibition-booth.jpg", "tags": [ "BloombergMake primary", "Juliana Liu", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "TO SOOTHE the ruffled feathers of a long-time ally, the Trump administration should waste no time working with Seoul to create a new visa category for skilled workers. That would get the $7.6-billion South Korean-owned manufacturing plant in Georgia that was raided by ICE up and running again, restoring a modicum of trust between the two countries." }, { "id": "/?p=687338", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/07/25/687338/mr-japan-bends-the-knee-and-falls-on-his-sword/", "title": "\u2018Mr. Japan\u2019 bends the knee \u2014 and falls on his sword", "content_html": "By Gearoid Reidy
\n\u201cMR. JAPAN\u201d finally has his trade deal, after three months of talks. It looks like it will be his final act.
\nAfter a third successive blow from the Japanese electorate, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba blinked in trade talks with the US. He spent months seeking a complete removal of the levies that President Donald Trump held over the country, including those already imposed on cars.
\n\u201cWe will never accept tariffs, especially on autos,\u201d Ishiba said in May, declaring the issue his red line. With vehicles long the main source of Trump\u2019s ire \u2014 perhaps understandably, given that they account for more than three-quarters of the trade deficit \u2014 getting the president to back down was always going to be a tough ask, especially considering Japan\u2019s lack of leverage.
\nBut after Sunday\u2019s hammering in the upper house election, which has left the prime minister with a minority in both houses of parliament and arguably the worst electoral record of any Liberal Democratic Party leader in history, Ishiba has seemingly accepted his fate. That\u2019s why he agreed to the deal that will include 15% tariffs across the board, including on cars.
\nWith this last piece of business concluded, local media indicates that less than a year into his term, Ishiba will soon announce his resignation. (The prime minister has subsequently denied the reports, which were made by multiple independent outlets.)
\nTrade envoy and close aide Ryosei Akazawa painted a positive picture. It was \u201cmission completed\u201d in the tariff talks, he cheerfully said in a post on X, pointing to a picture hung in the White House of Ishiba and Trump speaking at the Group of Seven meeting in Canada. He also denied any link between the agreement and the election results.
\nCertainly markets were pleased, with automakers surging after being freed from months of uncertainty. Toyota Motor Corp. rose by the most in nearly 40 years; the Topix headed for an all-time high.
\nAnd perhaps it\u2019s as good a deal as Japan could expect. As with all these agreements, the devil is in the details: It still puts a 15% levy across the board on imports. While that\u2019s less than the 25% \u201creciprocal\u201d tariff that was threatened, and, most importantly, less than the 25% already imposed on auto imports in May, it\u2019ll still be damaging for exporters. There\u2019s an odd promise of $550 billion in investment in the US, and a more logical agreement for Japan to buy more US rice. The part about Japan opening \u201cto trade including cars and trucks\u201d is confusing, given that there are no barriers currently in place. But perhaps Ishiba has done what he should have in the beginning, and simply told Trump what he wants to hear \u2014 knowing it won\u2019t, indeed can\u2019t, be delivered.
\nBut the agreement also removes the last piece of leverage the prime minister had left \u2014 the \u201cnational crisis\u201d he said must be prioritized ahead of infighting. That\u2019s been enough to keep the target off his back, until now. But after Sunday\u2019s results, it\u2019s clear he can\u2019t be allowed to do any more harm.
\nIn just 10 months, his weak leadership has resulted in an unstable political landscape that threatens to damage Japan for years. Conservative voters have deserted the LDP in droves \u2014 and headed to some disturbingly populist places. The landscape is so fractured that there also isn\u2019t a viable opposition to take over, meaning the forecast is for parliamentary gridlock.
\nThat\u2019s why the LDP needs to win voters back. With the trade deal about to be done, Ishiba should leave as soon as possible. Many conservatives are eyeing the anniversary of the end of World War II next month, fearing he will further alienate right-leaning voters by undoing the groundbreaking statement by the late Shinzo Abe on the 70th anniversary a decade ago.*
\nIt\u2019s not Ishiba\u2019s fault that relations with the US have been so tarnished. That blame lies with Trump. And by removing the uncertainty around tariffs, he will finally have done some good for the country.
\nBut he will leave Japan in a weaker position than when he took office \u2014 and in search of direction once again.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n*Abe affirmed past apologies for the country\u2019s wartime conduct while offering a more forward-looking vision of relations with its Asian neighbors.
\n", "content_text": "By Gearoid Reidy\n\u201cMR. JAPAN\u201d finally has his trade deal, after three months of talks. It looks like it will be his final act.\nAfter a third successive blow from the Japanese electorate, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba blinked in trade talks with the US. He spent months seeking a complete removal of the levies that President Donald Trump held over the country, including those already imposed on cars.\n\u201cWe will never accept tariffs, especially on autos,\u201d Ishiba said in May, declaring the issue his red line. With vehicles long the main source of Trump\u2019s ire \u2014 perhaps understandably, given that they account for more than three-quarters of the trade deficit \u2014 getting the president to back down was always going to be a tough ask, especially considering Japan\u2019s lack of leverage. \nBut after Sunday\u2019s hammering in the upper house election, which has left the prime minister with a minority in both houses of parliament and arguably the worst electoral record of any Liberal Democratic Party leader in history, Ishiba has seemingly accepted his fate. That\u2019s why he agreed to the deal that will include 15% tariffs across the board, including on cars.\nWith this last piece of business concluded, local media indicates that less than a year into his term, Ishiba will soon announce his resignation. (The prime minister has subsequently denied the reports, which were made by multiple independent outlets.)\nTrade envoy and close aide Ryosei Akazawa painted a positive picture. It was \u201cmission completed\u201d in the tariff talks, he cheerfully said in a post on X, pointing to a picture hung in the White House of Ishiba and Trump speaking at the Group of Seven meeting in Canada. He also denied any link between the agreement and the election results.\nCertainly markets were pleased, with automakers surging after being freed from months of uncertainty. Toyota Motor Corp. rose by the most in nearly 40 years; the Topix headed for an all-time high.\nAnd perhaps it\u2019s as good a deal as Japan could expect. As with all these agreements, the devil is in the details: It still puts a 15% levy across the board on imports. While that\u2019s less than the 25% \u201creciprocal\u201d tariff that was threatened, and, most importantly, less than the 25% already imposed on auto imports in May, it\u2019ll still be damaging for exporters. There\u2019s an odd promise of $550 billion in investment in the US, and a more logical agreement for Japan to buy more US rice. The part about Japan opening \u201cto trade including cars and trucks\u201d is confusing, given that there are no barriers currently in place. But perhaps Ishiba has done what he should have in the beginning, and simply told Trump what he wants to hear \u2014 knowing it won\u2019t, indeed can\u2019t, be delivered. \nBut the agreement also removes the last piece of leverage the prime minister had left \u2014 the \u201cnational crisis\u201d he said must be prioritized ahead of infighting. That\u2019s been enough to keep the target off his back, until now. But after Sunday\u2019s results, it\u2019s clear he can\u2019t be allowed to do any more harm. \nIn just 10 months, his weak leadership has resulted in an unstable political landscape that threatens to damage Japan for years. Conservative voters have deserted the LDP in droves \u2014 and headed to some disturbingly populist places. The landscape is so fractured that there also isn\u2019t a viable opposition to take over, meaning the forecast is for parliamentary gridlock. \nThat\u2019s why the LDP needs to win voters back. With the trade deal about to be done, Ishiba should leave as soon as possible. Many conservatives are eyeing the anniversary of the end of World War II next month, fearing he will further alienate right-leaning voters by undoing the groundbreaking statement by the late Shinzo Abe on the 70th anniversary a decade ago.*\nIt\u2019s not Ishiba\u2019s fault that relations with the US have been so tarnished. That blame lies with Trump. And by removing the uncertainty around tariffs, he will finally have done some good for the country.\nBut he will leave Japan in a weaker position than when he took office \u2014 and in search of direction once again.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION\n*Abe affirmed past apologies for the country\u2019s wartime conduct while offering a more forward-looking vision of relations with its Asian neighbors.", "date_published": "2025-07-25T00:01:56+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-07-24T18:27:59+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Shigeru_Ishiba_20250602.jpg", "tags": [ "Gearoid Reidy", "Bloomberg", "Opinion" ], "summary": "\u201cMR. JAPAN\u201d finally has his trade deal, after three months of talks. It looks like it will be his final act." }, { "id": "/?p=685846", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/07/18/685846/manny-pacquiaos-poignant-perseverance-in-the-boxing-ring/", "title": "Manny Pacquiao\u2019s poignant perseverance in the boxing ring", "content_html": "By Howard Chua-Eoan
\nI SHOULDN\u2019T be so chagrined that Manny Pacquiao is re-entering a Las Vegas boxing ring this weekend for a professional fight at the age of 46. After all, I recently wrote a meditation on persevering through the ravages of age and physical decline. I\u2019ve admired Pacquiao for years and trailed him around New York City for a Time magazine cover story in 2009. He was the most recognizable Filipino on earth at the time, a distinction that everyone from the islands \u2014 where I was born \u2014 was proud.
\nAnd there was so much to be proud of. Born into extreme poverty on the island of Mindanao, he was \u2014 at the height of his career \u2014 a whirlwind of prowess and prosperity, with the relentless voracity of the videogame that became his nickname: Pac-Man. One estimate has his net worth at more than $200 million, out of earnings from the sport and endorsements as high as half-a-billion dollars. His 2015 battle with nemesis Floyd Mayweather, Jr. still holds the record for most pay-per-view sales: 4.6 million. He is literally pound-for-pound the greatest pugilist of our time: the only boxer in history to hold championships in eight different weight classes. When I reported on him in 2009, he\u2019d already won six and was preparing to win his seventh \u2014 in the welterweight division. That was 40 pounds (640 ounces, or 18.1 kilograms) heavier than the 107-pound flyweight class he began his career with 11 years before. He claimed the eighth \u2014 the super welterweight, which has a top limit of 154 pounds \u2014 in 2019 when he was 40 years old.
\nSo why should I be vexed by his return to the ring at 46?
\nIt\u2019s not really about age. In 1994, a 45-year-old George Foreman retook the heavyweight championship \u2014 which he first won in 1973 \u2014 by defeating 26-year-old Michael Moorer. Pacquiao \u2014 who had retired at the end of 2021 \u2014will be facing Mexican-American Mario Barrios, who is 30, for a fresh chance at the welterweight crown. If he wins, he\u2019ll be the oldest ever to hold it. And if he does, will he then aim for the overall boxing record set by Bernard Hopkins, Jr., who won a heavyweight title at the age of 49? As a sexagenarian, I\u2019m all for aging underdogs getting the upper hand.
\nI\u2019m wary because there\u2019s more than a hint of desperation about this \u2014 the kind of emotion that shouldn\u2019t cling to such an illustrious career. From 2010 to earlier this year, Pacquiao was also one of the most famous politicians in the Philippines, serving as congressman and then senator. He even ran for president in 2022. He\u2019d been drawn to politics long before then: It was practically a traditional career move for the nation\u2019s successful actors, singers, athletes, and businesspeople. He won a lot of votes, but he wasn\u2019t particularly good at politics, swinging from one alliance to another without any real benefit, pounded by critics from all sides for his unfamiliarity with bureaucracy and backroom machinations, committing avoidable gaffe after gaffe. His celebrity and active boxing career for much of this period also made him an absentee legislator \u2014 a record that probably doomed his run for the presidency and certainly his shot for a second senate term in May of this year. A few days after that last campaign, he announced he was coming out of retirement to fight Barrios.
\nSince then, there\u2019s been enough melodrama to qualify for a Rocky sequel. As he prepared for the Barrios bout, his son Jimuel told him that he too was going to be a pro boxer. That stunned Pacquiao, who slugged his way from destitution to riches to be able to send his kids to the best schools. He didn\u2019t want to see them struggle the way he did. At first, Jimuel\u2019s debut fight was going to be a warmup to his father\u2019s match. But Pacquiao last week said he didn\u2019t want the distraction of seeing his eldest son duke it out before he himself stepped into the ring, postponing his kid\u2019s bout until September or October.
\nMeanwhile, Freddy Roach \u2014 the trainer whose acumen helped establish Pacquiao\u2019s long reign as a lord of the ring \u2014 has rejoined the boxer. There\u2019d been a couple of years of estrangement after he was summarily dismissed in the wake of a 2018 defeat. The relationship is particularly poignant. In 2010, Pacquiao\u2019s opponent Antonio Margarito mocked Roach, who has Parkinson\u2019s disease. The punishment the Filipino meted out in revenge is legendary. Margarito lost practically every round and was hospitalized afterward for facial surgery. In 2013, Brandon Rios also made fun of Roach; Pacquiao sent him packing after a unanimous decision.
\nIronically, Roach has always been cautious about Pacquiao\u2019s fights. Even in 2009, he was saying the boxer only had two or three more fights left in him. He went on to battle 17 more times. But age was already catching up with Pacquiao. Mayweather may have won his epic match against Pacquiao by playing hard-to-get; by the time they eventually touched gloves, both men were past their primes, but Pacquiao was more past than Mayweather. He lost by unanimous decision. The Filipino seemed even less agile in 2021 when he lost to Yordenis Ugas, the defeat that prompted his retirement.
\nThe likelihood is that Pacquiao \u2014 win or lose \u2014 will take home about $5 million from this match.* That\u2019s chump change to the boxing legend. Pacquiao told Roach it\u2019s about history, not money. \u201c\u2018I just have one more time in me,\u2019\u201d the trainer quotes the fighter as saying. \u201c\u2018I just want to show the world that I was for real and I am for real.\u2019\u201d
\nEveryone knows that, Manny. I\u2019ll be rooting for you come Saturday in Vegas. But how much history can one person make before becoming history in the wrong way?
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n*Barrios\u2019 take home is probably much smaller \u2014 $1 million or so \u2014 because Pacquiao is the draw.
\n", "content_text": "By Howard Chua-Eoan\nI SHOULDN\u2019T be so chagrined that Manny Pacquiao is re-entering a Las Vegas boxing ring this weekend for a professional fight at the age of 46. After all, I recently wrote a meditation on persevering through the ravages of age and physical decline. I\u2019ve admired Pacquiao for years and trailed him around New York City for a Time magazine cover story in 2009. He was the most recognizable Filipino on earth at the time, a distinction that everyone from the islands \u2014 where I was born \u2014 was proud.\nAnd there was so much to be proud of. Born into extreme poverty on the island of Mindanao, he was \u2014 at the height of his career \u2014 a whirlwind of prowess and prosperity, with the relentless voracity of the videogame that became his nickname: Pac-Man. One estimate has his net worth at more than $200 million, out of earnings from the sport and endorsements as high as half-a-billion dollars. His 2015 battle with nemesis Floyd Mayweather, Jr. still holds the record for most pay-per-view sales: 4.6 million. He is literally pound-for-pound the greatest pugilist of our time: the only boxer in history to hold championships in eight different weight classes. When I reported on him in 2009, he\u2019d already won six and was preparing to win his seventh \u2014 in the welterweight division. That was 40 pounds (640 ounces, or 18.1 kilograms) heavier than the 107-pound flyweight class he began his career with 11 years before. He claimed the eighth \u2014 the super welterweight, which has a top limit of 154 pounds \u2014 in 2019 when he was 40 years old.\nSo why should I be vexed by his return to the ring at 46?\nIt\u2019s not really about age. In 1994, a 45-year-old George Foreman retook the heavyweight championship \u2014 which he first won in 1973 \u2014 by defeating 26-year-old Michael Moorer. Pacquiao \u2014 who had retired at the end of 2021 \u2014will be facing Mexican-American Mario Barrios, who is 30, for a fresh chance at the welterweight crown. If he wins, he\u2019ll be the oldest ever to hold it. And if he does, will he then aim for the overall boxing record set by Bernard Hopkins, Jr., who won a heavyweight title at the age of 49? As a sexagenarian, I\u2019m all for aging underdogs getting the upper hand.\nI\u2019m wary because there\u2019s more than a hint of desperation about this \u2014 the kind of emotion that shouldn\u2019t cling to such an illustrious career. From 2010 to earlier this year, Pacquiao was also one of the most famous politicians in the Philippines, serving as congressman and then senator. He even ran for president in 2022. He\u2019d been drawn to politics long before then: It was practically a traditional career move for the nation\u2019s successful actors, singers, athletes, and businesspeople. He won a lot of votes, but he wasn\u2019t particularly good at politics, swinging from one alliance to another without any real benefit, pounded by critics from all sides for his unfamiliarity with bureaucracy and backroom machinations, committing avoidable gaffe after gaffe. His celebrity and active boxing career for much of this period also made him an absentee legislator \u2014 a record that probably doomed his run for the presidency and certainly his shot for a second senate term in May of this year. A few days after that last campaign, he announced he was coming out of retirement to fight Barrios.\nSince then, there\u2019s been enough melodrama to qualify for a Rocky sequel. As he prepared for the Barrios bout, his son Jimuel told him that he too was going to be a pro boxer. That stunned Pacquiao, who slugged his way from destitution to riches to be able to send his kids to the best schools. He didn\u2019t want to see them struggle the way he did. At first, Jimuel\u2019s debut fight was going to be a warmup to his father\u2019s match. But Pacquiao last week said he didn\u2019t want the distraction of seeing his eldest son duke it out before he himself stepped into the ring, postponing his kid\u2019s bout until September or October.\nMeanwhile, Freddy Roach \u2014 the trainer whose acumen helped establish Pacquiao\u2019s long reign as a lord of the ring \u2014 has rejoined the boxer. There\u2019d been a couple of years of estrangement after he was summarily dismissed in the wake of a 2018 defeat. The relationship is particularly poignant. In 2010, Pacquiao\u2019s opponent Antonio Margarito mocked Roach, who has Parkinson\u2019s disease. The punishment the Filipino meted out in revenge is legendary. Margarito lost practically every round and was hospitalized afterward for facial surgery. In 2013, Brandon Rios also made fun of Roach; Pacquiao sent him packing after a unanimous decision.\nIronically, Roach has always been cautious about Pacquiao\u2019s fights. Even in 2009, he was saying the boxer only had two or three more fights left in him. He went on to battle 17 more times. But age was already catching up with Pacquiao. Mayweather may have won his epic match against Pacquiao by playing hard-to-get; by the time they eventually touched gloves, both men were past their primes, but Pacquiao was more past than Mayweather. He lost by unanimous decision. The Filipino seemed even less agile in 2021 when he lost to Yordenis Ugas, the defeat that prompted his retirement.\nThe likelihood is that Pacquiao \u2014 win or lose \u2014 will take home about $5 million from this match.* That\u2019s chump change to the boxing legend. Pacquiao told Roach it\u2019s about history, not money. \u201c\u2018I just have one more time in me,\u2019\u201d the trainer quotes the fighter as saying. \u201c\u2018I just want to show the world that I was for real and I am for real.\u2019\u201d\nEveryone knows that, Manny. I\u2019ll be rooting for you come Saturday in Vegas. But how much history can one person make before becoming history in the wrong way? \nBLOOMBERG OPINION\n*Barrios\u2019 take home is probably much smaller \u2014 $1 million or so \u2014 because Pacquiao is the draw.", "date_published": "2025-07-18T00:01:43+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-07-17T17:57:00+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Pacquiao.jpg", "tags": [ "Howard Chua-Eoan", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "I SHOULDN\u2019T be so chagrined that Manny Pacquiao is re-entering a Las Vegas boxing ring this weekend for a professional fight at the age of 46." }, { "id": "/?p=683915", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/07/09/683915/americas-copy-and-paste-tariffs-will-rile-mr-japan/", "title": "America\u2019s copy-and-paste tariffs will rile \u2018Mr. Japan\u2019", "content_html": "\u201cYou will never be disappointed with The United States of America.\u201d
\nSo went President Donald Trump\u2019s sign-off in his letters issued to 14 trading partners on Monday. But in Tokyo, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will be more than disappointed. He\u2019s entitled to be furious.
\nJapan was among the first countries to begin talks after April\u2019s \u201cLiberation Day\u201d tariff announcement. It has spent months in negotiations, with Ishiba\u2019s envoy making seven trips to the US for talks with Trump and other officials. The nation has been the largest investor in the US for the past five years and is a crucial security ally. All that only to end up with a tariff rate one percentage point higher than first proposed three months ago.
\nTo add insult to injury, Japan was lumped in with countries that are far less vital partners, including Kazakhstan and Myanmar. While the threatened rates to be enacted on Aug. 1 were different between countries, the copy-and-paste wording sent to the respective leaders was virtually identical, including telling Tokyo to open its \u201cheretofore closed trading markets\u201d \u2014 whatever that means.
\nThe warning signs were there after Trump erupted last week. Overnight, it seemed, Japan went from being respected, or \u201ctough,\u201d in Trump parlance, to being \u201cspoiled.\u201d And while \u201cMr. Japan,\u201d as Trump seemingly dubbed Ishiba, may not have ended up with the 35% tariffs once threatened, months of talks have only led to further threats.
\nIn Seoul, recently elected President Lee Jae Myung might be feeling hard done by, too. His country is moving to address US concerns over non-tariff barriers, but has been hampered by the political turmoil prior to Lee\u2019s election. Japan might have thought it was getting the first-mover advantage Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised to countries that came to the negotiating table fast. Instead, an identical rate has been levied on both countries.
\nMarkets in Tokyo and Seoul barely skipped a beat, buying into the TACO trade as it quickly became clear that the letter was, in effect, an extension of the July 9 deadline. Trump\u2019s further suggestions that the deadline wasn\u2019t \u201c100% firm\u201d make this clearly the latest in his Art of the Deal brinkmanship to wring out more concessions.
\nAnd in Japan\u2019s case, Trump\u2019s 25% auto tariffs \u2014 the elimination of which is Ishiba\u2019s primary goal \u2014 are already in effect. That\u2019s why the longest-lasting impact of Monday\u2019s announcement will be to further chip away at trust between Washington\u2019s most vital partner in staring down China.
\nThe prime minister has stood surprisingly firm in the talks, while making good-faith efforts to engage with the US. But might his engagement have been too earnest?
\nFlattery and a bit of exaggeration may have been the better way to go, perhaps taking a page out of SoftBank Group Corp. founder Masayoshi Son\u2019s handbook in dealing with the president. This might help sidestep Tokyo\u2019s biggest problem: The difficulty in understanding what Trump actually wants. Local media have already reported how officials have been baffled by the open disagreements between the US negotiators. A vague hand wave \u2014 promises to place a Ford F-150 in every Japanese garage, or whatever Trump wants to hear \u2014 might be a better way to buy time.
\nTrump is clearly pulling out the seat at the negotiating table. But Ishiba already has his hands full with crucial Upper House elections on July 20, where he can\u2019t be seen to be giving concessions or selling rice farmers down the river. Still, the latest move could even be advantageous to him; after all, no one likes a bully. Meanwhile, any expectations that the Bank of Japan will hike rates later this month \u2014 at a meeting scheduled the day before the tariffs come into effect \u2014 should prepare for disappointment.
\nThe longer-term consequences are harder to read. It\u2019s possible, even likely, that Trump will have another of his trademark changes of heart, and suddenly Japan, South Korea, and the other trading partners will be US friends again. Constantly kicking the can down the road indicates he doesn\u2019t really want to follow through with his threats.
\nBut such incessant bluster chips away at goodwill built up between the partners over decades. And that\u2019s something that can\u2019t simply be copied and pasted. — Bloomberg Opinion
\n", "content_text": "\u201cYou will never be disappointed with The United States of America.\u201d\nSo went President Donald Trump\u2019s sign-off in his letters issued to 14 trading partners on Monday. But in Tokyo, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will be more than disappointed. He\u2019s entitled to be furious.\nJapan was among the first countries to begin talks after April\u2019s \u201cLiberation Day\u201d tariff announcement. It has spent months in negotiations, with Ishiba\u2019s envoy making seven trips to the US for talks with Trump and other officials. The nation has been the largest investor in the US for the past five years and is a crucial security ally. All that only to end up with a tariff rate one percentage point higher than first proposed three months ago.\nTo add insult to injury, Japan was lumped in with countries that are far less vital partners, including Kazakhstan and Myanmar. While the threatened rates to be enacted on Aug. 1 were different between countries, the copy-and-paste wording sent to the respective leaders was virtually identical, including telling Tokyo to open its \u201cheretofore closed trading markets\u201d \u2014 whatever that means.\nThe warning signs were there after Trump erupted last week. Overnight, it seemed, Japan went from being respected, or \u201ctough,\u201d in Trump parlance, to being \u201cspoiled.\u201d And while \u201cMr. Japan,\u201d as Trump seemingly dubbed Ishiba, may not have ended up with the 35% tariffs once threatened, months of talks have only led to further threats.\nIn Seoul, recently elected President Lee Jae Myung might be feeling hard done by, too. His country is moving to address US concerns over non-tariff barriers, but has been hampered by the political turmoil prior to Lee\u2019s election. Japan might have thought it was getting the first-mover advantage Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised to countries that came to the negotiating table fast. Instead, an identical rate has been levied on both countries.\nMarkets in Tokyo and Seoul barely skipped a beat, buying into the TACO trade as it quickly became clear that the letter was, in effect, an extension of the July 9 deadline. Trump\u2019s further suggestions that the deadline wasn\u2019t \u201c100% firm\u201d make this clearly the latest in his Art of the Deal brinkmanship to wring out more concessions.\nAnd in Japan\u2019s case, Trump\u2019s 25% auto tariffs \u2014 the elimination of which is Ishiba\u2019s primary goal \u2014 are already in effect. That\u2019s why the longest-lasting impact of Monday\u2019s announcement will be to further chip away at trust between Washington\u2019s most vital partner in staring down China.\nThe prime minister has stood surprisingly firm in the talks, while making good-faith efforts to engage with the US. But might his engagement have been too earnest?\nFlattery and a bit of exaggeration may have been the better way to go, perhaps taking a page out of SoftBank Group Corp. founder Masayoshi Son\u2019s handbook in dealing with the president. This might help sidestep Tokyo\u2019s biggest problem: The difficulty in understanding what Trump actually wants. Local media have already reported how officials have been baffled by the open disagreements between the US negotiators. A vague hand wave \u2014 promises to place a Ford F-150 in every Japanese garage, or whatever Trump wants to hear \u2014 might be a better way to buy time.\nTrump is clearly pulling out the seat at the negotiating table. But Ishiba already has his hands full with crucial Upper House elections on July 20, where he can\u2019t be seen to be giving concessions or selling rice farmers down the river. Still, the latest move could even be advantageous to him; after all, no one likes a bully. Meanwhile, any expectations that the Bank of Japan will hike rates later this month \u2014 at a meeting scheduled the day before the tariffs come into effect \u2014 should prepare for disappointment.\nThe longer-term consequences are harder to read. It\u2019s possible, even likely, that Trump will have another of his trademark changes of heart, and suddenly Japan, South Korea, and the other trading partners will be US friends again. Constantly kicking the can down the road indicates he doesn\u2019t really want to follow through with his threats.\nBut such incessant bluster chips away at goodwill built up between the partners over decades. And that\u2019s something that can\u2019t simply be copied and pasted. — Bloomberg Opinion", "date_published": "2025-07-09T00:00:38+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-07-09T03:15:03+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/agarwalekwensi/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/63a6222a994ecdcd0783bb257b7c4e6d18b49dfa789dd168af5420ab8a45082c?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/agarwalekwensi/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/63a6222a994ecdcd0783bb257b7c4e6d18b49dfa789dd168af5420ab8a45082c?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/3-scene-with-photorealistic-logistics-operations-proceedings-1-FREEPIK-scaled.jpg", "tags": [ "Bloomberg Opinion", "Gearoid Reidy", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=678643", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/06/12/678643/does-a-michelada-without-beer-still-taste-as-sweet/", "title": "Does a michelada without beer still taste as sweet?", "content_html": "By Howard Chua-Eoan
\nI FIND MYSELF unhappily on trend. Young people everywhere are increasingly \u201con the wagon\u201d \u2014 to use the American idiom for sobriety from the 1920s, when the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution banned the production and sale of alcohol. The wagon in the expression was a public-service vehicle loaded with water to tamp down dust and grime on city streets; by extension, it described the clean and sober law-abiding citizens of America. According to some estimates, 39% of Gen Z say they have foresworn alcoholic drinks; about half of them imbibe such beverages only occasionally. Many have taken to non-alcoholic alternatives.
\nI didn\u2019t set out to join that youthful bandwagon. Nevertheless, I have been alcohol-free since Jan. 20, 2025. Those of you who recognize that date as US Inauguration Day must get the coincidence out of your head. It just happened to be when I felt I\u2019d had too much wine over the previous three months. Alas, my doctors agreed with me \u2014 because of decades of loving wine and champagne, not just those recent three months. And so, I\u2019ve spent nearly 140 days looking at how to enjoy the brave new world of NA (non-alcoholic) \u2014 a market that\u2019s gotten a huge boost in sales and creativity precisely because of health-focused Gen Z, a cohort that probably makes up 25% of the world\u2019s population. I am a late Boomer, but now I\u2019m medically required to be young at heart.
\nThe NA market can be too sprawlingly defined, including everything from bottled water and high-fructose sodas to electrolyte-infused liquids to NA wines and beer. I\u2019m going to look at beverages that someone who likes to sip good vintages would gravitate to, intriguing in their own right or complementary, even transformative, with food. I was in Copenhagen recently where I attended Noma Chef Ren\u00e9 Redzepi\u2019s revived MAD symposium on the future of restaurants1. These kinds of events are usually chock-full of discriminating chefs and sommeliers intent on sampling novel or rare wines and spirits. Would I find alcohol-free stuff to quaff to help me avoid all those temptations?
\nI will admit to staring longingly at the wonderful vintages poured out in Copenhagen. I love wine, perhaps even more so now that I can\u2019t have it. But there was no shortage of NA wine. Indeed, Denmark is home to Muri, a pioneer in the blending of different fermented juices to create an alternative to wine. Other NA wine purveyors use physical means (often with low heat) to remove alcohol. That usually results in a thin impersonation of wine, with much of the mouthfeel and vibrancy extracted along with the ethanol (which is the predominant form of alcohol produced by the yeast in winemaking). Muri\u2019s process stops short of producing alcohol and utilizes several fruits fermented separately and then blended to create distinct potables.
\nBut as tasty as Muri can be (and its beverages are delicious), let me declare now that all the non-alcoholic wines I have sampled don\u2019t come close to the vivacity of even middling good wine. There are excellent NA sparklings \u2014 L\u2019Antidote and L\u2019Antilope by Domaine de Grottes in France\u2019s Beaujolais region \u2014 but even these are soda pop compared to champagne or even the new generation of English bubblies. Good wine is a liquid time capsule \u2014 a memento of earth, grape, water, the seasons and human touch. It moves beyond taste. I may no longer drink a good Savagnin from the Jura, but I can still appreciate its aroma.
\nNevertheless, the thrill of having something that looks and \u2014 at first blush \u2014 feels like wine is enough to fool the brain into producing dopamine. A guilty elation takes over, and you think, \u201cThey\u2019ve made a mistake. They\u2019ve poured me real wine.\u201d Soon enough, you realize it\u2019s an impostor in your glass. You aren\u2019t going to be fooled by the second \u2014 if you decide to have it.
\nThe NA beers I tasted in Copenhagen were more \u201choppy\u201d or overly flavored with things like elderflower to disguise the absence of malted barley. That said, many non-alcoholic brews I\u2019ve tried here in London are more successful in impersonating their originals. Guinness 0.0% is 99.9% identical in taste to its model (it has a flatter effect as it approaches room temperature). And Estrella Damm has tweaked the vacuum distillation method \u2014 the same one many NA winemakers use to remove alcohol \u2014 to reintroduce lost flavors. Its FreeDamm is remarkably good lager. Yet, the second-glass \u2014 or in this case, second pint \u2014 syndrome persists for both the lager and the stout. The buzz you thought you had turns out to be fantasy.
\nOf course, the quest for buzz \u2014 that convivial lightheadedness \u2014 is the existential issue in the first place for many drinkers. The road to intoxication is broad. So how do you get the consumer to focus on flavor instead of inebriation? It may be cocktails or \u201cmocktails\u201d \u2014 a terribly awkward word. But restaurants can customize drinks for their characteristic cuisine. I had a miraculous NA michelada at Sanchez, chef Rosio Sanchez\u2019s wonderful Mexican restaurant in the Vesterbro district of Copenhagen. The super piquant concoction is usually made with beer, but that\u2019s been substituted by a NA pilsner from Rothaus, a German brewer. It went perfectly with the food, flowing and metamorphosing with the ingredients and heat.
\nMicheladas \u2014 hellishly spicy \u2014 aren\u2019t for everyone and don\u2019t go with everything. But there are other choices. I had a range of kombuchas in Copenhagen (teas fermented with a variety of ingredients, including roses, magnolias, and fig leaves) that were startlingly seductive. Those in the know will say that kombuchas contain some alcohol. That is an important concern for those with substance abuse issues. But the alcohol content is often less than a very ripe banana\u2019s (0.2% to 0.5% alcohol-by-volume in the fruit, compared with the 12% to 15% with wine)2. The probiotics of kombucha may be beneficial too.
\nNA alternatives are as costly as regular offerings \u2014 or more. Muri has about six different blends available on its websites, each around \u00a325 ($33.75) a bottle. Guinness 0.0% is more expensive than regular Guinness. That\u2019s because \u2014 while the market is potentially enormous \u2014 the new technologies and processes for making the beverages can\u2019t scale up yet. The customer base has to grow to make everything more affordable. As for mocktails, restaurants have to find and pay bartenders skilled in fermentation to come up with those kombuchas, which take time to cultivate.
\nIf such things concern you, my friend Jenny Sharaf, an artist based in Los Angeles and Copenhagen, has an alternative to consider: the Wa-tini. You can style it like a Martini \u2014 dirty with olive juice, or with a twist or an indulgent kiss of NA vermouth \u2014 all poured into the classic glass. But one ingredient is key: bitingly cold, clean water. Shaken or stirred? It\u2019s all in your head. \u2014 Bloomberg Opinion
\n1The previous MAD symposium was held in 2018. Funding and, eventually, the pandemic put a halt to what had been an annual get-together of the restaurant and food world. The name derives from a play in Danish and English. Mad means \u201cfood\u201d in Danish (pronounced like \u201cmal\u201d and a close cognate of the word \u201cmeal\u201d). The insanity stems from the free-flowing proceedings at the symposium, which are conducted under a distinctive, four-peaked magenta circus tent.
\n2A graver concern with NA beverages is sugar content and how it might affect diabetics or pre-diabetics who usually face much less risk with wine.
\n", "content_text": "Alcohol-free beverages are getting better. Except maybe for wine\nBy Howard Chua-Eoan\nI FIND MYSELF unhappily on trend. Young people everywhere are increasingly \u201con the wagon\u201d \u2014 to use the American idiom for sobriety from the 1920s, when the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution banned the production and sale of alcohol. The wagon in the expression was a public-service vehicle loaded with water to tamp down dust and grime on city streets; by extension, it described the clean and sober law-abiding citizens of America. According to some estimates, 39% of Gen Z say they have foresworn alcoholic drinks; about half of them imbibe such beverages only occasionally. Many have taken to non-alcoholic alternatives.\nI didn\u2019t set out to join that youthful bandwagon. Nevertheless, I have been alcohol-free since Jan. 20, 2025. Those of you who recognize that date as US Inauguration Day must get the coincidence out of your head. It just happened to be when I felt I\u2019d had too much wine over the previous three months. Alas, my doctors agreed with me \u2014 because of decades of loving wine and champagne, not just those recent three months. And so, I\u2019ve spent nearly 140 days looking at how to enjoy the brave new world of NA (non-alcoholic) \u2014 a market that\u2019s gotten a huge boost in sales and creativity precisely because of health-focused Gen Z, a cohort that probably makes up 25% of the world\u2019s population. I am a late Boomer, but now I\u2019m medically required to be young at heart.\nThe NA market can be too sprawlingly defined, including everything from bottled water and high-fructose sodas to electrolyte-infused liquids to NA wines and beer. I\u2019m going to look at beverages that someone who likes to sip good vintages would gravitate to, intriguing in their own right or complementary, even transformative, with food. I was in Copenhagen recently where I attended Noma Chef Ren\u00e9 Redzepi\u2019s revived MAD symposium on the future of restaurants1. These kinds of events are usually chock-full of discriminating chefs and sommeliers intent on sampling novel or rare wines and spirits. Would I find alcohol-free stuff to quaff to help me avoid all those temptations?\nI will admit to staring longingly at the wonderful vintages poured out in Copenhagen. I love wine, perhaps even more so now that I can\u2019t have it. But there was no shortage of NA wine. Indeed, Denmark is home to Muri, a pioneer in the blending of different fermented juices to create an alternative to wine. Other NA wine purveyors use physical means (often with low heat) to remove alcohol. That usually results in a thin impersonation of wine, with much of the mouthfeel and vibrancy extracted along with the ethanol (which is the predominant form of alcohol produced by the yeast in winemaking). Muri\u2019s process stops short of producing alcohol and utilizes several fruits fermented separately and then blended to create distinct potables.\nBut as tasty as Muri can be (and its beverages are delicious), let me declare now that all the non-alcoholic wines I have sampled don\u2019t come close to the vivacity of even middling good wine. There are excellent NA sparklings \u2014 L\u2019Antidote and L\u2019Antilope by Domaine de Grottes in France\u2019s Beaujolais region \u2014 but even these are soda pop compared to champagne or even the new generation of English bubblies. Good wine is a liquid time capsule \u2014 a memento of earth, grape, water, the seasons and human touch. It moves beyond taste. I may no longer drink a good Savagnin from the Jura, but I can still appreciate its aroma.\nNevertheless, the thrill of having something that looks and \u2014 at first blush \u2014 feels like wine is enough to fool the brain into producing dopamine. A guilty elation takes over, and you think, \u201cThey\u2019ve made a mistake. They\u2019ve poured me real wine.\u201d Soon enough, you realize it\u2019s an impostor in your glass. You aren\u2019t going to be fooled by the second \u2014 if you decide to have it.\nThe NA beers I tasted in Copenhagen were more \u201choppy\u201d or overly flavored with things like elderflower to disguise the absence of malted barley. That said, many non-alcoholic brews I\u2019ve tried here in London are more successful in impersonating their originals. Guinness 0.0% is 99.9% identical in taste to its model (it has a flatter effect as it approaches room temperature). And Estrella Damm has tweaked the vacuum distillation method \u2014 the same one many NA winemakers use to remove alcohol \u2014 to reintroduce lost flavors. Its FreeDamm is remarkably good lager. Yet, the second-glass \u2014 or in this case, second pint \u2014 syndrome persists for both the lager and the stout. The buzz you thought you had turns out to be fantasy.\nOf course, the quest for buzz \u2014 that convivial lightheadedness \u2014 is the existential issue in the first place for many drinkers. The road to intoxication is broad. So how do you get the consumer to focus on flavor instead of inebriation? It may be cocktails or \u201cmocktails\u201d \u2014 a terribly awkward word. But restaurants can customize drinks for their characteristic cuisine. I had a miraculous NA michelada at Sanchez, chef Rosio Sanchez\u2019s wonderful Mexican restaurant in the Vesterbro district of Copenhagen. The super piquant concoction is usually made with beer, but that\u2019s been substituted by a NA pilsner from Rothaus, a German brewer. It went perfectly with the food, flowing and metamorphosing with the ingredients and heat.\nMicheladas \u2014 hellishly spicy \u2014 aren\u2019t for everyone and don\u2019t go with everything. But there are other choices. I had a range of kombuchas in Copenhagen (teas fermented with a variety of ingredients, including roses, magnolias, and fig leaves) that were startlingly seductive. Those in the know will say that kombuchas contain some alcohol. That is an important concern for those with substance abuse issues. But the alcohol content is often less than a very ripe banana\u2019s (0.2% to 0.5% alcohol-by-volume in the fruit, compared with the 12% to 15% with wine)2. The probiotics of kombucha may be beneficial too.\nNA alternatives are as costly as regular offerings \u2014 or more. Muri has about six different blends available on its websites, each around \u00a325 ($33.75) a bottle. Guinness 0.0% is more expensive than regular Guinness. That\u2019s because \u2014 while the market is potentially enormous \u2014 the new technologies and processes for making the beverages can\u2019t scale up yet. The customer base has to grow to make everything more affordable. As for mocktails, restaurants have to find and pay bartenders skilled in fermentation to come up with those kombuchas, which take time to cultivate.\nIf such things concern you, my friend Jenny Sharaf, an artist based in Los Angeles and Copenhagen, has an alternative to consider: the Wa-tini. You can style it like a Martini \u2014 dirty with olive juice, or with a twist or an indulgent kiss of NA vermouth \u2014 all poured into the classic glass. But one ingredient is key: bitingly cold, clean water. Shaken or stirred? It\u2019s all in your head. \u2014 Bloomberg Opinion\n1The previous MAD symposium was held in 2018. Funding and, eventually, the pandemic put a halt to what had been an annual get-together of the restaurant and food world. The name derives from a play in Danish and English. Mad means \u201cfood\u201d in Danish (pronounced like \u201cmal\u201d and a close cognate of the word \u201cmeal\u201d). The insanity stems from the free-flowing proceedings at the symposium, which are conducted under a distinctive, four-peaked magenta circus tent.\n2A graver concern with NA beverages is sugar content and how it might affect diabetics or pre-diabetics who usually face much less risk with wine.", "date_published": "2025-06-12T00:05:03+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-06-11T18:38:34+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/guiness.jpg", "tags": [ "Bloomberg Opinion", "Arts & Leisure", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks" ], "summary": "I FIND MYSELF unhappily on trend. Young people everywhere are increasingly \u201con the wagon\u201d \u2014 to use the American idiom for sobriety from the 1920s, when the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution banned the production and sale of alcohol." }, { "id": "/?p=669851", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/05/02/669851/can-the-white-house-ignore-the-supreme-court-americans-will-decide/", "title": "Can the White House ignore the Supreme Court? Americans will decide", "content_html": "By Noah Feldman
\nA PRESIDENT\u2019S first 100 days are traditionally measured by how much he\u2019s created and accomplished through legislation, leadership, and executive action. Donald Trump\u2019s first 100 days demand to be evaluated in terms of how much he\u2019s destroyed.
\nBy that terrible standard of shock and awe, Trump\u2019s destruction is historic \u2014 by far the worst first 100 days since Franklin Delano Roosevelt made it a thing in 1933. Trump has announced, reversed, and re-announced tariffs poised to tank the economy and the markets. He\u2019s upended 80 years of US global leadership in international security and cooperation. He\u2019s gutted agencies and departments devoted to health, education, science, the environment and other forms of lifesaving.
\nYet as shocking and self-destructive as these actions are, they don\u2019t represent the most serious danger Trump poses to the survival of the United States of America as a republic. That distinction must be reserved for Trump\u2019s devastating, unrelenting attacks on the Constitution and the rule of law.
\nAfter 100 days of Trump\u2019s war on the law itself, it\u2019s time for what the military calls a battle damage assessment. We need to know how much harm has been done to understand how to defend against the onslaught and prepare for the epochal battles yet to come.
\nThis war is definitively not over and we, the people, don\u2019t have to lose it. But we do have to face facts analytically and calmly. We need to set aside our appropriate moral outrage to the extent possible. Only by doing so can we hope to strategize victory rather than prematurely mourn a defeat that is not inevitable.
\nIn essence, the damage looks like this: Trump is trying to establish his authority over that of the courts and Congress. To get there, he\u2019s using the tactic of a constant-yet-unsteady pattern of illegal actions. His main targets are a combination of vulnerable people who have a hard time fighting back and high-profile elites whom he hopes to subordinate and humiliate. When blocked by the courts, Trump repeats the same actions under supposedly different authority. He retaliates against anyone who objects. Because the courts are the main vector of resistance, Trump and Vice-President JD Vance have verbally attacked judges. Most recently, the FBI went so far as to arrest a Wisconsin judge for allegedly allowing a man sought by ICE to leave her courtroom through a side door.
\nLet\u2019s start with Trump\u2019s overall strategic objective, which is to make himself seem like he is \u2014 and thus actually become \u2014 the ultimate authority in the US, above Congress and the courts. His main tool is unilateral executive action.
\nThe whole theory of executive orders (of which he\u2019s signed nearly 140) is that the President is exercising either a power that the Constitution gives him or power specifically delegated to him by Congress. It was in that framework that former President Bill Clinton\u2019s adviser Paul Begala offered his pithy near-haiku about executive orders: \u201cStroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.\u201d
\nWhat makes an executive order law is specifically that it is issued lawfully. If an order violates the law, it\u2019s an arrogation of illegitimate power \u2014 a step toward autocracy in a system where Congress, not the president, possesses the power of legislation.
\nTrump\u2019s executive orders have openly violated the Constitution and federal laws from the get-go. Take as exemplary the order purporting to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
\nThe order, issued on Trump\u2019s first day in office, claims to \u201cinterpret\u201d the Fourteenth Amendment as not extending \u201ccitizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.\u201d But the Supreme Court, not the president, has the final word in interpreting the Constitution. The fact that Trump\u2019s interpretation is obviously wrong (and intended to terrify children of immigrants) only dramatizes how bad this is.
\nThere have been many more clearly unlawful orders, on topics from voting rights to deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to, God help us, low-flow showerheads. (The last of these included the astonishing statement that legal process was unnecessary \u201cbecause I am ordering\u201d the action.)
\nThe good news in the battle damage assessment is that courts have been blocking the unlawful orders. Just Security\u2019s Trump litigation tracker records 212 cases against the administration so far. In many of these, lower courts have paused unlawful action. Gradually, these cases are making their way to the Supreme Court.
\nThese cases also reflect that Trump has taken a lot of unlawful actions without even bothering to issue an executive order explaining or justifying why. Firings of government employees have been one sort of unlawful action, ranging from commissioners of independent agencies who are protected by federal law from presidential removal except for cause, to rank-and-file civil service members whose protections come from different laws. Equally consequential have been unilateral cuts or freezes to government grants and contracts established by law.
\nIn these cases, the courts have also been blocking those that are clearly unlawful. But Trump has responded with new firings and freezes, often claiming to be doing so under different legal authority than the courts have already barred.
\nThe result is a flood-the-zone method of attack. When you\u2019re subject to unlawful administrative action, you can be fairly sure that even when you win in court, your rights will continue to be violated.
\nWhen noncitizens are arrested and sent out of the country without an opportunity to speak to a lawyer (a practice that now appears to have extended even to some citizens), it creates terror among expansive communities of immigrants, who almost by definition are among the least powerful members of society.
\nWhen Trump is targeting powerful actors like big law firms or Ivy League universities (such as my own), the point of flooding the zone is to tell elites that he will go after anyone he doesn\u2019t like \u2014 and that even if they win in court, he won\u2019t stop making their lives extremely difficult in every way possible. This explains why so many rational people in powerful institutions have chosen to not take on the Trump administration directly: their victories might end up being Pyrrhic. Trump\u2019s unrelenting approach to attacking even the powerful is therefore more than just score-settling. It is also a clever way to get past the illegality of his actions.
\nGoing after the courts is a crucial part of this tactic. Trump\u2019s overall goal is to warn the Supreme Court, which ultimately stands for the rule of law, that if it stands up to him, he will destroy the court itself. The justices aren\u2019t vulnerable individually. But their institution is. That\u2019s because, under the Constitution, the courts can only order the president to do what they say. They have no force of their own except their inherent legitimacy as exponents of the law. If the Supreme Court issues an order and Trump ignores it, all the court can do is declare him in contempt. Congress could impeach and remove the president \u2014 but after two impeachments in the first administration failed to yield a conviction, it\u2019s uncertain at best whether that would happen.
\nTrump has been inching closer to directly violating a court order. Two judicial contempt investigations are currently in progress against administration officials for doing so. An overt Trump administration refusal to follow a court order could well trigger a constitutional crisis.
\nThe Supreme Court would much prefer that the confrontation doesn\u2019t happen, and that Trump at least give the impression that he is following the law \u2014 even if he does so imperfectly. But if the showdown must happen, the court will want it to be on the terms most favorable to the justices. They will want it to involve the undisputed rights of US citizens. They will want to be able to vote unanimously against Trump. That\u2019s because they know that in a climactic confrontation, if Trump doesn\u2019t back down, the rule of law itself will be broken.
\nThe courts will need allies in such a battle. One perhaps unexpected form of alliance may come from the financial markets. Trump\u2019s threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were threats against the rule of law and the Constitution as it is presently interpreted. It\u2019s a good sign that Trump backed down, and not just for the markets. At the same time, it would be na\u00efve to imagine that the markets would fully protect against a constitutional crisis. Markets function, albeit less efficiently, in countries where the law protects private property and transactions only selectively, and where autocrats can break the rules almost at will.
\nRepublicans in Congress might be tempted to side with a unanimous Supreme Court against Trump if it looks like doing otherwise would harm the party in the midterm elections. For Trump to ignore an order from a court in which he appointed one-third of the justices and where\u00a0 another third are also Republican appointees might be too much for some in the GOP to tolerate. Again, however, it would be a mistake to rely too confidently on that scenario.
\nThat leaves the people. The rule of law exists in the US only because we have a Constitution that traces its legitimate authority back to popular sovereignty. We need to brace ourselves to back the Supreme Court in a potential fight with a president who thinks he can run roughshod over the law. If that day comes, there will have to be a million or more people on the streets of Washington, siding with the Constitution and with the body that has the ultimate responsibility to interpret and apply it. Trump\u2019s 100 days have dramatically raised the possibility of such a confrontation taking place. The battle lines are being drawn.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Noah Feldman\nA PRESIDENT\u2019S first 100 days are traditionally measured by how much he\u2019s created and accomplished through legislation, leadership, and executive action. Donald Trump\u2019s first 100 days demand to be evaluated in terms of how much he\u2019s destroyed.\nBy that terrible standard of shock and awe, Trump\u2019s destruction is historic \u2014 by far the worst first 100 days since Franklin Delano Roosevelt made it a thing in 1933. Trump has announced, reversed, and re-announced tariffs poised to tank the economy and the markets. He\u2019s upended 80 years of US global leadership in international security and cooperation. He\u2019s gutted agencies and departments devoted to health, education, science, the environment and other forms of lifesaving.\nYet as shocking and self-destructive as these actions are, they don\u2019t represent the most serious danger Trump poses to the survival of the United States of America as a republic. That distinction must be reserved for Trump\u2019s devastating, unrelenting attacks on the Constitution and the rule of law.\nAfter 100 days of Trump\u2019s war on the law itself, it\u2019s time for what the military calls a battle damage assessment. We need to know how much harm has been done to understand how to defend against the onslaught and prepare for the epochal battles yet to come.\nThis war is definitively not over and we, the people, don\u2019t have to lose it. But we do have to face facts analytically and calmly. We need to set aside our appropriate moral outrage to the extent possible. Only by doing so can we hope to strategize victory rather than prematurely mourn a defeat that is not inevitable.\nIn essence, the damage looks like this: Trump is trying to establish his authority over that of the courts and Congress. To get there, he\u2019s using the tactic of a constant-yet-unsteady pattern of illegal actions. His main targets are a combination of vulnerable people who have a hard time fighting back and high-profile elites whom he hopes to subordinate and humiliate. When blocked by the courts, Trump repeats the same actions under supposedly different authority. He retaliates against anyone who objects. Because the courts are the main vector of resistance, Trump and Vice-President JD Vance have verbally attacked judges. Most recently, the FBI went so far as to arrest a Wisconsin judge for allegedly allowing a man sought by ICE to leave her courtroom through a side door.\nLet\u2019s start with Trump\u2019s overall strategic objective, which is to make himself seem like he is \u2014 and thus actually become \u2014 the ultimate authority in the US, above Congress and the courts. His main tool is unilateral executive action.\nThe whole theory of executive orders (of which he\u2019s signed nearly 140) is that the President is exercising either a power that the Constitution gives him or power specifically delegated to him by Congress. It was in that framework that former President Bill Clinton\u2019s adviser Paul Begala offered his pithy near-haiku about executive orders: \u201cStroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.\u201d\nWhat makes an executive order law is specifically that it is issued lawfully. If an order violates the law, it\u2019s an arrogation of illegitimate power \u2014 a step toward autocracy in a system where Congress, not the president, possesses the power of legislation.\nTrump\u2019s executive orders have openly violated the Constitution and federal laws from the get-go. Take as exemplary the order purporting to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nThe order, issued on Trump\u2019s first day in office, claims to \u201cinterpret\u201d the Fourteenth Amendment as not extending \u201ccitizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.\u201d But the Supreme Court, not the president, has the final word in interpreting the Constitution. The fact that Trump\u2019s interpretation is obviously wrong (and intended to terrify children of immigrants) only dramatizes how bad this is. \nThere have been many more clearly unlawful orders, on topics from voting rights to deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to, God help us, low-flow showerheads. (The last of these included the astonishing statement that legal process was unnecessary \u201cbecause I am ordering\u201d the action.) \nThe good news in the battle damage assessment is that courts have been blocking the unlawful orders. Just Security\u2019s Trump litigation tracker records 212 cases against the administration so far. In many of these, lower courts have paused unlawful action. Gradually, these cases are making their way to the Supreme Court.\nThese cases also reflect that Trump has taken a lot of unlawful actions without even bothering to issue an executive order explaining or justifying why. Firings of government employees have been one sort of unlawful action, ranging from commissioners of independent agencies who are protected by federal law from presidential removal except for cause, to rank-and-file civil service members whose protections come from different laws. Equally consequential have been unilateral cuts or freezes to government grants and contracts established by law.\nIn these cases, the courts have also been blocking those that are clearly unlawful. But Trump has responded with new firings and freezes, often claiming to be doing so under different legal authority than the courts have already barred.\nThe result is a flood-the-zone method of attack. When you\u2019re subject to unlawful administrative action, you can be fairly sure that even when you win in court, your rights will continue to be violated.\nWhen noncitizens are arrested and sent out of the country without an opportunity to speak to a lawyer (a practice that now appears to have extended even to some citizens), it creates terror among expansive communities of immigrants, who almost by definition are among the least powerful members of society.\nWhen Trump is targeting powerful actors like big law firms or Ivy League universities (such as my own), the point of flooding the zone is to tell elites that he will go after anyone he doesn\u2019t like \u2014 and that even if they win in court, he won\u2019t stop making their lives extremely difficult in every way possible. This explains why so many rational people in powerful institutions have chosen to not take on the Trump administration directly: their victories might end up being Pyrrhic. Trump\u2019s unrelenting approach to attacking even the powerful is therefore more than just score-settling. It is also a clever way to get past the illegality of his actions. \nGoing after the courts is a crucial part of this tactic. Trump\u2019s overall goal is to warn the Supreme Court, which ultimately stands for the rule of law, that if it stands up to him, he will destroy the court itself. The justices aren\u2019t vulnerable individually. But their institution is. That\u2019s because, under the Constitution, the courts can only order the president to do what they say. They have no force of their own except their inherent legitimacy as exponents of the law. If the Supreme Court issues an order and Trump ignores it, all the court can do is declare him in contempt. Congress could impeach and remove the president \u2014 but after two impeachments in the first administration failed to yield a conviction, it\u2019s uncertain at best whether that would happen. \nTrump has been inching closer to directly violating a court order. Two judicial contempt investigations are currently in progress against administration officials for doing so. An overt Trump administration refusal to follow a court order could well trigger a constitutional crisis.\nThe Supreme Court would much prefer that the confrontation doesn\u2019t happen, and that Trump at least give the impression that he is following the law \u2014 even if he does so imperfectly. But if the showdown must happen, the court will want it to be on the terms most favorable to the justices. They will want it to involve the undisputed rights of US citizens. They will want to be able to vote unanimously against Trump. That\u2019s because they know that in a climactic confrontation, if Trump doesn\u2019t back down, the rule of law itself will be broken.\nThe courts will need allies in such a battle. One perhaps unexpected form of alliance may come from the financial markets. Trump\u2019s threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were threats against the rule of law and the Constitution as it is presently interpreted. It\u2019s a good sign that Trump backed down, and not just for the markets. At the same time, it would be na\u00efve to imagine that the markets would fully protect against a constitutional crisis. Markets function, albeit less efficiently, in countries where the law protects private property and transactions only selectively, and where autocrats can break the rules almost at will.\nRepublicans in Congress might be tempted to side with a unanimous Supreme Court against Trump if it looks like doing otherwise would harm the party in the midterm elections. For Trump to ignore an order from a court in which he appointed one-third of the justices and where\u00a0 another third are also Republican appointees might be too much for some in the GOP to tolerate. Again, however, it would be a mistake to rely too confidently on that scenario. \nThat leaves the people. The rule of law exists in the US only because we have a Constitution that traces its legitimate authority back to popular sovereignty. We need to brace ourselves to back the Supreme Court in a potential fight with a president who thinks he can run roughshod over the law. If that day comes, there will have to be a million or more people on the streets of Washington, siding with the Constitution and with the body that has the ultimate responsibility to interpret and apply it. Trump\u2019s 100 days have dramatically raised the possibility of such a confrontation taking place. The battle lines are being drawn.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-05-02T00:02:51+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-05-01T19:44:33+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/US-Supreme-Court.jpg", "tags": [ "Noah Feldman", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "A PRESIDENT\u2019S first 100 days are traditionally measured by how much he\u2019s created and accomplished through legislation, leadership, and executive action. Donald Trump\u2019s first 100 days demand to be evaluated in terms of how much he\u2019s destroyed." }, { "id": "/?p=668934", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/04/29/668934/asia-is-contemplating-a-growing-nuclear-future/", "title": "Asia is contemplating a growing nuclear future", "content_html": "By Karishma Vaswani
\nEIGHTY YEARS AGO this August, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. Those acts helped to end World War II but also ushered in the nuclear age.
\nIn 2025, a new atomic arms race is stirring, this time not provoked by Russia, China, or North Korea \u2014 who have been ramping up their arsenals \u2014 but instead by President Donald Trump\u2019s trade war, and his threats to withdraw the US defense umbrella. The result is a world growing more dangerous, not just for Asia, but for Americans too.
\nThe security architecture that helped prevent conflict from weapons of mass destruction is at risk of unravelling. For decades, Asian nations have relied on Washington\u2019s commitment to deterrence. That\u2019s no longer guaranteed.
\nLong-time US allies, like Japan and South Korea, are calculating the cost \u2014 both economic and political \u2014 of developing their own arsenals. India and Pakistan both have a growing supply of warheads, potentially inflaming an already volatile conflict made worse by recent tensions in Kashmir.
\nTrump insists that Washington has received the short end of the stick from defense deals, and that America\u2019s protection is keeping the world safe while other economies benefit more. He has a point \u2014 but is also ignoring historical lessons.
\nThe aftermath of Washington\u2019s atomic bombings prompted a recognition that such a tragedy must be avoided at all costs. So deep was the soul-searching in American society that the goal of every US president since Harry Truman has been to limit rather than encourage the spread of these weapons. Much of this was achieved through negotiated agreements and treaties.
\nThe policies have worked. Only nine countries now possess such arsenals, even though many more have the ability to build a bomb. But Trump is ushering in a more dangerous era. On the campaign trail in 2016, he suggested that Japan and South Korea might need to develop their own capabilities. Comments like that are influencing public opinion. A 2024 survey by the Korea Institute for National Unification showed six in 10 South Koreans now favor having them.
\nIf Seoul opts for homegrown nukes, this would lead to a domino effect, note associate professors of political science at St. Francis Xavier University, Jamie Levin and Youngwon Cho. Japanese public sentiment has been deeply opposed because of the nation\u2019s painful past, but it has a full nuclear fuel cycle, allowing it in theory to fashion thousands of bombs in as little as six months, according to experts.
\nIndia and Pakistan are among the most worrying players. The risk of a conflict increased this week after a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed dozens in some of the region\u2019s worst violence in years. So far, they have stuck to diplomatic measures as retaliation, but there is always the concern of escalation.
\nEven in Southeast Asia, a relative safe zone, the risks have become much more pronounced. The 1995 Treaty of Bangkok established a Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, banning members from development, manufacture, acquisition, or possession. But if larger nations ramp up their arsenals, the spillover effect in Southeast Asia could force others to either look into developing their own technology, or find a new defense umbrella. Washington\u2019s unpredictability has created a leadership vacuum that Beijing will be keen to fill.
\nRather than failing to offer credible security guarantees, the US should engage with governments in Asia and address their defense ambitions. Under the Biden administration, a bilateral initiative called the Nuclear Consultative Group in 2023 was launched with Seoul, which helped to quell some anxiety. Efforts like this should be expanded to other allies like Japan.
\nConvincing countries to stick with US deterrence strategies would be wise. Smaller nations watch what bigger countries do, not what they say. The US still has the opportunity to play global stabilizer and shouldn\u2019t cede that role to China.
\nThe world once looked to Washington to keep it safe. In 2025, that trust is fraying. It\u2019s in America\u2019s interest \u2014 not just Asia\u2019s \u2014 to rebuild it.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "By Karishma Vaswani\nEIGHTY YEARS AGO this August, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. Those acts helped to end World War II but also ushered in the nuclear age.\nIn 2025, a new atomic arms race is stirring, this time not provoked by Russia, China, or North Korea \u2014 who have been ramping up their arsenals \u2014 but instead by President Donald Trump\u2019s trade war, and his threats to withdraw the US defense umbrella. The result is a world growing more dangerous, not just for Asia, but for Americans too.\nThe security architecture that helped prevent conflict from weapons of mass destruction is at risk of unravelling. For decades, Asian nations have relied on Washington\u2019s commitment to deterrence. That\u2019s no longer guaranteed.\nLong-time US allies, like Japan and South Korea, are calculating the cost \u2014 both economic and political \u2014 of developing their own arsenals. India and Pakistan both have a growing supply of warheads, potentially inflaming an already volatile conflict made worse by recent tensions in Kashmir. \nTrump insists that Washington has received the short end of the stick from defense deals, and that America\u2019s protection is keeping the world safe while other economies benefit more. He has a point \u2014 but is also ignoring historical lessons.\nThe aftermath of Washington\u2019s atomic bombings prompted a recognition that such a tragedy must be avoided at all costs. So deep was the soul-searching in American society that the goal of every US president since Harry Truman has been to limit rather than encourage the spread of these weapons. Much of this was achieved through negotiated agreements and treaties.\nThe policies have worked. Only nine countries now possess such arsenals, even though many more have the ability to build a bomb. But Trump is ushering in a more dangerous era. On the campaign trail in 2016, he suggested that Japan and South Korea might need to develop their own capabilities. Comments like that are influencing public opinion. A 2024 survey by the Korea Institute for National Unification showed six in 10 South Koreans now favor having them.\nIf Seoul opts for homegrown nukes, this would lead to a domino effect, note associate professors of political science at St. Francis Xavier University, Jamie Levin and Youngwon Cho. Japanese public sentiment has been deeply opposed because of the nation\u2019s painful past, but it has a full nuclear fuel cycle, allowing it in theory to fashion thousands of bombs in as little as six months, according to experts.\nIndia and Pakistan are among the most worrying players. The risk of a conflict increased this week after a terrorist attack in Kashmir killed dozens in some of the region\u2019s worst violence in years. So far, they have stuck to diplomatic measures as retaliation, but there is always the concern of escalation.\nEven in Southeast Asia, a relative safe zone, the risks have become much more pronounced. The 1995 Treaty of Bangkok established a Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, banning members from development, manufacture, acquisition, or possession. But if larger nations ramp up their arsenals, the spillover effect in Southeast Asia could force others to either look into developing their own technology, or find a new defense umbrella. Washington\u2019s unpredictability has created a leadership vacuum that Beijing will be keen to fill.\nRather than failing to offer credible security guarantees, the US should engage with governments in Asia and address their defense ambitions. Under the Biden administration, a bilateral initiative called the Nuclear Consultative Group in 2023 was launched with Seoul, which helped to quell some anxiety. Efforts like this should be expanded to other allies like Japan.\nConvincing countries to stick with US deterrence strategies would be wise. Smaller nations watch what bigger countries do, not what they say. The US still has the opportunity to play global stabilizer and shouldn\u2019t cede that role to China.\nThe world once looked to Washington to keep it safe. In 2025, that trust is fraying. It\u2019s in America\u2019s interest \u2014 not just Asia\u2019s \u2014 to rebuild it.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-04-29T00:03:06+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-28T19:13:17+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/nuclear-bomb-apocalyptic-explosion-1.jpg", "tags": [ "Karishma Vaswani", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ], "summary": "EIGHTY YEARS AGO this August, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of people. Those acts helped to end World War II but also ushered in the nuclear age." }, { "id": "/?p=663782", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/04/04/663782/who-exactly-is-trump-liberating-with-tariffs/", "title": "Who, exactly, is Trump liberating with tariffs?", "content_html": "DONALD TRUMP has offered varying justifications for tariffs, depending on his audience and what\u2019s expedient at any moment. When the president chooses to mount an economic case for levies, it usually comes with the contention that trading partners are ripping off Americans. Factories need to come home \u2014 to the extent they ever left \u2014 and duties will do the trick. He professes to not care much about the crockery broken in the process, and has dubbed Wednesday \u201cLiberation Day\u201d in honor of his protectionist broadsides. Yet the global system he sees as a prison was anything but.\u00a0
\nBarely mentioned is that for decades, American companies were buoyed by making products abroad. The practice brought benefits for the domestic economy, helped put a lid on inflation, and delivered influence for Washington. US partners prospered and, as their living standards climbed, they in turn bought goods and services from firms headquartered stateside. It would be too easy to call this arrangement a win-win; unions complained about outsourcing and wealth wasn\u2019t always spread evenly in host nations. There was, however, a circle of self-interest. It worked for a long time, and still can, if Trump\u2019s team recognizes the pluses that accrued and not just the drawbacks.
\nWhat is clear is that corporations pursued manufacturing in far-flung destinations as a deliberate strategy. The approach had its roots in the postwar world of US industrial dominance, but it was turbocharged in the 1990s. This often meant that to land big deals, it was best to offer the home patch something. A classic method was to make components in the jurisdiction you sought business from. This helped local employment and provided the technological sweeteners that governments were keen on. Who, if anyone, was being ripped off? If there was advantage being taken, there was a lot to go around. The US trade deficit with Southeast Asia has widened over the years, but opportunities were also plentiful.
\nThe contours of the model were laid out for me in Malaysia, where I reported for Bloomberg News in the mid-to-late 1990s. Before a financial crisis derailed a lot of plans, Asia was seen as a gold mine for aircraft makers. Boeing Co. and Airbus SE competed vigorously. In 1996, Boeing landed a huge contract with Malaysian Airline System Bhd. for 777s and 747-400s, beating out its European rival. I recall Tajudin Ramli, the Malaysian tycoon who helmed MAS, lauding then-Boeing CEO Phil Condit as his good friend. Local content was all the rage. The Arlington, Virginia-based plane maker joined with local companies to make parts, such as wing components. It didn\u2019t escape attention that the venture would set up a facility in the northern state of Kedah, home to both Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister at the time, and Tajudin.
\nThe nearby Malaysian state of Penang offers an example of how a slightly earlier version of this approach took root. In the early 1970s, US computer chipmakers were looking for places to invest that were not only cheaper, but offered little prospect of labor strife. For nations like Malaysia and neighboring Singapore, wooing firms also offered the tantalizing prospect of industrial development. At a time when diplomatic experts at august think tanks bemoaned the loss of influence that accompanied withdrawal from Vietnam, semiconductors kept ties with the US pivotal. \u201cRather than dominoes falling to Communism, America\u2019s allies were even more deeply integrated with the US,\u201d Chris Miller wrote in his book Chip War: The Fight for the World\u2019s Most Critical Technology.
\nAttracting foreign capital was a core economic objective of Singaporean officials. For Philip Yeo, the former head of the Economic Development Board, this mission meant more than just traveling a lot and working the corridors of corporate behemoths. He saw his role as akin to a concierge. Singapore would provide the infrastructure, an educated workforce \u2014 and tax incentives. The benefits to the city-state were real: Jobs, money spent in the local economy, a healthy property market, and income. Yeo pressured the principal of the Singapore American School to find a place for the child of the Western Digital Corp. executive appointed to run its local operation. The kids of Levi Strauss & Co.\u2019s top person were distraught at the quarantine endured by the family dog, and Yeo took it upon himself to find a solution. \u201cEven a dog became my problem,\u201d he recounted in an interview for a biography, Neither Civil Nor Servant, by Peh Shing Huei. \u201cWe needed the investment, so it\u2019s okay. I would do anything to get the deal over the line.\u201d
\nWere Americans being exploited, as Trump insists? Hardly. Would it have been better if Airbus triumphed at the expense of Boeing, or would shareholders prefer less-friendly locations than Singapore, a country that enjoys close economic and strategic ties with the US. Of course, not. These are just a couple of examples of where the connective tissues of trade and capital, for all their imperfection, brought tangible advantages.
\nIf Trump sets in train responses that diminish the effectiveness of this model, there will be many losers. It\u2019s doubtful anyone will truly earn the right to be called a victor.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "DONALD TRUMP has offered varying justifications for tariffs, depending on his audience and what\u2019s expedient at any moment. When the president chooses to mount an economic case for levies, it usually comes with the contention that trading partners are ripping off Americans. Factories need to come home \u2014 to the extent they ever left \u2014 and duties will do the trick. He professes to not care much about the crockery broken in the process, and has dubbed Wednesday \u201cLiberation Day\u201d in honor of his protectionist broadsides. Yet the global system he sees as a prison was anything but.\u00a0\nBarely mentioned is that for decades, American companies were buoyed by making products abroad. The practice brought benefits for the domestic economy, helped put a lid on inflation, and delivered influence for Washington. US partners prospered and, as their living standards climbed, they in turn bought goods and services from firms headquartered stateside. It would be too easy to call this arrangement a win-win; unions complained about outsourcing and wealth wasn\u2019t always spread evenly in host nations. There was, however, a circle of self-interest. It worked for a long time, and still can, if Trump\u2019s team recognizes the pluses that accrued and not just the drawbacks.\nWhat is clear is that corporations pursued manufacturing in far-flung destinations as a deliberate strategy. The approach had its roots in the postwar world of US industrial dominance, but it was turbocharged in the 1990s. This often meant that to land big deals, it was best to offer the home patch something. A classic method was to make components in the jurisdiction you sought business from. This helped local employment and provided the technological sweeteners that governments were keen on. Who, if anyone, was being ripped off? If there was advantage being taken, there was a lot to go around. The US trade deficit with Southeast Asia has widened over the years, but opportunities were also plentiful.\nThe contours of the model were laid out for me in Malaysia, where I reported for Bloomberg News in the mid-to-late 1990s. Before a financial crisis derailed a lot of plans, Asia was seen as a gold mine for aircraft makers. Boeing Co. and Airbus SE competed vigorously. In 1996, Boeing landed a huge contract with Malaysian Airline System Bhd. for 777s and 747-400s, beating out its European rival. I recall Tajudin Ramli, the Malaysian tycoon who helmed MAS, lauding then-Boeing CEO Phil Condit as his good friend. Local content was all the rage. The Arlington, Virginia-based plane maker joined with local companies to make parts, such as wing components. It didn\u2019t escape attention that the venture would set up a facility in the northern state of Kedah, home to both Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister at the time, and Tajudin.\nThe nearby Malaysian state of Penang offers an example of how a slightly earlier version of this approach took root. In the early 1970s, US computer chipmakers were looking for places to invest that were not only cheaper, but offered little prospect of labor strife. For nations like Malaysia and neighboring Singapore, wooing firms also offered the tantalizing prospect of industrial development. At a time when diplomatic experts at august think tanks bemoaned the loss of influence that accompanied withdrawal from Vietnam, semiconductors kept ties with the US pivotal. \u201cRather than dominoes falling to Communism, America\u2019s allies were even more deeply integrated with the US,\u201d Chris Miller wrote in his book Chip War: The Fight for the World\u2019s Most Critical Technology.\nAttracting foreign capital was a core economic objective of Singaporean officials. For Philip Yeo, the former head of the Economic Development Board, this mission meant more than just traveling a lot and working the corridors of corporate behemoths. He saw his role as akin to a concierge. Singapore would provide the infrastructure, an educated workforce \u2014 and tax incentives. The benefits to the city-state were real: Jobs, money spent in the local economy, a healthy property market, and income. Yeo pressured the principal of the Singapore American School to find a place for the child of the Western Digital Corp. executive appointed to run its local operation. The kids of Levi Strauss & Co.\u2019s top person were distraught at the quarantine endured by the family dog, and Yeo took it upon himself to find a solution. \u201cEven a dog became my problem,\u201d he recounted in an interview for a biography, Neither Civil Nor Servant, by Peh Shing Huei. \u201cWe needed the investment, so it\u2019s okay. I would do anything to get the deal over the line.\u201d\nWere Americans being exploited, as Trump insists? Hardly. Would it have been better if Airbus triumphed at the expense of Boeing, or would shareholders prefer less-friendly locations than Singapore, a country that enjoys close economic and strategic ties with the US. Of course, not. These are just a couple of examples of where the connective tissues of trade and capital, for all their imperfection, brought tangible advantages.\nIf Trump sets in train responses that diminish the effectiveness of this model, there will be many losers. It\u2019s doubtful anyone will truly earn the right to be called a victor.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-04-04T00:01:12+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-03T18:22:39+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/container-port-series.jpg", "tags": [ "Daniel Moss", "Bloomberg", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=662254", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/03/28/662254/hegseths-asia-tour-wont-fix-the-us-credibility-crisis/", "title": "Hegseth\u2019s Asia tour won\u2019t fix the US credibility crisis", "content_html": "THE BATTLE of Iwo Jima in World War II was one of the bloodiest in the history of the US Marine Corps. Nearly 7,000 American soldiers died. On the Japanese side, the scale of the casualties was exponentially higher. The epic military operation is a reminder of America\u2019s commitment to the Indo-Pacific region. Eighty years later, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has a chance to show that resolve again. The alternative is to accept that China will play a more important role in the region \u2014 and take the space as the US retreats.
\nThe timing of Hegseth\u2019s first Asian tour couldn\u2019t be more awkward. President Donald Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d mantra is raising eyebrows, but so is his administration\u2019s apparent incompetence. The revelation that US plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen were accidentally exposed via a commercial messaging app is worrying for nations that have depended on Washington\u2019s military assistance. Compounding that sense of unreliability: More Trump tariffs are expected next week and allies are likely to be included.
\nThe White House is batting away criticism of the intelligence leak, but it raises serious questions. If the US can be so careless with its own military plans, how much should others rely on it? Hegseth\u2019s itinerary includes visits to the Philippines and Japan. Both US treaty allies should use this opportunity to get firm answers on how much support they can count on, but also shore up their capabilities in the face of Washington\u2019s unpredictability.
\nThe China challenge is getting harder to manage. Manila and Tokyo both have overlapping maritime claims with Beijing in the South and East China seas. These are becoming more difficult to fight as the People\u2019s Liberation Army expands its capabilities around the world, using the full force of its coast guard and advanced undersea cable-cutting technology to its advantage.
\nAlso in the mix is Taiwan\u2019s security, which is important for Japan because of its geographic proximity. President Joe Biden\u2019s administration relied on a network of support among allies to keep countries safe and stand up to China. There\u2019s no indication that will continue under Trump.
\nThere have been some moments of clarity. The defense secretary has had conversations with some key Asian allies, including the Philippines and Thailand, affirming iron-clad support for Manila. Joint Indo-Pacific drills between Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and the US took place earlier this month, and are set to continue despite objections from China.
\nBut some of the other signals from Washington aren\u2019t as encouraging. Under Biden, the US pledged to ramp up its military presence in Japan with the creation of a joint force headquarters. Those plans may be scrapped to save costs, according to NBC and other local media reports. Trump has questioned why American money is being used to help Japan and other Asian allies defend themselves. These mixed messages are unsettling for the region.
\nMeanwhile, Beijing continues to get more assertive. Activities by Chinese vessels near a set of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea \u2014 called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China \u2014 are \u201cclearly escalating,\u201d Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya said on Monday. The Philippine defense chief has called the superpower\u2019s expansive claims in the South China Sea \u201cthe biggest fiction and lie\u201d that no Southeast Asian country would accept, adding that President Xi Jinping\u2019s aggressive policies have undermined international goodwill fostered by his predecessors.
\nHegseth is due to meet his counterparts in Manila and Tokyo. No doubt China will be at the top of their agendas. The three defense secretaries should signal to Beijing that the US is firmly committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific region \u2014 and it\u2019s not just rhetoric. Washington can do this by announcing expanded military exercises, like the annual US-Philippine Balikatan drills. They\u2019ve been growing in size in recent years and both sides should indicate a firm desire for that to continue. The Keen Sword war games between Tokyo and Washington are also a good way to show Beijing that the US presence in the region is here to stay.
\nBoth Asian allies should also tout an increase in their defense budgets as evidence that they are serious about self-reliance, as Trump has insisted upon. Understanding the president\u2019s transactional approach is key in this era, so they should also commit to buying more American weapons.
\nManila has already expressed its intention to acquire the US Typhon missile system as part of a push to secure its maritime interests. Tokyo has quietly been buying American weapons, too. These initiatives should continue, despite criticism by Beijing that such moves are destabilizing to Asia.
\nThe last eight decades have seen US supremacy in the Indo-Pacific region grow from strength to strength. For the most part, that\u2019s kept Asia safe. To mark those ties, Hegseth is scheduled to visit Iwo Jima to attend a Japan-US joint memorial ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Washington needs to decide whether it still wants to maintain its relevance in the region. American credibility and regional security hang in the balance.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "THE BATTLE of Iwo Jima in World War II was one of the bloodiest in the history of the US Marine Corps. Nearly 7,000 American soldiers died. On the Japanese side, the scale of the casualties was exponentially higher. The epic military operation is a reminder of America\u2019s commitment to the Indo-Pacific region. Eighty years later, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has a chance to show that resolve again. The alternative is to accept that China will play a more important role in the region \u2014 and take the space as the US retreats.\nThe timing of Hegseth\u2019s first Asian tour couldn\u2019t be more awkward. President Donald Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d mantra is raising eyebrows, but so is his administration\u2019s apparent incompetence. The revelation that US plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen were accidentally exposed via a commercial messaging app is worrying for nations that have depended on Washington\u2019s military assistance. Compounding that sense of unreliability: More Trump tariffs are expected next week and allies are likely to be included.\nThe White House is batting away criticism of the intelligence leak, but it raises serious questions. If the US can be so careless with its own military plans, how much should others rely on it? Hegseth\u2019s itinerary includes visits to the Philippines and Japan. Both US treaty allies should use this opportunity to get firm answers on how much support they can count on, but also shore up their capabilities in the face of Washington\u2019s unpredictability.\nThe China challenge is getting harder to manage. Manila and Tokyo both have overlapping maritime claims with Beijing in the South and East China seas. These are becoming more difficult to fight as the People\u2019s Liberation Army expands its capabilities around the world, using the full force of its coast guard and advanced undersea cable-cutting technology to its advantage. \nAlso in the mix is Taiwan\u2019s security, which is important for Japan because of its geographic proximity. President Joe Biden\u2019s administration relied on a network of support among allies to keep countries safe and stand up to China. There\u2019s no indication that will continue under Trump.\nThere have been some moments of clarity. The defense secretary has had conversations with some key Asian allies, including the Philippines and Thailand, affirming iron-clad support for Manila. Joint Indo-Pacific drills between Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and the US took place earlier this month, and are set to continue despite objections from China.\nBut some of the other signals from Washington aren\u2019t as encouraging. Under Biden, the US pledged to ramp up its military presence in Japan with the creation of a joint force headquarters. Those plans may be scrapped to save costs, according to NBC and other local media reports. Trump has questioned why American money is being used to help Japan and other Asian allies defend themselves. These mixed messages are unsettling for the region.\nMeanwhile, Beijing continues to get more assertive. Activities by Chinese vessels near a set of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea \u2014 called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China \u2014 are \u201cclearly escalating,\u201d Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya said on Monday. The Philippine defense chief has called the superpower\u2019s expansive claims in the South China Sea \u201cthe biggest fiction and lie\u201d that no Southeast Asian country would accept, adding that President Xi Jinping\u2019s aggressive policies have undermined international goodwill fostered by his predecessors.\nHegseth is due to meet his counterparts in Manila and Tokyo. No doubt China will be at the top of their agendas. The three defense secretaries should signal to Beijing that the US is firmly committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific region \u2014 and it\u2019s not just rhetoric. Washington can do this by announcing expanded military exercises, like the annual US-Philippine Balikatan drills. They\u2019ve been growing in size in recent years and both sides should indicate a firm desire for that to continue. The Keen Sword war games between Tokyo and Washington are also a good way to show Beijing that the US presence in the region is here to stay. \nBoth Asian allies should also tout an increase in their defense budgets as evidence that they are serious about self-reliance, as Trump has insisted upon. Understanding the president\u2019s transactional approach is key in this era, so they should also commit to buying more American weapons.\nManila has already expressed its intention to acquire the US Typhon missile system as part of a push to secure its maritime interests. Tokyo has quietly been buying American weapons, too. These initiatives should continue, despite criticism by Beijing that such moves are destabilizing to Asia.\nThe last eight decades have seen US supremacy in the Indo-Pacific region grow from strength to strength. For the most part, that\u2019s kept Asia safe. To mark those ties, Hegseth is scheduled to visit Iwo Jima to attend a Japan-US joint memorial ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Washington needs to decide whether it still wants to maintain its relevance in the region. American credibility and regional security hang in the balance.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-03-28T00:01:19+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-03-27T18:14:34+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Balikatan-090824_PhilArmyandUSArmy-JR-07.jpg", "tags": [ "Karishma Vaswani", "Bloomberg", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=661247", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/03/24/661247/philippine-stock-market-starts-trading-after-delayed-open/", "title": "Philippine stock market starts trading after delayed open", "content_html": "The open of trading on the Philippine Stock Exchange was delayed for nearly two hours on Monday due to a connection issue, in the latest glitch that may put off foreign traders.
\nTrading on the PSE, which usually starts at 9:30 a.m. Manila time, began Monday at 11:10 a.m., with the benchmark index dropping as much as 1%.
\nThe open \u201cwas delayed due to a system connectivity issue,\u201d PSE President and CEO Ramon Monzon said in a memorandum to trading participants.
\nThe Philippines\u2019 benchmark stock index has dropped about 5% year-to-date, versus the MSCI Asia Pacific Index\u2019s about 3% gain, weighed down by factors including US market volatility.
\n\u201cWe are quite used to this\u201d and the trading delay\u2019s impact will likely be minimal, said Raoul Santos, president of RCBC Securities Inc. in Manila. \u201cOn the foreign side, there may be some clients holding back on their buying due to this system instability,\u201d he added.
\nThe PSE is no stranger to trading disruptions. In January last year, the bourse said a technical issue caused a two-hour trading halt, frustrating investors.
\nThe Philippine bourse shifted to digital trading after permanently shutting down its trading floor in 2022. Stock-trading activities have been suspended in the past due to adverse weather and closure of clearing services.
\nPSE officials didn\u2019t respond to a request for further comment. — Bloomberg
\n", "content_text": "The open of trading on the Philippine Stock Exchange was delayed for nearly two hours on Monday due to a connection issue, in the latest glitch that may put off foreign traders.\nTrading on the PSE, which usually starts at 9:30 a.m. Manila time, began Monday at 11:10 a.m., with the benchmark index dropping as much as 1%.\nThe open \u201cwas delayed due to a system connectivity issue,\u201d PSE President and CEO Ramon Monzon said in a memorandum to trading participants.\nThe Philippines\u2019 benchmark stock index has dropped about 5% year-to-date, versus the MSCI Asia Pacific Index\u2019s about 3% gain, weighed down by factors including US market volatility.\n\u201cWe are quite used to this\u201d and the trading delay\u2019s impact will likely be minimal, said Raoul Santos, president of RCBC Securities Inc. in Manila. \u201cOn the foreign side, there may be some clients holding back on their buying due to this system instability,\u201d he added.\nThe PSE is no stranger to trading disruptions. In January last year, the bourse said a technical issue caused a two-hour trading halt, frustrating investors.\nThe Philippine bourse shifted to digital trading after permanently shutting down its trading floor in 2022. Stock-trading activities have been suspended in the past due to adverse weather and closure of clearing services.\nPSE officials didn\u2019t respond to a request for further comment. — Bloomberg", "date_published": "2025-03-24T12:37:08+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-03-24T12:37:08+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/agarwalekwensi/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/63a6222a994ecdcd0783bb257b7c4e6d18b49dfa789dd168af5420ab8a45082c?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/agarwalekwensi/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/63a6222a994ecdcd0783bb257b7c4e6d18b49dfa789dd168af5420ab8a45082c?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/PSE-trading-floor-traders.jpg", "tags": [ "Bloomberg", "大象传媒" ] }, { "id": "/?p=648018", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/01/22/648018/books-we-read-in-2024-to-prepare-us-for-the-future/", "title": "Books we read in 2024 to prepare us for the future", "content_html": "\r\n \r\n\r\nBy Dave Lee, Parmy Olson and Catherine Thorbecke
\nEARLIER last year I came across a two-frame comic strip that I enjoyed so much I printed it out and taped it to the corner of my desk.
\nIn the first frame, an office worker delightedly tells a colleague: \u201cAI turns this single bullet point into a long e-mail I can pretend I wrote.\u201d In the second, the recipient of that e-mail responds: \u201cAI makes a single bullet point out of this long e-mail I can pretend I read.\u201d
\nDoesn\u2019t that speak to so much of the current moment? Whether it\u2019s coming from Apple or OpenAI or Google or any number of companies working on AI, the message last year seems to have been that both writing and reading is nothing but a chore, an inconvenience to be solved.
\nThis neglects hundreds of years of human progress, of course, where great writing \u2014 even when found in what seem like inconsequential memos \u2014 has the power to shape minds, build bridges, and move mountains (with all these cliches I\u2019m starting to sound a bit like AI myself).
\nOne critical component of great writing is a skill I have yet to see any AI demonstrate: deep thought. It\u2019s a quality found in abundance within the books noted in the following list. It\u2019s a carefully curated group of titles that we \u2014 Bloomberg Opinion\u2019s three commentators on tech \u2014 feel have shaped our thinking.
\nThe brief, like last year, was to recommend reading that provided a bed of knowledge for the key themes we think will define 2025. Ours differs from other lists you might see elsewhere at this time of year in that we focus on relevance rather than recency, though there are new books here, too.
\nTHE EVERYTHING WAR \u2014 DANA MATTIOLI, 2024
\nWhat happens when a company does incredible things for consumers and terrible things for businesses? Wall Street Journal reporter Dana Mattioli serves up a litany of case studies showing how Amazon.com Inc. earned its ruthless reputation in this book, which is enraging at times. Tech startups eager to work with Jeff Bezos\u2019 Goliath are dumbstruck when after a few meetings, Amazon launches nearly identical products. The company swallows a diaper business by threatening to slash its prices to zero if the smaller firm sells to Walmart, killing that deal. Interviews with countless burned companies show Amazon has often gone beyond hard-nosed dealmaking to something far worse: actions befitting a \u201cmobster,\u201d according to Ms. Mattioli. What\u2019s fascinating about The Everything War is the way Amazon\u2019s customer obsession principle gave it cover to act so unethically, skirting sales taxes so its prices could be lower than anyone else\u2019s and dominating markets. Perhaps that made Amazon\u2019s customers its real product, juiced with deals so the giant could keep growing. Reading this left me with the question, \u201cIf America\u2019s trust busters cared more about protecting businesses than protecting consumers, would consumers be better off?\u201d Whatever the case may be, we\u2019ll likely see antitrust regulators from the US and Europe do much more to tackle tech giants like Amazon in 2025. Mattioli\u2019s book explains exactly why they should. \u2014 Parmy Olson
POWER AND PROGRESS \u2014 DARON ACEMO\u011eLU AND SIMON JOHNSON, 2023
\nMIT professor Daron Acemo\u011flu caught my attention twice this year. First, the economist was one of the key contributors to a compelling Goldman Sachs report that posed awkward questions about whether wild investments in artificial intelligence would ever see a meaningful return \u2014 a topic you\u2019ll be hearing a lot about in 2025. Then, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences \u2014 alongside his co-author, Simon Johnson \u2014 for his study of \u201chow institutions are formed and affect prosperity.\u201d That issue is at the very front of my mind as I think and write about AI. Power and Progress, published in 2023, is a hefty historical primer that adds urgent context as today\u2019s AI\u2019s luminaries wave away concerns about job displacement. Yes, tech innovations of the past have created more jobs, not fewer, and society has become prosperous as a result. But it rarely happened organically \u2014 far from it. This book is an important examination of how and when workers benefited from increased productivity from new tech and when they very much didn\u2019t. Hint: It\u2019s not when the creators of the technology are allowed to call all the shots. \u2014 Dave Lee
GAMBLING MAN: THE WILD RIDE OF JAPAN\u2019S MASAYOSHI SON \u2014\u00a0 LIONEL BARBER, 2024
\nI\u2019d been waiting for a chronicle of the stranger-than-fiction life of Softbank founder Masayoshi Son, better known as Masa, and Lionel Barber\u2019s telling did not disappoint. It\u2019s one of those real-life stories that Hollywood writers could only dream of: He was born into a pig-farming zainichi Korean family in post-imperial Japan before becoming the single largest foreign investor in both the US and China. Then there\u2019s the high drama surrounding his investments. Barber largely avoided some of the oversimplifications and stereotypical traps that a lot of writing about Japan falls into. I was left wanting more. But Masa\u2019s story is still being written: He reemerged over the past year to go all-in on artificial intelligence. His exuberance for AI, and his late arrival to the party, could easily become a cautionary tale. You\u2019d think his appetite for risk would temper after becoming one of the biggest losers in the dot-com crash or staining his reputation with the recent WeWork saga. But, as Barber writes, \u201cIf you are born in a slum with nothing, losing everything is relative. You just go back to square one. Then, like the Korean slum dwellers in [Masa\u2019s hometown], you build back up.\u201d It\u2019s well worth a read for anyone trying to gain a deeper understanding of what could come next for an individual who has played a pivotal role in shaping the tech sector in Asia and beyond. \u2014 Catherine Thorbecke
CODE DEPENDENT \u2014 MADHUMITA MURGIA, 2024
\nA number of years ago, I took an eye-opening trip to Nairobi\u2019s Kibera slum to see firsthand the local operations of Samasource, a San Francisco-based firm that outsourced tech work to developing countries. I met some of the workers earning $1 to $2 a day to do data annotation for a variety of projects, such as self-driving cars or visual search engines. Since then, I\u2019ve always thought of these workers \u2014 who have names, lives, and dreams, you know \u2014 when tech CEOs talk of \u201cmagical\u201d software that \u201cjust works.\u201d Madhumita Murgia, a Financial Times journalist (and, full disclosure, a friend and former colleague) explores this world more deeply in her book Code Dependent. Murgia examines how emerging technologies like AI are built, and the root cause of flaws within them, by getting up close and personal with those at the front line of it all. She also examines how these trained algorithms are in turn provided new avenues for exploitation of our identities, bodies, and well-being. It all amounts to what she calls \u201cdata colonialism\u201d \u2014 the consequences of which we\u2019re only just beginning to comprehend. \u2014 Dave Lee
PROJECT HAIL MARY \u2014 ANDY WEIR, 2021
\nAs a longtime tech journalist, it\u2019s easy to slip into cynicism about the ways technology promises to make the world better but often ends up creating problems instead. Think smartphone addiction, social media\u2019s stain on our mental health, crypto scams, and so forth. Andy Weir\u2019s novel is a reminder of all the ways human ingenuity can solve huge problems, dare I say it even save the world. Steeped in meticulous scientific details that make the story feel not just plausible but real, Project Hail Mary follows a junior high teacher and former molecular biologist as he finds himself aboard a rocket ship, groggily waking up from a coma to realize he is on a critical mission to another solar system. He must use his expertise and careful, critical thinking to address an array of engineering problems and let\u2019s just say extraordinary new circumstances. It is best not to read much more about the story and let the plot unfold, as I did with no regrets whatsoever. I also recommend listening to the audio book, which is not read but engagingly \u201cperformed\u201d by the American actor Ray Porter, whose impressive grasp of international accents made it feel at times as if I was watching a film. I listened to this book while jogging and have never before or since been so motivated to lace up my running shoes. \u2014 Parmy Olson
BLOCKCHAIN CHICKEN FARM AND OTHER STORIES OF TECH IN CHINA\u2019S COUNTRYSIDE \u2014 XIAOWEI WANG, 2020
\nTo cover China\u2019s tech sector is to be bombarded with statements that paint the entire nation as a \u201cthreat\u201d: an existential, adversarial force that the US must hold back. The human rights-flouting track record of the Chinese Communist Party doesn\u2019t help. And US politicians need a bogeyman to blame as much as Silicon Valley needs a rival when trying to fight regulation. This book offered glimpses of a few of the real people, mostly from rural China, whose stories often get lost. When Wang visits the titular poultry farm that uses tamper-proof tech to certify the free-range status of birds for e-commerce shoppers, a villager remarks that there have been lots of news stories of the farm but very few visits. No English-language book about the country can scratch the surface of life there, and the author occasionally veered into seemingly off-course tangents. Part travelogue and part memoir, Wang\u2019s perspective is unlike anything I\u2019ve read. Its themes resonate and take on new significance as the US-China tech war heats up. As a fresh crop of China hawks come into power, it would help for Americans to understand who they are trying to fight against. In an increasingly globalized, tech-driven world, Wang\u2019s writing is a reminder of how interconnected and similar people from the two sides of the globe can be. \u2014 Catherine Thorbecke
ALSO ON OUR BOOKSHELVES …
\nDave made the unwise decision to read Emily St. John Mandel\u2019s Station Eleven and Cormac McCarthy\u2019s The Road back to back, sending him into a post-apocalyptic funk, though it did at least remind him to be far more grateful for some of the tech he relies upon to live a comfortable life. Likewise, he found Nicola Twilley\u2019s Frostbite, about the origins and complexities of modern-day refrigeration, to be an unexpectedly funny and engaging book. Speaking of The Road, Parmy found an even bleaker book in Prophet Song, Paul Lynch\u2019s Booker-Prize winning novel that looks at what happens when propaganda dominates our information ecosystem. She also recommends Co-Intelligence by Ethan Mollick, an excellent explainer on generative AI by a Wharton professor who plays with it every day. Catherine reread Kazuo Ishiguro\u2019s 2021 novel Klara and the Sun this year and was shocked at how prescient the topic of a chronically ill, lonely teenager finding companionship with an \u201cartificial friend\u201d was today. She was excited to hear that it is being turned into a film, expected to be released in the new year, from one of her favorite directors, Taika Waititi.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg\u2019s US technology columnist, based in New York. Parmy Olson covers AI and the tech industry from London and is the author of Supremacy, just named the Financial Times book of the year for 2024. Catherine Thorbecke is Bloomberg\u2019s Asia tech columnist, based in Tokyo.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "1 of 6\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n PENGUIN.CO.UK\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n SHAPINGWORK.MIT.EDU\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n PENGUIN.CO.UK\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n US.MACMILLAN.COM\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n PENGUINRANDOMHOUSE.COM\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n US.MACMILLAN.COM\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \nBy Dave Lee, Parmy Olson and Catherine Thorbecke\nEARLIER last year I came across a two-frame comic strip that I enjoyed so much I printed it out and taped it to the corner of my desk.\nIn the first frame, an office worker delightedly tells a colleague: \u201cAI turns this single bullet point into a long e-mail I can pretend I wrote.\u201d In the second, the recipient of that e-mail responds: \u201cAI makes a single bullet point out of this long e-mail I can pretend I read.\u201d\nDoesn\u2019t that speak to so much of the current moment? Whether it\u2019s coming from Apple or OpenAI or Google or any number of companies working on AI, the message last year seems to have been that both writing and reading is nothing but a chore, an inconvenience to be solved.\nThis neglects hundreds of years of human progress, of course, where great writing \u2014 even when found in what seem like inconsequential memos \u2014 has the power to shape minds, build bridges, and move mountains (with all these cliches I\u2019m starting to sound a bit like AI myself).\nOne critical component of great writing is a skill I have yet to see any AI demonstrate: deep thought. It\u2019s a quality found in abundance within the books noted in the following list. It\u2019s a carefully curated group of titles that we \u2014 Bloomberg Opinion\u2019s three commentators on tech \u2014 feel have shaped our thinking.\nThe brief, like last year, was to recommend reading that provided a bed of knowledge for the key themes we think will define 2025. Ours differs from other lists you might see elsewhere at this time of year in that we focus on relevance rather than recency, though there are new books here, too.\nTHE EVERYTHING WAR \u2014 DANA MATTIOLI, 2024\nWhat happens when a company does incredible things for consumers and terrible things for businesses? Wall Street Journal reporter Dana Mattioli serves up a litany of case studies showing how Amazon.com Inc. earned its ruthless reputation in this book, which is enraging at times. Tech startups eager to work with Jeff Bezos\u2019 Goliath are dumbstruck when after a few meetings, Amazon launches nearly identical products. The company swallows a diaper business by threatening to slash its prices to zero if the smaller firm sells to Walmart, killing that deal. Interviews with countless burned companies show Amazon has often gone beyond hard-nosed dealmaking to something far worse: actions befitting a \u201cmobster,\u201d according to Ms. Mattioli. What\u2019s fascinating about The Everything War is the way Amazon\u2019s customer obsession principle gave it cover to act so unethically, skirting sales taxes so its prices could be lower than anyone else\u2019s and dominating markets. Perhaps that made Amazon\u2019s customers its real product, juiced with deals so the giant could keep growing. Reading this left me with the question, \u201cIf America\u2019s trust busters cared more about protecting businesses than protecting consumers, would consumers be better off?\u201d Whatever the case may be, we\u2019ll likely see antitrust regulators from the US and Europe do much more to tackle tech giants like Amazon in 2025. Mattioli\u2019s book explains exactly why they should. \u2014 Parmy Olson\nPOWER AND PROGRESS \u2014 DARON ACEMO\u011eLU AND SIMON JOHNSON, 2023\nMIT professor Daron Acemo\u011flu caught my attention twice this year. First, the economist was one of the key contributors to a compelling Goldman Sachs report that posed awkward questions about whether wild investments in artificial intelligence would ever see a meaningful return \u2014 a topic you\u2019ll be hearing a lot about in 2025. Then, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences \u2014 alongside his co-author, Simon Johnson \u2014 for his study of \u201chow institutions are formed and affect prosperity.\u201d That issue is at the very front of my mind as I think and write about AI. Power and Progress, published in 2023, is a hefty historical primer that adds urgent context as today\u2019s AI\u2019s luminaries wave away concerns about job displacement. Yes, tech innovations of the past have created more jobs, not fewer, and society has become prosperous as a result. But it rarely happened organically \u2014 far from it. This book is an important examination of how and when workers benefited from increased productivity from new tech and when they very much didn\u2019t. Hint: It\u2019s not when the creators of the technology are allowed to call all the shots. \u2014 Dave Lee\nGAMBLING MAN: THE WILD RIDE OF JAPAN\u2019S MASAYOSHI SON \u2014\u00a0 LIONEL BARBER, 2024\nI\u2019d been waiting for a chronicle of the stranger-than-fiction life of Softbank founder Masayoshi Son, better known as Masa, and Lionel Barber\u2019s telling did not disappoint. It\u2019s one of those real-life stories that Hollywood writers could only dream of: He was born into a pig-farming zainichi Korean family in post-imperial Japan before becoming the single largest foreign investor in both the US and China. Then there\u2019s the high drama surrounding his investments. Barber largely avoided some of the oversimplifications and stereotypical traps that a lot of writing about Japan falls into. I was left wanting more. But Masa\u2019s story is still being written: He reemerged over the past year to go all-in on artificial intelligence. His exuberance for AI, and his late arrival to the party, could easily become a cautionary tale. You\u2019d think his appetite for risk would temper after becoming one of the biggest losers in the dot-com crash or staining his reputation with the recent WeWork saga. But, as Barber writes, \u201cIf you are born in a slum with nothing, losing everything is relative. You just go back to square one. Then, like the Korean slum dwellers in [Masa\u2019s hometown], you build back up.\u201d It\u2019s well worth a read for anyone trying to gain a deeper understanding of what could come next for an individual who has played a pivotal role in shaping the tech sector in Asia and beyond. \u2014 Catherine Thorbecke\nCODE DEPENDENT \u2014 MADHUMITA MURGIA, 2024\nA number of years ago, I took an eye-opening trip to Nairobi\u2019s Kibera slum to see firsthand the local operations of Samasource, a San Francisco-based firm that outsourced tech work to developing countries. I met some of the workers earning $1 to $2 a day to do data annotation for a variety of projects, such as self-driving cars or visual search engines. Since then, I\u2019ve always thought of these workers \u2014 who have names, lives, and dreams, you know \u2014 when tech CEOs talk of \u201cmagical\u201d software that \u201cjust works.\u201d Madhumita Murgia, a Financial Times journalist (and, full disclosure, a friend and former colleague) explores this world more deeply in her book Code Dependent. Murgia examines how emerging technologies like AI are built, and the root cause of flaws within them, by getting up close and personal with those at the front line of it all. She also examines how these trained algorithms are in turn provided new avenues for exploitation of our identities, bodies, and well-being. It all amounts to what she calls \u201cdata colonialism\u201d \u2014 the consequences of which we\u2019re only just beginning to comprehend. \u2014 Dave Lee\nPROJECT HAIL MARY \u2014 ANDY WEIR, 2021\nAs a longtime tech journalist, it\u2019s easy to slip into cynicism about the ways technology promises to make the world better but often ends up creating problems instead. Think smartphone addiction, social media\u2019s stain on our mental health, crypto scams, and so forth. Andy Weir\u2019s novel is a reminder of all the ways human ingenuity can solve huge problems, dare I say it even save the world. Steeped in meticulous scientific details that make the story feel not just plausible but real, Project Hail Mary follows a junior high teacher and former molecular biologist as he finds himself aboard a rocket ship, groggily waking up from a coma to realize he is on a critical mission to another solar system. He must use his expertise and careful, critical thinking to address an array of engineering problems and let\u2019s just say extraordinary new circumstances. It is best not to read much more about the story and let the plot unfold, as I did with no regrets whatsoever. I also recommend listening to the audio book, which is not read but engagingly \u201cperformed\u201d by the American actor Ray Porter, whose impressive grasp of international accents made it feel at times as if I was watching a film. I listened to this book while jogging and have never before or since been so motivated to lace up my running shoes. \u2014 Parmy Olson\nBLOCKCHAIN CHICKEN FARM AND OTHER STORIES OF TECH IN CHINA\u2019S COUNTRYSIDE \u2014 XIAOWEI WANG, 2020\nTo cover China\u2019s tech sector is to be bombarded with statements that paint the entire nation as a \u201cthreat\u201d: an existential, adversarial force that the US must hold back. The human rights-flouting track record of the Chinese Communist Party doesn\u2019t help. And US politicians need a bogeyman to blame as much as Silicon Valley needs a rival when trying to fight regulation. This book offered glimpses of a few of the real people, mostly from rural China, whose stories often get lost. When Wang visits the titular poultry farm that uses tamper-proof tech to certify the free-range status of birds for e-commerce shoppers, a villager remarks that there have been lots of news stories of the farm but very few visits. No English-language book about the country can scratch the surface of life there, and the author occasionally veered into seemingly off-course tangents. Part travelogue and part memoir, Wang\u2019s perspective is unlike anything I\u2019ve read. Its themes resonate and take on new significance as the US-China tech war heats up. As a fresh crop of China hawks come into power, it would help for Americans to understand who they are trying to fight against. In an increasingly globalized, tech-driven world, Wang\u2019s writing is a reminder of how interconnected and similar people from the two sides of the globe can be. \u2014 Catherine Thorbecke\nALSO ON OUR BOOKSHELVES …\nDave made the unwise decision to read Emily St. John Mandel\u2019s Station Eleven and Cormac McCarthy\u2019s The Road back to back, sending him into a post-apocalyptic funk, though it did at least remind him to be far more grateful for some of the tech he relies upon to live a comfortable life. Likewise, he found Nicola Twilley\u2019s Frostbite, about the origins and complexities of modern-day refrigeration, to be an unexpectedly funny and engaging book. Speaking of The Road, Parmy found an even bleaker book in Prophet Song, Paul Lynch\u2019s Booker-Prize winning novel that looks at what happens when propaganda dominates our information ecosystem. She also recommends Co-Intelligence by Ethan Mollick, an excellent explainer on generative AI by a Wharton professor who plays with it every day. Catherine reread Kazuo Ishiguro\u2019s 2021 novel Klara and the Sun this year and was shocked at how prescient the topic of a chronically ill, lonely teenager finding companionship with an \u201cartificial friend\u201d was today. She was excited to hear that it is being turned into a film, expected to be released in the new year, from one of her favorite directors, Taika Waititi.\nDave Lee is Bloomberg\u2019s US technology columnist, based in New York. Parmy Olson covers AI and the tech industry from London and is the author of Supremacy, just named the Financial Times book of the year for 2024. Catherine Thorbecke is Bloomberg\u2019s Asia tech columnist, based in Tokyo.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-01-22T00:04:12+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-01-21T18:44:33+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-Everything-War-\u2014-Dana-Mattioli-thumb.jpg", "tags": [ "Catherine Thorbecke", "Dave Lee", "Parmy Olson", "Arts & Leisure", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks" ], "summary": "EARLIER last year I came across a two-frame comic strip that I enjoyed so much I printed it out and taped it to the corner of my desk." }, { "id": "/?p=647968", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/01/22/647968/tiktok-survives-as-an-app-too-popular-to-ban/", "title": "TikTok survives as an app too popular to ban", "content_html": "IT\u2019S RARE for a journalist to be the bearer of good news. But that\u2019s how it felt on Sunday when I was the first to tell 23-year-old TikToker George Kapitan that the beloved app was alive again, just 16 hours after a dramatic Saturday night shutdown.
\n\u201cOkay,\u201d George said. \u201cI guess it works.\u201d
\nHonestly, not the moment of jubilation I\u2019d been expecting. George had told me that he and his friends had held a farewell for the social network the night before. \u201cI was really sad,\u201d he said. \u201cWe got together, made dinner, had ice cream. A little going away party for TikTok.\u201d
\nMaybe George\u2019s calm reaction was because nothing about the app feels certain. Sure, it was loading now. But for how long? And under whose control? TikTokers now realize the fragility of their digital home and its status as a geopolitical football. Its existence still hangs in the balance despite the temporary reprieve put in place over the weekend.
\nGeorge credited the app with aiding his burgeoning career in marketing, learning the ropes from how-to videos, trusted mentors and other content the algorithm learned he was looking for. He now works at L\u2019Oreal SA.
\nBut political leaders have long feared this kind of productive use covers the app\u2019s potential as a vector for espionage and disruption by the Chinese Communist Party. For that reason, Sunday had been set as the deadline for parent company ByteDance to divest the app or face being cut off from the American market. And so it came to pass on Saturday night, not long before 11 p.m. Eastern Time: TikTok had gone dark, yanked from mobile app stores.
\nThe controversial but decisive action was backed last April by a bipartisan vote in Congress, signed into law soon after by President Joe Biden, and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court last week on the grounds of national security.
\nAnd yet, in less than 24 hours, TikTok proved itself to be something extraordinary: an app too popular to ban. A disturbing precedent, even if you oppose the ban\u2019s debatable rationale.
\nAt the very least, TikTok\u2019s rapid return ruined plans for the \u201cfuneral\u201d that had been set to take place in New York\u2019s Washington Square Park on Sunday afternoon. Nestled within the campus of New York University, the park can credibly claim to be the physical center of American TikTok culture. Its towering Roman arch and fountain are now recognizable as a backdrop to some of the app\u2019s most viral content.
\nAlas, in the frigid conditions, the journalists outnumbered the \u201creal people,\u201d as one young attendee reasonably put it. I guess it\u2019s hard to motivate people to attend a funeral when the subject of mourning isn\u2019t actually dead.
\nTikTok does remain on life support, however. The current and incoming presidents\u2019 promises of a free pass may have been enough to convince the country\u2019s biggest technology companies to break the law and continue partnering with TikTok on its infrastructure, but they still risk gigantic fines without more concrete assurances.
\nAn executive order is expected to be confirmed on Monday, Donald Trump\u2019s first day back in office. It may set off another countdown, a 90-day period in which some kind of deal must be made. This would be a generous interpretation of the law, which had insisted an extension could only be granted if a serious deal was already in the process of being thrashed out. We seem far from that.
\nIn a post on Truth Social, Trump suggested one solution: some kind of joint venture with the US government owning half. Nothing about ByteDance\u2019s statements to date suggest it would find such an arrangement palatable (to say nothing of how users might feel about a state-owned social network). A joint venture with China retaining control of the algorithm would not allay any concerns on national security.
\nThe chain of events should be highly concerning to all of us. The three branches of government played their roles as assigned. The app should, by all accounts, be inaccessible to Americans. The reasoning behind the action has not changed. Even if it had, the solution to bad lawmaking should be better lawmaking. If Washington considered the TikTok threat real last year, it should believe the same thing now, even in the face of being disliked. I believe it\u2019s what they call backbone. The carrot and stick approach only works if you\u2019re willing to actually use the stick.
\nInstead, we have the likes of Democrat Senator Ed Markey, who voted for the ban, jumping onto social media to tell TikTokers that he is doing everything he can to prevent the \u201cmistake\u201d from being enforced. A White House statement said Biden had promised to not follow through on the law he personally signed, seen by some as a last-gasp attempt at restoring some of his tattered standing with young people.
\nThe embarrassing dithering reflected a fear among Democrats that this will be seen as Trump\u2019s triumphant win for America\u2019s youth. Trump clearly relishes the chance to be the president who saved the day, though his primary focus remains himself. Speaking on Sunday at a pre-inauguration rally, he reiterated how his opinion has been shaped by his own success on the platform during the election campaign.
\nHis attempts to cultivate the vibe as TikTok\u2019s knight \u2014 despite trying to ban it himself while he was in office \u2014 are being reinforced by the company itself. \u201cWe are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us,\u201d read a notice presented to users while the app was down. TikTok\u2019s CEO will have a front-row seat at Monday\u2019s inauguration, joining the cabal of tech leaders now delighted to be by Trump\u2019s side.
\nDespite all this, some still maintain that the Chinese-owned app\u2019s potential to exert political influence in America is purely hypothetical. The carefully orchestrated drama of this weekend should put that claim to rest \u2014 though Trump seems ready to let it slide if he\u2019s permitted to at least pull some of the strings.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "IT\u2019S RARE for a journalist to be the bearer of good news. But that\u2019s how it felt on Sunday when I was the first to tell 23-year-old TikToker George Kapitan that the beloved app was alive again, just 16 hours after a dramatic Saturday night shutdown.\n\u201cOkay,\u201d George said. \u201cI guess it works.\u201d\nHonestly, not the moment of jubilation I\u2019d been expecting. George had told me that he and his friends had held a farewell for the social network the night before. \u201cI was really sad,\u201d he said. \u201cWe got together, made dinner, had ice cream. A little going away party for TikTok.\u201d\nMaybe George\u2019s calm reaction was because nothing about the app feels certain. Sure, it was loading now. But for how long? And under whose control? TikTokers now realize the fragility of their digital home and its status as a geopolitical football. Its existence still hangs in the balance despite the temporary reprieve put in place over the weekend.\nGeorge credited the app with aiding his burgeoning career in marketing, learning the ropes from how-to videos, trusted mentors and other content the algorithm learned he was looking for. He now works at L\u2019Oreal SA.\nBut political leaders have long feared this kind of productive use covers the app\u2019s potential as a vector for espionage and disruption by the Chinese Communist Party. For that reason, Sunday had been set as the deadline for parent company ByteDance to divest the app or face being cut off from the American market. And so it came to pass on Saturday night, not long before 11 p.m. Eastern Time: TikTok had gone dark, yanked from mobile app stores.\nThe controversial but decisive action was backed last April by a bipartisan vote in Congress, signed into law soon after by President Joe Biden, and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court last week on the grounds of national security.\nAnd yet, in less than 24 hours, TikTok proved itself to be something extraordinary: an app too popular to ban. A disturbing precedent, even if you oppose the ban\u2019s debatable rationale.\nAt the very least, TikTok\u2019s rapid return ruined plans for the \u201cfuneral\u201d that had been set to take place in New York\u2019s Washington Square Park on Sunday afternoon. Nestled within the campus of New York University, the park can credibly claim to be the physical center of American TikTok culture. Its towering Roman arch and fountain are now recognizable as a backdrop to some of the app\u2019s most viral content.\nAlas, in the frigid conditions, the journalists outnumbered the \u201creal people,\u201d as one young attendee reasonably put it. I guess it\u2019s hard to motivate people to attend a funeral when the subject of mourning isn\u2019t actually dead.\nTikTok does remain on life support, however. The current and incoming presidents\u2019 promises of a free pass may have been enough to convince the country\u2019s biggest technology companies to break the law and continue partnering with TikTok on its infrastructure, but they still risk gigantic fines without more concrete assurances.\nAn executive order is expected to be confirmed on Monday, Donald Trump\u2019s first day back in office. It may set off another countdown, a 90-day period in which some kind of deal must be made. This would be a generous interpretation of the law, which had insisted an extension could only be granted if a serious deal was already in the process of being thrashed out. We seem far from that.\nIn a post on Truth Social, Trump suggested one solution: some kind of joint venture with the US government owning half. Nothing about ByteDance\u2019s statements to date suggest it would find such an arrangement palatable (to say nothing of how users might feel about a state-owned social network). A joint venture with China retaining control of the algorithm would not allay any concerns on national security. \nThe chain of events should be highly concerning to all of us. The three branches of government played their roles as assigned. The app should, by all accounts, be inaccessible to Americans. The reasoning behind the action has not changed. Even if it had, the solution to bad lawmaking should be better lawmaking. If Washington considered the TikTok threat real last year, it should believe the same thing now, even in the face of being disliked. I believe it\u2019s what they call backbone. The carrot and stick approach only works if you\u2019re willing to actually use the stick.\nInstead, we have the likes of Democrat Senator Ed Markey, who voted for the ban, jumping onto social media to tell TikTokers that he is doing everything he can to prevent the \u201cmistake\u201d from being enforced. A White House statement said Biden had promised to not follow through on the law he personally signed, seen by some as a last-gasp attempt at restoring some of his tattered standing with young people. \nThe embarrassing dithering reflected a fear among Democrats that this will be seen as Trump\u2019s triumphant win for America\u2019s youth. Trump clearly relishes the chance to be the president who saved the day, though his primary focus remains himself. Speaking on Sunday at a pre-inauguration rally, he reiterated how his opinion has been shaped by his own success on the platform during the election campaign.\nHis attempts to cultivate the vibe as TikTok\u2019s knight \u2014 despite trying to ban it himself while he was in office \u2014 are being reinforced by the company itself. \u201cWe are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us,\u201d read a notice presented to users while the app was down. TikTok\u2019s CEO will have a front-row seat at Monday\u2019s inauguration, joining the cabal of tech leaders now delighted to be by Trump\u2019s side.\nDespite all this, some still maintain that the Chinese-owned app\u2019s potential to exert political influence in America is purely hypothetical. The carefully orchestrated drama of this weekend should put that claim to rest \u2014 though Trump seems ready to let it slide if he\u2019s permitted to at least pull some of the strings.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-01-22T00:02:56+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-01-21T17:17:56+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/TikTok-1.jpg", "tags": [ "Dave Lee", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=644691", "url": "/bloomberg/2025/01/06/644691/the-case-for-paranoid-optimism-under-trump-2-0/", "title": "The case for paranoid optimism under Trump 2.0", "content_html": "THE YEAR 2025 is really like any other, only more so: It deserves to be greeted with what one of my former editors calls \u201cparanoid optimism.\u201d
\nOptimism is in order because the world, chaotic as it currently looks, might get better \u2014 and, yes, in part because a new American president, Donald Trump, could tackle problems in such mind-bogglingly unorthodox ways that breakthroughs become conceivable. The paranoia is called for because the world is complicated, with dangerous feedback loops hidden inside today\u2019s \u201cpolycrisis.\u201d And a leader as proudly unpredictable as Trump might inadvertently blow it all up.
\nWe\u2019ll have to get used to this ambiguity, which evokes the famous cat in Erwin Schrodinger\u2019s thought experiment (about quantum superposition, if that means something to you). The poor creature sits in a sealed box and is simultaneously alive and dead; but only until you open the box and look. Thereafter it\u2019s either one or the other. Something similar will happen once Trump takes his oath of office and starts owning every mess in the world.
\nHere are just a few examples in international relations that illustrate how various cats could live or die. They derive from the most important bilateral relationship in the world, the one between the United States and China. If and when these two cooperate, almost any problem becomes solvable. When they don\u2019t, every pickle has the potential to escalate to Armageddon.
\nYou may not have noticed this in your social-media stream, for instance, but since 2021 the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45 has been fentanyl, or some other synthetic opioid based on it. One reason (of several) is that China, sulking over US support for Taiwan and other perceived snubs, turned a blind eye to the illegal production of the requisite chemicals by Chinese triads; those molecules then made their way to Mexico, where drug cartels packaged them for sale in the US. When Sino-American relations are bad, people die.
\nA bit over a year ago, though, Joe Biden and Xi Jinping met and agreed to pull back from the brink. China now cracks down harder on the triads (although plenty of the drugs still make it out). And lo, fentanyl deaths started declining in 2023 and are now plummeting. (Again, the reasons are complex, but this is one.) When Washington and Beijing cooperate, people live.
\nNow apply this to other cats trapped in boxes over which Xi and Trump will soon have joint custody. One is the prospect of nuclear war, or of an arms race that could lead to it. This year, China added another 100 atomic warheads to its arsenal, for a total of about 600; it plans to catch up with the US and Russia in about a decade. (Each of those has deployed about 1,700 nukes for instant use, with thousands more in storage.) Will all three keep arming, in a vain effort to outdo the others? In time, this could lead to feline mass extinction.
\nIf, however, Trump and Xi agree to put brakes on this insanity, as Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev once did, there is hope. Together, they could persuade Russia\u2019s Vladimir Putin, and possibly even North Korea\u2019s Kim Jong Un and the mullahs in Iran, to participate in arms-control talks. Xi has the requisite sway with them; and Trump \u2014 according to, well, Trump \u2014 is a negotiating genius.
\nXi\u2019s clout in Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran is also a segue to a parallel threat to world peace, the formation of a new \u201caxis\u201d among these regimes (akin to that other one between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan). Step by step, these four autocracies are moving from informal cooperation in undermining the US and the \u201corder\u201d for which it stands to formalized ties: Under this year\u2019s pact between Russia and North Korea, for example, North Korean troops are now fighting and dying alongside Russian soldiers in Putin\u2019s war against Ukraine.
\nThis de facto axis will put the Trump administration in a bind. So far Washington, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has viewed conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea as discrete. If there\u2019s even a hint that the four adversaries might coordinate their plans of attack \u2014 or barring that, recalculate opportunistically and strike when they believe that the US is distracted \u2014 the risk rises that the \u201ctheaters\u201d become linked. The US military is currently set up to win one major war and one minor war simultaneously; if it had to confront the entire axis, it would have to wage four and might lose.
\nThe proper label for that scenario is World War III. It\u2019s a term that Trump has used often and that clearly haunts him. Instead of offering a strategy to prevent this nightmare, he has so far only touted his own alleged \u201cstrength,\u201d whatever that means. To translate this bumper sticker into military might, he\u2019d have to double or triple America\u2019s defense budget, which would cause a fiscal and political crisis.
\nSo his only practical option is to break up the axis before it becomes real. That again means he must talk to Beijing, which deems itself the hub of any emerging anti-Western alliance even as it looks askance at Moscow and Pyongyang getting too cuddly. If Trump and Xi talk, people will live; if not, people may die.
\nSo it goes for almost every major problem. The United Nations, for example, has gone from merely dysfunctional to essentially irrelevant. One reason: Three of the five permanent (and veto-wielding) members of the security council keep sabotaging one another and the whole system. The US vetoes resolutions pertaining to Israel, while China and Russia protect each other, as well as North Korea and other rogues. (By contrast, the other two permanent members, Britain and France, have admirably refrained from using their vetoes for more than three decades.) If Trump and Xi wanted to resurrect the international system (which Trump admittedly claims to disdain), they could jointly declare a moratorium on vetoes.
\nThe best example, of course, is climate change. I hesitate to bring it up because it\u2019s hardly top of Trump\u2019s mind, or even tucked away in any nook of it. But that could change, especially if he\u2019s reminded that he should leave a positive legacy. Historically, the US has been the largest emitter of carbon into the atmosphere, although China has taken the top spot since 2005. If these two countries cooperate to slow global warming, there\u2019s hope; if they don\u2019t, there isn\u2019t.
\nThis is where paranoia bubbles up from my amygdala. As of now, Trump shows little interest in any of these sweeping thoughts and ambitions. He instead appears focused on starting a trade war with China, and then the whole world, because \u201cthe most beautiful word in the dictionary is \u2018tariff\u2019.\u201d That\u2019s a bad idea economically, and astoundingly petty. It\u2019s also the worst possible way to start off with Xi. And remember: If they don\u2019t get it together, cats will start dying.
\nThen the optimism fights back. It\u2019s Trump\u2019s shtick to trash-talk his interlocutors, friend or foe alike, just to see how they\u2019ll react. But he also knows \u2014 at least I hope he does \u2014 that solving problems in the real world, whether in Ukraine, at the southern border, or anywhere else, requires finesse and an open mind. And neither he nor Xi (no pun intended) wants to blow up the world. Onward then, and welcome, 2025.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "THE YEAR 2025 is really like any other, only more so: It deserves to be greeted with what one of my former editors calls \u201cparanoid optimism.\u201d\nOptimism is in order because the world, chaotic as it currently looks, might get better \u2014 and, yes, in part because a new American president, Donald Trump, could tackle problems in such mind-bogglingly unorthodox ways that breakthroughs become conceivable. The paranoia is called for because the world is complicated, with dangerous feedback loops hidden inside today\u2019s \u201cpolycrisis.\u201d And a leader as proudly unpredictable as Trump might inadvertently blow it all up.\nWe\u2019ll have to get used to this ambiguity, which evokes the famous cat in Erwin Schrodinger\u2019s thought experiment (about quantum superposition, if that means something to you). The poor creature sits in a sealed box and is simultaneously alive and dead; but only until you open the box and look. Thereafter it\u2019s either one or the other. Something similar will happen once Trump takes his oath of office and starts owning every mess in the world.\nHere are just a few examples in international relations that illustrate how various cats could live or die. They derive from the most important bilateral relationship in the world, the one between the United States and China. If and when these two cooperate, almost any problem becomes solvable. When they don\u2019t, every pickle has the potential to escalate to Armageddon.\nYou may not have noticed this in your social-media stream, for instance, but since 2021 the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45 has been fentanyl, or some other synthetic opioid based on it. One reason (of several) is that China, sulking over US support for Taiwan and other perceived snubs, turned a blind eye to the illegal production of the requisite chemicals by Chinese triads; those molecules then made their way to Mexico, where drug cartels packaged them for sale in the US. When Sino-American relations are bad, people die.\nA bit over a year ago, though, Joe Biden and Xi Jinping met and agreed to pull back from the brink. China now cracks down harder on the triads (although plenty of the drugs still make it out). And lo, fentanyl deaths started declining in 2023 and are now plummeting. (Again, the reasons are complex, but this is one.) When Washington and Beijing cooperate, people live.\nNow apply this to other cats trapped in boxes over which Xi and Trump will soon have joint custody. One is the prospect of nuclear war, or of an arms race that could lead to it. This year, China added another 100 atomic warheads to its arsenal, for a total of about 600; it plans to catch up with the US and Russia in about a decade. (Each of those has deployed about 1,700 nukes for instant use, with thousands more in storage.) Will all three keep arming, in a vain effort to outdo the others? In time, this could lead to feline mass extinction.\nIf, however, Trump and Xi agree to put brakes on this insanity, as Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev once did, there is hope. Together, they could persuade Russia\u2019s Vladimir Putin, and possibly even North Korea\u2019s Kim Jong Un and the mullahs in Iran, to participate in arms-control talks. Xi has the requisite sway with them; and Trump \u2014 according to, well, Trump \u2014 is a negotiating genius.\nXi\u2019s clout in Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran is also a segue to a parallel threat to world peace, the formation of a new \u201caxis\u201d among these regimes (akin to that other one between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan). Step by step, these four autocracies are moving from informal cooperation in undermining the US and the \u201corder\u201d for which it stands to formalized ties: Under this year\u2019s pact between Russia and North Korea, for example, North Korean troops are now fighting and dying alongside Russian soldiers in Putin\u2019s war against Ukraine.\nThis de facto axis will put the Trump administration in a bind. So far Washington, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has viewed conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea as discrete. If there\u2019s even a hint that the four adversaries might coordinate their plans of attack \u2014 or barring that, recalculate opportunistically and strike when they believe that the US is distracted \u2014 the risk rises that the \u201ctheaters\u201d become linked. The US military is currently set up to win one major war and one minor war simultaneously; if it had to confront the entire axis, it would have to wage four and might lose.\nThe proper label for that scenario is World War III. It\u2019s a term that Trump has used often and that clearly haunts him. Instead of offering a strategy to prevent this nightmare, he has so far only touted his own alleged \u201cstrength,\u201d whatever that means. To translate this bumper sticker into military might, he\u2019d have to double or triple America\u2019s defense budget, which would cause a fiscal and political crisis.\nSo his only practical option is to break up the axis before it becomes real. That again means he must talk to Beijing, which deems itself the hub of any emerging anti-Western alliance even as it looks askance at Moscow and Pyongyang getting too cuddly. If Trump and Xi talk, people will live; if not, people may die.\nSo it goes for almost every major problem. The United Nations, for example, has gone from merely dysfunctional to essentially irrelevant. One reason: Three of the five permanent (and veto-wielding) members of the security council keep sabotaging one another and the whole system. The US vetoes resolutions pertaining to Israel, while China and Russia protect each other, as well as North Korea and other rogues. (By contrast, the other two permanent members, Britain and France, have admirably refrained from using their vetoes for more than three decades.) If Trump and Xi wanted to resurrect the international system (which Trump admittedly claims to disdain), they could jointly declare a moratorium on vetoes.\nThe best example, of course, is climate change. I hesitate to bring it up because it\u2019s hardly top of Trump\u2019s mind, or even tucked away in any nook of it. But that could change, especially if he\u2019s reminded that he should leave a positive legacy. Historically, the US has been the largest emitter of carbon into the atmosphere, although China has taken the top spot since 2005. If these two countries cooperate to slow global warming, there\u2019s hope; if they don\u2019t, there isn\u2019t.\nThis is where paranoia bubbles up from my amygdala. As of now, Trump shows little interest in any of these sweeping thoughts and ambitions. He instead appears focused on starting a trade war with China, and then the whole world, because \u201cthe most beautiful word in the dictionary is \u2018tariff\u2019.\u201d That\u2019s a bad idea economically, and astoundingly petty. It\u2019s also the worst possible way to start off with Xi. And remember: If they don\u2019t get it together, cats will start dying.\nThen the optimism fights back. It\u2019s Trump\u2019s shtick to trash-talk his interlocutors, friend or foe alike, just to see how they\u2019ll react. But he also knows \u2014 at least I hope he does \u2014 that solving problems in the real world, whether in Ukraine, at the southern border, or anywhere else, requires finesse and an open mind. And neither he nor Xi (no pun intended) wants to blow up the world. Onward then, and welcome, 2025.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2025-01-06T00:02:06+08:00", "date_modified": "2025-01-05T17:36:50+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Donald_Trump_-_Caricature.jpg", "tags": [ "Andreas Kluth", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=642613", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/12/20/642613/ai-robots-are-coming-and-theyll-be-made-in-asia/", "title": "AI robots are coming, and they\u2019ll be made in Asia", "content_html": "OVER the past year, I\u2019ve noticed an overwhelming theme emerge when Asian tech leaders look at what comes next for artificial intelligence (AI). There has been a marked desire to move beyond chatbots and software, and into the physical realm.
\nWe\u2019ll start to see much more AI-enabled hardware and robotics \u2014 and it will be coming from Asia.
\nThe experience I\u2019ve had tuning in to many executive chats and tech conferences could best be summed by Nvidia Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang\u2019s proclamation in Taipei in June. \u201cThe next wave of AI is physical AI,\u201d he said. \u201cThe era of robotics has arrived.\u201d
\nHistorically, a lot of coverage of robot-human interactions in Asia have been filled with futuristic techno-orientalist tropes that often fail to reflect the reality. But there are factors that make the region uniquely primed to propel this next leap forward in integrating AI into the physical world. While the US is the leader in AI advances \u2014 and the software and internet revolution emanated from Silicon Valley \u2014 Asian tech giants have traditionally been very good at the hardware side of things.
\nCitigroup, Inc. projects that there would be 1.3 billion AI robots globally by 2035 and 4 billion by 2050, doing everything from household chores to delivering parcels. A lot of the progress will come from China, which accounts for 78% of all robotics patents over the last two decades, the Citi analysts said. Japan and South Korea make up 7% and 5%, respectively, while the US contributes just 3%. This dominance in Asian robotics remained just as strong when the sheer quantity of patents was weighed through a quality-assessment measure.
\nMoreover, robotics is an extremely expensive and difficult process. But advancing in this sector has emerged as part of China\u2019s top-down priorities for its tech ecosystem, meaning government subsidies in research and development, and other support give it an edge.
\nThere are other societal factors that suggest an embrace of AI robotics makes sense. Researchers have found Japan is poised to be a global leader in deploying technologies that adopt automation, as it confronts an aging population and shrinking workforce. AI-driven software coupled with hardware are being developed and implemented across all types of work, including white and blue collar, agriculture and services. While many US industries have been gripped by fears of robots taking away livelihoods, in Asia, there has been a tendency to welcome automation due to a people shortage.
\nThis is already playing out, although on a small scale, in several creative ways. A Shenzhen startup is using an AI robot to help cook meals. A tool unveiled by Japan\u2019s Fujitsu Ltd. in October teaches Noh, a performance art dating back to the 14th century that is under pressure as there are fewer people who know the techniques to carry on the tradition. Not to mention the countless industrial robots.
\nWhile the region may currently be behind the US when it comes to AI now, Asian tech firms have shown great success in finding practical, market applications for technology developed elsewhere. Japanese tech entrepreneurs, especially, have been very good at this. Sony Group Corp. perfected the consumer radio after taking transistor technology invented in the US. (Sony also unveiled the first consumer robot to the mass market in 1999: the beloved Aibo dog.)
\nThere\u2019s been a tendency to overhype the role and value of robots in Asian societies, especially in Western reporting, when the reality is much more nuanced. I\u2019ve yet to meet a real person in Japan who ties Shinto animism beliefs into the embrace of robots. And mounting research suggests that eldercare robotic experiments have not been worth the cost and end up causing more work for caregivers (and that perhaps better immigration policies to address labor crunches would be a more worthwhile solution). Several high-profile robotic ventures launched in recent years have been curtailed.
\nBut AI could serve as a catalyst, especially as investors and company leaders increasingly search for practical and real-world applications for the technology that go beyond just engaging chatbots. Softbank Group Corp. Founder Masayoshi Son said in Tokyo last month that he is \u201cpassionate about AI robotics,\u201d stating that like his favorite cartoon, Astro Boy, \u201cyou can\u2019t just have the muscle, you have to have intelligence.\u201d
\nI remain skeptical that we will see the rise of AI robots in the new year, but I have no doubt they\u2019re coming, and that they will likely be coming from Asia.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "OVER the past year, I\u2019ve noticed an overwhelming theme emerge when Asian tech leaders look at what comes next for artificial intelligence (AI). There has been a marked desire to move beyond chatbots and software, and into the physical realm.\nWe\u2019ll start to see much more AI-enabled hardware and robotics \u2014 and it will be coming from Asia.\nThe experience I\u2019ve had tuning in to many executive chats and tech conferences could best be summed by Nvidia Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang\u2019s proclamation in Taipei in June. \u201cThe next wave of AI is physical AI,\u201d he said. \u201cThe era of robotics has arrived.\u201d\nHistorically, a lot of coverage of robot-human interactions in Asia have been filled with futuristic techno-orientalist tropes that often fail to reflect the reality. But there are factors that make the region uniquely primed to propel this next leap forward in integrating AI into the physical world. While the US is the leader in AI advances \u2014 and the software and internet revolution emanated from Silicon Valley \u2014 Asian tech giants have traditionally been very good at the hardware side of things.\nCitigroup, Inc. projects that there would be 1.3 billion AI robots globally by 2035 and 4 billion by 2050, doing everything from household chores to delivering parcels. A lot of the progress will come from China, which accounts for 78% of all robotics patents over the last two decades, the Citi analysts said. Japan and South Korea make up 7% and 5%, respectively, while the US contributes just 3%. This dominance in Asian robotics remained just as strong when the sheer quantity of patents was weighed through a quality-assessment measure.\nMoreover, robotics is an extremely expensive and difficult process. But advancing in this sector has emerged as part of China\u2019s top-down priorities for its tech ecosystem, meaning government subsidies in research and development, and other support give it an edge.\nThere are other societal factors that suggest an embrace of AI robotics makes sense. Researchers have found Japan is poised to be a global leader in deploying technologies that adopt automation, as it confronts an aging population and shrinking workforce. AI-driven software coupled with hardware are being developed and implemented across all types of work, including white and blue collar, agriculture and services. While many US industries have been gripped by fears of robots taking away livelihoods, in Asia, there has been a tendency to welcome automation due to a people shortage.\nThis is already playing out, although on a small scale, in several creative ways. A Shenzhen startup is using an AI robot to help cook meals. A tool unveiled by Japan\u2019s Fujitsu Ltd. in October teaches Noh, a performance art dating back to the 14th century that is under pressure as there are fewer people who know the techniques to carry on the tradition. Not to mention the countless industrial robots.\nWhile the region may currently be behind the US when it comes to AI now, Asian tech firms have shown great success in finding practical, market applications for technology developed elsewhere. Japanese tech entrepreneurs, especially, have been very good at this. Sony Group Corp. perfected the consumer radio after taking transistor technology invented in the US. (Sony also unveiled the first consumer robot to the mass market in 1999: the beloved Aibo dog.)\nThere\u2019s been a tendency to overhype the role and value of robots in Asian societies, especially in Western reporting, when the reality is much more nuanced. I\u2019ve yet to meet a real person in Japan who ties Shinto animism beliefs into the embrace of robots. And mounting research suggests that eldercare robotic experiments have not been worth the cost and end up causing more work for caregivers (and that perhaps better immigration policies to address labor crunches would be a more worthwhile solution). Several high-profile robotic ventures launched in recent years have been curtailed.\nBut AI could serve as a catalyst, especially as investors and company leaders increasingly search for practical and real-world applications for the technology that go beyond just engaging chatbots. Softbank Group Corp. Founder Masayoshi Son said in Tokyo last month that he is \u201cpassionate about AI robotics,\u201d stating that like his favorite cartoon, Astro Boy, \u201cyou can\u2019t just have the muscle, you have to have intelligence.\u201d \nI remain skeptical that we will see the rise of AI robots in the new year, but I have no doubt they\u2019re coming, and that they will likely be coming from Asia.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-12-20T00:02:11+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-12-19T17:30:38+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ai-anthropomorphic-robot-that-performs-regular-human-job.jpg", "tags": [ "Catherine Thorbecke", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=642100", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/12/18/642100/another-pandemic-is-inevitable-and-were-not-ready/", "title": "Another pandemic is inevitable, and we\u2019re not ready", "content_html": "EVERY WEEK or so, scientists issue another warning that the H5N1 bird flu is inching closer to exploding into a pandemic. Despite having contended with a pandemic that broke out less than five years ago, the US has no solid plan to handle a new one \u2014 nor have our leaders done anything to incorporate the lessons learned from the government\u2019s less-than-ideal handling of COVID-19.
\nToo many Americans died from COVID because the public health community took too long to issue warnings, was slow to create tests to assess the situation, and was sluggish in shifting its response to fit the data on airborne transmission. The much-criticized lockdowns could have been less disruptive and saved more lives had they been periodically adjusted as data changed on who was most at risk and which activities were riskiest.
\nAlready, some of the same mistakes can be seen in the response to H5N1, which started in poultry before a new variant began infecting the nation\u2019s dairy cows. The US Department of Agriculture announced last week that it would start sampling the nation\u2019s milk supply to test for the virus. California instituted a recall of some raw milk and raw milk products after samples tested positive. But there\u2019s a lot more that could be done to reduce the odds of this situation leading to a pandemic.
\nMoreover, President-elect Donald Trump\u2019s picks to lead the nation\u2019s top public health agencies \u2014 the officials who would be in charge of any pandemic response \u2014 have prompted concerns among scientists and health experts. They include Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a vaccine skeptic and raw milk enthusiast, for the top job of secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. He also has ties to the California producer whose farm was the subject of the state\u2019s recall after several batches of raw milk products tested positive for the virus. The farmer told Politico he\u2019s been asked to apply for the position of \u201craw milk adviser\u201d at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
\nTrump\u2019s pick to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), former Representative Dave Weldon, pushed false theories about childhood vaccines as a member of Congress and was a critic of the CDC and its vaccine program. And to lead the National Institutes of Health, Trump has named Jay Bhattacharya, author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized the government\u2019s COVID response and promoted the theory \u2014 based on bad science \u2014 that the pandemic would end quickly through herd immunity. Marty Makary, who Trump picked to head the FDA, promoted the same notion of herd immunity as he promised that even without vaccination, COVID would disappear in several months.
\nWe likely won\u2019t know how these officials might handle the next crisis until their Senate confirmation hearings early next year.
\nThere have been periodic outbreaks of H5N1, commonly called the bird flu, in the domestic bird population since the mid-1990s. But while fewer than 1,000 people worldwide have tested positive for the virus since then, scientists are alarmed because it killed half of those known to be infected. In 2022, the virus started showing up in mammals \u2014 foxes, bears, raccoons, sea lions, porpoises, and minks \u2014 and then, in March of this year, in US dairy cows. Millions of US chickens have been euthanized to control outbreaks in flocks of poultry, and in October, officials confirmed that the virus had been found in a pig here for the first time.
\nIn a study of supermarket milk last April, virus fragments appeared in 58 out of 150 samples. Scientists who conducted the study said heat from pasteurization would kill the virus. But raw milk from infected cows is swarming with live virus \u2014 enough to kill barn cats that have lapped up splatters.
\nAt least 60 confirmed human cases of bird flu have been reported in the US this year, including two in Arizona. Most have been farm workers who had contact with livestock or poultry, and their symptoms were mild. More worrisome are the few cases whose origin remains a mystery, including a teen in British Columbia who was hospitalized with a mutated version of the virus and a California child who was diagnosed with moderate symptoms in November. There have been no confirmed cases of person-to-person transmission.
\n\u201cIn my opinion, it is a matter of time before we start to see documented human-to-human transmission of this virus\u2026 because we\u2019re continuing to let this virus infect humans and adapt to people,\u201d said Seema Lakdawala, an immunologist at Emory University School of Medicine.
\nTo decrease that likelihood, she says efforts should focus on minimizing outbreaks among cattle. That means not just monitoring some milk samples but identifying individual infected cows and ensuring they are isolated and their milk disposed of safely so that it doesn\u2019t make its way into irrigation water where it could infect other animals. She said that even if those cows aren\u2019t killed, just isolating them could prevent further spread.
\nEach new infection allows the virus to make millions of slightly mutated copies, increasing the odds that one will acquire the ability to easily jump from person to person. A study published recently in Science showed that the variant currently spreading through hundreds of herds needs only a single mutation to gain the ability to attach to receptors on human cells.
\nMuch remains unknown, including why bird flu hasn\u2019t started a pandemic. But there will be another pandemic at some point, said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who has advised every president since Ronald Reagan and is now director of the University of Minnesota\u2019s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. \u201cThe pandemic clock is ticking. We just don\u2019t know what time it is,\u201d he said.
\nOsterholm has investigated Ebola, Zika, and other deadly viruses. Still, coronaviruses and influenza are by far the most likely to blow up into global pandemics because they are easily transmitted through the air.
\nThat means we should plan for the possibility \u2014 before it happens. And we need something more detailed than the National Security Council playbook drawn up during the Obama administration and famously ignored by Trump. It outlined organizing an initial pandemic response, such as connecting political leaders with scientific experts. But it didn\u2019t include details for things like shutdowns, mask mandates, or other measures taken during COVID. Osterholm said drafting a new plan should begin with a bipartisan investigation into how COVID-19 was handled \u2014 like the 9/11 commission. \u201cNot to point fingers,\u201d he told me, but to prepare for next time.
\nA new playbook should also consider long-term sustainability. Osterholm said data available in spring 2020 showed COVID was so easily transmissible that the pandemic could drag on for years. And yet, nobody wanted to hear it.
\nHe argues that the US and China could have saved many more lives with short-term, data-driven closures of restaurants and other high-risk settings when cases were rising. That strategy could have been sustained as long as the threat persisted. In China, which lifted its strict three-year-long zero-COVID lockdown before the threat had ebbed, the CDC estimates 1.4 million people died in the first three months the restrictions were eased.
\nA new preparedness plan should also include more protection for essential workers and their families. During 2020, many people with known risk factors or elderly relatives at home were thrown into dangerous work situations.
\nThe US endured waves of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021 when many Americans could no longer tolerate staying in their homes. Sustainability would matter even more if the next pandemic had a higher fatality rate.
\nWhile it\u2019s often repeated that more than a million Americans died, we lack an analysis of how they got infected and how they were in harm\u2019s way. It wasn\u2019t about bad behavior but inadequate policy. Good policy is designed to work for human beings the way we are. With COVID, it was all created on the fly. It doesn\u2019t have to be that way next time.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "EVERY WEEK or so, scientists issue another warning that the H5N1 bird flu is inching closer to exploding into a pandemic. Despite having contended with a pandemic that broke out less than five years ago, the US has no solid plan to handle a new one \u2014 nor have our leaders done anything to incorporate the lessons learned from the government\u2019s less-than-ideal handling of COVID-19.\nToo many Americans died from COVID because the public health community took too long to issue warnings, was slow to create tests to assess the situation, and was sluggish in shifting its response to fit the data on airborne transmission. The much-criticized lockdowns could have been less disruptive and saved more lives had they been periodically adjusted as data changed on who was most at risk and which activities were riskiest.\nAlready, some of the same mistakes can be seen in the response to H5N1, which started in poultry before a new variant began infecting the nation\u2019s dairy cows. The US Department of Agriculture announced last week that it would start sampling the nation\u2019s milk supply to test for the virus. California instituted a recall of some raw milk and raw milk products after samples tested positive. But there\u2019s a lot more that could be done to reduce the odds of this situation leading to a pandemic.\nMoreover, President-elect Donald Trump\u2019s picks to lead the nation\u2019s top public health agencies \u2014 the officials who would be in charge of any pandemic response \u2014 have prompted concerns among scientists and health experts. They include Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a vaccine skeptic and raw milk enthusiast, for the top job of secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. He also has ties to the California producer whose farm was the subject of the state\u2019s recall after several batches of raw milk products tested positive for the virus. The farmer told Politico he\u2019s been asked to apply for the position of \u201craw milk adviser\u201d at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).\nTrump\u2019s pick to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), former Representative Dave Weldon, pushed false theories about childhood vaccines as a member of Congress and was a critic of the CDC and its vaccine program. And to lead the National Institutes of Health, Trump has named Jay Bhattacharya, author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized the government\u2019s COVID response and promoted the theory \u2014 based on bad science \u2014 that the pandemic would end quickly through herd immunity. Marty Makary, who Trump picked to head the FDA, promoted the same notion of herd immunity as he promised that even without vaccination, COVID would disappear in several months.\nWe likely won\u2019t know how these officials might handle the next crisis until their Senate confirmation hearings early next year.\nThere have been periodic outbreaks of H5N1, commonly called the bird flu, in the domestic bird population since the mid-1990s. But while fewer than 1,000 people worldwide have tested positive for the virus since then, scientists are alarmed because it killed half of those known to be infected. In 2022, the virus started showing up in mammals \u2014 foxes, bears, raccoons, sea lions, porpoises, and minks \u2014 and then, in March of this year, in US dairy cows. Millions of US chickens have been euthanized to control outbreaks in flocks of poultry, and in October, officials confirmed that the virus had been found in a pig here for the first time.\nIn a study of supermarket milk last April, virus fragments appeared in 58 out of 150 samples. Scientists who conducted the study said heat from pasteurization would kill the virus. But raw milk from infected cows is swarming with live virus \u2014 enough to kill barn cats that have lapped up splatters.\nAt least 60 confirmed human cases of bird flu have been reported in the US this year, including two in Arizona. Most have been farm workers who had contact with livestock or poultry, and their symptoms were mild. More worrisome are the few cases whose origin remains a mystery, including a teen in British Columbia who was hospitalized with a mutated version of the virus and a California child who was diagnosed with moderate symptoms in November. There have been no confirmed cases of person-to-person transmission.\n\u201cIn my opinion, it is a matter of time before we start to see documented human-to-human transmission of this virus\u2026 because we\u2019re continuing to let this virus infect humans and adapt to people,\u201d said Seema Lakdawala, an immunologist at Emory University School of Medicine.\nTo decrease that likelihood, she says efforts should focus on minimizing outbreaks among cattle. That means not just monitoring some milk samples but identifying individual infected cows and ensuring they are isolated and their milk disposed of safely so that it doesn\u2019t make its way into irrigation water where it could infect other animals. She said that even if those cows aren\u2019t killed, just isolating them could prevent further spread.\nEach new infection allows the virus to make millions of slightly mutated copies, increasing the odds that one will acquire the ability to easily jump from person to person. A study published recently in Science showed that the variant currently spreading through hundreds of herds needs only a single mutation to gain the ability to attach to receptors on human cells.\nMuch remains unknown, including why bird flu hasn\u2019t started a pandemic. But there will be another pandemic at some point, said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who has advised every president since Ronald Reagan and is now director of the University of Minnesota\u2019s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. \u201cThe pandemic clock is ticking. We just don\u2019t know what time it is,\u201d he said.\nOsterholm has investigated Ebola, Zika, and other deadly viruses. Still, coronaviruses and influenza are by far the most likely to blow up into global pandemics because they are easily transmitted through the air.\nThat means we should plan for the possibility \u2014 before it happens. And we need something more detailed than the National Security Council playbook drawn up during the Obama administration and famously ignored by Trump. It outlined organizing an initial pandemic response, such as connecting political leaders with scientific experts. But it didn\u2019t include details for things like shutdowns, mask mandates, or other measures taken during COVID. Osterholm said drafting a new plan should begin with a bipartisan investigation into how COVID-19 was handled \u2014 like the 9/11 commission. \u201cNot to point fingers,\u201d he told me, but to prepare for next time.\nA new playbook should also consider long-term sustainability. Osterholm said data available in spring 2020 showed COVID was so easily transmissible that the pandemic could drag on for years. And yet, nobody wanted to hear it.\nHe argues that the US and China could have saved many more lives with short-term, data-driven closures of restaurants and other high-risk settings when cases were rising. That strategy could have been sustained as long as the threat persisted. In China, which lifted its strict three-year-long zero-COVID lockdown before the threat had ebbed, the CDC estimates 1.4 million people died in the first three months the restrictions were eased.\nA new preparedness plan should also include more protection for essential workers and their families. During 2020, many people with known risk factors or elderly relatives at home were thrown into dangerous work situations.\nThe US endured waves of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021 when many Americans could no longer tolerate staying in their homes. Sustainability would matter even more if the next pandemic had a higher fatality rate.\nWhile it\u2019s often repeated that more than a million Americans died, we lack an analysis of how they got infected and how they were in harm\u2019s way. It wasn\u2019t about bad behavior but inadequate policy. Good policy is designed to work for human beings the way we are. With COVID, it was all created on the fly. It doesn\u2019t have to be that way next time. \nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-12-18T00:02:03+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-12-17T17:53:25+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/young-asian-man-suffering-runny-nose-having-medical-leave-staying-home.jpg", "tags": [ "F.D. Flam", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=637001", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/11/26/637001/the-world-is-a-decade-late-and-2-trillion-short/", "title": "The world is a decade late and $2 trillion short", "content_html": "WATCHING another chaotic United Nations climate confab end in disappointment brings to mind that old saw, incorrectly ascribed to Winston Churchill, about America always doing the right thing, but only after it has exhausted every alternative. Except in this case the world\u2019s polluting nations are stuck in the \u201cexhausting alternatives\u201d phase and are quickly running out of time to do the right thing.
\nWe can at least be glad that COP29 \u2014 this year\u2019s conference for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Baku, Azerbaijan \u2014 didn\u2019t end in complete disaster like 2009\u2019s gathering in Copenhagen. After days of bare-knuckle brawling and the near-collapse of negotiations, the bloodied parties staggered away with a commitment from developed nations to triple the amount of money they spend to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to global heating, to $300 billion from $100 billion per year, by 2035. They also vowed to put together a decade-long \u201croadmap\u201d for hitting the $1.3 trillion in annual financing that poorer countries had demanded. And they established a global carbon-credits market and paid vague homage to a pledge made last year to transition the global economy away from fossil fuels.
\nThis outcome is, to put it mildly, insufficient. To put it not so mildly, it\u2019s pathetic. Even the $1.3 trillion developing nations wanted would have fallen far short of the $2.4 trillion truly needed, according to an estimate by the UN\u2019s Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance. The clean-energy transition alone could cost $215 trillion by 2050, according to BloombergNEF.
\nSo countries that have emitted almost none of the greenhouse gases heating up the planet but will suffer the brunt of the consequences will end up at least $2 trillion per year short and a decade away from relief. Compared to the $7 trillion in estimated explicit and implicit subsidies the world pays fossil-fuel producers every year, that $300 billion looks even more insulting.
\n\u201cThe $300 billion so-called \u2018deal\u2019 that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous \u2014 a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown,\u201d Oxfam International\u2019s climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, said in a statement. \u201cThe destruction of our planet is avoidable, but not with this shabby and dishonorable deal.\u201d
\nAlmost as infuriating as the deal\u2019s inadequate sums is its composition. Too much of that $300 billion will come in the form of loans, which will further burden countries already staggering under too much debt. Together, the poorest pay about $70 billion per year in debt servicing costs to richer countries, including the backers of multilateral development banks such as the World Bank, according to the Brookings Institution. That cancels out the bulk of the $100 billion climate-finance commitment that rich countries made in 2009 but have only belatedly begun to fulfill. Instead of piling on more debt, rich countries should be canceling it.
\nAnd much of what\u2019s purchased with that $300 billion might be the equivalent of chicken wire and wet newspaper. The World Bank has failed to account for the real climate impact of between $24 billion and $41 billion of its financing over the past seven years, according to Oxfam. The bank registers projects at the time of approval rather than at the time of completion, meaning many works of dubious climate benefit \u2014 think gelato shops and coal plants \u2014 go on the books as \u201cclimate finance.\u201d
\nHaggling over such relatively petty sums while the world burns is short-sighted and self-defeating. It betrays upside-down priorities that often favor the fossil-fuel producers and rich petrostates that increasingly dominate COP negotiations. The president of COP29\u2019s host country called oil and gas \u201ca gift of God,\u201d and Saudi Arabia was described as a \u201cwrecking ball\u201d in negotiations.
\nIt\u2019s enough to make you wonder why we should keep holding COPs at all. Several climate leaders, including former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, published an open letter at the start of COP29 calling to overhaul the process. \u201cIt is now clear that the COP is no longer fit for purpose,\u201d they wrote. \u201cIts current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity.\u201d
\nMajor polluters such as the US, China, and the European Commission didn\u2019t bother to send leaders to Baku. COP30, in Brazil, will take place during the first year of the second term of once-and-future President Donald Trump, a climate-change denier who plans to pull the US out of the Paris accords (again). At a time when the goal of holding global warming to 1.5\u00b0 Celsius of warming above pre-industrial averages is essentially dead, the political mood around the world seems to have soured on aggressive climate action.
\nAnd yet COPs, even in their present unfit state, are still essential. Requiring buy-in from everybody from the Marshall Islands to Exxon Mobil Corp. is a recipe for agonizingly slow progress, but it at least keeps the conversation going.
\nAnd as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague David Fickling has written, the commitments made in these talks still produce benchmarks that governments take seriously. Otherwise, why would there be so much ferocious haggling over them? Everybody could simply pledge to spend eleventy gazillion dollars and hit Net Zero by next Tuesday and call it a day. That they don\u2019t is actually a cause for hope, if you look at it the right \u2014 or naive \u2014 way. But being hopeful isn\u2019t the same as ignoring that COP29 makes clear the world is still not taking the climate threat seriously enough.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "WATCHING another chaotic United Nations climate confab end in disappointment brings to mind that old saw, incorrectly ascribed to Winston Churchill, about America always doing the right thing, but only after it has exhausted every alternative. Except in this case the world\u2019s polluting nations are stuck in the \u201cexhausting alternatives\u201d phase and are quickly running out of time to do the right thing.\nWe can at least be glad that COP29 \u2014 this year\u2019s conference for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Baku, Azerbaijan \u2014 didn\u2019t end in complete disaster like 2009\u2019s gathering in Copenhagen. After days of bare-knuckle brawling and the near-collapse of negotiations, the bloodied parties staggered away with a commitment from developed nations to triple the amount of money they spend to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to global heating, to $300 billion from $100 billion per year, by 2035. They also vowed to put together a decade-long \u201croadmap\u201d for hitting the $1.3 trillion in annual financing that poorer countries had demanded. And they established a global carbon-credits market and paid vague homage to a pledge made last year to transition the global economy away from fossil fuels.\nThis outcome is, to put it mildly, insufficient. To put it not so mildly, it\u2019s pathetic. Even the $1.3 trillion developing nations wanted would have fallen far short of the $2.4 trillion truly needed, according to an estimate by the UN\u2019s Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance. The clean-energy transition alone could cost $215 trillion by 2050, according to BloombergNEF.\nSo countries that have emitted almost none of the greenhouse gases heating up the planet but will suffer the brunt of the consequences will end up at least $2 trillion per year short and a decade away from relief. Compared to the $7 trillion in estimated explicit and implicit subsidies the world pays fossil-fuel producers every year, that $300 billion looks even more insulting.\n\u201cThe $300 billion so-called \u2018deal\u2019 that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous \u2014 a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown,\u201d Oxfam International\u2019s climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, said in a statement. \u201cThe destruction of our planet is avoidable, but not with this shabby and dishonorable deal.\u201d\nAlmost as infuriating as the deal\u2019s inadequate sums is its composition. Too much of that $300 billion will come in the form of loans, which will further burden countries already staggering under too much debt. Together, the poorest pay about $70 billion per year in debt servicing costs to richer countries, including the backers of multilateral development banks such as the World Bank, according to the Brookings Institution. That cancels out the bulk of the $100 billion climate-finance commitment that rich countries made in 2009 but have only belatedly begun to fulfill. Instead of piling on more debt, rich countries should be canceling it.\nAnd much of what\u2019s purchased with that $300 billion might be the equivalent of chicken wire and wet newspaper. The World Bank has failed to account for the real climate impact of between $24 billion and $41 billion of its financing over the past seven years, according to Oxfam. The bank registers projects at the time of approval rather than at the time of completion, meaning many works of dubious climate benefit \u2014 think gelato shops and coal plants \u2014 go on the books as \u201cclimate finance.\u201d\nHaggling over such relatively petty sums while the world burns is short-sighted and self-defeating. It betrays upside-down priorities that often favor the fossil-fuel producers and rich petrostates that increasingly dominate COP negotiations. The president of COP29\u2019s host country called oil and gas \u201ca gift of God,\u201d and Saudi Arabia was described as a \u201cwrecking ball\u201d in negotiations.\nIt\u2019s enough to make you wonder why we should keep holding COPs at all. Several climate leaders, including former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, published an open letter at the start of COP29 calling to overhaul the process. \u201cIt is now clear that the COP is no longer fit for purpose,\u201d they wrote. \u201cIts current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity.\u201d\nMajor polluters such as the US, China, and the European Commission didn\u2019t bother to send leaders to Baku. COP30, in Brazil, will take place during the first year of the second term of once-and-future President Donald Trump, a climate-change denier who plans to pull the US out of the Paris accords (again). At a time when the goal of holding global warming to 1.5\u00b0 Celsius of warming above pre-industrial averages is essentially dead, the political mood around the world seems to have soured on aggressive climate action.\nAnd yet COPs, even in their present unfit state, are still essential. Requiring buy-in from everybody from the Marshall Islands to Exxon Mobil Corp. is a recipe for agonizingly slow progress, but it at least keeps the conversation going.\nAnd as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague David Fickling has written, the commitments made in these talks still produce benchmarks that governments take seriously. Otherwise, why would there be so much ferocious haggling over them? Everybody could simply pledge to spend eleventy gazillion dollars and hit Net Zero by next Tuesday and call it a day. That they don\u2019t is actually a cause for hope, if you look at it the right \u2014 or naive \u2014 way. But being hopeful isn\u2019t the same as ignoring that COP29 makes clear the world is still not taking the climate threat seriously enough.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-11-26T00:02:40+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-11-25T17:54:13+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thailand-Hanoi_flood.jpg", "tags": [ "Mark Gongloff", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=635644", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/11/19/635644/world-wide-web-inventor-wants-the-internet-back/", "title": "World Wide Web inventor wants the internet back", "content_html": "TIM BERNERS-LEE has a radical proposition. Instead of leaving our online data vulnerable to harvesting by large tech platforms and governments, we should control it. Our own little piece of the web or \u201cpersonal cloud\u201d should need permission to be accessed.
\nThe idea sounds reasonable in theory, though in practice it\u2019s a big ask. The internet today isn\u2019t the vibrant, motley network that came into being after Berners-Lee first fashioned it in 1989, but a landscape dominated by huge companies like Alphabet, Inc.\u2019s Google and Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s Facebook. In many parts of the world, Facebook is the internet and the only experience that people have of the web. Most apps function as gatekeepers of our personal data.
\nBerners-Lee wants to flip that dynamic. Over the last decade or so, he\u2019s watched the web\u2019s evolution with mounting dismay as we\u2019ve traded our data for greater conveniences, plugging into \u201cecosystems\u201d from Apple, Inc. and Google so that we can seamlessly move our profiles \u2014 full of identifying details and interests \u2014 between e-mail clients and online browsers. The platforms insist they\u2019re protecting all that information and respecting our privacy, but Berners-Lee believes that\u2019s not enough. Our data is scattered across Big Tech\u2019s servers and those of countless other companies, out of our control.
\nThe idea for the World Wide Web came to Berners-Lee in 1989 when he was working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Initially aimed at helping scientists share data with one another, he released the source code for free to make the web an open platform for all, and it took on a life of its own. In the more than three decades since, he\u2019s been trying to steer the web back to that free and democratic idea.
\nHis answer is a digital wallet, a piece of the internet that stores everything from your medical records to your social media posts, your shopping history to your family photos. But unlike the siloed apps and services we use today, the wallets allow you to control exactly who sees what.
\nBerners-Lee has been working on this radical idea for five years through a startup called Inrupt. In an early trial, the Belgian region of Flanders is rolling out its system of personal data pods to 7 million citizens, using it as the foundation for delivering social services and sharing data more securely with businesses. Earlier this year, five Belgian hospitals began storing information about patient visits in the data pods, a process which Berners-Lee says can help aid compliance with Europe\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
\nBut the initiative is swimming against a powerful tide as artificial intelligence assistants turn into our digital gatekeepers. Microsoft\u2019s Copilot is being embedded into Windows and Office, Google is weaving Gemini through its ecosystem, and Apple Intelligence has been baked into the iPhone\u2019s operating system. These assistants could increasingly shape our choices about what to buy, where to eat, and how to spend our time.
\nYou would think that a web increasingly driven by AI and AI content will be less open and free, but Berners-Lee is optimistic. \u201cThis is completely within our control,\u201d he tells me. \u201cIf you go home and write AI models and send out fake news and fill the world with junk, the world will become very bland. If you put out misinformation, it becomes untruthful.\u201d
\nInstead he\u2019d like to see more control of our data through decentralized systems like his and more public disclosures about where content comes from. That means more provenance labels on photos and videos to show they are AI-generated.
\nBut the economics of AI development make this effort increasingly fraught. Training advanced AI models requires massive amounts of data \u2014 the kind of personal information that tech giants have spent more than a decade accumulating and exploiting for the benefit of their shareholders, and they won\u2019t willingly give up that advantage.
\nAnother challenge is how habituated humans have become to trading their personal information for convenience, an exchange that seems increasingly valuable with AI assistants. Scaling a model like Inrupt\u2019s would require unprecedented cooperation between governments, corporations, and citizens.
\nNone of that means personal data pods are doomed. The Flanders rollout could prove that government-backed systems deliver enough concrete benefits to overcome user inertia. Success with that trial might convince other regions to follow suit, particularly in areas like health care or social services.
\nBut for most of the rest of us on the internet that Berners-Lee started, the future is clear: Our personal information will remain scattered across countless databases, increasingly processed by AI systems that serve the interests of large technology conglomerates. It\u2019s not that better alternatives don\u2019t exist, but the companies fashioning our AI futures have too much to lose by giving users control over their digital lives.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "TIM BERNERS-LEE has a radical proposition. Instead of leaving our online data vulnerable to harvesting by large tech platforms and governments, we should control it. Our own little piece of the web or \u201cpersonal cloud\u201d should need permission to be accessed.\nThe idea sounds reasonable in theory, though in practice it\u2019s a big ask. The internet today isn\u2019t the vibrant, motley network that came into being after Berners-Lee first fashioned it in 1989, but a landscape dominated by huge companies like Alphabet, Inc.\u2019s Google and Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s Facebook. In many parts of the world, Facebook is the internet and the only experience that people have of the web. Most apps function as gatekeepers of our personal data.\nBerners-Lee wants to flip that dynamic. Over the last decade or so, he\u2019s watched the web\u2019s evolution with mounting dismay as we\u2019ve traded our data for greater conveniences, plugging into \u201cecosystems\u201d from Apple, Inc. and Google so that we can seamlessly move our profiles \u2014 full of identifying details and interests \u2014 between e-mail clients and online browsers. The platforms insist they\u2019re protecting all that information and respecting our privacy, but Berners-Lee believes that\u2019s not enough. Our data is scattered across Big Tech\u2019s servers and those of countless other companies, out of our control.\nThe idea for the World Wide Web came to Berners-Lee in 1989 when he was working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Initially aimed at helping scientists share data with one another, he released the source code for free to make the web an open platform for all, and it took on a life of its own. In the more than three decades since, he\u2019s been trying to steer the web back to that free and democratic idea.\nHis answer is a digital wallet, a piece of the internet that stores everything from your medical records to your social media posts, your shopping history to your family photos. But unlike the siloed apps and services we use today, the wallets allow you to control exactly who sees what.\nBerners-Lee has been working on this radical idea for five years through a startup called Inrupt. In an early trial, the Belgian region of Flanders is rolling out its system of personal data pods to 7 million citizens, using it as the foundation for delivering social services and sharing data more securely with businesses. Earlier this year, five Belgian hospitals began storing information about patient visits in the data pods, a process which Berners-Lee says can help aid compliance with Europe\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).\nBut the initiative is swimming against a powerful tide as artificial intelligence assistants turn into our digital gatekeepers. Microsoft\u2019s Copilot is being embedded into Windows and Office, Google is weaving Gemini through its ecosystem, and Apple Intelligence has been baked into the iPhone\u2019s operating system. These assistants could increasingly shape our choices about what to buy, where to eat, and how to spend our time.\nYou would think that a web increasingly driven by AI and AI content will be less open and free, but Berners-Lee is optimistic. \u201cThis is completely within our control,\u201d he tells me. \u201cIf you go home and write AI models and send out fake news and fill the world with junk, the world will become very bland. If you put out misinformation, it becomes untruthful.\u201d\nInstead he\u2019d like to see more control of our data through decentralized systems like his and more public disclosures about where content comes from. That means more provenance labels on photos and videos to show they are AI-generated.\nBut the economics of AI development make this effort increasingly fraught. Training advanced AI models requires massive amounts of data \u2014 the kind of personal information that tech giants have spent more than a decade accumulating and exploiting for the benefit of their shareholders, and they won\u2019t willingly give up that advantage.\nAnother challenge is how habituated humans have become to trading their personal information for convenience, an exchange that seems increasingly valuable with AI assistants. Scaling a model like Inrupt\u2019s would require unprecedented cooperation between governments, corporations, and citizens. \nNone of that means personal data pods are doomed. The Flanders rollout could prove that government-backed systems deliver enough concrete benefits to overcome user inertia. Success with that trial might convince other regions to follow suit, particularly in areas like health care or social services.\nBut for most of the rest of us on the internet that Berners-Lee started, the future is clear: Our personal information will remain scattered across countless databases, increasingly processed by AI systems that serve the interests of large technology conglomerates. It\u2019s not that better alternatives don\u2019t exist, but the companies fashioning our AI futures have too much to lose by giving users control over their digital lives.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-11-19T00:01:09+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-11-18T18:14:58+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Computer-laptop.jpg", "tags": [ "Parmy Olson", "Bloomberg", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=635342", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/11/18/635342/a-messier-middle-east-awaits-trumps-second-coming/", "title": "A messier Middle East awaits Trump\u2019s second coming", "content_html": "IT DIDN\u2019T TAKE LONG. Within days of Donald Trump\u2019s election victory, Israel\u2019s leaders up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became more open about their intentions for the Palestinian territories: permanent occupation, combined with the annexation of illegally settled parts of the West Bank. Or in the tweeted words of Israel\u2019s ultra-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir: \u201cYesssss.\u201d
\nIt also isn\u2019t hard to understand the jubilation. For many Israelis, not just Ben Gvir, memories of Trump\u2019s first term are fond ones. He collapsed the nuclear deal with Iran that many profoundly distrusted. He also recognized both Jerusalem as Israel\u2019s capital and the occupied Golan Heights as part of its territory.
\nBut more important to hopes in Israel\u2019s government than even these happy recollections is the fact that every appointment the soon-to-be second-term US president has made to his foreign policy team so far is either an Iran hawk, a fierce supporter of Israel (or indeed a greater Israel), or both.
\nEven so, it would be foolish to say we know exactly what Trump will do over the next four years. Ultimately, he is the decider-in-chief. Events, together with his perception of interests \u2014 his own followed by those of the US \u2014 will determine his choices. And it\u2019s unlikely those decisions will be simple.
\nFor one thing, Trump is likely to find it much more difficult this time around to keep his friends in both Israel and the Gulf States happy. For another, his goals of ending wars and cutting deals may not always align with Israel\u2019s. That\u2019s less a problem with Lebanon, where the question on an Israeli withdrawal was always \u201cwhen,\u201d not \u201cif.\u201d Assuming Wednesday\u2019s New York Times report is correct that Israel is already rushing through a ceasefire deal as a pre-inauguration gift to Trump, that will be soon.
\nYet the world has changed substantially since 2020 \u2014 before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, before Hamas\u2019 Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, and before the Houthis demonstrated their power to disrupt global shipping from a perch on the Yemeni coast. Iran is also no longer internationally isolated. Today it has deep military ties with Russia, which in turn works in a growing alliance with North Korea and China. Moscow has reportedly sent air defenses to the Houthis. Foreign policy was always a complicated game of chess. But with the more major parties involved, it will have to be played against more opponents, across multiple boards.
\nThat\u2019s especially true in the Middle East, where popular fury over the plight of Palestinians in Gaza has created genuine constraints on Arab leaders. At the same time, Israel\u2019s military success in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran have altered threat perceptions. Iran and its so-called axis of resistance have been materially weakened; the Israel Defense Forces are rampant.
\nSo Arab and Turkish leaders have clarified their public positions since the US election, too. On Monday, Saudi Arabia\u2019s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, called Israel\u2019s military operations in Gaza \u201ccollective genocide,\u201d a term he previously avoided. He also warned against any further attacks on Iran.
\nThis is the same Islamic Republic of Iran that, in 2017, MBS compared to Hitler\u2019s Germany. At the time, Saudi Arabia was engaged in a brutal proxy war against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. Two years later, Iranian drones proved their ability to destroy Saudi oil assets with ease. But MBS has since wound down the kingdom\u2019s military intervention in Yemen and restored diplomatic relations with Tehran.
\nOn Wednesday, Turkey\u2019s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country had cut all relations with Israel. Erdogan never misses a chance to grandstand on Muslim resentment toward the Jewish state, yet he had until now avoided breaking ties. These are all clear signals from leaders friendly to Trump that they\u2019re unwilling to be part of maximalist Israeli policies.
\nOf course, what politicians say on the public stage is often a poor guide to their actual plans. Arab leaders may have condemned Israel over Gaza, for example, but they were happy to see Hamas and Hezbollah damaged and, notably, haven\u2019t terminated the Abraham Accords normalizing relations with Israel, signed during Trump\u2019s previous term. They even quietly helped Israel defend itself against Iranian missile attacks.
\n\u201cThere is a whole element of theater to this,\u201d said Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Jerusalem\u2019s deputy mayor and a special envoy for innovation in the Israeli foreign ministry, reminding me of the origins of the accords.
\nIt was 2019. Netanyahu had \u2014 note the current echo \u2014 announced plans to annex the Jordan Valley, an area accounting for about 22% of the West Bank. He said he had US backing for the move, but faced with an international outcry the Trump administration persuaded Israel to give up on the plan. In exchange, Netanyahu got an agreement from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to formally normalize relations with his country. The UAE was later joined by Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Saudi Arabia had been set to sign a still more consequential deal until Hamas iced that possibility with its Oct. 7 attack, and the inevitable Israeli response that followed.
\nSaudi Arabia will ultimately play ball with Trump on Israel, says Hassan-Nahoum, because the kingdom \u201cis interested in one thing: a defense pact with the US so they are protected from Iran.\u201d I\u2019m not so sure. That was true in 2020, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s as binary a choice anymore. MBS\u2019 guiding focus is now the stability he needs for his Vision 2030 plan to diversify the Saudi economy and create jobs. Iran, meanwhile, has become less scary to the kingdom, though that could of course change if it breaks out to build nuclear weapons.
\nA major attack on Iran\u2019s oil infrastructure or nuclear program \u2014 and the retaliation against Saudi assets and tanker shipping lanes it would likely prompt \u2014 would put MBS\u2019 new top priority at risk. And though he may not care much about the Palestinians, his father King Salman bin Abdulaziz does. So do most other Saudis. That could limit cooperation with Israel.
\nTrump may again be able to square all these circles with the kind of transactional deal-making that proved so successful in the case of the Abraham Accords. But if so, Netanyahu again won\u2019t be able to have it all: annexation and occupation for the Palestinian territories, support for a decisive attack on Iran, and integration with the Arab world.
\nSacrificing the last of these for the former would be a poor long-term choice for Israel, as well as a human tragedy for ordinary Palestinians. It\u2019s worth remembering that Oct. 7 revealed a serious flaw in the Abraham Accords: They pretended the Palestinian question didn\u2019t exist.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "IT DIDN\u2019T TAKE LONG. Within days of Donald Trump\u2019s election victory, Israel\u2019s leaders up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became more open about their intentions for the Palestinian territories: permanent occupation, combined with the annexation of illegally settled parts of the West Bank. Or in the tweeted words of Israel\u2019s ultra-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir: \u201cYesssss.\u201d\nIt also isn\u2019t hard to understand the jubilation. For many Israelis, not just Ben Gvir, memories of Trump\u2019s first term are fond ones. He collapsed the nuclear deal with Iran that many profoundly distrusted. He also recognized both Jerusalem as Israel\u2019s capital and the occupied Golan Heights as part of its territory.\nBut more important to hopes in Israel\u2019s government than even these happy recollections is the fact that every appointment the soon-to-be second-term US president has made to his foreign policy team so far is either an Iran hawk, a fierce supporter of Israel (or indeed a greater Israel), or both.\nEven so, it would be foolish to say we know exactly what Trump will do over the next four years. Ultimately, he is the decider-in-chief. Events, together with his perception of interests \u2014 his own followed by those of the US \u2014 will determine his choices. And it\u2019s unlikely those decisions will be simple.\nFor one thing, Trump is likely to find it much more difficult this time around to keep his friends in both Israel and the Gulf States happy. For another, his goals of ending wars and cutting deals may not always align with Israel\u2019s. That\u2019s less a problem with Lebanon, where the question on an Israeli withdrawal was always \u201cwhen,\u201d not \u201cif.\u201d Assuming Wednesday\u2019s New York Times report is correct that Israel is already rushing through a ceasefire deal as a pre-inauguration gift to Trump, that will be soon.\nYet the world has changed substantially since 2020 \u2014 before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, before Hamas\u2019 Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, and before the Houthis demonstrated their power to disrupt global shipping from a perch on the Yemeni coast. Iran is also no longer internationally isolated. Today it has deep military ties with Russia, which in turn works in a growing alliance with North Korea and China. Moscow has reportedly sent air defenses to the Houthis. Foreign policy was always a complicated game of chess. But with the more major parties involved, it will have to be played against more opponents, across multiple boards.\nThat\u2019s especially true in the Middle East, where popular fury over the plight of Palestinians in Gaza has created genuine constraints on Arab leaders. At the same time, Israel\u2019s military success in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran have altered threat perceptions. Iran and its so-called axis of resistance have been materially weakened; the Israel Defense Forces are rampant.\nSo Arab and Turkish leaders have clarified their public positions since the US election, too. On Monday, Saudi Arabia\u2019s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, called Israel\u2019s military operations in Gaza \u201ccollective genocide,\u201d a term he previously avoided. He also warned against any further attacks on Iran.\nThis is the same Islamic Republic of Iran that, in 2017, MBS compared to Hitler\u2019s Germany. At the time, Saudi Arabia was engaged in a brutal proxy war against the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. Two years later, Iranian drones proved their ability to destroy Saudi oil assets with ease. But MBS has since wound down the kingdom\u2019s military intervention in Yemen and restored diplomatic relations with Tehran.\nOn Wednesday, Turkey\u2019s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country had cut all relations with Israel. Erdogan never misses a chance to grandstand on Muslim resentment toward the Jewish state, yet he had until now avoided breaking ties. These are all clear signals from leaders friendly to Trump that they\u2019re unwilling to be part of maximalist Israeli policies.\nOf course, what politicians say on the public stage is often a poor guide to their actual plans. Arab leaders may have condemned Israel over Gaza, for example, but they were happy to see Hamas and Hezbollah damaged and, notably, haven\u2019t terminated the Abraham Accords normalizing relations with Israel, signed during Trump\u2019s previous term. They even quietly helped Israel defend itself against Iranian missile attacks.\n\u201cThere is a whole element of theater to this,\u201d said Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Jerusalem\u2019s deputy mayor and a special envoy for innovation in the Israeli foreign ministry, reminding me of the origins of the accords.\nIt was 2019. Netanyahu had \u2014 note the current echo \u2014 announced plans to annex the Jordan Valley, an area accounting for about 22% of the West Bank. He said he had US backing for the move, but faced with an international outcry the Trump administration persuaded Israel to give up on the plan. In exchange, Netanyahu got an agreement from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to formally normalize relations with his country. The UAE was later joined by Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Saudi Arabia had been set to sign a still more consequential deal until Hamas iced that possibility with its Oct. 7 attack, and the inevitable Israeli response that followed. \nSaudi Arabia will ultimately play ball with Trump on Israel, says Hassan-Nahoum, because the kingdom \u201cis interested in one thing: a defense pact with the US so they are protected from Iran.\u201d I\u2019m not so sure. That was true in 2020, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s as binary a choice anymore. MBS\u2019 guiding focus is now the stability he needs for his Vision 2030 plan to diversify the Saudi economy and create jobs. Iran, meanwhile, has become less scary to the kingdom, though that could of course change if it breaks out to build nuclear weapons.\nA major attack on Iran\u2019s oil infrastructure or nuclear program \u2014 and the retaliation against Saudi assets and tanker shipping lanes it would likely prompt \u2014 would put MBS\u2019 new top priority at risk. And though he may not care much about the Palestinians, his father King Salman bin Abdulaziz does. So do most other Saudis. That could limit cooperation with Israel.\nTrump may again be able to square all these circles with the kind of transactional deal-making that proved so successful in the case of the Abraham Accords. But if so, Netanyahu again won\u2019t be able to have it all: annexation and occupation for the Palestinian territories, support for a decisive attack on Iran, and integration with the Arab world.\nSacrificing the last of these for the former would be a poor long-term choice for Israel, as well as a human tragedy for ordinary Palestinians. It\u2019s worth remembering that Oct. 7 revealed a serious flaw in the Abraham Accords: They pretended the Palestinian question didn\u2019t exist.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-11-18T00:02:03+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-11-17T16:45:12+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/soldiers.jpg", "tags": [ "Marc Champion", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=634654", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/11/14/634654/apples-next-device-is-an-ai-wall-tablet-for-home-control-siri-and-video-dalls/", "title": "Apple\u2019s next device is an AI wall tablet for home control, Siri, and video dalls", "content_html": "APPLE, Inc., aiming to catch up with rivals in the smart home market, is nearing the launch of a new product category: a wall-mounted display that can control appliances, handle videoconferencing, and use artificial intelligence (AI) to navigate apps.
\nThe company is gearing up to announce the device as early as March and will position it as a command center for the home, according to people with knowledge of the effort. The product, code-named J490, also will spotlight the new Apple Intelligence AI platform, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the work is confidential.
\nChief Executive Officer Tim Cook is betting that the product can make Apple a force in the smart home segment, where the company has trailed behind Alphabet, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. in recent years. He has made the device a priority for the company\u2019s engineering and design departments, and is pushing to get it to market after more than three years of development.
\nA representative for Cupertino, California-based Apple declined to comment.
\nThe device has a roughly six-inch screen and looks like a square iPad. It\u2019s about the size of two iPhones side by side, with a thick edge around the display. There\u2019s also a camera at the top front, a rechargeable built-in battery and internal speakers. Apple plans to offer it in silver and black options.
\nThe product has a touch interface that looks like a blend of the Apple Watch operating system and the iPhone\u2019s recently launched StandBy mode. But the company expects most people to use their voice to interact with the device, relying on the Siri digital assistant and Apple Intelligence. The hardware was designed around App Intents, a system that lets AI precisely control applications and tasks, which is set to debut in the coming months.
\nThe product will be marketed as a way to control home appliances, chat with Siri, and hold intercom sessions via Apple\u2019s FaceTime software. It will also be loaded with Apple apps, including ones for web browsing, listening to news updates and playing music. Users will be able to access their notes and calendar information, and the device can turn into a slideshow display for their photos.
\nA first for Apple, the device will compete with Amazon\u2019s Echo Show and Echo Hub smart displays, as well as Google\u2019s Nest Hub. It\u2019s also reminiscent of Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s Portal, a failed videoconferencing device from the social media giant. Apple is already planning a more expensive follow-up version with a robotic limb that can move the screen around. Apple plans to market that technology as a home companion with an AI personality.
\nThe higher-end product could be priced at as much as $1,000 depending on the components it uses, the people said. The display-only device will be far less than that, approaching the cost of competitors\u2019 products. The Echo Show 8 is priced at $150, while the Echo Hub is $180. The Nest Hub Max costs $230.
\nApple has designed different attachments for the device, including ones that affix the screens onto walls like a classic home-security panel. There will be bases with additional speakers that can be placed in the kitchen, on a nightstand or on a desk. Apple imagines the FaceTime feature being used while cooking or for videoconferencing during work meetings.
\nA person familiar with its development said the product is designed to bring Siri and Apple Intelligence to life in a way that hasn\u2019t happened before. Last month, the company rolled out a limited set of Apple Intelligence features for iPhones, iPads, and Macs. More advanced capabilities \u2014 like generative AI for images and an integration with OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT \u2014 are coming in December.
\nThe screen device, which runs a new operating system code-named Pebble, will include sensors to determine how close a person is. It will then automatically adjust its features depending on the distance. For example, if users are several feet away, it might show the temperature. As they approach, the interface can switch to a panel for adjusting the home thermostat.
\nThe newly designed operating system will also include a customizable home screen where users can run widgets for checking stock tickers, the weather, and appointments. Or they can configure the screen to highlight key home controls. There will also be a dock for quickly launching favorite apps and an iPhone-like home screen grid of software icons.
\nDuring development, Apple discussed launching an app store as part of the device, but it recently decided to exclude this feature \u2014 at least in the initial version.
\nThe product will tap into Apple\u2019s long-standing smart home framework, HomeKit, which can control third-party thermostats, lights, locks, security cameras, sensors, sprinklers, fans, and other equipment. Apple supports hundreds of accessories with HomeKit and offers iCloud online storage plans for home security footage.
\nSecurity will be a particular focus for the new device. It will deliver security alerts and display camera footage, including video from smart doorbells. It also will serve as an intercom system between rooms in homes with multiple Apple displays.
\nApple has explored building its own line of smart home accessories, including an indoor security camera that could double as a baby monitor. The idea would be to emphasize privacy controls, one of Apple\u2019s hallmarks. If the smart home display is successful, the company could prioritize plans to bring such accessories to market.
\nApple also is working on a system that will let the home device sense how many people are nearby. That approach relies in part on external sensors that could be placed in wall outlets in the vicinity of the device, but those accessories may come later or get canceled altogether.
\nThe product will be a standalone device, meaning it can operate almost entirely on its own. But it will require an iPhone for some tasks, including parts of the initial setup. It will also work with Apple\u2019s Handoff feature, which lets users trigger a function on one device and then continue on their iPhone after walking away.
\nThe project is a collaboration between several Apple teams, including the home hardware engineering group led by executive Matt Costello and the software engineering ecosystems group run by Arun Mathias. Mr.\u00a0Costello and Mr.\u00a0Mathias are known as the \u201cexecutive sponsors\u201d responsible for development of the product. Apple\u2019s industrial and human interface design teams also are heavily involved.
\nUltimately, Apple hopes it can sell multiple units of the device to consumers, who will place them around the house and use them several times a day. \u2014 Bloomberg
\n", "content_text": "APPLE, Inc., aiming to catch up with rivals in the smart home market, is nearing the launch of a new product category: a wall-mounted display that can control appliances, handle videoconferencing, and use artificial intelligence (AI) to navigate apps.\nThe company is gearing up to announce the device as early as March and will position it as a command center for the home, according to people with knowledge of the effort. The product, code-named J490, also will spotlight the new Apple Intelligence AI platform, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the work is confidential.\nChief Executive Officer Tim Cook is betting that the product can make Apple a force in the smart home segment, where the company has trailed behind Alphabet, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. in recent years. He has made the device a priority for the company\u2019s engineering and design departments, and is pushing to get it to market after more than three years of development.\nA representative for Cupertino, California-based Apple declined to comment.\nThe device has a roughly six-inch screen and looks like a square iPad. It\u2019s about the size of two iPhones side by side, with a thick edge around the display. There\u2019s also a camera at the top front, a rechargeable built-in battery and internal speakers. Apple plans to offer it in silver and black options.\nThe product has a touch interface that looks like a blend of the Apple Watch operating system and the iPhone\u2019s recently launched StandBy mode. But the company expects most people to use their voice to interact with the device, relying on the Siri digital assistant and Apple Intelligence. The hardware was designed around App Intents, a system that lets AI precisely control applications and tasks, which is set to debut in the coming months.\nThe product will be marketed as a way to control home appliances, chat with Siri, and hold intercom sessions via Apple\u2019s FaceTime software. It will also be loaded with Apple apps, including ones for web browsing, listening to news updates and playing music. Users will be able to access their notes and calendar information, and the device can turn into a slideshow display for their photos.\nA first for Apple, the device will compete with Amazon\u2019s Echo Show and Echo Hub smart displays, as well as Google\u2019s Nest Hub. It\u2019s also reminiscent of Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s Portal, a failed videoconferencing device from the social media giant. Apple is already planning a more expensive follow-up version with a robotic limb that can move the screen around. Apple plans to market that technology as a home companion with an AI personality.\nThe higher-end product could be priced at as much as $1,000 depending on the components it uses, the people said. The display-only device will be far less than that, approaching the cost of competitors\u2019 products. The Echo Show 8 is priced at $150, while the Echo Hub is $180. The Nest Hub Max costs $230.\nApple has designed different attachments for the device, including ones that affix the screens onto walls like a classic home-security panel. There will be bases with additional speakers that can be placed in the kitchen, on a nightstand or on a desk. Apple imagines the FaceTime feature being used while cooking or for videoconferencing during work meetings.\nA person familiar with its development said the product is designed to bring Siri and Apple Intelligence to life in a way that hasn\u2019t happened before. Last month, the company rolled out a limited set of Apple Intelligence features for iPhones, iPads, and Macs. More advanced capabilities \u2014 like generative AI for images and an integration with OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT \u2014 are coming in December.\nThe screen device, which runs a new operating system code-named Pebble, will include sensors to determine how close a person is. It will then automatically adjust its features depending on the distance. For example, if users are several feet away, it might show the temperature. As they approach, the interface can switch to a panel for adjusting the home thermostat.\nThe newly designed operating system will also include a customizable home screen where users can run widgets for checking stock tickers, the weather, and appointments. Or they can configure the screen to highlight key home controls. There will also be a dock for quickly launching favorite apps and an iPhone-like home screen grid of software icons.\nDuring development, Apple discussed launching an app store as part of the device, but it recently decided to exclude this feature \u2014 at least in the initial version.\nThe product will tap into Apple\u2019s long-standing smart home framework, HomeKit, which can control third-party thermostats, lights, locks, security cameras, sensors, sprinklers, fans, and other equipment. Apple supports hundreds of accessories with HomeKit and offers iCloud online storage plans for home security footage.\nSecurity will be a particular focus for the new device. It will deliver security alerts and display camera footage, including video from smart doorbells. It also will serve as an intercom system between rooms in homes with multiple Apple displays.\nApple has explored building its own line of smart home accessories, including an indoor security camera that could double as a baby monitor. The idea would be to emphasize privacy controls, one of Apple\u2019s hallmarks. If the smart home display is successful, the company could prioritize plans to bring such accessories to market.\nApple also is working on a system that will let the home device sense how many people are nearby. That approach relies in part on external sensors that could be placed in wall outlets in the vicinity of the device, but those accessories may come later or get canceled altogether.\nThe product will be a standalone device, meaning it can operate almost entirely on its own. But it will require an iPhone for some tasks, including parts of the initial setup. It will also work with Apple\u2019s Handoff feature, which lets users trigger a function on one device and then continue on their iPhone after walking away.\nThe project is a collaboration between several Apple teams, including the home hardware engineering group led by executive Matt Costello and the software engineering ecosystems group run by Arun Mathias. Mr.\u00a0Costello and Mr.\u00a0Mathias are known as the \u201cexecutive sponsors\u201d responsible for development of the product. Apple\u2019s industrial and human interface design teams also are heavily involved.\nUltimately, Apple hopes it can sell multiple units of the device to consumers, who will place them around the house and use them several times a day. \u2014 Bloomberg", "date_published": "2024-11-14T00:01:11+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-11-13T17:32:31+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/apple-inc.jpg", "tags": [ "AI", "Apple", "Siri", "Bloomberg", "Technology" ] }, { "id": "/?p=633798", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/11/11/633798/why-trump-a-liar-seems-honest-to-his-supporters/", "title": "Why Trump, a liar, seems honest to his supporters", "content_html": "ON THE EVE of Election Day, anthropology professor Alexander Hinton talked to me from a Trump rally, where he was already convinced the Republican candidate would win. He\u2019d been observing the MAGA movement in a professional capacity, attending more Trump rallies than he can count, and he says Donald Trump\u2019s supporters display an unusual fervor for their candidate. \u201cHe knows how to choreograph a show.\u201d
\nHinton\u2019s prediction was based on Trump\u2019s abilities as an entertainer and the way he\u2019s inspired faith that he can lower the price of a cup of coffee and fatten Americans\u2019 pocketbooks.
\nSome of the faith in the new president-elect and his economic promises comes from a sense that he \u201ctells it like it is\u201d \u2014 that he speaks with blunt honesty, even as he insists he won the 2020 election and propagates numerous other fictions. This paradox has confused pundits, pollsters, and other observers since Trump\u2019s rise to political prominence over a decade ago. That he even got a chance to run for president a third time \u2014 despite losing in 2020 and despite many of his hand-picked candidates losing in 2022 \u2014 raises questions about our vulnerability to cults of personality.
\nMost of what passes for \u201ctelling it like it is\u201d comes down to Trump making completely subjective judgments with a tone of certainty \u2014 that some of his enemies are \u201closers\u201d or \u201cmorons\u201d or \u201clow IQ\u201d or that one of his rivals somehow has a face that\u2019s not fit for office. Some might call this brutal honesty, but there\u2019s nothing honest about it. The Week Magazine calls it \u201cmaniacal overconfidence\u201d which \u201csounds to some people like forthrightness.\u201d In that sense, he is telling it like it is \u2014 in his own self-serving head.
\n\u201cThe issue with narcissists is the difference between truth and falsehood has no meaning,\u201d says University of Chicago behavioral scientist Dario Maestripieri. They only care about what helps them. And Trump\u2019s narcissism makes him charismatic, he said.
\nThe certitude can make Trump sound like he\u2019s in the know. And some enjoy the insults hurled at other people \u2014 a part of the show that can be entertaining, and also flattering, since there\u2019s an implication that Trump\u2019s supporters aren\u2019t among the morons. And focusing on categories of people such as undocumented immigrants gives some people a target on which to blame their own problems. That particular group also inspired outrage among immigrants who went through all the hurdles to enter the US legally.
\nNew York Times columnist Ezra Klein had a slightly different slant recently, focusing on what he calls Trump\u2019s disinhibition \u2014 a sometimes magnetic disregard for what people might think. Consider, wrote Klein, Trump\u2019s strange behavior during a rally in the Philadelphia suburbs, when he stopped a question session and played music for more than 30 minutes.
\nThat same unusual self-assurance was on display in Trump\u2019s appearance on Joe Rogan\u2019s podcast. After watching the entire three-hour interview, I didn\u2019t once witness Trump delivering the kind of refreshing honesty associated with the phrase \u201ctell it like it is,\u201d but he didn\u2019t tell many clear-cut lies either. In fact, he usually didn\u2019t finish a thought. Instead, he rambled and bloviated, and bragged.
\nWhen asked what it was like to move into the White House in 2016, he mentioned the Lincoln Bedroom \u2014 then expounded, as a tour guide might, about the items in the room and the personal lives of members of the Lincoln family. He also talked with bold confidence about climate, nuclear power and wind power, before going on a confusing diversion about how central California was once covered by giant lake.
\nFor a three-hour interview, it was weirdly uninformative \u2014 but people I know who get their news from Rogan\u2019s podcast say they only consume it passively while doing other things, or they see snippets later. That represents a radical change in the way people consume media. With people half tuned in, Trump\u2019s ability to speak with confidence about so many topics might look impressive \u2014 if you\u2019re not listening too closely, he might sound knowledgeable.
\nWhen he speaks, Trump is often cryptic, or vague, issuing his subjective views as if they were facts. When he does speak in clear, declarative sentences, he tends get ridiculed \u2014 as happened in the presidential debate against Kamala Harris when he said that immigrants were eating cats and dogs.
\nMore often, he resorts to innuendo and hints of secret knowledge \u2014 about election fraud, foreign leaders or the origin of the COVID pandemic. For example, when Joe Rogan pressed him for a real answer on whether he really believed 2020 was stolen, he first said something unintelligible, then argued election fraud is possible in theory. Rogan later endorsed him.
\nTrump won with surprising decisiveness, despite his evasiveness and failure to justify his extraordinary claims. It\u2019s tempting to conclude that we live in some kind of post-truth society. Perhaps, instead, we live in a society obsessed the truth, but we\u2019ve lost our appreciation for explanatory depth and different perspectives. At the same time, we\u2019re just as persuaded by a speaker\u2019s confidence as ever.
\nAngus Fletcher, an Ohio State University English professor with a background in neuroscience, said people hearing just one side of a story report high confidence in their knowledge. Once they get another perspective, their confidence goes down. \u201cA lot of disagreements can be solved just by filling in the missing pieces of information.\u201d
\nIssues such as immigration look different from various angles \u2014 from the perspective of a refugee in need of a home, a teacher struggling to reach students who can\u2019t speak English, and local people trying to accommodate the newcomers. \u201cA narrative has different sides to it,\u201d he said, \u201cas opposed to a math problem, which has only one answer.\u201d
\nEnvisioning reality from various perspectives takes time \u2014 the kind of time some used to devote to reading entire newspaper stories or even a book, he said. \u201cThese are skills people are losing,\u201d as they get more news from social media, short videos, and long, one-sided podcasts.
\nHinton, the anthropologist, predicts the MAGA movement will dissipate once Trump leaves office because nobody else matches his ability to persuade and entertain. In the meantime, regaining the ability to look at the world through different perspectives might not make America unified again, but it could at least help us break free of cults of personality and start to understand each other.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "ON THE EVE of Election Day, anthropology professor Alexander Hinton talked to me from a Trump rally, where he was already convinced the Republican candidate would win. He\u2019d been observing the MAGA movement in a professional capacity, attending more Trump rallies than he can count, and he says Donald Trump\u2019s supporters display an unusual fervor for their candidate. \u201cHe knows how to choreograph a show.\u201d\nHinton\u2019s prediction was based on Trump\u2019s abilities as an entertainer and the way he\u2019s inspired faith that he can lower the price of a cup of coffee and fatten Americans\u2019 pocketbooks.\nSome of the faith in the new president-elect and his economic promises comes from a sense that he \u201ctells it like it is\u201d \u2014 that he speaks with blunt honesty, even as he insists he won the 2020 election and propagates numerous other fictions. This paradox has confused pundits, pollsters, and other observers since Trump\u2019s rise to political prominence over a decade ago. That he even got a chance to run for president a third time \u2014 despite losing in 2020 and despite many of his hand-picked candidates losing in 2022 \u2014 raises questions about our vulnerability to cults of personality.\nMost of what passes for \u201ctelling it like it is\u201d comes down to Trump making completely subjective judgments with a tone of certainty \u2014 that some of his enemies are \u201closers\u201d or \u201cmorons\u201d or \u201clow IQ\u201d or that one of his rivals somehow has a face that\u2019s not fit for office. Some might call this brutal honesty, but there\u2019s nothing honest about it. The Week Magazine calls it \u201cmaniacal overconfidence\u201d which \u201csounds to some people like forthrightness.\u201d In that sense, he is telling it like it is \u2014 in his own self-serving head.\n\u201cThe issue with narcissists is the difference between truth and falsehood has no meaning,\u201d says University of Chicago behavioral scientist Dario Maestripieri. They only care about what helps them. And Trump\u2019s narcissism makes him charismatic, he said.\nThe certitude can make Trump sound like he\u2019s in the know. And some enjoy the insults hurled at other people \u2014 a part of the show that can be entertaining, and also flattering, since there\u2019s an implication that Trump\u2019s supporters aren\u2019t among the morons. And focusing on categories of people such as undocumented immigrants gives some people a target on which to blame their own problems. That particular group also inspired outrage among immigrants who went through all the hurdles to enter the US legally.\nNew York Times columnist Ezra Klein had a slightly different slant recently, focusing on what he calls Trump\u2019s disinhibition \u2014 a sometimes magnetic disregard for what people might think. Consider, wrote Klein, Trump\u2019s strange behavior during a rally in the Philadelphia suburbs, when he stopped a question session and played music for more than 30 minutes. \nThat same unusual self-assurance was on display in Trump\u2019s appearance on Joe Rogan\u2019s podcast. After watching the entire three-hour interview, I didn\u2019t once witness Trump delivering the kind of refreshing honesty associated with the phrase \u201ctell it like it is,\u201d but he didn\u2019t tell many clear-cut lies either. In fact, he usually didn\u2019t finish a thought. Instead, he rambled and bloviated, and bragged.\nWhen asked what it was like to move into the White House in 2016, he mentioned the Lincoln Bedroom \u2014 then expounded, as a tour guide might, about the items in the room and the personal lives of members of the Lincoln family. He also talked with bold confidence about climate, nuclear power and wind power, before going on a confusing diversion about how central California was once covered by giant lake.\nFor a three-hour interview, it was weirdly uninformative \u2014 but people I know who get their news from Rogan\u2019s podcast say they only consume it passively while doing other things, or they see snippets later. That represents a radical change in the way people consume media. With people half tuned in, Trump\u2019s ability to speak with confidence about so many topics might look impressive \u2014 if you\u2019re not listening too closely, he might sound knowledgeable.\nWhen he speaks, Trump is often cryptic, or vague, issuing his subjective views as if they were facts. When he does speak in clear, declarative sentences, he tends get ridiculed \u2014 as happened in the presidential debate against Kamala Harris when he said that immigrants were eating cats and dogs.\nMore often, he resorts to innuendo and hints of secret knowledge \u2014 about election fraud, foreign leaders or the origin of the COVID pandemic. For example, when Joe Rogan pressed him for a real answer on whether he really believed 2020 was stolen, he first said something unintelligible, then argued election fraud is possible in theory. Rogan later endorsed him.\nTrump won with surprising decisiveness, despite his evasiveness and failure to justify his extraordinary claims. It\u2019s tempting to conclude that we live in some kind of post-truth society. Perhaps, instead, we live in a society obsessed the truth, but we\u2019ve lost our appreciation for explanatory depth and different perspectives. At the same time, we\u2019re just as persuaded by a speaker\u2019s confidence as ever.\nAngus Fletcher, an Ohio State University English professor with a background in neuroscience, said people hearing just one side of a story report high confidence in their knowledge. Once they get another perspective, their confidence goes down. \u201cA lot of disagreements can be solved just by filling in the missing pieces of information.\u201d\nIssues such as immigration look different from various angles \u2014 from the perspective of a refugee in need of a home, a teacher struggling to reach students who can\u2019t speak English, and local people trying to accommodate the newcomers. \u201cA narrative has different sides to it,\u201d he said, \u201cas opposed to a math problem, which has only one answer.\u201d\nEnvisioning reality from various perspectives takes time \u2014 the kind of time some used to devote to reading entire newspaper stories or even a book, he said. \u201cThese are skills people are losing,\u201d as they get more news from social media, short videos, and long, one-sided podcasts.\nHinton, the anthropologist, predicts the MAGA movement will dissipate once Trump leaves office because nobody else matches his ability to persuade and entertain. In the meantime, regaining the ability to look at the world through different perspectives might not make America unified again, but it could at least help us break free of cults of personality and start to understand each other.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-11-11T00:04:42+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-11-10T21:45:24+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Donald-Trump-.jpg", "tags": [ "F.D. Flam", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=633551", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/11/08/633551/once-again-america-needs-to-deal-with-donald-trump/", "title": "Once again, America needs to deal with Donald Trump", "content_html": "DONALD TRUMP wasn\u2019t my choice for president. In fact, I urged Americans to vote for Kamala Harris. But he won fair and square. So let\u2019s get on with it.
\nRepublicans had an exceptionally good night, taking the Senate and likely holding their narrow majority in the House, but their paper-thin majority should not be mistaken for a mandate. The challenges facing the country can only be tackled effectively with bipartisan compromise.
\nOne irony of the outcome is that, on almost every issue that voters identified as a priority, Trump\u2019s proposals would likely make matters worse. The goal for Congress over the next four years should be persuading the president to avoid these bad ideas and offering him better alternatives. Trump himself should recognize that what plays in a campaign is often far different than what works in government.
\nTake inflation, a top concern for most voters. Trump\u2019s plans for comprehensive tariffs, regressive tax cuts, a devalued dollar, and a newly politicized Federal Reserve seem tailor-made to push prices up, just when the Fed has largely succeeded in getting them under control. Enacting any element of this agenda would be irresponsible, not least because it would worsen the country\u2019s spiraling fiscal problems, to the tune of perhaps $15 trillion in additional debt over a decade.
\nLawmakers, including Republicans, should have every interest in averting this course. They could assert Congress\u2019 rightful power to refuse his across-the-board tariffs, for instance, while offering the president more targeted ones focused on national security and market access. A prudent revision of the expiring 2017 tax cuts \u2014 one that pairs a higher corporate tax rate with more generous expensing rules, say \u2014 might also be feasible. Forming a fiscal commission would be a good way to get on with the hard choices needed to forestall a looming budget crisis.
\nOn immigration, too, Trump\u2019s proposals are hugely misguided. It\u2019s true that the current administration has made a hash of things at the border. But the mass-deportation effort Trump has theorized would be (in addition to cruel) prohibitively costly, while also impeding economic growth and doing little to fix the underlying problem. Legislators should instead revive a bipartisan reform effort, focused on popular policies such as easing the path to citizenship for foreign graduates of US colleges combined with more restrictive enforcement measures. They should also push Trump to focus on the quasi-effective policies from his last term, such as the Migrant Protection Protocols, and avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric.
\nA final priority must be to thwart the corruption that marred Trump\u2019s first term. The president is entitled to his own agenda, but not to his own rules. (The recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents sweeping immunity could be interpreted to give Trump enormous latitude, but it may be tested in the courts.) Public servants should do their duty while availing themselves of whistleblower protections if asked to engage in misconduct. Reporters and watchdog groups should be on the lookout for Trump\u2019s reflexive financial malfeasance. Congress should pass levelheaded laws that respond to the legitimate concerns of Trump\u2019s voters, while also opposing him as needed, as Mitch McConnell, the departing Republican Senate leader, did during Trump\u2019s first term. Republicans must not allow the president to obliterate norms of American democracy.
\nDemocrats, for their part, might ask themselves how exactly they lost to Trump, an ailing 78-year-old who much of the country despises. It probably wasn\u2019t great to cover up President Joe Biden\u2019s infirmities until they became undeniable on live TV. It wasn\u2019t ideal that party elders replaced him with Harris, a nominee who had received no electoral votes and had failed decisively in a previous presidential run.
\nBut for now, the country will simply need to deal with Trump, and begin to restrain his worst excesses, one more time.
\nDealing with a reckless president is an exhausting job, but it can and must be done \u2013 and it\u2019s a job for members of both parties.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n", "content_text": "DONALD TRUMP wasn\u2019t my choice for president. In fact, I urged Americans to vote for Kamala Harris. But he won fair and square. So let\u2019s get on with it.\nRepublicans had an exceptionally good night, taking the Senate and likely holding their narrow majority in the House, but their paper-thin majority should not be mistaken for a mandate. The challenges facing the country can only be tackled effectively with bipartisan compromise.\nOne irony of the outcome is that, on almost every issue that voters identified as a priority, Trump\u2019s proposals would likely make matters worse. The goal for Congress over the next four years should be persuading the president to avoid these bad ideas and offering him better alternatives. Trump himself should recognize that what plays in a campaign is often far different than what works in government.\nTake inflation, a top concern for most voters. Trump\u2019s plans for comprehensive tariffs, regressive tax cuts, a devalued dollar, and a newly politicized Federal Reserve seem tailor-made to push prices up, just when the Fed has largely succeeded in getting them under control. Enacting any element of this agenda would be irresponsible, not least because it would worsen the country\u2019s spiraling fiscal problems, to the tune of perhaps $15 trillion in additional debt over a decade.\nLawmakers, including Republicans, should have every interest in averting this course. They could assert Congress\u2019 rightful power to refuse his across-the-board tariffs, for instance, while offering the president more targeted ones focused on national security and market access. A prudent revision of the expiring 2017 tax cuts \u2014 one that pairs a higher corporate tax rate with more generous expensing rules, say \u2014 might also be feasible. Forming a fiscal commission would be a good way to get on with the hard choices needed to forestall a looming budget crisis.\nOn immigration, too, Trump\u2019s proposals are hugely misguided. It\u2019s true that the current administration has made a hash of things at the border. But the mass-deportation effort Trump has theorized would be (in addition to cruel) prohibitively costly, while also impeding economic growth and doing little to fix the underlying problem. Legislators should instead revive a bipartisan reform effort, focused on popular policies such as easing the path to citizenship for foreign graduates of US colleges combined with more restrictive enforcement measures. They should also push Trump to focus on the quasi-effective policies from his last term, such as the Migrant Protection Protocols, and avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric.\nA final priority must be to thwart the corruption that marred Trump\u2019s first term. The president is entitled to his own agenda, but not to his own rules. (The recent Supreme Court ruling granting presidents sweeping immunity could be interpreted to give Trump enormous latitude, but it may be tested in the courts.) Public servants should do their duty while availing themselves of whistleblower protections if asked to engage in misconduct. Reporters and watchdog groups should be on the lookout for Trump\u2019s reflexive financial malfeasance. Congress should pass levelheaded laws that respond to the legitimate concerns of Trump\u2019s voters, while also opposing him as needed, as Mitch McConnell, the departing Republican Senate leader, did during Trump\u2019s first term. Republicans must not allow the president to obliterate norms of American democracy.\nDemocrats, for their part, might ask themselves how exactly they lost to Trump, an ailing 78-year-old who much of the country despises. It probably wasn\u2019t great to cover up President Joe Biden\u2019s infirmities until they became undeniable on live TV. It wasn\u2019t ideal that party elders replaced him with Harris, a nominee who had received no electoral votes and had failed decisively in a previous presidential run.\nBut for now, the country will simply need to deal with Trump, and begin to restrain his worst excesses, one more time.\nDealing with a reckless president is an exhausting job, but it can and must be done \u2013 and it\u2019s a job for members of both parties.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION", "date_published": "2024-11-08T00:03:47+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-11-07T19:20:05+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Trump-white-house.jpg", "tags": [ "Michael R. Bloomberg", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] }, { "id": "/?p=631058", "url": "/bloomberg/2024/10/29/631058/musk-and-friends-are-smothering-the-internets-truth-seekers/", "title": "Musk and friends are smothering the internet\u2019s truth seekers", "content_html": "NOT LONG after Hurricane Helene wrought destruction across the southern US, a more bewildering storm blew through: Officials with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) bumped up against angry residents and armed militia in Tennessee and North Carolina, people who\u2019d been riled up by rumors that the officials were there to take their homes. FEMA evacuated its teams, leaving behind communities that desperately needed help.
\nA cursory search of X (formerly Twitter) brought up several viral videos suggesting that FEMA was bulldozing bodies under the rubble, but press reports like this one (https://tinyurl.com/25zxhkz6) in the Washington Post were unclear about exactly where and how the rumors were spreading. They were just\u2026 spreading. That posed something even more troubling:
\nHow could you hold online platforms accountable for conspiracy theories if you didn\u2019t know where they were being shared?
\nThe answer is \u201cYou can\u2019t,\u201d because the people studying the flow of disinformation are being sued by those who seem to benefit from the spread of \u201calternative facts.\u201d
\nA raft of lawsuits and congressional investigations against several groups studying disinformation in the US, coming largely from Republican lawmakers and tech billionaire Elon Musk, have had a chilling effect on the broader effort to tackle viral falsehoods. These research groups study how lies spread online and alert the public when they find coordinated campaigns to mislead people. They analyze networks of accounts, map viral posts, and document who creates and shares misleading content.
\nWhy the aggression? In part, because of the way that some of the disinformation campaigns tracked by these groups have also aligned with conservative positions.
\nTake the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of Republican leaders and influencers, including Donald Trump himself, questioned many of the social-distancing measures and mask mandates, and created the vaccine skepticism that became part of conservative messaging. When anti-disinformation groups called on social media platforms to remove posts with COVID misinformation (which they did), Republicans saw that as a partisan attack. When they did the same with posts about the \u201cstolen\u201d 2020 election, that was seen as yet another attack on conservatives.
\nThe tech giants have attracted some ire for this, but it\u2019s the small anti-disinformation groups that are most vulnerable, especially if Trump gets voted in on Nov. 5. There has already been a noticeable decline in their research output the past year \u2014 hence the lack of information about how the FEMA rumors were spreading. They\u2019re too busy defending against lawsuits.
\nA standout example was the unwinding in June of the Stanford Internet Observatory, which was founded in 2019 by Alex Stamos, the former chief security officer of Facebook, after his frustration that the social network wasn\u2019t more transparent about Russian influence operations on its platform during the 2016 US presidential election. His new group went on to uncover large networks of fake Facebook accounts being used to warp political discourse. But that work came with a price.
\nThe Observatory found itself having to pay millions of dollars in lawyers\u2019 fees to defend itself against several lawsuits; one 2023 suit from Trump adviser Stephen Miller claimed that the Observatory and other research groups \u201cconspired with the federal government to conduct a mass surveillance and censorship operation targeting the political speech of millions of Americans.\u201d (Stanford University denied in June that the group had been dismantled but admitted its founding grants would \u201csoon be exhausted.\u201d It didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment.)
\nLawsuits, congressional subpoenas and probes have hit similar organizations. They have names like Graphika, the University of Washington Disinformation Lab, Atlantic Council\u2019s Digital Forensic Research Lab, Global Disinformation Index, NewsGuard, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
\nThe latter is fighting a lawsuit from Musk over a report it published in September 2023, which claimed Musk\u2019s X was profiting from neo-Nazi accounts.* Musk has also sued Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, for reporting in November 2023 that ads from major brands on X appeared next to Nazi-related posts, a case that is still ongoing.
\nEven some government initiatives have been targeted, including the State Department\u2019s Global Engagement Center, which tackled foreign information but now faces a shutdown.
\nShining a spotlight on how disinformation spreads isn\u2019t illegal, yet these groups\u2019 critics have dubbed them a \u201ccensorship industrial complex,\u201d a sentiment that plays dangerously into Trump\u2019s comments about Americans having an \u201cenemy within.\u201d
\nTrump has pledged to \u201cshatter the left-wing censorship regime\u201d if reelected, while the Heritage Foundation\u2019s Project 2025 proposes ending all government funding for disinformation research. Doing so would leave America more vulnerable to manipulation and confusion, particularly at a time when social media firms have, partly in response to the growing pressure, cut back on their trust and safety teams and closed access to researchers, most notably with Facebook\u2019s shutdown in August of its trend-monitoring tool CrowdTangle.
\nIn early October, the head of the US intelligence community warned of a serious threat from foreign actors including Russia, Iran, and China, aimed at \u201cundermining trust\u201d in polls and the US democratic process, ostensibly through social media.
\nThe coming election is set to be one of the closest for decades, threatening a raft of new conspiracy theories about a rigged vote. Calling disinformation research \u201ccensorship\u201d erodes the already-scant checks and balances we have on large technology platforms. It leaves Americans more exposed to the next storm.
\nBLOOMBERG OPINION
\n*The court dismissed Musk\u2019s case in March 2024, ruling the billionaire had tried to \u201cpunish\u201d critics. Musk has appealed.
\n", "content_text": "NOT LONG after Hurricane Helene wrought destruction across the southern US, a more bewildering storm blew through: Officials with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) bumped up against angry residents and armed militia in Tennessee and North Carolina, people who\u2019d been riled up by rumors that the officials were there to take their homes. FEMA evacuated its teams, leaving behind communities that desperately needed help.\nA cursory search of X (formerly Twitter) brought up several viral videos suggesting that FEMA was bulldozing bodies under the rubble, but press reports like this one (https://tinyurl.com/25zxhkz6) in the Washington Post were unclear about exactly where and how the rumors were spreading. They were just\u2026 spreading. That posed something even more troubling: \nHow could you hold online platforms accountable for conspiracy theories if you didn\u2019t know where they were being shared?\nThe answer is \u201cYou can\u2019t,\u201d because the people studying the flow of disinformation are being sued by those who seem to benefit from the spread of \u201calternative facts.\u201d\nA raft of lawsuits and congressional investigations against several groups studying disinformation in the US, coming largely from Republican lawmakers and tech billionaire Elon Musk, have had a chilling effect on the broader effort to tackle viral falsehoods. These research groups study how lies spread online and alert the public when they find coordinated campaigns to mislead people. They analyze networks of accounts, map viral posts, and document who creates and shares misleading content.\nWhy the aggression? In part, because of the way that some of the disinformation campaigns tracked by these groups have also aligned with conservative positions.\nTake the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of Republican leaders and influencers, including Donald Trump himself, questioned many of the social-distancing measures and mask mandates, and created the vaccine skepticism that became part of conservative messaging. When anti-disinformation groups called on social media platforms to remove posts with COVID misinformation (which they did), Republicans saw that as a partisan attack. When they did the same with posts about the \u201cstolen\u201d 2020 election, that was seen as yet another attack on conservatives.\nThe tech giants have attracted some ire for this, but it\u2019s the small anti-disinformation groups that are most vulnerable, especially if Trump gets voted in on Nov. 5. There has already been a noticeable decline in their research output the past year \u2014 hence the lack of information about how the FEMA rumors were spreading. They\u2019re too busy defending against lawsuits. \nA standout example was the unwinding in June of the Stanford Internet Observatory, which was founded in 2019 by Alex Stamos, the former chief security officer of Facebook, after his frustration that the social network wasn\u2019t more transparent about Russian influence operations on its platform during the 2016 US presidential election. His new group went on to uncover large networks of fake Facebook accounts being used to warp political discourse. But that work came with a price.\nThe Observatory found itself having to pay millions of dollars in lawyers\u2019 fees to defend itself against several lawsuits; one 2023 suit from Trump adviser Stephen Miller claimed that the Observatory and other research groups \u201cconspired with the federal government to conduct a mass surveillance and censorship operation targeting the political speech of millions of Americans.\u201d (Stanford University denied in June that the group had been dismantled but admitted its founding grants would \u201csoon be exhausted.\u201d It didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment.)\nLawsuits, congressional subpoenas and probes have hit similar organizations. They have names like Graphika, the University of Washington Disinformation Lab, Atlantic Council\u2019s Digital Forensic Research Lab, Global Disinformation Index, NewsGuard, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.\nThe latter is fighting a lawsuit from Musk over a report it published in September 2023, which claimed Musk\u2019s X was profiting from neo-Nazi accounts.* Musk has also sued Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, for reporting in November 2023 that ads from major brands on X appeared next to Nazi-related posts, a case that is still ongoing.\nEven some government initiatives have been targeted, including the State Department\u2019s Global Engagement Center, which tackled foreign information but now faces a shutdown.\nShining a spotlight on how disinformation spreads isn\u2019t illegal, yet these groups\u2019 critics have dubbed them a \u201ccensorship industrial complex,\u201d a sentiment that plays dangerously into Trump\u2019s comments about Americans having an \u201cenemy within.\u201d\nTrump has pledged to \u201cshatter the left-wing censorship regime\u201d if reelected, while the Heritage Foundation\u2019s Project 2025 proposes ending all government funding for disinformation research. Doing so would leave America more vulnerable to manipulation and confusion, particularly at a time when social media firms have, partly in response to the growing pressure, cut back on their trust and safety teams and closed access to researchers, most notably with Facebook\u2019s shutdown in August of its trend-monitoring tool CrowdTangle.\nIn early October, the head of the US intelligence community warned of a serious threat from foreign actors including Russia, Iran, and China, aimed at \u201cundermining trust\u201d in polls and the US democratic process, ostensibly through social media.\nThe coming election is set to be one of the closest for decades, threatening a raft of new conspiracy theories about a rigged vote. Calling disinformation research \u201ccensorship\u201d erodes the already-scant checks and balances we have on large technology platforms. It leaves Americans more exposed to the next storm.\nBLOOMBERG OPINION\n*The court dismissed Musk\u2019s case in March 2024, ruling the billionaire had tried to \u201cpunish\u201d critics. Musk has appealed.", "date_published": "2024-10-29T00:03:42+08:00", "date_modified": "2024-10-28T18:07:42+08:00", "authors": [ { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "大象传媒", "url": "/author/cedadiantityclea/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc38d2668fdee8f1e2b22df5e72ae6f4ad265ab7814de4aa60060edd377a70ce?s=512&d=mm&r=g" }, "image": "/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/concept-person-suffering-from-cybersickness-technology-addiction.jpg", "tags": [ "Parmy Olson", "Bloomberg", "Editors' Picks", "Opinion" ] } ] }