Home/Company/Page 2

Qaskme Latest Questions

daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 09/09/2025In: ,

the new backbone of international tr ...

analyticscompany
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The New Reality: Trade Meets Climate For decades, tariffs were a matter of money and politics — shielding local jobs, industries, or negotiating leverage. But in the 2020s, there is a new logic on the rise: trade isn't just economically about economics anymore, it's about survival. Climate change isRead more

    The New Reality: Trade Meets Climate

    For decades, tariffs were a matter of money and politics — shielding local jobs, industries, or negotiating leverage. But in the 2020s, there is a new logic on the rise: trade isn’t just economically about economics anymore, it’s about survival.

    Climate change is no longer avoidable — severe heat, droughts, floods, and rising tides are already disrupting international business. Governments are catching on: unless trade policy takes into account carbon emissions, it will be subsidizing polluters at the expense of climate-responsible economies.

    Step in climate tariffs and carbon taxes — mechanisms aimed at ensuring “dirty” products (made with high emissions) are not given a free pass in the international marketplace.

    The Age of Climate Tariffs

    The biggest example is the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Beginning in 2026, all steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizer, or electricity imported into the EU will be subject to a tariff if it was made with greater emissions than EU limits.

    Why is this important

    • It puts EU companies that already pay carbon taxes on a level playing field.
    • It puts pressure on exporting countries (such as India, China, Turkey) to straighten up their production if they wish to maintain access to the European market.
    • It provides a model other nations (such as Canada, Japan, perhaps even the U.S.) will emulate.
    • That’s why climate tariffs have been dubbed by some experts as the “new backbone” of trade — it’s not about being cheap, it’s about being clean.

     Carbon Taxes: A Domestic Shift With Global Ripples

    Carbon taxes, on the other hand, are levied within a nation — taxing companies for each ton of CO₂ that they emit. More than 70 nations have implemented carbon pricing in some way. But here’s the catch: when one nation taxes carbon, but another doesn’t, trade imbalances surface.

    Example: If Germany produces steel using costly clean energy, while another nation produces steel cheaply from coal, Germany’s economy loses out — unless a border tariff levels the playing field.

    That’s why domestic carbon taxes and foreign climate tariffs are being intertwined into one system more and more.

    The Opportunity Side

    It’s not all punishment. Climate tariffs and carbon taxes are also:

    • Driving innovation: Businesses are spending on green tech (such as hydrogen, renewable energy, carbon capture) in order to remain competitive.
    • Rewarding clean economies: Countries that invest in renewables could find themselves with an export advantage. For instance, solar-generated aluminum from the Middle East would be more desirable than coal-generated aluminum from anywhere else.
    • Pushing global standards: Even if there are holdout countries opposed to climate action, they might not be able to if they wish to continue trading with climate-aware markets.

    The Risks & Human Costs

    But let’s be human here — these policies aren’t painless:

    • Poorer countries will view tariffs as a new type of protectionism — wealthy nations which have polluted for centuries now dictating that poorer nations must bear the brunt.
    • Global consumers will pay more as businesses transfer carbon costs.
    • Carbon-intensive workers (coal, steel, cement) could lose their jobs more quickly unless governments pay for a decent transition.
    • Briefly, climate tariffs have the potential to exacerbate inequality unless they are accompanied by international assistance to struggling economies.

     The Human Lens

    Visualize two workers:

    • A Polish steelworker whose plant has made a green technology investment, so her job is safe due to EU regulations.
    • An Indian steelworker whose factory uses coal. Exports suddenly incur tariffs, and demand plummets, putting his livelihood at risk.
    • The policy might appear to be progress on paper, but in people’s lives, it can be opportunity for some and punishment for others.

    Looking Ahead

    • Are climate tariffs and carbon taxes becoming the backbone of trade policy? The answer is: yes, slowly but surely.
    • They’re no longer fringe ideas — they’re shaping real trade deals, supply chains, and corporate strategies.
    • They will most probably set the “new rules of the game” for world trade in the decade ahead.
    • But their success hinges on whether or not they can be applied equitably, not merely rigidly — otherwise they will become another facet of the conflict between wealthy and poor countries.

     Bottom Line

    Climate tariffs and carbon levies aren’t simply about emissions — they’re about what sort of world economy we want to create. An economy that is rewarded for sustainability, or one that holds on to short-term cheapness at the expense of long-term survival.

    In a sense, they mark the start of the new age: “climate trade policy” — where the cost of a product isn’t just dollars and cents, but the carbon emissions it generates.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 09/09/2025In: , , ,

reshape labor markets in developing ...

aianalyticspeopletechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    Setting the Scene: A Double-Edged Sword Third-world nations have long relied on industries of sweatshops — textiles in Bangladesh, call centres in the Philippines, or manufacturing in Vietnam — as stepping stones to wealth. Such workaday employment is not glamorous, but it pays millions of individuaRead more

    Setting the Scene: A Double-Edged Sword

    Third-world nations have long relied on industries of sweatshops — textiles in Bangladesh, call centres in the Philippines, or manufacturing in Vietnam — as stepping stones to wealth. Such workaday employment is not glamorous, but it pays millions of individuals secure incomes, mobility, and respect.

    Enter artificial intelligence automation: robots in the assembly plant, customer service agents replaced by chatbots, AI accounting software for bookkeeping, logistics, and even diagnosing medical conditions. To developing countries, this is a threat and an opportunity.

     The Threat: Disruption of Existing Jobs

    • Manufacturing Jobs in Jeopardy
      Asian or African plants became a magnet for global firms because of low labor. But if devices can assemble things better in the U.S. or Europe, why offshoring? This would be counter to the cost benefit of low-wage nations.
    • Service Sector Vulnerability
      Customer service, data entry, and even accounting or legal work are already being automated. Countries like India or the Philippines, which built huge outsourcing industries, may see jobs vanish.
    • Widening Inequality
      Least likely to retain their jobs are low-skilled workers. Unless retrained, this could exacerbate inequality in developing nations — a few technology elites thrive, while millions of low-skilled workers are left behind.

     The Opportunity: Leapfrogging with AI

    But here’s the other side. Just like some developing nations skipped landlines and went directly to mobile phones, AI can help them skip industrial development phases.

    • Empowering Small Businesses
      Translation, design, accounting, marketing AI tools are now free or even on a shoestring budget. This levels the playing field for small entrepreneurs — a Kenyan tailor, an Indian farmer.
    • Agriculture Revolution
      In the majority of developing nations, farming continues to be the primary source of employment. Weather forecasting AI-based technology, soil analysis, and logistics supply chains could make farmers more efficient, boost yields, and reduce waste.
    • New Industries Forming
      As AI continues to grow, entirely new industries — from drone delivery to telemedicine — could create new jobs that have yet to be invented, providing opportunity for young professionals in developing nations to create rather than merely imitate.

    The Human Side: Choices That Matter

    • Governments must decide: Do they invest in reskilling workers, or stick with dying industries?
    • Businesses must decide: Do they automate just for cost savings, or build models that still have human work where it is necessary?
    • Workers have no promise: Some will be forced to shift from monotonous work to work that demands imagination, problem-solving, and human connection — sectors that AI is still not able to crack.

    The shift won’t come easily. A factory worker in Dhaka who loses his job to a robot isn’t going to become a software engineer overnight. The gap between displacement and opportunity is where most societies will find it hardest.

    Looking Ahead

    AI-driven automation in developing economies will not be a simple story of job loss. Instead, it will:

    • Kill some jobs (especially low-skill, repetitive ones),
    • Transform others (farming, medicine, logistics), and
    • Create new ones (digital services, local innovation, AI maintenance).

    The question is if developing nations will adopt the forward-looking approach of embracing AI as a growth accelerator, or get caught in the painful stage of disruption without building cushions of protection.

     Bottom Line

    AI is not destiny. It’s a tool. For the developing world, it might undermine decades of effort by wiping out history industries, or it could bring a new path to prosperity by empowering workers, entrepreneurs, and communities to surge ahead.

    The decision is in the hands of policy, education, and leadership — but foremost, whether societies consider AI as a replacement for humans or an addition to humans.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 09/09/2025In: , ,

“deglobalization” or create new globa ...

companydeglobalizationmanagement
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

       The Big Picture: Globalization Under Pressure Globalization for decades had meant goods, services, and capital flowing with reduced obstacles. Supply chains straddled continents — your smartphone designed in California, manufactured in China, using rare African minerals, and delivered to EurRead more

     

     The Big Picture: Globalization Under Pressure

    Globalization for decades had meant goods, services, and capital flowing with reduced obstacles. Supply chains straddled continents — your smartphone designed in California, manufactured in China, using rare African minerals, and delivered to Europe.

    But now geopolitical tensions — trade wars, sanctions, regional skirmishes, growing nationalism, and security worries — are testing this model. Throw in pandemics, climate shocks, and shipping bottlenecks, and all of a sudden “just-in-time” global supply chains appear vulnerable.

    So the question is: are we moving towards deglobalization (nations retreating, making more locally), or towards new global trade centers (regional blocs and strategic relationships supplanting one global market)?

     The Case for Deglobalization

    Businesses are risk-hedging by bringing production near:

    • National Security Issues: Chips, defense technology, energy — governments don’t want to be dependent on competitors for vital supplies. That’s why the U.S., Europe, and India are propping up domestic semiconductor plants.
    • Resilience Over Efficiency: “Cheaper isn’t safer.” Companies are happy to pay a premium for supply chains that won’t fall apart if one border shuts.
    • Consumer Politics: Increasingly, consumers are demanding “Made in [My Country]” labels, tying purchasing decisions to patriotism or sustainability.

    Deglobalization is not complete isolation, but it does involve shorter, more local supply chains and fewer dependencies on “strategic competitors.”

    The Case for New Global Trade Hubs

    • Conversely, the world is too intertwined to ever “unglobalize” completely. Instead, we may witness the emergence of several hubs of trade instead of one global hub:
    • Regional Giants: Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia) is becoming a second choice to China for production.
    • Strategic Alliances: EU, African Continental Free Trade Area, and partnerships such as USMCA (North America) are intensifying regional trade.
    • South-South Trade: Developing countries are now trading with one another — India-Africa, China-Latin America — establishing new corridors of commerce.

    This is less a matter of “one world market” and more a matter of webs of trusted partners.

    What This Means for Business

    Firms are now presented with a balancing act:

    • Risk Management: Spreading suppliers geographically rather than depending on one country.
    • Cost vs. Security: Paying more to be resilient.
    • Strategic Positioning: Deciding which “hub” to side with, based as much on politics as economics.

    For instance, Apple has already begun re-routing some of its iPhone manufacturing out of China and into India and Vietnam — not giving up on globalization, but diverting it.

     Human Side of the Story

    For employees, it means:

    • More jobs in manufacturing coming back home, but often in high-technology fields that require retraining.
    • More costs for consumers as “cheap globalization” comes to an end.
    • New markets in emerging economies becoming the next centers.
    • For managers, the challenge is no longer efficiency alone — now it’s trust, resilience, and agility.

    Bottom Line

    Geopolitical tensions won’t kill globalization, but they’re reshaping it. The future isn’t so much one seamless global economy as clusters of regional hubs, constructed on trust and strategy. The successful businesses will be those that view supply chains not merely as cost-cutting machines but as living systems that need to survive shocks.

    Short answer: not the death of globalization, but the beginning of a new, more scattered form of it.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 06/09/2025In: , ,

tariffs on food imports help farmers ...

news
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The Case for Tariffs: Defending Farmers and Food Security The largest reason to impose tariffs on imported food for most governments is to protect homegrown farmers. Farming is not just another sector — it's rural livelihood, heritage, and country food security. Defending home farmers from low-costRead more

    The Case for Tariffs: Defending Farmers and Food Security

    The largest reason to impose tariffs on imported food for most governments is to protect homegrown farmers. Farming is not just another sector — it’s rural livelihood, heritage, and country food security.

    • Defending home farmers from low-cost imports.
      Food coming from overseas would typically be from countries that have more expensive production levels, supported by the government, or through economy of scale. Home producers would not be able to compete if there were no tariffs. A tariff creates a cushion, giving home producers a square opportunity to survive.
    • Encouraging self-sufficiency.
      Foreign food dependence renders a country vulnerable. When global supply chains break down (pandemics, wars, climatic shocks), nations that have given up local production can run short. Tariffs are sometimes justified as a way to gain some degree of food sovereignty.
    • Security for rural livelihoods.
      Agricultural societies are prone to boom-bust cycles. Tariffs provide more stable incomes, which, in turn, sustain rural economies, prevent mass migration towards the cities, and preserve local traditions.

    The Consumer Burden: Increased Costs and Inflation

    On the other hand, tariffs, in return, affect consumers — urban families and the poor — who spend a large percentage of their budget on food.

    • Price rises right away.
      When tariffs are imposed, the imported goods become costly. If local farmers are not in a position to produce enough to cover the deficiency (or if they produce at a high cost too), buyers have to pay higher prices for food. This suffers most for staples like rice, wheat, pulses, cooking oil, or milk.
    • Inflation spiral.
      Food inflation is a major driver of overall inflation. If tariffs raise the cost of food, it seems to carry over into pay demands, shipping cost, and even political unrest. To already-struggling families barely scraping along on living costs, tariffs can appear as an added surtax on bare subsistence.
    • Social inequality.
      Wealthier shoppers may be able to bear higher prices with less hurt, but poor families feel the sting most. Occasionally, tariffs intended to protect farmers actually hurt millions of poor shoppers more.

    The Balancing Act: Winners vs. Losers

    So, are tariffs a blessing or a curse? The truth is in who wins vs. who loses.

    1. Winners: Farmers (especially small and medium-scale producers), rural economies, governments seeking food security.
    2. Losers: urban consumers, low-income families, and sometimes even food-processing businesses based on imported raw materials.

    The political economy of food tariffs therefore is complicated: governments face pressure from both farmers’ lobbies and consumer pressure groups. Sometimes they are caught between swinging — imposing the tariffs when farmers are suffering, cutting them during food price spikes to appease consumers.

    Real-World Examples

    India: Tariffs for the importation of edible oil were lowered when domestic prices were highest, as consumers in cities were outraged by inflation. But farmers producing oilseeds complained they were denied protection.

    Africa: Tariffs were employed by some countries to protect maize farmers, but when drought hit and production fell, the tariffs made food shortages worse, necessitating emergency imports.

    Europe/US: Tariffs are followed by high subsidies to cushion farmers and consumers relatively, and this suggests that tariffs alone are rarely the solution.

    Is There a Middle Path?

    Tariffs don’t have to be either/or. Smarter solutions can reconcile protection with affordability:

    • Variable tariffs. Change rates according to cycles of global prices — cutting them when food inflation is in the high range, raising them when farmers are squeezed by imports.
    • Subsidies on a targeted basis. Support farmers directly (through input subsidies or price guarantees) rather than indirectly through tariffs on consumers.
    • Consumer safety nets. Use food vouchers, rationing mechanisms, or cash transfers to insulate poor households from the impact of higher prices.
    • Investing in productivity. In the long run, the best safeguard for farmers and consumers alike is to improve domestic supplies, storage, and distribution so local food is plentiful and affordable.

    The Human Lens

    Ultimately, tariffs on imported food are not purely economic — they reach the dinner table of every household and the pride of every farmer. The challenge is genuine: balancing shielding farmers while not harming consumers is a feat governments seldom accomplish with precision.

    If imposed indiscriminately, tariffs fuel inflation and boost inequality. Implemented strategically, accompanied by complementary measures, they can provide farmers with time to adapt and enable nations to strengthen food security.

     In simple words: Tariffs for imported food are like medicine — the right dose can protect farmers and ensure food sovereignty, while an overdose will poison consumers with high prices.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 06/09/2025In: , ,

(adjusted in real time by data) repla ...

aicompanynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    What I refer to as "AI-driven dynamic tariffs" Consider a system that takes in real-time data (imports by HS code and country, supply-chain flows, world prices, carbon intensity, domestic employment indicators, smuggling/evasion alerts, etc.), executes automated economic and rule-based models, and dRead more

    What I refer to as “AI-driven dynamic tariffs”

    Consider a system that takes in real-time data (imports by HS code and country, supply-chain flows, world prices, carbon intensity, domestic employment indicators, smuggling/evasion alerts, etc.), executes automated economic and rule-based models, and dynamically adjusts tariff rates on targeted product lines or flows continuously—or at pre-set intervals—based on pre-defined goals (save jobs, stabilise domestic prices, reduce carbon leakage, raise revenue, retaliate against unfair practices). The “AI” components are prediction, anomaly detection, automated simulation of scenarios, and decision support; the policy choice may remain human-approved or completely automated inside legal bounds.

    Technical feasibility — yes, but nontrivial

    We already have two things that demonstrate pieces of this are possible:

    Businesses and suppliers are developing AI software to monitor tariff updates, predict supply-chain effects, and execute tariff-related compliance (real-time HSN classification, duty calculations, scenario modeling). That infrastructure might be repurposed or scaled to advise policy.

    In other regulated spaces (electricity, say) researchers and practitioners have implemented automated “dynamic tariff” mechanisms—the math and control systems are there (Bayesian / optimization / feedback control)—so the engineering pattern is established in similar contexts.

    So sensors, data pipelines, modeling software and compute are there. The difficult bit isn’t raw compute — it’s policy design, governance, enforcement and second-order market effects.

    Potential benefits (why people are excited

    • Quicker, data-driven reactions. Policymakers might increase or decrease tariffs in near real time to insulate vulnerable sectors from unexpected import spikes, or to moderate inflationary cost shocks.
    • Targeting and precision. Rather than across-the-board tariffs, dynamic systems can impose differentiated rates by product, source, or even route of shipment—minimizing blunt collateral harm to unrelated industries.
    • Policy automation of public goods. You might program carbon-adjustment targets (e.g., increased duties on more carbon-intensive imports) that shift as cleaner options emerge.
    • Improved revenue and leakage management. Monitoring by computers would limit misclassification and avoidance, allowing customs to collect intended duties with greater ease.

    Substantial practical and political risks

    • Volatility and market instability. Sudden tariff fluctuations can produce whipsaw price consequences, cause panic in supply chains, and promote speculative activity. Markets detest unexpected policy fluctuations.
    • Gaming and avoidance. Companies will soon devise means to re-route, re-label, or re-source commodities to avoid algorithmic tariffs. That leads to an arms race between avoidance and enforcement.
    • Legal and trade-law restrictions. World Trade Organization regulations, preferential trade arrangements, and domestic legislation are based on transparent, predetermined actions. Computer-driven adjustments threaten to breach commitments and necessitate new legal structures.
    • Distributional equity and credibility. Unless tariffs shift by algorithm with transparent human monitoring or well-timed rules, impacted companies, employees and trading countries will complain—politically and legally.
    • Data quality & bias. Inadequately measured inputs (e.g., poorly sorted imports, buggy data feeds) may result in unfair or ineffective tariff adjustments. Garbage in

    Governance design: making it safe & credible

    If governments wish to try, these precautions are necessary:

    • Well-defined objective function(s) and ex ante rules. Specify what is to be optimized by the algorithm (e.g., restrict to smoothing import surges, or carbon-adjustment within a 0–10% band).
    • Human-in-the-loop thresholds. Minor, regular adjustments may be automated; any change over a defined magnitude or length of time is subject to ministerial approval.
    • Transparency & audit logs. Release the input data sources, decision rules, and change log so stakeholders (and courts) can audit decisions.
    • Appeals and correction mechanisms. Importers/exporters must have a quick route to challenge misapplied tariff changes.
    • Sunset clauses & pilot scopes. Begin in a limited area (e.g., seasonal agricultural peaks, a single tariff item for semiconductors, or carbon-adj margins on fossil inputs) and sunset/extend on the basis of an assessment.
    • International coordination. To prevent cascading retaliation and compliance problems, coordinate pilots with large trading partners or regional blocs where feasible.
      UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

    Where an AI-dynamic strategy is most likely to be beneficial first

    Sectoral pilots: perishable agriculture (where price shocks are pressing), energy-intensive inputs (to introduce carbon-adjusted import tariffs), or instances of abrupt dumping imports.

    Decision-support systems: applying AI to suggest discrete tariff actions to human decision-makers (highly probable near term). AI is already being applied by many countries and companies to monitor tariffs and model impacts—dual-purposing the same tools as policy analytics is the low-risk initial step.

    Analogues and precedent

    Dynamic pricing in transport and utilities has yielded regulators lessons on fallback predictable pricing requirements, consumer protections, and smoothing signals. Researchers have modeled tariffs as feedback controls—valuable policy design advice.

    Private sector tools (Altana, Palantir, tariff-HSN AI, etc.) illustrate the speed at which businesses can realign operations to tariffs; that same responsiveness would go both ways if governments were to automate tariffs.

    Political economy — a central tension

    Tariffs aren’t merely economics; they are political promises (to constituents, sectors, global partners). Politicians like visible, understandable actions. A ping-ponging algorithmic tariff will be framed as “out of control” even if it maximizes social welfare on paper. That renders full replacement politically implausible short of very gradual staged rollouts and robust transparency.

    A realistic phased way forward (my suggested roadmap)

    • Construct decision-support, not autopilot. Employ AI to generate live dashboards and tariff simulations for policymakers. Let human beings call the shots. (Low-risk short term.)
    • Pilot limited auto-adjustments. Permit automatic, limited adjustments (e.g., ±2–5% band, only for pre-cleared tariff lines, finite duration) with rollback rules. Analyze economic and distributional effects.
    • Legal updates & international negotiation. Collaborate with trade partners and organizations (WTO/FTA partners) to develop mutual agreement protocols for algorithmic tariff procedures.
    • Scale with safeguards. If pilots are stable and legitimate with the public, scale up step by step with ongoing audits and public disclosure.

    Bottom line — probable outcome

    Short-to-medium term (1–5 years): AI will drive tariff analysis, forecasting and decision support. Governments will pilot constrained auto-adjustments in narrowly defined regions. Companies will use more AI to respond to these actions.

    Medium-to-long term (5–15+ years): With frameworks of law, international coordination, good governance and evident payoffs, dynamic tariffs might emerge as an explicit policy tool, but they will exist alongside static tariffs and trade agreements instead of displacing them in toto. The political and diplomatic viscosity of tariffs ensures human beings (and parliaments) will retain ultimate discretion for a while yet.

    If you prefer, I can:

    • Create a sample policy framework (objectives, thresholds, oversight, appeal process) for a pilot program; or
    • Develop a technical architecture (data feeds, models, auditing, rollback) for a government that would like to pilot dynamic tariffs; or
    • Develop a brief explainer targeted at legislators that distills the payoffs, risks and mitigations.
    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 04/09/2025In: , ,

global trade policies

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    A Divided World through Tariffs We are living in a time when tariffs are being used like chess pieces in a game of geopolitics. From steel and aluminum to semiconductors and clean tech, nations are slapping tariffs on one another in the name of protecting jobs, industries or national security. And aRead more

    A Divided World through Tariffs

    We are living in a time when tariffs are being used like chess pieces in a game of geopolitics. From steel and aluminum to semiconductors and clean tech, nations are slapping tariffs on one another in the name of protecting jobs, industries or national security. And as we all know, the European market is pretty fragmented with digital trade (data localization, cloud services, digital taxes, etc.).

    But this is the point: The digital economy is not like shipping containers. Data flows do not observe borders, and innovation is driven by openness. It is why the idea of tariff-free digital trade zones is beginning to make sense.

    What Are Digital Trade Zones?

    Suppose some countries sat down and decided on a few matters:

    • “No tariffs on software or services, AI, cloud storage, or streaming.”
    • No forced localization of computing facilities.”
    • “Free rules for digital payments and e-commerce.”

    It would be like a free-trade agreement for the internet, and businesses and citizens will be able to have digital trade without new charges or political hurdles.

    Why This Sounds Appealing

    Letting small businesses flourish: A Nairobi freelancer will find it easier to deliver web design services to a London customer without the burden of new digital taxes.

    • Researchers could collaborate freely across borders without any restrictions on tools or data.
    • Consumer benefit: Everyone around the world would have more affordable access to global apps, streaming, and cloud services.
    • Economic growth: Tariff-free trade zones powered manufacturing and exports. Tariff-free digital zones would similarly power startups.

    The Roadblocks

    Of course, it’s not all plain sailing. There are some genuine concerns:

    • Data sovereignty: Governments worry that technology titans now have too much information about their citizens.
    • Tax fairness: How will countries ensure that everyone is paying their fair share without tariffs or internet taxes?
    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 03/09/2025In: , ,

replacing jobs faster than new ones

aicompanytechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The Battle Between Opportunity and Fear Whenever there is a powerful new technology entering society—whether it's electricity, the steam engine, or the internet—it always poses the same question: Will this replace jobs, or will it create new ones? With AI, the issue appears more acute because the teRead more

    The Battle Between Opportunity and Fear

    Whenever there is a powerful new technology entering society—whether it’s electricity, the steam engine, or the internet—it always poses the same question: Will this replace jobs, or will it create new ones? With AI, the issue appears more acute because the technology isn’t just about robots doing brute labor, but also about computer software doing things thought to be uniquely human—like writing, designing, interpreting data, or even making decisions.

    Work Being Replaced—The Reality Check

    • Artificial intelligence is actually replacing certain forms of work at a faster pace than most expected.
    • Repetitive office tasks—data entry, calendaring, reporting—are increasingly automated.
    • Customer service jobs are being done by AI chatbots that don’t need sleep.
    • Creative sectors—content writing, image-making, video editing—are being shaken up because AI software can spit out drafts in seconds.

    For most employees, it’s rug-pulling, not from under their feet, but from right out from under them. Contrary to the industrial revolution, where physical labor was forced out but “thinking” work wasn’t hurt, AI is entering both physical and mental space. That’s why the disruption is coming so abruptly and overwhelmingly.

     Creating New Jobs—The Unseen Side

    • And here’s the less apparent reality: AI is creating new types of work altogether.
    • AI trainers and ethicists—individuals who train models to act responsibly.
    • Prompt engineers and workflow designers—jobs that did not exist a few years ago.
    • AI oversight and governance experts—assisting businesses and governments to ensure that AI is being used responsibly.

    Hybrid careers—where an individual works side by side with AI, like doctors working in collaboration with AI to detect very subtle patterns in scans, or teachers working with AI to tailor their teaching.

    Just as the internet developed careers we could not have envisioned in the 1990s (say, social media directors or app engineers), AI is developing industries still in their infancy.

     The Timing Gap—Where the Pain Lies

    • The issue isn’t whether AI will eventually balance job loss with job gains—both will happen—it’s the timing disparity.
    • Jobs currently being lost are evaporating today.
    • New positions that are being created need new capabilities that the majority of employees currently don’t possess.
    • This makes for an uncomfortable period of transition during which some get left behind while others jump ahead. For instance, a factory worker whose position is taken over by machinery can’t overnight just turn into an ethicist for AIs without retraining. That retraining involves time, work, and capital that not everyone possesses.

    Human Adaptability—The Real Advantage

    History attests to humanity’s incredible ability to adapt. Every technological advancement has always ultimately led to a greater economy, greater range of occupations, and greater levels of living. The critical point has always been training and support mechanisms:

    • Those nations that spent on retraining in previous revolutions were better positioned to make the jump.
    • Those who accepted life-long learning survived while the rest became obsolete.
    • AI isn’t something to be afraid of—it can be a very powerful ally if we go at it with curiosity rather than fear.

     The Human Side of the Debate

    It is easy to lose track of numbers, but the heart of this issue are real people—a call center agent worried about paying bills, a student wondering what profession to pursue, a parent worried about where their child will end up in life. The alarm is real because employment is not just about salary; it is about identity, self-worth, and purpose.

    That is why how the society reacts is important. If AI adoption is accompanied by social safety nets, retraining programs, and smart regulation, it can elevate human beings to new levels. Without these, it threatens to exacerbate inequality and disillusionment.

     So, Is AI Replacing Jobs Faster Than It Creates Them

    Today, yes—replacement is driving creation. But it does not have to be doom. If we use AI as a means of augmenting human capacity rather than simply reducing costs, and if governments and businesses invest in individuals, the future is far better than today’s fears indicate.

    See less
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 03/09/2025In: , ,

patients, hospitals, or tech companie

aicompanydigital health
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    Who Actually Owns Your Health Data? Spoiler: It’s Complicated Every time you see your doctor, get a blood draw, or even just strap on your Fitbit, you’re tossing more health data out into the universe. You’d think, “Hey, it’s my body, so that’s my data, right?” Ha. Not so fast. Your hospital’s got aRead more

    Who Actually Owns Your Health Data? Spoiler: It’s Complicated

    Every time you see your doctor, get a blood draw, or even just strap on your Fitbit, you’re tossing more health data out into the universe. You’d think, “Hey, it’s my body, so that’s my data, right?” Ha. Not so fast. Your hospital’s got a stash of your records, labs have their own pile, and Apple or Google probably knows more about your heart rate than your cardiologist does. It’s like a tug-of-war over who really gets to call your info theirs.

    Gatekeepers in White Coats

    For ages, hospitals have acted like the bouncers of your medical history. You wanted your records? Good luck—maybe they’ll fax you a copy if you beg (and pay). Now, with electronic health records, sharing is technically possible, but let’s be real: the hospital still guards the vault. You’re often left feeling like a peasant asking the king for access to your own castle.

    Tech Bros and Data Hoarding

    Then you’ve got the tech companies. They’re quietly sitting on Everest-sized mounds of your personal stuff—steps, sleep, DNA, you name it. Most of the time, you don’t even realize how much you’ve handed over. And they’re cashing in on it, too—selling “insights” or training their AI, all based on your biometrics. Is it still your data if it’s being chopped up and sold to the highest bidder? Who knows.

    The Patient: Alleged Owner, Actual Bystander

    You’d think patients would be the boss here. After all, it’s literally your blood, sweat, and tears (sometimes all three). But, honestly, most people can barely get a full copy of their own health record, let alone control who sees it or uses it. “Ownership” is a cool idea, but it’s mostly just a buzzword right now. In practice, patients are sitting on the bench while everyone else plays ball.

    Why Should You Even Care?

    Because it’s not just about paperwork. If hospitals lock up your files, switching doctors becomes a nightmare. If someone leaks your private info, your dignity (and maybe your job) is on the line. And hey, sharing health data can lead to wild breakthroughs—AI that finds cancer earlier, new treatments—but if nobody asks your permission, it’s just another way to get screwed.

    The Models: Pick Your Poison

    – Old School (hospital-based): Hospitals hold the cards, and you need their blessing for access.
    – Tech Takeover: Apps and gadgets hoard your data, usually without much oversight.
    – Patient First (the dream): You get the keys—view, share, delete your records. Some countries are actually trying this, believe it or not.

    A Better Way: Stewardship, Not Ownership

    Maybe it’s not about “owning” your data, but about who you trust to watch over it. You should be in the driver’s seat, deciding who gets a peek and why. Hospitals ought to keep it safe; tech companies should stop being so shady and actually ask before using your stuff. “My body, my data”—sure, but with some grownups making sure it doesn’t get lost, stolen, or misused.

    Bottom Line

    Right now, hospitals and tech giants are running the show, but the only real owner of your health info should be you. The trick is building systems where you get easy access, know exactly what’s happening with your data, and can actually say “nope” to anything you don’t like. Otherwise? It’s just business as usual… and you’re still on the outside looking in.

    See less
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 02/09/2025In: , ,

the future of climate policy

company
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The new climate frontier Climate policy has always been about domestic action: clean energy subsidies, carbon prices, emissions controls and regulations. But there's increasing worry: what if a country covers its own industry by making it cleaner, then cheaper, dirtier imports come flooding in fromRead more

    The new climate frontier

    Climate policy has always been about domestic action: clean energy subsidies, carbon prices, emissions controls and regulations. But there’s increasing worry: what if a country covers its own industry by making it cleaner, then cheaper, dirtier imports come flooding in from abroad?

    That’s carbon leakage — when tight climate regulations at home simply shift emissions elsewhere. Enter in the idea of green tariffs, or carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs). These are essentially tariffs on heavy-carbon foreign goods (like steel, cement, or fertilizer), to implement those and make the playing field fairer for cleaner domestic producers and foreign manufacturers that don’t have comparable climate rules.

    Why green tariffs are gaining traction

    1. Fairness to domestic industries

    If you have one steel factory in Europe that spends a lot of money on costly clean tech and your competitor based overseas does not, the home factory is open to being undercut. Green tariffs are really saying: “If you want to sell here, you’ll have to play by similar climate rules.”

    2. Climate integrity

    Without border adjustments, benefits of domestic country climate can be offset by imported emissions. Green tariffs ensure reducing carbon at home doesn’t just ship pollution abroad.

    3. Political sellability

    Climate policy hurts workers and industries. Framing tariffs as saving local jobs from soiled imports makes climate policy politically sellable.

    4. Pressure on other countries

    By taxing carbon-intensive imports, wealthy nations can incentivize other nations’ exporters to green their supply chains. In theory, this supports climate standards around the globe.

    The risks and controversies

    1. Protectionism in disguise?

    Green tariffs worry that they will be a new disguise for protectionism — hiding behind the language of climate to shield domestic industry. This will indulge WTO grievances and retaliation by trading partners.

    2. Damage to developing countries

    Poor nations can export high-carbon products because they cannot afford green technology. Green tariffs can be used to sanction them for poverty, inducing inequality at the global level unless in tandem with aid and technology transfer.

    3. Price effect on consumers

    As with other tariffs, the cost is passed on. Steel, cement, aluminum — these are the materials of which homes, automobiles, and highways are made. Green tariffs could mean higher cost to customers and taxpayers footing the bill for public infrastructure.

    4. Measuring carbon’s complexity

    How precisely do you actually measure the true carbon footprint of a product? A ton of Chinese coal-based steel is very different from Swedish renewable-energy-based steel. Tracking, verifying, and auditing emissions on international supply chains is a colossal technical challenge.

    Early action: Europe leads the way

    • The European Union is piloting the world’s first large carbon border adjustment mechanism, starting with sectors like steel, aluminium, and fertiliser.
    • The U.S. is also considering the same, partly to keep up with the EU and partly to protect its own interests.
    • Canada, Japan, and the UK are also considering their own green tariffs.
    • That is to say, green tariffs are no longer hypothetical — they’re already making their way into trade policy.

    Who gains, who loses?

    Winners

    • Cleaner industries at home no longer threatened with undercutting.
    • Governments that will be in a position to invest in climate action from the new tariff revenues.
    • Green tech businesspeople, who expect expanding markets for low-carbon goods.

    Losers:

    • Emerging economies that export, with the exception of rich countries pair tariffs with tech transfer and climate financing.
    • Consumers, who will see their products sold at a slightly higher cost from dependence on high-carbon industries.
    • Global trade stability, if tariffs become disputes and retaliations.
    • Human perspective: what this will mean for ordinary folks
    • If you’re a European building contractor, green tariffs can sustain your local cement factory.
    • If you’re an African exporter of fertilizer, overnight new, irreversible costs can appear.
    • If you’re a consumer buying a car or driving through tolls, indirectly you may pay more.
    • So while the ideal of halting climate change is honorable, in the real world the consequence is highly uncertain based on where you are in the global economy.

    Bottom line

    Yes — green tariffs are becoming one of the strongest next-wave instruments of climate policy. They vow fairness, integrity, and global pressure to get carbon-cutting done. They also threaten protectionism, inequity, and more expensive consumer goods.

    • If they’re going to really be the future of climate policy, they’ll have to be combined with:
    • International cooperation (so they’re not trade wars in green wrapping).
    • Economic aid to the Third World (so they can make their industries green without being shut out of markets).
    • Clean carbon accounting (so tariffs actually consider real emissions, not politics).

    Short: green tariffs can help bend world trade into a lower-carbon path — if they are designed and sold as climate initiatives first, and as trade initiatives second.

    See less
Load More Questions