Home/company/Page 2
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
mohdanasMost Helpful
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

the next wave of trade barriers

companynews
  1. mohdanas
    mohdanas Most Helpful

    The promise: why tariffs are sold as job savers Tariffs have long been justified as a way to shield home workers from unfair foreign competition. The logic runs as follows: Low-cost imports flood the market and local factories shut. By placing tariffs on such imports, governments raise them in priceRead more

    The promise: why tariffs are sold as job savers

    • Tariffs have long been justified as a way to shield home workers from unfair foreign competition. The logic runs as follows:
    • Low-cost imports flood the market and local factories shut.
    • By placing tariffs on such imports, governments raise them in price.
    • This should give local industries a chance to keep going — and keeping paying wages.
    • Politically, tariffs are typically framed as “protecting our workers” from low-wage undercutting by foreign workers.

    The reality: varied job outcomes

    1. Temporary job protection

    Tariffs can slow down layoffs in specific industries (steel, textiles, or ag). Workers in those sectors do typically see temporary job protection.

    As an example, American steel tariffs in the 2000s did protect some steel jobs in the short run.

    2. But jobs relocate, not just save

    When tariffs raise the price of imports, industries that use the imports as inputs are negatively affected. Automakers or construction firms that rely on steel are more costly to make.

    That can lead to employment decreases in downstream industries — typically of greater size than jobs saved. A classic analysis of American steel tariffs found that greater numbers of jobs were lost in steel-using industries than jobs saved in steel production.

    3. Long-term competitiveness

    If tariffs become permanent, domestic businesses lose the incentive to innovate or become modernized. That can lock in inefficiency and end up costing jobs anyway, as the international market continues to move forward.

    The hidden sticker shock: shoppers cover the cost

    • That’s where the human story becomes a big part: tariffs don’t just affect business — they show up in everyday prices.
    • An import tariff on washing machines? Consumers pay more at the store.
    • An import tax on fertilizer? Consumers pay more at the farm gate, which subsequently means higher grocery bills.
    • A tax on appliances and computers? Small retailers attempting to modernize equipment are slapped with bigger bills.
    • The ripple effect spreads throughout the economy. Even if only a few jobs are preserved, millions of customers pay a little bit more each day. For poorer households, those extra pennies on staples feel like an oppressive burden.

    The paradox

    • And tariffs stand at the middle of a paradox:
    • Virtually visible gain: Preserving a few thousand jobs in a factory town — easy to see, compelling in politics.
    • Hidden cost: Millions of consumers quietly paying more, and small businesses growing less competitive — less obvious, but ubiquitous.
    • Economists prefer to point out that the cost per job saved with tariffs is extremely high if you include the price increases spread out through the population.

    The bigger picture: security vs. efficiency

    • It’s worth noting that tariffs aren’t always just about jobs or prices. Sometimes they’re about:
    • National security (i.e., protecting domestic semiconductor production).
    • Strategic resilience (i.e., making a country able to produce its own food or medical supplies).
    • Bargaining leverage in trade negotiations.
    • In those cases, governments would gleefully pay increased consumer prices as the cost of protecting “strategic” employment and industries.

    Human impact — who gains, who loses?

    • Winners: Workers in directly protected industries (at least in the short run). Politicians who can stand and deliver preserved jobs.

    Losers:

    • Higher-priced consumers for common goods.
    • Workers in industries that use the tariffed products as inputs (e.g., auto industry workers hit by steel tariffs).
    • Small businesses that have thin margins and cannot absorb new costs.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs generate some jobs at home, but they tend to do so at a collective expense to consumers and the economy in general. They’re akin to putting a bandage on one part of the economy while quietly sapping the strength of the rest of the body.

    If the intention is actually to protect workers, tariffs alone are not enough. They would need to be followed by retraining programs, innovation policy, and competitiveness investment — or otherwise, they are expensive band-aids that shift suffering around rather than curing it.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 02/09/2025In: , ,

small businesses and farmers

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The level playing field Tariffs don't hit evenly. They can appear to be a harmless tax on imports, but in reality, who you are — a small shopkeeper, a farmer, or an international corporation — will decide whether tariffs become a suffocating weight or merely another entry on a strategy budget. For lRead more

    The level playing field

    Tariffs don’t hit evenly. They can appear to be a harmless tax on imports, but in reality, who you are — a small shopkeeper, a farmer, or an international corporation — will decide whether tariffs become a suffocating weight or merely another entry on a strategy budget.

    For large companies, tariffs are often a problem they can handle. For farmers and small businesses, tariffs tend to be a storm they cannot weather.

    1. The cost to small businesses

     Increased cost of inputs, fewer buffer

    Small businesses tend to buy raw materials, components, or finished products in smaller quantities. When tariffs increase the cost of such imports, small businesses cannot always obtain rebates or easily change suppliers.

    In contrast to big companies, they lack treasury staff and global supplier networks. That leaves tariffs directly squeezing margins — and occasionally forcing price increases customers resist.

    Paperwork and red tape

    Tariffs impose burdens of compliance: paperwork, customs clearance, and codes of classification. For a large multinational, that is managed by legal and logistics functions. For a small company, the owner may be doing the accounting at midnight, so trade bureaucracy is a significant hidden expense.

     Survival vs. strategy

    Lots of small businesses operate on wafer-thin margins. Even a small tariff shock can determine if a café ordering specialty coffee beans keeps going, or if a craft producer who depends on imported steel goes under.

    While giants can afford to take losses for the sake of long-term strategy — their survival timescale often being years or even decades — they can’t.

    2. The special squeeze for farmers

    Farmers, particularly in emerging economies, exist at the interface of trade policy.

    When they purchase inputs

    Seeds, fertilizer, feed, and machinery tend to be imported. Tariffs on inputs translate into increased costs at planting time, with no guarantee of improved selling prices at harvest.

    Small farmers have less negotiating power and less credit availability to absorb those spikes.

    When they sell crops

    If another nation strikes back with tariffs on their exports, farmers are directly impacted. For instance, during the U.S.–China trade war, American soybean farmers lost billions when China put retaliatory tariffs on their products, resulting in oversupply and crashing prices at home. Large agribusinesses might hedge or switch markets — but small to mid-size family farms suffered.

    Market volatility

    Agriculture is already unpredictable with weather and bugs. Throw in trade wars, and small farmers have yet another risk they cannot control. A large agribusiness may diversify internationally; a farmer bound to a local co-op has no one else to sell to.

    3. How large corporations manage better

     Diversification

    Large firms diversify by nations. If one export market imposes tariffs, they switch to another. If one supplier becomes expensive, they have five others in trouble.

    Economies of scale

    Large operators can buffer tariff expense, negotiate with suppliers, or mechanize operations to lower unit cost. They may even transmit some of the tariff expense to smaller suppliers — solidifying their grip.

    Political leverage

    Large companies influence governments, set terms for trade negotiations, or even get exemptions. Small farmers and businesses hardly enjoy the same access or clout.

    4. The ripple effect on communities

    When small businesses and farms get hurt by tariffs, the hurt spreads quickly. Local economies established on family farms and small shops can crumble, causing job losses and rural vitality in decline.

    Meanwhile, large corporations tend to recover more quickly, displacing smaller competitors in the process — which threatens further industry consolidation (fewer, larger competitors controlling markets).

    5. The human factor — resilience and inventiveness

    • In spite of all these, however, small business and farmers tend to react in clever ways:
    • Farmers organize cooperatives to share resources and export together.
    • Small enterprises rebrand as “local and genuine,” turning to domestic sources when imports become expensive.
    • Others shift to specialty markets less exposed to tariff price battles.
    • Yet these options take time, coordination, and chance — high-end luxuries not available to all small players.

    Bottom line

    Tariffs don’t fall evenly.

    • Large companies tend to have means of weathering or even taking advantage of tariff changes.
    • Farmers and small businesses are more sharply, more directly at risk — increased costs, lost markets, survival squeeze with fewer buffers.

    Policymakers tend to market tariffs as a means of “protecting domestic industries,” but in the absence of support schemes (credit lines, adjustment aid, cooperative arrangements, or exemptions for critical farm inputs), the very people they intend to shield — rural communities, family farms, and small shops — can end up bearing the brunt.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 02/09/2025In: ,

tariffs as a tool for industrial grow

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    The promise: why tariffs are tempting for developing countries Tariffs are an obvious lever for governments trying to jump-start manufacturing or protect strategic sectors: They raise the price of competing imports, giving local firms breathing room to grow, invest, learn, and absorb new technologieRead more

    The promise: why tariffs are tempting for developing countries

    Tariffs are an obvious lever for governments trying to jump-start manufacturing or protect strategic sectors:

    • They raise the price of competing imports, giving local firms breathing room to grow, invest, learn, and absorb new technologies (the classic “infant-industry” argument). Policymakers like tariffs because they’re politically visible and act fast. 

    • When paired with smart export promotion and learning policies, tariffs can be part of a sequence that helps firms become competitive on the global stage (some East Asian economies used protective measures early while pushing firms toward exports).

    So: tariffs can create the space for industrial development — but only if everything else lines up.

    The risks: how tariffs can trap a country into long-term isolation

    The historical record and modern analysis warn of numerous failure modes:

    1. Chronic protection → low productivity and complacency. If protection becomes permanent, firms stop innovating because they can survive behind a tariff wall. That creates inefficient industries that never scale internationally. Many accounts of import-substitution in Latin America document this pattern.

    2. Rent-seeking and political capture. Tariffs create clear winners — and lobbying pressure to keep protection in place even when it hurts the broader economy. That’s a political economy trap that turns temporary help into permanent privilege.

    3. Higher consumer prices and inequality. Tariffs are effectively a tax on imported goods; consumers — often lower-income households for whom imported essentials are a bigger share of spending — pay the bill. That can worsen poverty and political backlashes.

    4. Trade diversion and retaliation. Other countries can retaliate or shift trade patterns, which reduces market access for exporters and can shrink the size of markets domestic firms rely on. Over time that weakens integration into global value chains.

    5. Legal and reputational costs at the WTO and with partners. WTO disciplines allow some flexibility for developing countries, but persistent, broad protection can trigger disputes or reduce the willingness of investors to engage.

    A real-world illustration: many Latin American ISI experiments created protected domestic industries but delivered slow productivity growth, corruption, and a failure to integrate into competitive export markets — the very outcomes policymakers were trying to avoid.

    What distinguishes successful from failing tariff strategies?

    Look for a combination of policy design features:

    1. Temporary & time-bound protection. Protection should have a clear exit and be conditional on performance (e.g., productivity gains, export targets, cost reductions). Permanent tariffs usually signal failure.

    2. Targeted, narrow scope. Protect specific activities that have credible learning spillovers (e.g., complex manufacturing stages) rather than blanket tariffs across the economy. Broad, uniform tariffs encourage rent-seeking. 

    3. Complementary policies. Tariffs alone don’t make firms globally competitive. They must be paired with industrial credit, skills training, R&D support, good infrastructure, competition policy and export incentives. East Asian successes combined protection with export discipline and government capacity to pick and prune industries. 

    4. Clear performance metrics and sunset clauses. Tie protection to measurable outcomes (unit costs, product quality, export market share) and remove it automatically if goals are unmet. That reduces regulatory capture. 

    5. Open to trade and FDI where it matters. Even when protecting a sector, keep links to foreign suppliers, technology licensing, and export markets. Openness to investment and knowledge flows prevents isolation. 

    Practical alternatives and complements to tariffs

    If the aim is industrial growth, countries should consider a menu that includes — but is not limited to — modest, well-designed tariffs:

    • Active industrial policy tools: targeted subsidies, public procurement preferences, matched R&D grants, clusters/industrial parks, and export credit. These can be more transparent and conditional than tariffs. 

    • Trade facilitation & regulatory reform: cut costs for exporters (ports, customs, standards), so firms can reach global markets faster.

    • Skills and infrastructure investment: human capital and power/transport often matter more for competitiveness than tariffs.

    • Smart tariff design: temporary tariffs on intermediate goods only when there’s a clear domestic value-added strategy — and with exceptions for inputs that domestic producers can’t source. 

    Governance checklist — questions policymakers should ask before imposing tariffs

    (If you can’t answer “yes” to most of these, don’t go broad with tariffs.)

    • Do we have an explicit, time-bound plan (with milestones) for the industry?

    • Are the protections conditional on measurable productivity or export targets?

    • Do we have institutions that can enforce sunset clauses and prevent capture?

    • Are we maintaining openness in ways that keep technology and investment flowing?

    • Have we modeled the distributional costs (who pays) and have a mitigation plan for poor households?

    • How will partners or global value-chain buyers react — could we lose critical market access?

    Bottom line — a human take

    Tariffs are neither a silver bullet nor an automatic trap. They are a blunt instrument that can help buy time for learning if used sparingly, temporarily, and within a broader industrial strategy that pushes firms toward export competitiveness and innovation. But if tariffs are broad, permanent, or unaccompanied by investment in skills, competition, and market discipline, they tend to produce the opposite of what leaders want: stagnation, higher prices, and political capture that isolates the country.

    If you’re advising a government, don’t treat tariffs as the first lever — treat them as one temporary tool inside a tightly governed industrial policy playbook. The good news is that modern policy design (and the recent revival of evidence-based industrial policy) gives developing countries smarter options than the blunt ISI experiments of the past — but only if political leaders commit to transparency, metrics, and a sunset.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 28/08/2025In: ,

economy empowering workers or exploit

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

     The Promise of Empowerment At its best, the gig economy offers something traditional employment does not: independence. Workers get to choose their schedule, choose which work is best for them, and avoid strictures. For a working mom trying to balance parenting, or a college student trying to hustlRead more

     The Promise of Empowerment

    At its best, the gig economy offers something traditional employment does not: independence. Workers get to choose their schedule, choose which work is best for them, and avoid strictures. For a working mom trying to balance parenting, or a college student trying to hustle along with classes, that autonomy is liberty. Others use gig work as a stepping stone—to build a portfolio, try out being an entrepreneur, or supplement income without taking on a second job.

    There is also the psychological empowerment of being “your own boss.” Even as the platform imposes a lot of the structure, the decision-making on a day-to-day basis—whether to toil, how much to toil—belongs to the worker. That is extremely motivating for some and provides a feeling of control missing in the ancient nine-to-five.

     The Reality of Exploitation

    But here’s the other side: empowerment without security can be exploitation. Gig workers typically have little protections—health coverage, paid leave, job protection, or even a minimum wage guarantee. A driver may be logged on for 10 hours but earn only a fraction of what a traditional worker would because the wait time in between gigs is unpaid.

    Furthermore, the platforms are the ones that set the rules. Algorithms decide who gets the best gigs, how much employees are paid, and if they can even remain on the platform at all. Employees normally have little say in these terms, so the idea of “independence” rings hollow. An absence of transparency in pay schemes and sudden policy changes can leave gig workers vulnerable, often getting stuck in some kind of endless cycle of chasing the next small payoff.

     A Middle Way Coming?

    Globally, governments and the courts are starting to struggle with this balance. A few countries are recasting gig workers as employees, granting them protections but retaining flexibility. Others are calling for a new category of worker—somewhere between contractor and employee—more commensurate with this new reality.

    At the same time, workers are also organizing. From the delivery riders in Europe to the ride-share drivers in India, collective voices are being raised. These movements are re-writing the narrative: gig work does not have to be exploitative if there are reasonable rules and protections.

     The Human Layer

    At a human level, it is simply this: gig economy can empower or exploit depending on context. For someone who would choose it as an addition to other forms of support, it might feel empowering. But for someone who is reliant on it as the sole source of support, a lack of protections might feel suffocating. The “freedom” it offers can easily descend into precarity.

    In other words, the gig economy is a bit of a double-edged sword: convenient and agile, but lethal if not shielded. What workers, politicians, and platforms do over the next few years will determine whether it is a passport to freedom or a below-the-radar regime of exploitation.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 27/08/2025In: , ,

traditional banking systems

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    What's Behind the Frenzy for Cryptocurrencies? At its core, cryptocurrencies are a new idea: money that doesn't belong to governments, central banks, or large financial institutions. It's peer-to-peer, digital, worldwide, and decentralized. To others, this isn't technology—it's a philosophy of freedRead more

    What’s Behind the Frenzy for Cryptocurrencies?

    • At its core, cryptocurrencies are a new idea: money that doesn’t belong to governments, central banks, or large financial institutions. It’s peer-to-peer, digital, worldwide, and decentralized. To others, this isn’t technology—it’s a philosophy of freedom in finance.
    • People who live in corrupt regimes or hyperinflationary countries see cryptocurrency as a lifeline. For instance, in Venezuela or Zimbabwe, Bitcoin has sometimes been more stable than the local currency. It enables people to keep value, send remittances, or receive payment without having to resort to unstable or predatory financial systems.
    • Then there are the unbanked—some 1.4 billion people around the world who have no access to a bank account. For these, all you need is a smartphone and an internet connection, and voilà, crypto is a ticket to the global economy.
    • So, yes, the idea of crypto as a banker’s replacement is tuned to an actual desire for more just, transparent, and equitable financial systems.

    But Let’s Not Oversimplify Things

    • When people ask if crypto can “replace” traditional banking, we must be realistic as to what that entails. Banks are not simply repositories of money. They give credit, facilitate trade, administer credit, invest in public works, and even stabilize economies during financial crises. They’re deeply embedded with governments and play a massive role in operating national and world economies.
    • So, to “replace” traditional banks, crypto networks would need to provide all of those services reliably, safely, and at scale. That’s an awful tall order.
    • Today, the majority of crypto platforms are teenagers. Sure, they’re incredibly innovative, but they have some serious issues:
    • Volatility: Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are notoriously volatile. Their prices go wildly up and down in a single day, making them unsuitable for everyday transactions or savings.
    • Scalability: Ethereum-type networks are grapple with scaling but still grapple with high costs and slow processing during congestion.
    • Security: Hacks, scams, and fraud are the norm in crypto-land. Billions lost. With no central authority, if your wallet gets hacked, nobody to call.
    • Regulation: Governments do not do nothing. Many of them are shutting down crypto because of fear of money laundering, tax evasion, and economic instability. In others, crypto is flat out illegal.
    • User Experience: The everyday user still finds crypto intimidating. Private keys, gas fees, wallets—it’s not as easy to use as tapping a credit card or tapping a banking app.
    • So while crypto is exciting, it’s far from being able to fully replace the deeply integrated infrastructure of traditional finance.

    A More Realistic Future: Coexistence, Not Replacement

    • Instead of a full-on replacement, a more realistic vision is integration and coexistence. We’re already seeing this happen:
    • Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs): Many governments are exploring or developing digital currencies that use blockchain-inspired tech but remain under central control.
    • Stablecoins: Stablecoins are stable assets-pegged cryptocurrencies (e.g., the US dollar) and are attempting to bridge the gap between fiat and crypto. They’re being used in remittances, cross-border commerce, and even savings apps.
    • Decentralized Finance (DeFi): This is an area in crypto that’s trying to mirror banking services—like lending and borrowing—on the blockchain. It’s still experimental, but it shows how mainstream functions might differ in decentralized versions.
    • Traditional Banks Playing Catch-Up: Big banks already offer crypto services. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, et al are dipping their toes in the water with cryptos, meaning that rather than fighting crypto, they’re trying to find ways to work with it.

    So, Can Crypto Replace Banks?

    • If you’re asking yourself whether crypto will make banks obsolete in the next 5, 10, or 20 years—honestly, it doesn’t appear likely.
    • But are you wondering whether crypto will change the world of money, induce banks to change their stripes, and give individuals access to new forms of storing and moving funds—absolutely yes. That’s already happening.
    • No more than email didn’t kill physical mail but completely altered how we communicated, crypto is not going to kill banks—but is already reshaping the face of finance and who has access to it.

    The Human Side of the Story

    • Finance, in the end, is not code and figures—it’s stability, trust, and access. It’s about an individual being able to put aside money for his child to study, to buy his first house, or send remittances to distant family members.
    • It may come through a branch of a local bank or a wallet on your mobile based on blockchain, but the intent remains the same: make individuals financially enabled.
    • Perhaps then the real promise of cryptocurrencies is not about toppling the traditional banking establishment—but in changing it, making it more democratic, more efficient, and responsive to everyone.
    See less
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 27/08/2025In: , ,

politics than trade balance

companynews
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained

    Tariffs: From Economics to Politics Tariffs, in themselves, are relatively straightforward: they're levies on imports. Governments have employed them for centuries to defend domestic industry, balance trade books, or gain revenue. But now, in the modern age, tariffs are something entirely different—Read more

    Tariffs: From Economics to Politics

    Tariffs, in themselves, are relatively straightforward: they’re levies on imports. Governments have employed them for centuries to defend domestic industry, balance trade books, or gain revenue. But now, in the modern age, tariffs are something entirely different—they’re political statements and economic actions.

    If a country imposes tariffs on another country, it’s not just about moving numbers around on a trade sheet. It’s about sending a message: “We’re standing up for our workers, we’re making America great again, we won’t be pushed around.” That is why tariffs are likely to appear first in impassioned political speeches and then perhaps an economics textbook.

     Why Politicians Love Tariffs

    • Simplicity: Tariffs are easy to explain to voters. It’s much simpler to say, “We’re protecting our steelworkers by taxing foreign steel” than to explain the complexities of global supply chains.
    • Symbolism: They make leaders look tough. Tariffs say, “We’re fighting back against unfair trade,” even if the economic reality is more nuanced.
    • Short-term wins: Tariffs can boost certain industries or regions in the short run—important in an election year.
    • So even if economists argue about whether tariffs actually cure trade deficits, politicians employ them because they feel good.

     Real-World Examples

    • The U.S.–China trade war: Tariffs were less about balanced imports and exports. They were about controlling technology, national pride, and showing political muscle.
    • Tariffs on green technologies: Politicians typically justify them on economic terms, but they’re also motivated by domestic politics—courting local manufacturers, protecting jobs, or showing gravitas in relation to national security.
    • Election cycles: Tariffs often spike in election years, because they’re an easy way to show voters: “I’m fighting for you.”

    The Human Cost

    • Here’s the irony: while tariffs are sold as protecting workers, the everyday impact often lands on regular people.
    • Foreign products become pricier—be it phones, cars, or greens.
    • Other nations retaliate through tariffs, penalizing local farmers and exporters.
    • Small and medium enterprises that are dependent on international supply chains suffer the most.
    • So tariffs may be great in politics but can boomerang economically against the very people whom they’re intended to help.

    Trade Balance vs. Politics: What’s Winning?

    • The bad news is that politics is winning.
    • Trade deficits are driven by enormous forces such as consumer appetite, international supply chains, and exchange rates—tariffs tend not to “fix” them by themselves.
    • But as instruments of politics, tariffs are potent symbols of potency, sovereignty, and strength.
    • That is why governments continue to return to them, even when economists advise them they do not always work.

     Briefly: tariffs now are less to equalize trade and more to equalize narratives—the narrative that leaders spin for their citizens on behalf of whom they’re fighting and against whom they’re fighting back. For citizens, the fight is to see beyond slogans and demand: Is this about developing the economy—or merely to grab political advantage?

    See less
Load More Questions