This week we talk about British India, Kashmir, and water treaties.

We also discuss the global order, sovereignty, and tit-for-tat escalation.

Recommended Book: Power Metal by Vince Beiser

Transcript

When then British India was partitioned by the British in 1947, the country carved up by its colonialist rulers into two new countries, one Hindu majority, the Union of India, and one Muslim majority, the Dominion of Pakistan, the intention was to separate two religious groups that were increasingly at violent odds with each other, within a historical context in which Muslims were worried they would be elbowed out of power by the Hindu-majority, at a moment in which carving up countries into new nations was considered to be a solution to many such problems.

The partition didn’t go terribly well by most measures, as the geographic divisions weren’t super well thought out, tens of millions of people had to scramble to upend their entire lives to move to their new, faith-designated homelands, and things like infrastructure and wealth were far from evenly distributed between the two new regions.

Pakistan was also a nation literally divided by India, part of its landmass on the other side of what was now another country, and its smaller landmass eventually separated into yet another country following Bangladesh’s violent but successful secession from Pakistan in 1971.

There was a lot more to that process, of course, and the reverberations of that decision are still being felt today, in politics, in the distribution of land and assets, and in regional and global conflict.

But one affected region, Kashmir, has been more of a flashpoint for problems than most of the rest of formerly British India, in part because of where it’s located, and in part because of happenings not long after the partition.

Formerly Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmir region, today, is carved up between India, Pakistan, and China. India controls a little over half of its total area, which houses 70% of the region’s population, while Pakistan controls a little less than a third of its land mass, and China controls about 15%.

What was then Jammu and Kashmir dragged its feet in deciding which side of the partition to join when the countries were being separated, the leader Hindu, though ruling over a Muslim state, but an invasion from the Pakistan side saw it cast its lot in with India. India’s counter-invasion led to the beginning of what became known as both the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947-1948, the first of four such wars, but is also sometimes called the first Kashmir war, the first of three, though there have been several other not-officially-a-war conflicts in and over the region, as well.

Things only got more complicated over the next several decades; China seized the eastern part of the region in the 1950s, and while some Kashmiris have demanded independence, both India and Pakistan claim the region as totally their own, and point at historical markers that support their claim—some such markers based on fact, some on speculation or self-serving interpretations of history.

What I’d like to talk about today is what looks to be a new, potentially serious buildup around Kashmir, following an attack at a popular tourist hotspot in the territory, and why some analysts are especially concerned about what India’s government will decide to do, next.

—

Early in the afternoon of April 22, 2025, a group of tourists sightseeing in a town in the southern part of Kashmir called Pahalgam were open-fired on by militants. 26 people were killed and another 17 were injured, marking one of the worst attacks on mostly Indian civilians in decades.

In 2019, Kashmir’s semiautonomous governance was revoked by the Indian government, which in practice meant the Indian government took more complete control over the region, clamping down on certain freedoms and enabling more immigration of Indians into otherwise fairly Muslim-heavy Kashmir.

It’s also become more of a tourist destination since then, as India has moved more soldiers in to patrol Indian Kashmir’s border with Pakistan Kashmir, and the nature of the landmass makes it a bit of a retreat from climate extremes; at times it’s 30 or 40 degrees cooler, in Fahrenheit, than in New Delhi, so spendy people from the city bring their money to Kashmir to cool off, while also enjoying the natural settings of this less-developed, less-industrialized area.

Reports from survivors indicate that the attackers took their time and seemed very confident, and that no Indian security forces were anywhere nearby; they walked person to person, asking them if they were Muslim and executing those who were not. Around 7,000 people were visiting the area as tourists before the attack, but most of them have now left, and it’s unclear what kind of financial hit this will have on the region, but in the short-term it’s expected to be pretty bad.

In the wake of this attack, the Indian government claimed that it has identified two of the three suspected militants as Pakistani, but Pakistan has denied any involvement, and has called for a neutral probe into the matter, saying that it’s willing to fully cooperate, seeks only peace and stability, and wants to see justice served.

A previously unknown group calling itself the Kashmir Resistance has claimed responsibility for the attack, and Indian security forces have demolished the homes of at least five suspected militants in Kashmir in response, including one who they believe participated in this specific attack.

The two governments have launched oppositional measures against each other, including Pakistan closing its airspace to Indian airlines and shutting down trade with its neighbor, and India shutting down a vital land crossing, revoking Pakistani visas, and suspending a 1960 treaty that regulates water-sharing along the Indus River and its tributaries—something that it’s threatened to do, previously, and which could devastate Pakistan’s agricultural sector and economy, as it basically regulates water that the country relies on for both human consumption and most of its crop irrigation; and for context, Pakistan’s agricultural sector accounts for about a forth of its economy.

So if India blocks this water source, Pakistan would be in a very bad situation, and the Pakistani government has said that any blockage of water by India would be considered an act of war. Over the past week, a Pakistani official accused the Indian government of suddenly releasing a large volume of water from a dam into a vital river, which made flooding in parts of Pakistan-held Kashmir a real possibility, but as of the day I’m recording this they haven’t closed the taps, as Pakistan has worried.

For its part, India wouldn’t really suffer from walking away from this treaty, as it mostly favors Pakistan. It serves to help keep the peace along an at times chaotic border, but beyond that, it does very little for India, directly.

So historically, the main purpose of maintaining this treaty, for India, has been related to its reputation: if it walked away from it, it would probably suffer a reputational hit with the international community, as it would be a pretty flagrantly self-serving move that only really served to harm Pakistan, its weaker arch-nemesis.

Right now, though, geopolitics are scrambled to such a degree that there are concerns India might not only be wanting to make such moves, whatever the consequences, but it may also be hankering for a larger conflict—looking to sort out long-term issues during a period in which such sorting, such conflict, may cause less reputational damage than might otherwise be the case.

Consider that the US government has spoken openly about wanting to take, by whatever means, Greenland, from the Danish, a long-time ally, and that it’s maybe jokingly, but still alarmingly, said that Canada should join the US as the 51st state.

These statements are almost certainly just braggadocio, but that the highest-rung people in the most powerful government on the planet would say such things publicly speaks volumes about the Wild West nature of today’s global order.

Many leaders seem to be acting like this is a moment in which the prior paradigm, and the post-WWII rules that moderated global behavior within that paradigm, are fraying or disappearing, the global police force represented by the US and its allies pulling inward, not caring, and in some cases even becoming something like bandits, grabbing what they can.

Under such circumstances, if you’re in a position of relative power that you couldn’t fully leverage previously, for fear of upsetting that global police force and tarnishing your reputation within that system they maintained, might you leverage it while you can, taking whatever you can grab and weakening your worst perceived enemy, at a moment in which it seems like the getting is good?

It’s been argued that Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty may have helped kick-off this new paradigm, but Israel’s behavior in Gaza, the West Bank, and increasingly Syria, as well, are arguably even better examples of this changing dynamic.

While the Democrats and Joe Biden were in the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seemed to be mostly playing ball, at least superficially, even when he very clearly wasn’t—he did what he could to seem to be toeing rules-based-order lines, even when regularly stepping over them, especially in Gaza.

But now, post-Trump’s return to office, that line-toeing has almost entirely disappeared, and the Israeli government seems to be grabbing whatever they can, including large chunks of southwestern Syria, which was exposed by the fall of the Assad regime. The Israeli military launched a full aerial campaign against the Syrian army’s infrastructure, declared a 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria to be void, and though it initially said it would hold the territory it has taken temporarily, it has more recently said it would hold it indefinitely—possibly permanently expanding its country’s land mass at the expense of its neighbor, another sovereign nation, at a moment in which it felt it could get away with doing so.

It’s not clear that India has any ambitions on Pakistani territory, beyond what it holds in Kashmir, at least, but there’s a chance it sees this moment the same way the Israeli government does: as a perhaps finite moment during which the previous state of things, the global rules-based-order, no longer applies, or doesn’t apply as much, which suggests it could do some serious damage to its long-time rival and not suffer the consequences it would have, reputationally or otherwise, even half a year ago.

And India’s leader, Narendra Modi, is in some ways even better positioned than Israel’s Netanyahu to launch such a campaign, in part because India is in such a favorable geopolitical position right now. As the US changes stance, largely away from Europe and opposing Russia and its allies, toward more fully sidling up to China in the Pacific, India represents a potential counterweight against Chinese influence in the region, where it has successfully made many of its neighbors reliant on its trade, markets, and other resources.

Modi has reliably struck stances midway between US and Chinese spheres of influences, allowing it to do business with Russia, buying up a lot of cheap fuel that many other nations won’t touch for fear of violating sanctions, while also doing business with the US, benefitting from a slew of manufacturers who are leaving China to try to avoid increasingly hefty US tariffs.

If India were to spark a more concentrated conflict with Pakistan, then, perhaps aiming to hobble its economy, its military, and its capacity to sponsor proxies along its border with India, which periodically launch attacks, including in Kashmir—that might be something that’s not just tolerated, but maybe even celebrated by entities like China and the US, because both want to continue doing their own destabilizing of their own perceived rivals, but also because both would prefer to have India on their side in future great power disagreements, and in any potential future large-scale future conflict.

India is richer and more powerful than Pakistan in pretty much every way, but in addition to Pakistan’s decently well-developed military apparatus, like India, it has nukes. So while there’s a chance this could become a more conventional tit-for-tat, leading to limited scuffles and some artillery strikes on mostly military installations across their respective borders, there’s always the potential for misunderstandings, missteps, and tit-for-tat escalations that could push the region into a nuclear conflict, which would be absolutely devastating in terms of human life, as this is one of the most densely populated parts of the world, but could also pull in neighbors and allies, while also making the use of nuclear weapons thinkable by others once more, after a long period of that fortunately not being the case.

Show Notes

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250427-indian-pakistani-troops-exchange-fire-for-third-night-in-disputed-kashmir

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250422-at-least-24-killed-in-kashmir-attack-on-tourists-indian-police-source

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250424-india-will-identify-track-and-punish-kashmir-attack-perpetrators-modi-says

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/27/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir.html

https://archive.is/20250426143222/https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-pakistan-exchange-gunfire-2nd-day-ties-plummet-after-attack-2025-04-26/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/world/asia/india-pakistan-indus-waters-treaty.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/world/asia/kashmir-pahalgam-attack-victims.html

https://apnews.com/article/india-pakistan-kashmir-attack-829911d3eae7cfe6738eda5c0c84d6ae

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11693674

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947%E2%80%931948

This week we talk about AI chatbots, virtual avatars, and romance novels.

We also discuss Inkitt, Galatea, and LLM grooming.

Recommended Book: New Cold Wars by David E. Sanger

Transcript

There’s evidence that the US Trump administration used AI tools, possibly ChatGPT, possibly another, similar model or models, to generate the numbers they used to justify a recent wave of new tariffs on the country’s allies and enemies.

It was also recently reported that Democratic mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo used AI-generated text and citations in a plan he released called Addressing New York’s Housing Crisis. And this case is a bit more of a slam dunk, as whomever put the plan together for him seems to have just copy-pasted snippets from the ChatGPT interface without changing or checking them—which is increasingly common for all of us, as such interfaces are beginning to replace even search engine results, like those provided by Google.

But it’s also a practice that’s generally frowned upon, as—and this is noted even in the copy provided alongside many such tools and their results—these systems provide a whole lot of flawed, false, incomplete, or otherwise not-advisable-to-use data, in some cases flubbing numbers or introducing bizarre grammatical inaccuracies, but in other cases making up research or scientific papers that don’t exist, but presenting them the same as they would a real-deal paper or study. And there’s no way to know without actually going and checking what these things serve up, which can, for many people at least, take a long while; so a lot of people don’t do this, including many politicians and their administrations, and that results in publishing made-up, baseless, numbers, and in some cases wholesale fabricated claims.

This isn’t great for many reasons, including that it can reinforce our existing biases. If you want to slap a bunch of tariffs on a bunch of trading partners, you can ask an AI to generated some numbers that justify those high tariffs, and it will do what it can to help; it’s the ultimate yes-man, depending on how you word your queries. And it will do this even if your ask is not great or truthful or ideal.

These tools can also help users spiral down conspiracy rabbit holes, can cherry-pick real studies to make it seem as if something that isn’t true is true, and it can help folks who are writing books or producing podcasts come up with just-so stories that seem to support a particular, preferred narrative, but which actually don’t—and which maybe aren’t even real or accurate, as presented.

What’s more, there’s also evidence that some nation states, including Russia, are engaging in what’s called LLM grooming, which basically means seeding false information to sources they know these models are trained on so that said models will spit out inaccurate information that serves their intended ends.

This is similar to flooding social networks with misinformation and bots that seem to be people from the US, or from another country whose elections they hope to influence, that bot apparently a person who supports a particular cause, but in reality that bot is run by someone in Macedonia or within Russia’s own borders. Or maybe changing the Wikipedia entry and hoping no one changes it back.

Instead of polluting social networks or Wikis with such misinfo, though, LLM grooming might mean churning out websites with high SEO, search engine optimization rankings, which then pushes them to the top of search results, which in turn makes it more likely they’ll be scraped and rated highly by AI systems that gather some of their data and understanding of the world, if you want to call it that, from these sources.

Over time, this can lead to more AI bots parroting Russia’s preferred interpretation, their propaganda, about things like their invasion of Ukraine, and that, in turn, can slowly nudge the public’s perception on such matters; maybe someone who asks ChatGPT about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, after hearing someone who supports Russia claiming that it was all Ukraine’s fault, and they’re told, by ChatGPT, which would seem to be an objective source of such information, being an AI bot, that Ukraine in fact brought it upon themselves, or is in some way actually the aggressor, which would serve Russia’s geopolitical purposes. None of which is true, but it starts to seem more true to some people because of that poisoning of the informational well.

So there are some issues of large, geopolitical consequence roiling in the AI space right now. But some of the most impactful issues related to this collection of technologies are somewhat smaller in scale, today, at least, but still have the potential to disrupt entire industries as they scale up.

And that’s what I’d like to talk about today, focusing especially on a few recent stories related to AI and its growing influence in creative spaces.

—

There’s a popular meme that’s been shuffling around social media for a year or two, and a version of it, shared by an author named Joanna Maciejewska (machie-YEF-ski) in a post on X, goes like this: “You know what the biggest problem with pushing all-things-AI is? Wrong direction. I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.”

It could be argued, of course, that we already have technologies that do our laundry and dishes, and that AI has the capacity to make both of those machines more efficient and effective, especially in term of helping manage and moderate increasingly renewables-heavy electrical grids, but the general concept here resonates with a lot of people, I think: why are some of the biggest AI companies seemingly dead-set on replacing creatives, who are already often suffering from financial precarity, but who generally enjoy their work, or at least find it satisfying, instead of automating away the drudgery many of us suffer in the work that pays our bills, in our maintenance of our homes, and in how we get around, work on our health, and so on.

Why not automate the tedious and painful stuff rather than the pleasurable stuff, basically?

I think, looking at the industry more broadly, you can actually see AI creeping up on all these spaces, painful and pleasurable, but generative AI tools, like ChatGPT and its peers, seem to be especially good at generating text and images and such, in part because it’s optimized for communication, being a chatbot interface over a collection of more complex tools, and most of our entertainments operate in similar spaces; using words, using images, these are all things that overlap with the attributes that make for a useful and convincing chatbot.

The AI tools that produce music from scratch, writing the lyrics and producing the melodies and incorporating different instruments, working in different genres, the whole, soup to nuts, are based on similar principles to AI systems that work with large sets of linguistic training data to produce purely language based, written outputs.

Feed an AI system gobs of music, and it can learn to produce music at the prompting of a user, then, and the same seems to be true of other types of content, as well, from images to movies to video games.

This newfound capacity to spit out works that, for all their flaws, would have previously requires a whole lot of time and effort to produce, is leading to jubilation in some spaces, but concern and even outright terror in others.

I did an episode not long ago on so-called ‘vibe coding,’ about people who in some cases can’t code at all, but who are producing entire websites and apps and other products just by learning how to interact with these AI tools appropriately. And these vibe coders are having a field day with these tools.

The same is increasingly true of people without any music chops who want to make their own songs. Folks with musical backgrounds often get more out of these tools, same as coders tend to get more from vibe coding, in part because they know what to ask for, and in part because they can edit what they get on the other end, making it better and tweaking the output to make it their own.

But people without movie-making skills can also type what they want into a box and have these tools spit out a serviceable movie on the other end, and that’s leading to a change similar to what happened when less-fiddly guns were introduced to the battlefield: you no longer needed to have super well-trained soldiers to defeat your enemies, you could just hand them a gun and teach them to shoot and reload it, and you’d do pretty well; you could even defeat some of your contemporaries who had much better trained and more experienced soldiers, but who hadn’t yet made the jump to gunpowder weapons.

There are many aspects to this story, and many gray areas that are not as black and white as, for instance, a non-coder suddenly being able to out-code someone who’s worked really hard to become a decent coder, or someone who knows nothing about making music creating bops, with the aide of these tools, that rival those of actual musicians and singers who have worked their whole life to be able to the same.

There have been stories about actors selling their likenesses to studios and companies that work with studios, for instance, those likenesses then being used by clients of those companies, often without the actors’ permission.

For some, this might be a pretty good deal, as that actor is still free to pursue the work they want to do, and their likeness can be used in the background for a fee, some of that fee going to the actor, no additional work necessary. Their likeness becomes an asset that they wouldn’t have otherwise had—not to be used and rented out in that capacity, at least—and thus, for some, this might be a welcome development.

This has, in some cases though, resulted in situations in which said actor discovers that their likeness is being used to hawk products they would never be involved with, like online scams and bogus health cures. They still receive a payment for that use of their image, but they realize that they have little or no control over how and when and for what purposes it’s used.

And because of the aforementioned financial precarity that many creatives in particular experience as a result of how their industries work, a lot of people, actors and otherwise, would probably jump at the chance to make some money, even if the terms are abusive and, long-term, not in their best interest.

Similar tools, and similar financial arrangements, are being used and made in the publishing world.

An author named Manjari Sharma wrote her first book, an enemies-to-lovers style romance, in a series of installments she published on the free fanfic platform Wattpad during the height of the Covid pandemic. She added it to another, similar platform, Inkitt, once it was finished, and it garnered a lot of attention and praise on both.

As a result of all that attention, the folks behind Inkitt suggested she move it from their free platform to their premium offering, Galatea, which would allow Sharma to earn a portion of the money gleaned from her work.

The platform told her they wanted to turn the book into a series in early 2024, but that she would only have a few weeks to complete the next book, if she accepted their terms. She was busy with work, so she accepted their offer to hire a ghostwriter to produce the sequel, as they told her she’d still receive a cut of the profits, and the fan response to that sequel was…muted. They didn’t like it. Said it had a different vibe, wasn’t well-written, just wasn’t very good. Lacked the magic of the original, basically.

She was earning extra money from the sequel, then, but no one really enjoyed it, and she didn’t feel great about that. Galatea then told Sharma that they would make a video series based on the books for their new video app, 49 episodes, each a few minutes long, and again, they’d handle everything, she’d just collect royalties.

The royalty money she was earning was a lot less than what traditional publishers offer, but it was enough that she was earning more from those royalties than from her actual bank job, and the company, due to the original deal she made when she posted the book to their service, had the right to do basically anything they wanted with it, so she was kind of stuck, either way.

So she knew she had to go along with whatever they wanted to do, and was mostly just trying to benefit from that imbalance where possible. What she didn’t realize, though, was that the company was using AI tools to, according to the company’s CEO, “iterate on the stories,” which basically means using AI to produce sequels and video content for successful, human-written books. As a result of this approach, they have just one head of editorial and five “story intelligence analysts” on staff, alongside some freelancers, handling books and supplementary content written by about 400 authors.

As a business model, it’s hard to compete with this approach.

As a customer, at the moment, at least, with today’s tools and our approach to using them, it’s often less than ideal. Some AI chatbots are helpful, but many of them just gatekeep so a company can hire fewer customer service humans, saving the business money at the customer’s expense. That seems to be the case with this book’s sequel, too, and many of the people paying to read these things assumed they were written by humans, only to find, after the fact, that they were very mediocre AI-generated knock-offs.

There’s a lot of money flooding into this space predicated in part on the promise of being able to replace currently quite expensive people, like those who have to be hired and those who own intellectual property, like the rights to books and the ideas and characters they contain, with near-free versions of the same, the AI doing similar-enough work alongside a human skeleton crew, and that model promises crazy profits by earning the same level of revenue but with dramatically reduced expenses.

The degree to which this will actually pan out is still an open question, as, even putting aside the moral and economic quandary of what all these replaced creatives will do, and the legal argument that these AI companies are making right now, that they can just vacuum up all existing content and spit it back out in different arrangements without that being a copyright violation, even setting all of that aside, the quality differential is pretty real, in some spaces right now, and while AI tools do seem to have a lot of promise for all sorts of things, there’s also a chance that the eventual costs of operating them and building out the necessary infrastructure will fail to afford those promised financial benefits, at least in the short term.

Show Notes

https://www.theverge.com/news/648036/intouch-ai-phone-calls-parents

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/04/regrets-actors-who-sold-ai-avatars-stuck-in-black-mirror-esque-dystopia/

https://archive.ph/gzfVC

https://archive.ph/91bJb

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/08/tech/hollywood-celebrity-deepfakes-congress-law/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections

https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/13/jack-dorsey-and-elon-musk-would-like-to-delete-all-ip-law/

https://www.404media.co/this-college-protester-isnt-real-its-an-ai-powered-undercover-bot-for-cops/

https://hellgatenyc.com/andrew-cuomo-chatgpt-housing-plan/

https://www.theverge.com/news/642620/trump-tariffs-formula-ai-chatgpt-gemini-claude-grok

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ai-cant-predict-the-impact-of-tariffsbut-it-will-try-e387e40c

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/04/17/llm-poisoning-grooming-chatbots-russia/

This week we talk about smishing, Huione, and scams.

We also discuss money laundering, the Cambodian government, and Tether.

Recommended Book: The Longevity Imperative by Andrew J. Scott

Transcript

The portmanteau ‘smishing’ combines SMS and phishing to refer to the practice of using text messages to trick the recipients of said messages into revealing information that allows scammers to access their victim’s accounts on various platforms.

One common variation of smishing, which I’ve seen a lot recently, personally, are messages purportedly from toll road operators that tell the recipient they’ve got an unpaid toll, and they need to follow a link that’s provided in order to pay it. If the person receiving that message follows the instructions, they’ll tend to land on a webpage that’s convincing enough, which looks like the sort of site you might go to if you’re paying that kind of toll, online, and you enter your payment information and are then either immediately charged for this fake toll, or that information is used in some more cohesive manner—maybe the card is stolen, maybe it’s added to a larger collection of data they have on you which is then leveraged for a larger payout.

This type of scam has become more common in recent years because of innovations deployed by what security researchers have called the Smishing Triad, which is a trio of mobile phishing groups operating out of China that seem to have refined their infrastructure and techniques so that messages they send via iMessage to iPhone users and RCS to Android users can bypass mobile phone networks and enjoy a nearly 100% delivery rate—which makes the name a little ironic, since these groups don’t use SMS to deliver these scam texts anymore, as those other methods of delivery are more reliable for such messages, these days.

The big innovation introduced by these groups, though, beyond that deliverability, is the productization of mobile phishing, which basically means they’ve packaged up applications that allow their customers, which are usually smaller-time phishing groups and individuals, to share links to convincing-looking copies of Paypal, Mastercard, Stripe, and CitiGroup payment sites, among others, including individual banks, and that makes knee-jerk payments from the victims receiving these texts more likely, and less likely to set of alarm bells in the minds those receiving them, because they look like just normal payment sites.

These pre-packaged scam assets also include regularly rotated web domains, which makes them less likely to trigger the recipient’s anti-scam software—their browser will be less likely to flag them as problematic, basically. And the Triad has hundreds of actual humans working desk jobs, worldwide, supporting their customer base, which again is a bunch of scammers that use this package of tools to try to steal money from their marks.

All of this is enabled, in part, by clever emulation software that allows Triad customers to leverage legit and legit-seeming phone numbers from a computer or phone, those devices then sending out around 100 messages per second, per device, to phone numbers in the targeted region. They’re able to do this on a budget because of the efficiency of the software acquired from the Smishing Triad, and the Triad stays just ahead of regulators and law enforcement by rapidly iterating their offerings, which in turn does the same for all of their customers—which grants the benefits of a larger institution to all these individual and smaller scam groups.

What I’d like to talk about today is another alleged backend for scammers, this one this more overt and public facing, and perhaps even more impactful because of its size and because of the nature of its offerings.

—

The Huione (hu-WAY-wahn) Group is a financial conglomerate primarily based in Cambodia, though it also has satellite offices in other countries, mostly in Southeast Asia.

Folks use the entity’s QR codes to pay for stuff all around Cambodia, from restaurant tabs to hotel bills to supermarket tallies, and it offers normal banking stuff like checking and savings accounts, alongside things like escrow services and a cryptocurrency exchange.

This is a company that buys billboards along major highways throughout the country and which has well-connected people in charge, including one of the Cambodian prime minister’s cousins, who is the director of a Huione company.

In addition to its many legitimate offerings, though, Huione has also been accused to providing a range of gray and blackmarket products and services to folks who are doing skeevy but partially legal things, alongside wholly criminal enterprises, like a human trafficking outfit in Myanmar and folks running large smishing schemes in other parts of Southeast Asia.

Huione’s primary offering for the criminal underworld though, is allegedly serving as a money laundering go-between.

If you run a smishing scammer network, or a group that kidnaps people and sell them into various types of modern slavery in Myanmar, you may have trouble using the money you earn for these efforts because they’re off-book, blackmarket sorts of income. You need to clean, to launder that money to make it seem legitimate, so that you can put it in banks or otherwise use it to pay for things like you would with normal, non-illegally earned money.

Money laundering matchmaker services maintain networks of what are called money mules, and these mules are sometimes individuals, and they’re sometimes shell companies with bank accounts or their own cryptocurrency wallets.

If you’re scamming people out of their money, you might use this type of service to connect you with a money mule, and you provide that mule’s bank or crypto account information to your victim—so when you receive a scammy text message and follow it to completing, the bank your money is sent to will probably be that of a mule, not the person or group doing the scamming.

So the victim transfers their money to that mule’s account, and the mule then moves said money from one account to another to another to another to another, eventually converting it into an asset like a cryptocurrency, once the path has been suitably muddled. They take their cut, which is often something like 15%, somewhere along the way, and you, their customer, the scammer, are handed neutralized, clean resources in the form of that cryptocurrency—which you can then convert into real money at some point—on the other end.

An entity like Huione makes money by connecting scammers and other criminals with mules, but also by serving as a guarantor on these transactions.

So this entity allegedly, via a network of Telegram channels it maintains, telegram being an anonymizing chat app similar to WhatsApp, it allows matchmakers to advertise on these channels, using thinly veiled language to promote their services, and Huione is able to make money selling ads to mules and other matchmakers who want to promote via these highly trafficked channels, one of which has more than 400,000 users—and they have many of these things, and that alone apparently brings in a fair bit of revenue, serving as a sort of hard-to-track Craigslist for this component of the scam economy.

The guarantor component of this digital bazaar means that Huione holds the transactions between scammer and mules in escrow, just like any other escrow service: they take the money and hold it until the service has been completed, at which point they release it, taking a small cut for the service of ensuring that no one gets ripped off—except for the original victim of the scam, of course.

The majority of these transactions are completed using Tether, which is a stablecoin that tries to peg its value to the US dollar, each token worth exactly one USD, rather than fluctuating like speculative crypto assets, like Bitcoin, and this allows everyone involved to maintain a veil of both feigned ignorance and anonymity, making it difficult to track who does what, how much money changes hands, and who gets paid and does the paying.

This setup allows Huione to claim ignorance any time someone accuses them of doing illegal stuff: after all, they can’t possibly be responsible for what all the entities using their services are up to, right? All everything is just muddled and anonymized enough to grant seeming truthfulness to that claim of ignorance.

Because of how all this is set up, most of what we know about this is the result of whistleblowing from insiders and leaked documents, alongside divulgences from security researchers who know how to get into these sorts of networks and who at times hack those involved in various ways.

And it seems, based on those divulgences and other gleaned knowledge, that Huione’s money laundering services, alone, have been linked to nearly $27 billion in cryptocurrency transactions since 2021—though that could be a significant undercount because of the blurry nature of this industry and the entities involved with it.

Thus far, Huione has never been targeted for sanctions by any government.

Tether took action to freeze some of its accounts after law enforcement officials flagged them for criminal behavior, and Telegram has closed some of those illicit, matchmaking channels, but it’s easy enough to set up new versions of both, while the escrow subsidiary of Huione, previously called Huione Guarantee, denies any connection to these activities and even changed its name to Haowang Guarantee in October of 2024, though that denial seems to be public-facing only: the escrow-providing company continues to claim that the larger Huione Group is one of its strategic partners and shareholders.

Huione also has its own matchmatching service, called Huione International Pay, which operates as a real-deal bank, but also does what all the other matchmakers do—it helps criminal enterprises shuffle their money around, taking a fee to provide them with clean money, usually in the shape of Tether crypto tokens, on the other end.

Though notably, Huione also recently launched their own stablecoin called USDH, alongside an in-house communication service called ChatMe and an array of mini-games that seem optimized for automation, which is another means of laundering money via what seems like gambling apps, allowing their clients to cut out the casinos that are sometimes used as part of the laundering process. All of which seems primed to internalize more of this process, slowly doing away with the need for Telegram and Tether and those casinos, which would seem to remove some of the risk associated with those external, uncontrolled-by-Huione, platforms.

Despite all this, this enterprise has been allowed to flourish and grow like it has, according to a threat analyst with the UN, at least, because of lax enforcement in Cambodia, and the conglomerate’s connections with the government and ability to say, basically, we’re legit, look, we’re just a bank, we can’t control what other people might do with our services. Their whole setup is obscure enough, too, that anyone who takes a close look at their entangled business structure quickly gets lost in its complexity and many tangles and dead-ends.

Some governments, including the Chinese government, have been cracking down on entities like Huione operating within their borders, but many such crackdowns are hobbled when they’re aimed at operations based in different countries, especially those with lax enforcement, like Cambodia.

Also worth noting is that if someone’s going to get caught, it’ll most likely be the mules, not the matchmakers or scammers, and that’s by design. It’s a bit like street-level drug dealers being more likely to be picked up by police than the folks running the larger drug enterprise of which they’re a part. Huione and other entities like it are largely insulated from major consequences, even if the mules who use their services periodically get caught in dragnets cast by law enforcement.

That said, the National Bank of Cambodia recently announced that it hasn’t renewed Huione’s license to operate its payment service in the country, the one that runs all those QR codes, because it didn’t meet renewal requirements. That happened in late-March of 2025, so pretty recently, though the company has already said that it will register its business in Japan and Canada, so it seems to be looking for a suitable plot of land on which to rebuild this component of its setup.

Many security researchers and law enforcement officials have warned that the time to crack down on Huione and similar conglomerates is now, because they’re currently reliant on partially exposed third-parties like Telegram and Tether. Once they successfully move those activities inward, they’ll be a lot more difficult to track, but also nearly impossible to shutter, unless there’s a significant change in the government and enforcement climate in the countries in which they’re based, which at this point at least, looks unlikely.

Show Notes

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/world/asia/cambodia-money-laundering-huione.html

https://www.wired.com/story/the-largest-illicit-online-marketplace-ever-is-growing-at-an-alarming-rate/

https://www.wired.com/story/pig-butchering-scam-crypto-huione-guarantee/

https://www.wired.com/story/interpol-pig-butchering-scams-rename/

https://www.propublica.org/article/casinos-cambodia-myanmar-laos-southeast-asia-fraud-cybercrime

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/04/china-based-sms-phishing-triad-pivots-to-banks/#more-70793

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_spam

This week we talk about taxes, reciprocity, and recession.

We also discuss falling indices, stagflation, and theories of operation.

Recommended Book: The Serviceberry by Robin Wall Kimmerer

Transcript

Stagflation, which is a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation, is exactly what it sounds like: a combination of those two elements, usually with high levels of unemployment, as well, that can cause a prolonged period of economic sluggishness and strain that slows growth and can even lead to a recession.

The term was coined in the UK in the 1960s to describe issues they were facing at the time, but it was globally popularized by the oil shocks of the 1970s, which sparked a period of high prices and slow growth in many countries, including in the US, where inflation boomed, productivity floundered, and economic growth plateaud, leading to a stock market crash in 1973 and 1974.

Inflation, unto itself, can be troubling, as it means prices are going up faster than incomes, so the money people earn and have saved is worth less and less each day. That leads to a bunch of negative knock-on effects, which is a big part of why the US Fed has kept interest rates so high, aiming to trim inflation rates back to their preferred level of about 2% as quickly as possible in the wake of inflation surges following the height of the Covid pandemic.

Stagnant economic growth is also troubling, as it means lowered GDP, reduced future outlook for an economy, and that also tends to mean less investment in said economy, reduced employment levels—and likely even lower employment levels in the future—and an overall sense of malaise that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, no one feeling particularly upbeat about where their country is going; and that’s not great economically, but it can also lead to all sorts of social issues, as people with nothing to look forward to but worse and worse outcomes are more likely to commit crimes or stoke revolutions than their upbeat, optimistic, comfortable kin.

The combination of these two elements is more dastardly than just the sum of their two values implies, though, as measures that government agencies might take to curb inflation, like raising interest rates and overall tightening monetary policy, reduces business investment which can lead to unemployment. On the flip-side, though, things a government might do to reduce unemployment, like injecting more money into the economy, tends to spike inflation.

It’s a lose-lose situation, basically, and that’s why government agencies tasked with keeping things moving along steadily go far out of their way to avoid stagflation; it’s not easily addressed, and it only really goes away with time, and sometimes a very long time.

There are two primary variables that have historically led to stagflation: supply shocks and government policies that reduce output and increase the money supply too rapidly.

The stagflation many countries experienced in the 1970s was the result of Middle Eastern oil producing nations cutting off the flow of oil to countries that supported Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, though a sharp increase in money supply and the end of the Bretton Woods money management system, which caused exchange rate issues between global currencies, also contributed, and perhaps even more so than the oil shock.

What I’d like to talk about today is another major variable, the implementation of a huge package of new tariffs on pretty much everyone by the US, that many economists are saying could lead to a new period of stagflation, alongside other, more immediate consequences.

—

A tariff is a type of tax that’s imposed on imported goods, usually targeting specific types of goods, or goods from a particular place.

Way back in the day these were an important means of funding governments: the US government actually made most of its revenue, about 90% of it, from tariffs before 1863, because there just wasn’t a whole of lot other ways for the young country to make money at the time.

Following the War of 1812, the US government attempted to double tariffs, but that depleted international trade, which led to less income, not more—gross imports dropped by 71%, and the government scrambled to implement direct and excise taxes, the former of which is the tax a person or business pays that isn’t based on transactions, while the latter is a duty that’s paid upon the manufacture of something, as opposed to when it’s sold.

Tariffs resurfaced in the following decades, but accounted for less and less of the government’s income as the country’s manufacturing base increased, and excise and income taxes made up 63% of the US’s federal revenue by 1865.

Tax sources have changes a lot over the years, and they vary somewhat from country to country.

But the dominant move in the 20th century, especially post-WWII, has been toward free trade, which usually means no or low tariffs on goods being made in one place and sold in another, in part because this tends to lead to more wealth for everyone, on average, at least.

This refocus toward globalized free trade resulted in a lot of positives, like being able to specialize and make things where they’re cheap and sell them where they’re precious, but also some negatives, like the offshoring of jobs—though even those negatives, which sucked for the people who lost their jobs, have been positive for some, as the companies who offshored the jobs did so because it saved them money, the folks who were hired were generally paid more than was possible in their region, previously, and the people consuming the resulting goods were able to get them cheaper than would otherwise be feasible.

It’s been a mixed bag, then, but the general consensus among economists is that open trade is good because it incentivizes competition and productivity. Governments are less likely to implement protectionist policies to preserve badly performing local business entities from better performing foreign versions of the same, and that means less wasted effort and resources, more options for everyone, and more efficient overall economic operation, which contributes to global flourishing. And not for nothing, nations that trade with each other tend to be less likely to go to war with each other.

Now that’s a massively simplified version of the argument, but again, that’s been the outline for how things are meant to work, and aside from some obvious exceptions—like China’s protection of its local tech sector from foreign competition, and the US’s protection of its aviation and car industries—it’s generally worked as intended, and the world has become massively wealthier during this period compared to before this state of affairs was broadly implemented, post-WWII; there’s simply no comparison, the difference is stark.

There are renewed concerns about stagflation in the United States, however, because of a big announcement made by US President Trump on April 2, 2025, that slapped substantial and at times simply massive new tariffs on just about everyone, including the country’s longest-term allies and most valuable trading partners.

On what the president called “Liberation Day,” he announced two new types of tariff: one is a universal 10% import duty on all goods brought into the US, and another that he called a reciprocal tariff on imports from scores of countries, including 15 that will be hit especially hard—a list that includes China, EU nations, Canada, and Japan, among others.

The theory of these so-called reciprocal tariffs is that Trump thinks the US is being taken advantage of, as, to use one example that he cited, the US charges a 2.5% tariff on imported cars, while the EU charges a 10% tariff on American cars imported to their union.

The primary criticism of this approach, which has been cited by most economists and entities like the World Trade Organization, is that the numbers the US administration apparently used to make this list don’t really add up, and seem to include some made-up measures of trade deficits, which some analysts suspect were calculated by AI tools like ChatGPT, as the same incorrect measures are spat out by commonly use chatbots like ChatGPT when they’re asked about how to balance these sorts of things. But the important takeaway, however they arrived at these numbers, is that the comparisons used aren’t really sensical when you look at the details.

Some countries simply can’t afford American exports, for instance, while others have no use for them. The idea that a country that can’t afford American goods should have astoundingly large tariffs applied to their exports to the US is questionable from the get-go, but it also means the goods they produce, which might be valuable and important for Americans, be they raw materials like food or manufactured goods like car parts, will become more expensive for Americans, either because those Americans have to pay a higher price necessitated by the tax, or because the lower-price supplier is forced out of the market and replaced by a higher-price alternative.

In short, the implied balance of these tariffs don’t line up with reality, according to essentially everyone except folks working within Trump’s administration, and the question then is what the actual motivation behind them might be.

The Occam’s Razor answer is that Trump and/or people in his administration simply don’t understand tariffs and global economics well enough to understand that their theory on the matter is wrong. And many foreign leaders have said these tariffs are not in any way reciprocal, and that the calculation used to draw them up was, in the words of Germany’s economic minister, “nonsense.” That’s the general consensus of learned people, and the only folks who seem to be saying otherwise are the one’s responsible for drawing these tariffs up, and defending them in the press.

Things have been pretty stellar for most of the global economy since free trade became the go-to setup for imports and exports, but this administration is acting as if the opposite is true. That might be a feigned misunderstanding, or it might be genuine; they might truly not understand the difference between how things have been post-WWII and how they were back in the 1800s when tariffs were the go-to method of earning government revenue.

But in either case, Trump is promising that rewiring the global order, the nature of default international trade in this way, will be good for Americans because rather than serving as a linchpin for that global setup, keeping things orderly by serving as the biggest market in the world, the American economy will be a behemoth that gets what it’s owed, even if at the expense of others—a winner among losers who keep playing because they can’t afford not to, rather than a possibly slightly less winning winner amongst other winners.

This theory seems to have stemmed from a 1980s understanding of things, which is a cultural and economic milieu from which a lot of Trump’s views and ideas seem to have originated, despite in many cases having long since been disproved or shown to be incomplete. But it’s also a premise that may be more appealing to very wealthy people, because a lot of the negative consequences from these tariffs will be experienced by people in lower economic classes and people from poorer nations, where the price hikes will be excruciating, and folks in the middle class, whose wealth is primarily kept in stocks. Folks in the higher economic echolons, including those making most of these decisions, tend to make and build their wealth via other means, which won’t be entirely unimpacted, but will certainly be less hurt by these moves than everyone else.

It’s also possible, and this seems more likely to me, but it’s of course impossible to know the truth of the matter right now, that Trump is implementing a huge version of his go-to negotiating tactic of basically hurting the folks on the other end of a negotiation in order to establish leverage over them, and then starting that negotiation by asking what they’ll do for him if he limits or stops the pain.

The US is expected to suffer greatly from these tariffs, but other countries, especially those that rely heavily on the US market as their consumer base, and in some cases for a huge chunk of their economy, their total GDP, will suffer even more.

There’s a good chance many countries, in public or behind closed doors, will look at the numbers and decide that it makes more sense to give Trump and his administration something big, up front, in exchange for a lessening of these tariffs. That’s what seems to be happening with Vietnam, already, and Israel, and there’s a good chance other nations have already put out feelers to see what he might want in exchange for some preferential treatment in this regard—early reports suggest at least 50 governments have done exactly that since the announcement, though those reports are coming from within the White House, so it’s probably prudent to take them with a grain of salt, at this point. That said, this sort of messaging from the White House suggests that the administration might be hoping for a bunch of US-favoring deals and will therefore make a lot of noise about initial negotiations to signal that that’s what they want, and that the pain can go away if everyone just kowtows a little and gestures at some new trade policies that favor the US and make Trump look like a master negotiator who’s bringing the world to heel.

There’s been pushback against this potentiality, however, led by China, which has led with its own, very large counter-tariffs rather than negotiating, and the EU looks like it might do the same. If enough governments do this, it could call Trump’s bluff while also making these other entities, perhaps especially China, which was first out the door with counter-tariffs and statements about not be cowed by the US’s bluster, seem like the natural successors to the US in terms of global economic leadership. It could result in the US giving away all that soft power, basically, and that in turn could realign global trade relationships and ultimately other sorts of relationships, too, in China’s favor.

One other commonly cited possibility, and this is maybe the grimmest of the three, but it’s not impossible, is that Trump and other people in his administration recognize that the world is changing, that China is ascendent and the US is by some metrics not competing in the way it needs to in order to keep up and retain its dominance, and that’s true in terms of things like manufacturing and research, but also the potential implications of AI, changing battlefield tactics, and so on. And from that perspective, it maybe makes sense to just shake the game board, knocking over all the pieces rather than trying to win by adhering to what have become common conventions and normal rules of play.

If everyone takes a hit, if there’s a global recession or depression and everything is knocked asunder because those variables that led to where we are today, with all their associated pros and cons, are suddenly gone, that might lead to a situation in which the US is hurt, but not as badly as everyone else, including entities like China. And because the US did the game board shaking, the US may thus be in a better position as everything settles back into a new state of affairs; a new state of affairs that Trump and his people want to be more favorable to the US, long-term.

There’s some logic to this thinking, even if it’s a very grim, me-first, zero-sum kind of logic. The US economy is less reliant on global trade than the rest of the G20, the wealthiest countries in the world; only about 25% of its GDP is derived from trade, while that number is 37% for China, 63% for France, and a whopping 88% for Germany.

Other nations are in a relatively more vulnerable position than the US in a less-open, more tariff-heavy world, then, and that means the US administration may have them over a barrel, making the aforementioned US-favoring negotiations more likely, but also, again, potentially just hurting everyone, but the US less so. And when I say hurting, I mean some countries losing a huge chunk of their economy overnight, triggering a lot more poverty, maybe stagflation and famines, and possibly even revolutions, as people worldwide experience a shocking and sudden decrease in both wealth and future economic outlook.

Already, just days after Trump announced his tariffs, global markets are crashing, with US markets on track to record its second-worst three-day decline in history, after only the crash of 1987—so that’s worse than even the crashes that followed 9/11, the Covid-19 pandemic, the debt crisis, and many others.

Foreign markets are doing even worse, though, with Hong Kong’s recently high-flying Hang Seng falling 13% in trading early this week, and Japan’s Nikkei dropping 8%.

Other market markers are also dropping, the price of oil falling to a pandemic-era level of $60 per barrel, Bitcoin losing 10% in a day, and even the US dollar, which theoretically should rise in a tariff scenario, dropping 0.1%—which suggests investors are planning for a damaging recession, and the US market and currency as a whole might be toxic for a while; which could, in turn, lead to a boom for the rest of the world, the US missing out on that boom.

There are also simpler theories, I should mention, that tariffs may be meant to generate more profits to help pay for Trump’s expanded tax cuts without requiring he touch the third-rails of Medicare or Social Security, or that they’re meant to address the US’s booming debt by causing investors to flee to Treasury bills, which has the knock-on effect of reducing the interest rates that have to be paid on government debt.

That flight toward Treasuries is already happening, though it seems to be primarily because investors are fleeing the market as stocks collapse in value and everyone’s worrying about their future, about stagflation, and about mass layoffs and unemployment.

It may be that all or most of these things are true, too, by the way, and that this jumble of events, pros and cons alike, are seen as a net-positive by this administration.

For what it’s worth, too, the US Presidency doesn’t typically get to set things like tariffs—that’s congress’ responsibility and right. But because Congress is currently controlled by Republicans, they’ve yet to push back on these tariffs with a veto, and they may not. There are rumblings within the president’s party about this, and a lot of statements about how it’ll ultimately be good, but that maybe they would have done things differently, but there hasn’t been any real action yet, just hedging. And that could remain the case, but if things get bad enough, they could be forced by their constituents to take concrete action on the matter before Trump’s promised, theoretical positive outcomes have the chance to emerge, or not.

Show Notes

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20060925_RL33665_4a8c6781ce519caa3e6b82f95c269f73021c5fdf.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/31/tariffs-affect-consumer-spending/

https://www.wsj.com/tech/exempt-or-not-the-chip-industry-wont-escape-tariffs-a6c771db

https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/goldman-sachs-lifts-u-s-recession-probability-to-35-ce285ebc

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-9d85eb00-1184-11f0-8b11-0da1ebc288e3.html

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-democrats-economy-protests-financial-markets-90afa4079acbde1deb223adf070c1e98

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trade-war-explodes-across-world-at-pace-not-seen-in-decades-0b6d6513

https://www.mufgamericas.com/sites/default/files/document/2025-04/The-Long-Shadow-of-William-McKinley.pdf

https://x.com/krishnanrohit/status/1907587352157106292

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/business/trump-stocks-tariffs-trade.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/opinion/trump-tariffs-theories.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/06/world/asia/vietnam-trump-tariff-delay.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/06/world/europe/trade-trump-tariffs-brexit.html

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/04/why-do-domestic-prices-rise-with-tarriffs.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-we-got-liberation-day-look-trumps-past-comments-tariffs

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trumps-tariff-strategy-can-be-traced-back-to-the-1980s/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/us/politics/trump-tv-stock-market.html

https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/over-50-countries-push-for-tariff-revisions-will-donald-trump-compromise-heres-what-the-white-house-said/articleshow/120043664.cms

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/06/business/stock-market-plunge-investment-bank-impact.html

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-trump-tariffs-trade-war-04-07-25

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-trump-tariff-foreign-policy-6934e493

https://www.wsj.com/economy/in-matter-of-days-outlook-shifts-from-solid-growth-to-recession-risk-027eb2b4

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Asia-Pacific-stocks-sink-from-Trump-s-tariff-barrage-Hong-Kong-down-13

https://www.reuters.com/markets/eu-seeks-unity-first-strike-back-trump-tariffs-2025-04-06/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/07/trump-presidency-news-tariffs/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/world/asia/china-trade-war-tariffs.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-04-07/global-rout-carries-whiff-of-panic-as-trump-holds-fast-on-tariffs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/economists-fed-recent-projections-signal-120900777.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stagnation

This week we talk about Studio Ghibli, Andrej Karpathy, and OpenAI.

We also discuss code abstraction, economic repercussions, and DOGE.

Recommended Book: How To Know a Person by David Brooks

Transcript

In late-November of 2022, OpenAI released a demo version of a product they didn’t think would have much potential, because it was kind of buggy and not very impressive compared to the other things they were working on at the time. This product was a chatbot interface for a generative AI model they had been refining, called ChatGPT.

This was basically just a chatbot that users could interact with, as if they were texting another human being. And the results were good enough—both in the sense that the bot seemed kinda sorta human-like, but also in the sense that the bot could generate convincing-seeming text on all sorts of subjects—that people went absolutely gaga over it, and the company went full-bore on this category of products, dropping an enterprise version in August the following year, a search engine powered by the same general model in October of 2024, and by 2025, upgraded versions of their core models were widely available, alongside paid, enhanced tiers for those who wanted higher-level processing behind the scenes: that upgraded version basically tapping a model with more feedstock, a larger training library and more intensive and refined training, but also, in some cases, a model that thinks longer, than can reach out and use the internet to research stuff it doesn’t already know, and increasingly, to produce other media, like images and videos.

During that time, this industry has absolutely exploded, and while OpenAI is generally considered to be one of the top dogs in this space, still, they’ve got enthusiastic and well-funded competition from pretty much everyone in the big tech world, like Google and Amazon and Meta, while also facing upstart competitors like Anthropic and Perplexity, alongside burgeoning Chinese competitors, like Deepseek, and established Chinese tech giants like Tencent and Baidu.

It’s been somewhat boggling watching this space develop, as while there’s a chance some of the valuations of AI-oriented companies are overblown, potentially leading to a correction or the popping of a valuation bubble at some point in the next few years, the underlying tech and the output of that tech really has been iterating rapidly, the state of the art in generative AI in particular producing just staggeringly complex and convincing images, videos, audio, and text, but the lower-tier stuff, which is available to anyone who wants it, for free, is also valuable and useable for all sorts of purposes.

Just recently, at the tail-end of March 2025, OpenAI announced new multimodal capabilities for its GPT-4o language model, which basically means this model, which could previously only generate text, can now produce images, as well.

And the model has been lauded as a sort of sea change in the industry, allowing users to produce remarkable photorealistic images just by prompting the AI—telling it what you want, basically—with usually accurate, high-quality text, which has been a problem for most image models up till this point. It also boasts the capacity to adjust existing images in all sorts of ways.

Case-in-point, it’s possible to use this feature to take a photo of your family on vacation and have it rendered in the style of a Studio Ghibli cartoon; Studio Ghibli being the Japanese animation studio behind legendary films like My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, and Princess Mononoke, among others.

This is partly the result of better capabilities by this model, compared to its precursors, but it’s also the result of OpenAI loosening its policies to allow folks to prompt these models in this way; previously they disallowed this sort of power, due to copyright concerns. And the implications here are interesting, as this suggests the company is now comfortable showing that their models have been trained on these films, which has all sorts of potential copyright implications, depending on how pending court cases turn out, but also that they’re no long being as precious with potential scandals related to how their models are used.

It’s possible to apply all sorts of distinctive styles to existing images, then, including South Park and the Simpsons, but Studio Ghibli’s style has become a meme since this new capability was deployed, and users have applied it to images ranging from existing memes to their own self-portrait avatars, to things like the planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11, JFK’s assassination, and famous mass-shootings and other murders.

It’s also worth noting that the co-founder of Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki, has called AI-generated artwork “an insult to life itself.” That so many people are using this kind of AI-generated filter on these images is a jarring sort of celebration, then, as the person behind that style probably wouldn’t appreciate it; many people are using it because they love the style and the movies in which it was born so much, though. An odd moral quandary that’s emerged as a result of these new AI-provided powers.

What I’d like to talk about today is another burgeoning controversy within the AI space that’s perhaps even larger in implications, and which is landing on an unprepared culture and economy just as rapidly as these new image capabilities and memes.

—

In February of 2025, the former AI head at Tesla, founding team member at OpenAI, and founder of an impending new, education-focused project called Eureka Labs named Andrej Karpathy coined the term ‘vibe coding’ to refer to a trend he’s noticed in himself and other developers, people who write code for a living, to develop new projects using code-assistant AI tools in a manner that essentially abstracts away the code, allowing the developer to rely more on vibes in order to get their project out the door, using plain English rather than code or even code-speak.

So while a developer would typically need to invest a fair bit of time writing the underlying code for a new app or website or video game, someone who’s vibe coding might instead focus on a higher, more meta-level of the project, worrying less about the coding parts, and instead just telling their AI assistant what they want to do. The AI then figures out the nuts and bolts, writes a bunch of code in seconds, and then the vibe coder can tweak the code, or have the AI tweak it for them, as they refine the concept, fix bugs, and get deeper into the nitty-gritty of things, all, again, in plain-spoken English.

There are now videos, posted in the usual places, all over YouTube and TikTok and such, where folks—some of whom are coders, some of whom are purely vibe coders, who wouldn’t be able to program their way out of a cardboard box—produce entire functioning video games in a matter of minutes.

These games typically aren’t very good, but they work. And reaching even that level of functionality would previously have taken days or weeks for an experienced, highly trained developer; now it takes mere minutes or moments, and can be achieved by the average, non-trained person, who has a fundamental understanding of how to prompt AI to get what they want from these systems.

Ethan Mollick, who writes a fair bit on this subject and who keeps tabs on these sorts of developments in his newsletter, One Useful Thing, documented his attempts to make meaning from a pile of data he had sitting around, and which he hadn’t made the time to dig through for meaning. Using plain English he was able to feed all that data to OpenAI’s Deep Research model, interact with its findings, and further home in on meaningful directions suggested by the data.

He also built a simple game in which he drove a firetruck around a 3D city, trying to put out fires before a competing helicopter could do the same. He spent a total of about $13 in AI token fees to make the game, and he was able to do so despite not having any relevant coding expertise.

A guy named Pieter Levels, who’s an experienced software engineer, was able to vibe-code a video game, which is a free-to-play, massively multiplayer online flying game, in just a month. Nearly all the code was written by Cursor and Grok 3, the first of which is a code-writing AI system, the latter of which is a ChatGPT-like generalist AI agent, and he’s been able to generate something like $100k per month in revenue from this game just 17 days, post-launch.

Now an important caveat here is that, first, this game received a lot of publicity, because Levels is a well-known name in this space, and he made this game as part of a ‘Vibe Coding Game Jam,’ which is an event focused on exactly this type of AI-augmented programming, in which all of the entrants had to be at least 80% AI generated. But he’s also a very skilled programmer and game-maker, so this isn’t the sort of outcome the average person could expect from these sorts of tools.

That said, it’s an interesting case study that suggests a few things about where this category of tools is taking us, even if it’s not representative for all programming spaces and would-be programmers.

One prediction that’s been percolating in this space for years, even before ChatGPT was released, but especially after generative AI tools hit the mainstream, is that many jobs will become redundant, and as a result many people, especially those in positions that are easily and convincingly replicated using such tools, will be fired. Because why would you pay twenty people $100,000 a year to do basic coding work when you can have one person working part-time with AI tools vibe-coding their way to approximately the same outcome?

It’s a fair question, and it’s one that pretty much every industry is asking itself right now. And we’ve seen some early waves of firings based on this premise, most of which haven’t gone great for the firing entity, as they’ve then had to backtrack and starting hiring to fill those positions again—the software they expected to fill the gaps not quite there yet, and their offerings suffering as a consequence of that gambit.

Some are still convinced this is the way things are going, though, including people like Elon Musk, who, as part of his Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE efforts in the US government, is basically stripping things down to the bare-minimum, in part to weaken agencies he doesn’t like, but also, ostensibly at least, to reduce bloat and redundancy, the premise being that a lot of this work can be done by fewer people, and in some cases can be automated entirely using AI-based systems.

This was the premise of his mass-firings at Twitter, now X, when he took over, and while there have been a lot of hiccups and issues resulting from that decision, the company is managing to operate, even if less optimally than before, with about 20% the staff it had before he took over—something like 1,500 people compared to 7,500.

Now, there are different ways of looking at that outcome, and Musk’s activities since that acquisition will probably color some of our perceptions of his ambitions and level of success with that job-culling, as well. But the underlying theory that a company can do even 90% as well as it did before with just a fifth of the workforce is a compelling argument to many people, and that includes folks running governments, but also those in charge of major companies with huge rosters of employees that make up the vast majority of their operating expenses.

A major concern about all this, though, is that even if this theory works in broader practice, and all these companies and governments can function well enough with a dramatically reduced staff using AI tools to augment their capabilities and output, we may find ourselves in a situation in which the folks using said tools are more and more commodified—they’ll be less specialized and have less education and expertise in the relevant areas, so they can be paid less, basically, the tools doing more and the humans mostly being paid to prompt and manage them. And as a result we may find ourselves in a situation where these people don’t know enough to recognize when the AI are doing something wrong or weird, and we may even reach a point where the abstraction is so complete that very few humans even know how this code works, which leaves us increasingly reliant on these tools, but also more vulnerable to problems should they fail at a basic level, at which point there may not be any humans left who are capable of figuring out what went wrong, since all the jobs that would incentivize the acquisition of such knowledge and skill will have long since disappeared.

As I mentioned in the intro, these tools are being applied to images, videos, music, and everything else, as well. Which means we could see vibe artists, vibe designers, vibe musicians and vibe filmmakers. All of which is arguably good in the sense that these mediums become more accessible to more people, allowing more voices to communicate in more ways than ever before.

But it’s also arguably worrying in the sense that more communication might be filtered through the capabilities of these tools—which, by the way, are predicated on previous artists and writers and filmmakers’ work, arguably stealing their styles and ideas and regurgitating them, rather than doing anything truly original—and that could lead to less originality in these spaces, but also a similar situation in which people forget how to make their own films, their own art, their own writing; a capability drain that gets worse with each new generation of people who are incentivized to hand those responsibilities off to AI tools; we’ll all become AI prompters, rather than all the things we are, currently.

This has been the case with many technologies over the years—how many blacksmiths do we have in 2025, after all? And how many people actually hand-code the 1s and 0s that all our coding languages eventually write, for us, after we work at a higher, more human-optimized level of abstraction?

But because our existing economies are predicated on a certain type of labor and certain number of people being employed to do said labor, even if those concerns ultimately don’t end up being too big a deal, because the benefits are just that much more impactful than the downsides and other incentives to develop these or similar skills and understandings arise, it’s possible we could experience a moment, years or decades long, in which the whole of the employment market is disrupted, perhaps quite rapidly, leaving a lot of people without income and thus a lot fewer people who can afford the products and services that are generated more cheaply using these tools.

A situation that’s ripe with potential for those in a position to take advantage of it, but also a situation that could be devastating to those reliant on the current state of employment and income—which is the vast, vast majority of human beings on the planet.

Show Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Corp

https://devclass.com/2025/03/26/the-paradox-of-vibe-coding-it-works-best-for-those-who-do-not-need-it/

https://www.wired.com/story/doge-rebuild-social-security-administration-cobol-benefits/

https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-benevolent-artificial-intelligence/

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/03/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-doge-to-rapidly-rebuild-social-security-codebase/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_coding

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2473993-what-is-vibe-coding-should-you-be-doing-it-and-does-it-matter/

https://nmn.gl/blog/dangers-vibe-coding

https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/19/vibe-coding/

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/is-vibe-coding-with-ai-gnarly-or-reckless-maybe-some-of-both/

https://devclass.com/2025/03/26/the-paradox-of-vibe-coding-it-works-best-for-those-who-do-not-need-it/

https://www.creativebloq.com/3d/video-game-design/what-is-vibe-coding-and-is-it-really-the-future-of-app-and-game-development

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/openais-new-ai-image-generator-is-potent-and-bound-to-provoke/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_Ghibli

This week we talk about Elon Musk, deportations, and the First Amendment.

We also discuss electric vehicles, free speech, and Georgia.

Recommended Book: Red Rising by Pierce Brown

Transcript

Greenpeace is a protest-focused, environmentalist nongovernmental organization that was originally founded in Canada in the early 1970s, but which has since gone on to tackle issues ranging from commercial whaling to concerns about genetic engineering, worldwide.

They have 26 independent organizations operating across nearly 60 countries, and their efforts are funded by a combination of grants and donations from individual supporters; and that’s an important detail, as they engage in a lot of highly visible acts of protest, many of which probably wouldn’t be feasible if they had corporate or government funders.

They piss a lot of people off, in other words, and even folks who consider themselves to be environmentalists aren’t always happy with the things they do. Greenpeace is vehemently anti-nuclear, for instance, and that includes nuclear power, and some folks who are quite green in their leanings consider nuclear power to be part of the renewable energy solution, not something to be clamped down on. The same is true of their other stances, like their protests against genetic engineering efforts and their at times arguably heavy-handed ‘ecotage’ activities, which means sabotage for ecological purposes, to making their point and disrupt efforts, like cutting down forests or building new oil pipelines, that they don’t like.

Despite being a persistent thorn in the side of giant corporations like oil companies, and despite sometimes irritating their fellow environmentalists, who don’t always agree with their focuses or approaches, Greenpeace has nonetheless persisted for decades in part because of their appreciation for spectacle, and their ability to get things that might otherwise be invisible—like whaling and arctic oil exploration—into the press. This is in turn has at times raised sufficient awareness that politicians have been forced to take a stand on things they wouldn’t have otherwise been forced to voice an opinion on, much less support or push against, and that is often the point of protests of any size or type, by any organization.

A recent ruling by a court in North Dakota, though, could hobble this group’s future efforts. A company involved in the building of the Dakota Access pipeline accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other acts, and has been awarded about $667 million in damages, payable by Greenpeace, because of the group’s efforts to disrupt the construction of this pipeline.

The folks at the head of Greenpeace had previously said that a large payout in this case could bankrupt the organization, and while there’s still a chance to appeal the ruling, and they’ve said they intend to do so, this ruling is already being seen as a possible fulcrum for companies, politicians, and government agencies that want to limit protests in the US, where the right to assemble and peaceably express one’s views are constitutionally protected by the first amendment, but where restrictions on protest have long been used by government officials and police to stifle protests they don’t like for various reasons.

What I’d like to talk about today is another, somewhat unusual wave of protests we’re seeing in the US and to some degree globally right now, too, and the larger legal context in which these protests are taking place.

—

When US President Trump first stepped into office back in early 2017, there were protests galore, huge waves of people coming out to protest the very idea of him, but especially his seeming comfort with, and even celebration of, anti-immigration, racist, and misogynistic views and practices, including his alleged sexual abuse and rape of dozens of women, one of whom successfully took him to court on the matter, winning a big settlement for proving that he did indeed sexually assault her.

The response to his second win, and his ascension to office for another term in 2025, has been more muted. There have been a lot of protests, but not at the scale of those seen in 2017. Instead, the majority of enthusiasm for protest-related action against this administration has been aimed at Elon Musk, a man who regularly tops the world’s richest people lists, owns big-name companies like SpaceX and Tesla, and who has his own collection of very public scandals and alleged abuses.

One such scandal revolves around Musk’s decision to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into getting Trump reelected. As a result of that investment, he was brought into the president’s confidence, and now serves as a sort of hatchet-man via a pseudo-official agency called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

Musk and his team have been jumping from government agency to government agency, conducting mass firings, harassing employees, hacking and by some accounts stealing and deleting all sorts of sensitive data, and generally doing their best to cause as much disruption as possible. Many of their efforts have been pushed back against, eventually, by courts, but that’s only after a lot of damage has already been done.

The general theory of their operation is ostensibly to cut costs in the US government, and though outside analysts and watchdogs have shown that they haven’t really managed to do that on any scale, and that their actions will probably actually add to the government’s deficit, not reduce it, Musk and Trump claim otherwise, and that’s enough for many people in their orbit. The unsaid purpose of this group, though, seems to be making the government so ineffective and hollow that businesses, like Musk’s and those of his friends, can step in and do things that were previously done by government agencies, and can reap massive profits as a consequence; folks having to pay more for what was previously provided by the government, and a bunch of rich folks profiting because they’re the only ones capable of providing such services, now that the agencies have been gutted.

The courts are still scrambling, as they move a lot slower than individuals with seeming authority and the support of a vindictive president can move, but this has already caused a lot of consternation across the political spectrum, and Musk, though popular with a certain flavor of Republican and far-right voter, has pissed off a lot of more conventional Republicans, in addition to pretty much every Democrat.

This is important context for understanding why the most vocal and enthusiastic protests in the US these first few months of 2025 have targeted Musk, and more specifically, Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla.

Tesla was once celebrated by the political left as the EV company that made EVs sexy and popular, at a time in which this type of vehicle was anything but.

Musk’s shift to the political far-right changed that, though, and the general theory of these protests is that Musk is mostly held financially afloat by Tesla’s huge market valuation: Tesla stocks are worth way more than those of other car companies, with a price multiple—how much the stock is worth, compared to how much business the company actually does, and how much their assets are worth—is more akin to that of a dotcom-era tech startup than a car company, the stock price valued at something like 120-times the apparent book value of the company.

So Musk, who owns a lot of Tesla stock, can basically borrow money against that stock, and this allows him to tap tens of billions of dollars worth of borrowed money on a whim, because the banks know he’s good for it. In this way he can inflate his supposed worth while also getting liquid cash whenever he needs it, despite not having to sell those stocks he owns.

This method of acquiring liquid wealth by leveraging non-liquid assets has allowed him to support Trump’s reascension, but it’s also allowed him to do things like buy Twitter, which he has renamed X and converted into a sort of voicebox for the right and far-right. It has also allowed him to do things like offer money to potential voters who are signed up to vote and who sign petitions that are supportive of far-right causes; which is not quite paying for votes, which is illegal in the US, but it is the closest thing to paying for votes you can get away with, and there’s still debate whether this is actually legal or not, but either way, until the courts catch on up this, too, he’s been able to influence vote outcomes to varying degrees because of that access to money.

Some of the biggest and most consistent protesting efforts in the post-second-term-Trump US have revolved around Tesla, its cars, and its dealerships, and the theory of operation here is that by protesting Tesla, you might be able to decrease the company’s market valuation, which in turn decreases Musk’s access to money. Less market value for the company means Musk can’t borrow as much money against it, and if he has less access to liquid wealth, to cash rather than stocks and other illiquid assets, he may become less relevant in the administration, and less capable of influencing elections across the country (and to some degree the world, as he’s throwing money at candidates he favors globally, now, too).

These protests have been traditional, in the sense of gathering peacefully outside Tesla dealerships, chanting slogans and carrying signs, but also of a more aggressive sort, including spraypainting Tesla vehicles, doing things to embarrass folks who own these cars, and in some few cases, setting them on fire or otherwise destroying them.

The general idea, again, is to make the brand toxic, which in turn should reduce sales, and that, ideally, for the protestors, would then reduce Musk’s access to money, which he is using to influence elections and other such activities and outcomes.

The administration has responded to these protests with a bizarre and, it’s generally agreed, pretty embarrassing car commercial for Tesla, held outside the White House, in which Trump claimed he was buying one, and told Americans to buy a car to support Tesla because it’s a wholesome American company.

Trump also recently said that he would consider people caught defacing Teslas or even just protesting the brand in non-destructive ways to be domestic terrorists, which is a pretty chilling thought, as some post-9/11 rules about how the government can treat terrorists are still on the books; calling someone a terrorist is a means of doing away with due process and human rights, basically, so this is a threat to go full violent authoritarian on people using their first amendment rights in ways this administration doesn’t like.

These protests are occurring within the context of another notable, protest-oriented storyline, one in which students who participated in protests against the US and Israel’s actions in Gaza at Columbia University in New York last spring have been arrested; one was on a visa to the US and was in the process of becoming a doctor—her visa has now been revoked—and the other, who has a green card, and who is thus a permanent US resident, and who has no criminal record, faces a case in immigration court in Louisiana, where he was shipped after being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

His hearing has been scheduled for April 8, and his lawyers are challenging both his detention and the government’s apparent efforts to make an example of him, trying to deport him and do away with his citizenship because he protested against the government’s actions.

The administration is claiming they can do this, and can do a bunch of other stuff, including deporting immigrants who they claim, without evidence, are members of a Venezuelan gang; they say there’s legal precedent that gives them the ability to deport enemy aliens, those who are antagonistic to the US and its government, basically—the same sort of rulings that were used to justify deporting anyone sympathetic to the communist party back in the mid-to-late 20th century.

This same concept is being floated to justify the deportation of some of the people who have protested against Israel’s and the US’s actions in Gaza, the accusation being that they are supporting Hamas and other organizations that have been declared terrorist organizations by the US, so when folks protest against these governments’ activities in the region, they’re also supporting the causes of terrorist organizations—which then arguably gives the US government the right to deport them, because they weren’t born in the US.

The legality of all this is still being debated and working its way through the court system, but the ultimate goal seems to be giving the administration the ability to deport whomever they like, and establishing that immigrants of any kind don’t have the free speech rights that natural born US citizens enjoy; which isn’t concretely established in law, and which these many efforts and court cases are meant to sort out more formally.

This administration has also shown itself to be just really antagonistic against any person or entity that defies or criticizes it, including journalistic entities, politicians, or protesting individuals; they’ve used lawsuits, executive orders, and a slew of other tools to legally punish, financially punish, and in many cases socially punish, telling their supporters that it would be a real shame if something happened to these people, seemingly aiming to scare their opponents, while also possibly sparking stochastic violence against them.

And this isn’t a US-exclusive thing.

In Georgia, the country not the state, the government is levying huge fines on people who protested against its pivot toward allying with Russia instead of moving toward the EU two years ago; they’re using a so-called “foreign agent bill” to accuse anyone who says or does something against the government of being paid by foreign entities, which in turn allows them to crack down on these people hard, while seemingly not violating their good, dedicated, patriotic citizens’ rights.

They’ve also started levying fines for the equivalent of about $16,000 on those who participate in protests that even briefly block traffic, which is one more way to asymmetrically hobble people and organizations that might otherwise cause a regime trouble; anyone who does these things in their favor can just have these fines waived or ignored.

We’re seeing similar things in Turkey and Hungary, right now, two other countries that have seen widescale protests and significant efforts by their governments to attack those protestors, to get them to stop. In some case these efforts backfire, leading to more and more substantial pushback by the population against increasingly aggressive and abusive regimes.

It’s impossible to know ahead of time which way things will go, though, and right now, in the US, most of these anti-protestor efforts are still young, as are the anti-Tesla, anti-Musk protests, themselves. One side or the other could be forced to pivot by judicial rulings—though this could also lead to a long-predicted constitutional crisis, in which the judges say the government can’t do something they want to do, and the government just ignores that ruling, creating an entirely different and arguably more substantial problem.

Show Notes

https://apnews.com/article/columbia-protests-immigration-detention-mahmoud-khalil-755774045e5e82849e3281e8ff72f26d

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/middleeast/turkey-protests-erdogan-mayor-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/world/middleeast/turkey-ekrem-imamoglu-istanbul.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/world/middleeast/turkey-erdogan-democracy-istanbul-mayor-detention.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Turkish_protests

https://apnews.com/article/turkey-mayor-jailed-istanbul-f962743f724f00a318f84ffaed7f58de

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/us/politics/what-is-doge-elon-musk-trump.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protesters-gather-tesla-showrooms-dealerships-denounce-elon-musk-doge-rcna197595

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/nyregion/columbia-trump-concessions-watershed.html

https://apnews.com/article/hungary-pride-ban-orban-lgbtq-rights-e7a0318b09b902abfc306e3e975b52df

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0zrg9kpno

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-president-signs-law-banning-pride-parade-despite-protests-2025-03-19/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-orban-vows-fast-crackdown-media-ngos-over-foreign-funding-2025-03-15/

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/15/europe/georgia-protests-authoritarianism-fears-intl-cmd/index.html

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/georgia-authorities-freeze-accounts-of-organizations-supporting-protesters-to-kill-the-peaceful-protests/

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250323-georgia-cracks-down-on-pro-eu-protests-with-crippling-fines

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-trump-allegations.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/us/politics/spacex-contracts-musk-doge-trump.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/21/oil-protest-activism-greenpeace-dakota-pipeline-verdict

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/greenpeace-lawsuit-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/18/climate/greenpeace-lawsuit-first-amendment/index.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-to-know-about-greenpeace-after-it-was-found-liable-in-the-dakota-access-protest-case

https://apnews.com/article/greenpeace-dakota-access-pipeline-lawsuit-verdict-5036944c1d2e7d3d7b704437e8110fbb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest

This week we talk about tariffs, consumer confidence, and trade wars.

We also discuss inflation, GDP, and uncertainty.

Recommended Book: A Brief History of Intelligence by Max S. Bennett

Transcript

On January 20, 2025, mere hours after being sworn into his second term in office as President of the United States, Donald Trump announced new 25% tariffs on most incoming goods from Canada and Mexico, accusing the two allies of failing to halt the flow of drugs and illegal migrants into the US. These tariffs would go into effect on February 1, he said, and they would be in addition to existing tariffs that were already in effect for specific import categories.

On that same day, he also speculated that he might impose a universal tariff on all imports, saying that he believed all countries, allies or not, were taking advantage of the US, and he didn’t like that.

Less than a week later, Trump announced that he would impose 25% tariffs on all good from Colombia, with immediate effect, and would double that tariff to 50% within a week. This appears to have been a punishment for the Colombian government’s decision to turn back planes full of immigrants the US government deported and sent their way, without approval from the intended recipient of those deported people, the Colombian government. There was a minor tiff between these governments, but the White House declared victory on the matter later that night, saying the tariffs would be held in reserve, implying they could come back at any time if their demands are not met.

An executive order implementing the threatened 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico was signed on February 1, and a new 10% tariff on China went into effect the same day. Countermeasures were threatened by everyone involved, and after Trump published a social media post saying there would probably be economic pain for a while, his government agreed to a 30 day pause on tariffs for Mexico and Canada, while also threatening new tariffs against the European Union; another long-time US ally.

The new 10% tariff on Chinese imports went into effect on February 4, and China retaliated with its own counter-tariffs on US goods, including things like farm machinery and energy products. It also implemented new restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals to the US—a category of raw materials everyone is scrambling to secure, as they’re vital for the production of batteries and other fundamental technologies—and they launched a new antimonopoly investigation into Google, which deals with some Chinese companies.

On February 10, Trump reimposed a 25% tariff on all foreign steel and aluminum; a move that made US metal companies happy, but essentially all other US companies very unhappy, and in mid-February he threatened even more, broad, and vague tariffs on basically everyone, saying he’s doing what he’s doing in order to force companies to move manufacturing infrastructure back to the US, after decades of offshoring everything.

At the end of February, Trump said the delayed tariffs on Canada and Mexico would go into effect, as planned, on March 4, alongside those new 10% tariffs on China. On that day, Canada implemented its own counter-tariffs on the US to the tune of 25% on about $155 billion of US goods imported by the country.

Canada and Mexico send about 80% of their exports to the US market, so their economies are expected to be hit hard by this trade war. China, in contrast, only sends about 15% of its exports to the US, so the impact will be more tempered.

These three countries, though, are the US’s largest trading partners, collectively accounting for over 40% of US imports and exports. In addition to buying a lot of US goods, they also export the majority of things like oil, beer, copper wire, chocolate, and other goods that the US consumes; and the cost of tariffs are almost always passed on to the end-consumer, so higher tariffs on these sorts of goods mean raised prices on a lot of stuff across the economy.

On March 6, after a lot of back-and-forth with US automakers and with the Mexican and Canadian governments, a lot of the tariffs placed on goods from these countries were suspended, the US government denying that their withdrawal had anything to do with the US market, which was suffering in response to this wave of economic disruptions—though many tariffs were kept in place, and Trump said the US would still impose tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports beginning on March 12.

On the 12th, the EU and Canada announced a new wave of retaliatory tariffs against the US, though the European side said they would hold off on their implementation of these tariffs, waiting till April 1 to see what happens. The next day, Trump threatened a 200% charge on alcoholic products from the EU in response to their planned 50% tariffs on US whiskey and other products within their borders.

At the moment, as of mid-March 2025, a lot of these tariffs are still speculative, as it’s generally understood, from Trump’s bombastic approach to deal-making and his previous backtracking from these sorts of threats, that many of these tariffs could disappear, announced solely to provide leverage against those Trump wants to squeeze for more concessions and what he considers to be more favorable trade terms. Some of them could become concrete reality, though, and part of the issue here is that it’s nearly impossible to know which is which, because there also seems to be a larger effort to rewire the US and global economies by this administration—and that effort, plus the uncertainty caused by tariffs and similar actions, are leading to some pretty severe market upsets within the US, and resultantly around the world, as well.

And that’s what I’d like to talk about today: the impacts of these tariffs and other actions by this administration, so far, and what might happen next, based on currently available numbers and analysis.

—

Economies are ridiculously complex systems, and it’s impossible to say with 100% certainty what caused what, and to what degree things would be different had some other path been taken by those in control of various regulatory and economic levers.

That said, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation has estimated that just those first batch of proposed tariffs by the US government, not including impacts from foreign retaliations, which could be substantial, will reduce US GDP by about 0.4% and reduce total hours worked by the equivalent of 309,000 full-time jobs; so a lot less output, and a lot less overall productivity.

That’s on top of the estimated 0.2% long-term decrease in US GDP caused by the first Trump administration’s tariffs, which were maintained by the subsequent Biden administration.

These existing tariffs raised prices in the US and reduced both output and employment, which means the boom the US economy saw under the Biden administration might have been even boomier, had those tariffs been dropped. But now they’re more or less locked in, and these new tariffs will probably amplify their effect, near-term and long-term.

On top of that, the constant threats and pullbacks and seemingly off-the-cuff decisions to implement what amounts to all sorts of huge-scale taxes on a frenetic array of goods, including luxuries, but also some very fundamental things, like the metals we use to build and manufacture basically everything, is stoking uncertainty throughout the US and global economies.

That uncertainty has wide-ranging impacts, but one of the most direct consequences is that consumer sentiment in the US has nose-dived, as ordinary people worry about the combined impacts of tariffs, cuts to government programs, layoffs across government agencies, and new restrictions on immigration, which even ignoring the human element of such things can cause all sorts of issues across industries that rely on immigrant workers to stay afloat.

In mid-March of this year, US consumer sentiment hit 57.9, down from 64.7 in February. That’s the lowest its been since November of 2022, it’s down 27% from a year earlier, and it’s a lot lower than economist predictions for this month, which were set at 63.2.

Consumer sentiment tells us how people are feeling about the economy, about their potential to earn, and about where things are going. This influences how people spend, how they consume, and that in turn helps determine how the overall economy will go in the coming years, as people will be more likely to hunker down and save, taking as few risks as possible and making fewer purchases if they believe things will be rough; which in some cases can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because those behaviors tend to shrink the economy, which leads to less output, fewer investments being made, more layoffs, and so on. That means a drop in consumer sentiment can make things bad even if they would otherwise be good, but if they’re bad already, they can become even worse because folks stop doing things that would improve the economy, out of self-preservation.

And that impact can be just as pronounced when things are weird and wobbly, rather than outright bad, as seems to be the case in the US at the moment.

There’s no firm evidence that the US economy is destined for a recession at this point, but the Russell 2000 index, which is made up of smaller companies than indexes like the S&P 500, and which is thus more prone to on-the-ground variables than its larger index kin, has dropped more than 16% since November, when it hit a new high on optimism about what the new Trump administration might do for businesses and the economy.

The S&P 500 also collapsed, though about half as much, and it rallied somewhat last week as investors bought the dip, scooping up stocks at lower prices following that drop. But there’s a lot of speculation that this might be a so-called dead cat bounce recovery—a moment in which a market seems to be recovering from a drop, but where it’s actually just bouncing up a little before heading back downward—and even this index, which is packed with corporations that are less susceptible to brief market wobbles than those in the Russell, might be heading for another downswing in the coming weeks, based on a lot of the economic numbers used to predict such things, at the moment.

One such metric is interest in alternative assets like gold, and the price of gold hit a new high last Friday, surpassing $3,000 per ounce for the first time ever.

That’s not something you tend to see when markets are healthy and people expect them to do well; if they are healthy and expected to surge rather than collapse, people tend to put their money in the market, not in shiny metals. But the shiny metals bet seems to be appealing right now, which hints at an even broader suspicion of the US economy than even that consumer sentiment and those bad market figures anticipate.

And the market figures have been bad. In just 3 weeks, beginning on February 19, the S&P alone lost more than $5 trillion in value.

The Atlanta Fed, which uses a fairly reliable model to predict future US GDP numbers, was predicting a healthy nearly 4% increase for the US’s GDP for the first quarter of 2025 back in late-January, early-February, but that prediction plummeted from positive 4% to negative 2.4% by early March.

That figure could still change, as it’s informed by data that don’t all arrive at the same time, but it’s still a staggering drop, and it reflects the impact of all these tariffs, but also all the destruction of government programs and agencies, the mass firings, and of course the uncertainty caused by all of these things in aggregate, alongside the impacts of said uncertainty on everyone at all scales, from trade partners to US-based small businesses to individual consumers.

So few people and institutions are happy about what’s happening right now, but it does look like, in the immediate future, at least, there are some beneficiaries of all this tumult.

Markets in China are flourishing, especially Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index, which is up more than 20% since Trump’s inauguration on January 20. And Europe’s market, which has struggled with stasis for years now, is up more than 4% over that same period.

Uncertainty about markets, but also military alliances, especially NATO, have pushed Germany—which has struggled since Russia invaded Ukraine, when their energy markets were utterly scrambled, which in turn hobbled their massive manufacturing base—Germany has unleashed a huge amount of government funds on their economy, and that big uptick in spending has helped basically the whole EU market grow. The German government has traditionally been tight-pocketed, but a declaration by the incoming Chancellor that they would do whatever it takes to both defend themselves and boost their economic outlook in the face of unreliable backing from their long-time ally, the US, has bolstered enthusiasm and optimism throughout the region, bringing EU nations closer together, increasing spending on all sorts of fundamentals, and bringing them closer to the Canadian government, as well.

The Chinese government has recently indicated they’ll be injecting a bunch of money and other types of support in their economy, as well, which creates a stark contrast with the US government, which seems to be refocusing on pulling government resources from across society and the economy, and spending mostly on tax cuts for the wealthiest people and biggest companies, instead.

The US government’s efforts to go America first, and not do anyone, even its longest-term, most reliable allies, any favors, or even trade in what might be considered a balanced way, thus seems to be scrambling US markets while simultaneously stoking those that are being cut off, unifying aspects of the rest of the world in antagonism against the US, while also providing them with incentive to reinvest in their own markets; which could be good for them long-term, making them less reliant on the US in all sorts of ways, but which seems pretty bad for the US in particular, short-term, and casts the US-dominated global order into disarray for the immediate future, with all sorts of consequences, economic and otherwise.

The degree to which this impacts Trump’s approval ratings has yet to be seen, as while his approval is collapsing, especially on the economy, right now, a lot of the most serious economic impacts are expected to fall hard on regions that most enthusiastically voted for him, and Republican talking points have already pivoted toward messaging that implies suffering for a while is good and patriotic.

That message might succeed and keep people on side even as their investments collapse and tariff-driven inflation hits their bottom-lines, or it might not. But it seems like the administration is ramping up for a version of austerity that doesn’t actually reduce the deficit, but instead takes a bunch of money from programs and investments that helped these areas, and moves it to other stuff that mostly helps fund tax cuts for wealthy allies of the administration—and that could come back to bite them, come election season.

All of this is also happening in parallel to the many political maneuverings of the administration and its opposition, though, and just recently the Republican-held congress was able to pass a funding bill, moving a lot more authority and control to the White House; so whatever the short-term approval numbers show, none of this seems to be having much of a negative impact on Trump’s control of government. That could change, though, over the course of the next year, leading into 2026’s midterm election, when the makeup of congress could be influenced by these and similar decisions.

Show Notes

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/futures-rise-after-volatile-week-consumer-data-tap-2025-03-14/

https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/consumer-confidence-march-2025-drops-trump-trade-e7e0964d

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/15/economic-indicators-recession-risk

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/14/investing/gold-price-today-3000-ounce-intl/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/14/us-stock-market-loses-5-trillion-in-value-in-three-weeks.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/business/russell-2000-bear-market.html

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/stock-market-correction-trump-tariffs.html

https://www.nfib.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/NFIB-SBET-Report-Feb.-2025.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/your-money/car-shopping-trump-tariffs-cfpb.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/business/trump-sp-500-stocks-europe-china.html

https://archive.ph/GNPRf

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/issues/economy

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/business/economy/tariffs-trump-maps-voters.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/us/politics/trump-spending-bill-government-shutdown.html

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/investing-stocks-risk-strategies-trump-policies-c4a5d3d9

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/trump-trade-tariffs-us-dollar-value-814cbe37

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-nasdaq-sp500-03-17-2025

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/16/wall-street-hoped-scott-bessent-would-keep-trump-in-check-he-had-other-ideas-00231771

https://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-mergers-acquisitions-ipos-hiring-slumps-trump-tariffs-2025-3

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/14/trump-trade-wars-consumer-sentiment-00230833

https://archive.ph/fUKPs

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/business/economy/trump-tariff-timeline.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/business/energy-environment/trump-energy-oil-gas.html

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

This week we talk about Euromaidan, minerals deals, and propaganda.

We also discuss European security, NATO, and the western-led world order.

Recommended Book: Storm Front by Jim Butcher

Transcript

In February of 2014, pro-Russian protests racked parts of southeastern Ukraine and Russian soldiers, their uniforms and weapons stripped of flags and other identifying markers, occupied another part of Ukraine called Crimea.

This was seemingly in response to Ukraine’s overthrow of its pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was toppled as part of the Euromaidan protests, which were themselves a response to Yanukovych deciding to aim for closer ties with Russia, rather than signing an association agreement with the EU, which would have committed Ukraine to several EU-oriented reforms, related to corruption, among other things, while also giving Ukrainians many new rights, including visa-free movement and access to the European Investment Bank, beginning a few years later, in 2017.

This sudden pivot away from the EU and toward Russia didn’t go down well with the Ukrainian public, which had repeatedly shown it wanted to lean toward the west, and the Euromaidan protests were focused on weeding out government corruption; the existing government was accused of being all sorts of corrupt, and had also been accused of human rights abuses and allowing Russian oligarchs undo influence at the highest rungs of power; Yanukovych was in Russia’s pocket, basically, and his overthrow made Russia worry that they would lose control of their neighbor.

So Russia moved in to take part of Ukraine, basically uncontested, both internally and externally—a lot of other governments made upset noises about this, but Russia gave itself cover by removing their flags from their personnel, and that gave them the ability to paint everything that happened as a natural uprising from within Ukraine, the people wanting freedom from their Ukrainian oppressors, and Russia was just supporting this cry to overthrow oppressive tyrants, because they’re very nice and love freedom.

For the next eight years, the Ukrainian government fought separatist forces, funded and reinforced by the Russian government, in the southeastern portion of their country, while Russia expanded their infrastructure in Crimea, which again, they stole from Ukraine early on, and where they previously leased vital naval facilities from Ukraine; and those facilities are assumed to be a big part of why all this went down the way it did, as without said naval facilities, they wouldn’t have a naval presence in the Black Sea.

Then, in February of 2022, after a multi-month buildup of troops and military hardware along their shared border, which they provided all sorts of excuses for, and which many commentators and governments around the world excused as just a bunch of saber-rattling, nothing to worry about, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, initially aiming for a blitzkrieg-like assault that was meant to take Ukraine’s capital city, Kyiv, and decapitate the country’s government within just days, at which point they could replace the government with someone who’s working for them, another puppet they controlled.

As of the day I’m recording this, in early March of 2025, the war is still ongoing, though. And in the years since it began, it’s estimated that more than a million people have been killed or injured, while entire cities across Ukraine have been leveled and tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees have fled Russia’s forces as they’ve raped and pillaged and murdered their way across the Ukrainian countryside, those refugees leaving for destinations around the world, but creating a refugee crisis in nearby European nations like Poland and Germany, in particular.

There’s been a lot of back and forth in this conflict, Russia initially thought to have a massive upper hand, probably winning within days, as intended, but then Ukraine held fast, Russia redeployed its troops and armor, Ukraine got some remarkable counter-attacks in, and then Russia started to reset its economy to allow for a more drawn-out conflict.

As of early 2025, Russia is once against considered to have the upper-hand, and though Ukraine has been holding the line even in the most under-assault regions in the eastern portion of its territory, and has in recent weeks managed to take some Russian-held territory back, Russia’s comparably larger number of troops, its recent resupply of soldiers from North Korea, its larger economy and number of supply chains, and its relationships with entities like China and Iran, in addition to North Korea, all of which have been supplying it with things it needs to keep the war effort going, at length, have all conspired to put Ukraine on the back foot.

Additionally, Ukraine is struggling, after this many years of total war, to refill empty boots and make do with whatever their allies can and will offer them, in terms of money, weapons, but also the basics, like food and fuel. They’ve been able to shore-up some limited aspects of their economy, and have innovated like crazy when it comes to things like drones and other fundamentals of asymmetric, defensive warfare, but right now at least, the larger forces swirling around in the geopolitical realm are making life difficult for Ukraine, and for those who are still supporting them.

And that’s what I’d like to talk about today; the continuing conflict in Ukraine, but especially what’s happening on the sidelines, beyond the battle itself—and how those sideline happenings might lead to some fundamental changes in how Europe is organized, and the makeup of the modern world order.

—

At this point I’ve done probably half a dozen or more episodes on this conflict; it’s long-lasting, it’s big, it’s important locally, but also globally, and it’s been informing both geopolitical and economic outcomes since day one.

Today I’d like to talk about some recent happenings, most of them from the past few months, that could prove impactful on the eventual outcome of this conflict, and might even determine when that end of fighting arrives.

And at the center of these happenings is recently reelected US President Trump, who has always had a, let’s call it unusual, public appreciation for Russian President Putin, and the strongman image he and other global authoritarians wield, while at the same time not being a big fan of Ukrainian President Zelensky—perhaps in part because Trump called Zelensky back in 2019 to try to get him to come up with evidence supporting a debunked conspiracy theory about his opponent, Joe Biden’s administration, related to alleged impropriety in US-Ukrainian relations.

Zelensky could find no such evidence, and when he told Trump there was nothing to be found, Trump blocked payments on $400 million worth of military aid for Ukraine, holding it hostage until Zelensky came up with what he wanted. This became a big scandal only after the fact, and before it could be made public or became known by congress via a whistleblower complaint, Trump released the money. This led to a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump later that year, which led to his impeachment for abusing his power and obstructing Congress—but he was then acquitted by the Republican-led Senate.

This, it’s thought, may have colored Trump’s behavior toward Zelensky when the two men sat down, alongside several other US officials, including US Vice President JD Vance, to discuss a potential mineral deal between the US and Ukraine, which was based on an earlier deal that the Ukrainian government dismissed.

The original deal basically required that Ukraine exploit its mineral wealth and put half of the money it makes from those minerals into a fund that would be used to pay the US back for the military assistance it’s provided so far, to the tune of $500 billion; which is quite a lot more than the $175 billion or so the US has spent on this conflict since Russia invaded, only $128 billion of which has directly aided the Ukrainian government, as opposed to funding US activities associated with the war, or supporting other affected countries thereabouts.

So originally the US asked for more than double what’s been provided so far, in return, paid for by Ukraine’s mineral wealth, which includes a lot of the types of rare earth minerals that are vital for common modern technologies, like computers, batteries, and solar panels.

That didn’t fly, mostly because it didn’t contain a security guarantee for Ukraine—the US saying it would protect them if necessary, basically, in exchange for this huge sum of money—so the new deal asked for $500 billion be placed in a fund, and that fund would be jointly controlled by the US and Ukraine, the funds used to rebuild the country after the war.

50% of all revenues from Ukrainian natural resources newly exploited after the war, so not from existing mines and ports and such, would be put into this fund. Like the first time around, this deal didn’t include a security agreement from the US, but the general idea was that this fund would incentivize new investment in the area, and because Ukraine has a lot of unexploited mineral wealth, this could give the US a new source for these sorts of valuable raw materials that are currently mostly controlled by China, but which the US government is attempting to claim more of, now that it’s realized it’s way behind on locking down sources of these really important things.

At the meeting where this second deal was meant to be signed, though, Zelensky flying to the US to sit down with Trump to make it happen, the President and Vice President more or less verbally attacked Zelensky, criticizing him for not being more overtly grateful, and telling him he was wrong when he said that Russia started the war by invading Ukraine.

It was all pretty bizarre, and even folks in Trump’s own party seemed pretty puzzled by the whole thing, some of them calling it embarrassing, as Trump and Vance were basically parroting Putin’s propaganda that no one actually believes because they ignore easily verifiable facts.

In any event, this led to a lot of fallout between the US and Ukrainian governments, with Trump suggesting he would lean more heavily on Ukraine to get them to accept peace on Russia’s terms, because the Ukrainians couldn’t see reason and accept his version of reality, essentially.

Trump has also suggested that he’s been talking a lot with Putin, and that he believes Putin wants peace, and it’s time to end the war. Putin, for his part, has not seemed inclined to give up anything in order to achieve peace, and Russian attacks on Ukraine have increased in scale since Trump came into office, and even more so after talks about a supposed peace agreement began.

All of which has had implications on the ground.

In Ukraine, Ukrainian soldiers have had to operate with fewer resources, as Trump cut off additional funding and supply shipments, post-meeting. He recently ordered that the US not share intelligence with them, too, and they cut off the sharing of satellite imagery, which Ukraine has used to great effect to strike Russian targets from a distance.

This has also had implications across Europe, though, as while Ukraine is being invaded now, there are concerns that if Putin gets away with taking part or all of Ukraine, he’ll go for other previous Soviet assets, next, maybe starting with the Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—and then tearing off chunks of Poland, Finland, or other neighbors that were previously part of the Soviet Union, like eastern Germany.

The European Union, despite a fair bit of warning about Trump’s stance on the issue, and the possibility that he would return to office, has been seemingly dumbstruck by Trump’s sudden pivot away from supporting Ukraine, and away from NATO more broadly, toward a stance that favors Russia, instead. European governments have been scrambling to come up with an aid package that will replace some of what the US would have given, and have started sharing more intelligence, as well, including satellite imagery.

It won’t be easy, though, as the US versions of these things, from monetary resources to eyes in the sky vastly outshine what even the combination of British, French, and German assets can offer—at least at this stage. And the US has traditionally handled the lion’s share of spending and building in these areas, shouldering the majority of NATO spending, because, well, it could, and that was a major premise of the post-WWII, western-led world order. The US said it would protect global capitalist democracies with its military might and nukes, if necessary, and European nations have been generally happy with this setup as it has generally allowed European governments to spend less money on their militaries and more on other stuff.

That state of affairs seems to have ended, or at the very least become too unreliable to bet on, though, so EU nations are attempting to fill in the gaps left by the suddenly less-reliable-seeming US government, not just for Ukraine, but for themselves, as well.

Poland’s president recently announced that he wants to develop nuclear weapons and wants every adult male to undergo military training, so the country can field an army 500,000-strong.

The French president has said he wants to extend his country’s nuclear umbrella—guaranteed deterrence, basically, using nuclear weapons—to the whole of the EU. France has far fewer nukes than the US and Russia, but this captures a sense of the moment in the Union, where a bunch of currently underfunded militaries are realizing they might not be able to rely on the US in a pinch. And while they collectively have a lot more people and resources than Russia, Russia is fully mobilized and has shown itself to be willing to attack sovereign nations, whenever it pleases, caring a lot less for the human lives it spends, in the process, than is typical in western-style democracies.

Even short of full-scale, out of nowhere invasions, Russia could pose a threat to European governments via asymmetrical routes. It’s been seemingly approving all sorts of espionage operations meant to increase immigration arrivals in European nations where immigration is already a hot-button issue, nudging politics to the far-right, and it’s allegedly been attacking infrastructure, in terms of hacking and just blowing stuff up, in order to sow discord and fear.

As I mentioned earlier, too, part of Germany was previously held by the Soviet Union, and that same part of the country has recently voted heavily in favor of the country’s furthest-right party, which wants stronger ties with Russia. So while conventional military issues are at the forefront of discussion, right now, Russia’s long history of asymmetric warfare is also getting a fair bit of attention, as it could conceivably use these groups as a casus belli to attack, carving off pieces of its European neighbors and slowly incorporating them into its sphere of influence, similar to what it did in Ukraine, beginning in 2014; if eastern Germany supports Russia, it could fund and in other ways support uprising efforts in these regions, creating chaos and potentially even breaking off separatist states that would pull those regions into Russia’s orbit.

It’s a tumultuous moment in this part of the world, then, in part because of the conflict that’s still ongoing—a much larger and more powerful nation having invaded its smaller, less-powerful neighbor. But it’s also tumultuous because of the implications of that conflict, especially if Russia comes out on top. If they win, there would seem to be a far greater chance of their deciding to keep the ball rolling, replicating a model that worked (without significant long-term consequences) across more neighboring nations.

And if they can do that before Europe reinforces itself—assuming that’s what the EU does, as it can be difficult to get a bunch of people with a bunch of at times competing interests to agree on anything, and even more so when said agreement involves both money and potentially sending civilians into harm’s way—if Russia can get there before a new, restructured and reinforced Europe emerges, we could see another, similar conflict soon, and this one could be even more successful than the last, if Russia tweaks its formula to make it more effective, and European governments succumb to war weariness, exhausted by the war in Ukraine, in the meantime.

Show Notes

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

https://www.csis.org/analysis/breaking-down-us-ukraine-minerals-deal

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/world/europe/ukraine-russia-north-korea-kursk.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/08/zelensky-trump-fallout-ukraine/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-us-trump-military-support.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/ukraine-zelensky-trump-russia.html

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-dobropillya-us-intelligence-3d0bad105a93933e9cdaca5cf31fcf74

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/no-substitute-for-victory-how-to-negotiate-from-a-position-of-strength-to-end-the-russo-ukraine-war/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-leaders-cautiously-welcome-macrons-nuclear-umbrella-offer-2025-03-06/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/europe/bulgarians-guilty-spying-russia-uk.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/08/europe-scrambles-to-aid-ukraine-after-us-intelligence-cutoff-00219678

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wpy9x890wo

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/keith-kellogg-ukraine-intelligence-sharing-pause/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8yz5dk82wo

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/us-ukraine-satellite-imagery.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05m907r39qo

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions-tariffs.html

https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraines-future-vision-and-current-capabilities-waging-ai-enabled-autonomous-warfare

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-tusk-plan-train-poland-men-military-service-russia

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/08/poland-says-it-plans-to-give-every-adult-male-military-training

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/world/europe/ukraine-trump-minerals.html

https://apnews.com/article/ten-days-that-upended-us-support-for-ukraine-8930c01a15910a7ad8a7f7c7fac9ba3a

https://www.wsj.com/world/white-house-and-ukraine-close-in-on-deal-for-mineral-rights-e924c672

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-us-still-ironing-parts-191805611.html

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-access-starlink-internet-services-over-minerals-say-2025-02-22/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/world/europe/ukraine-minerals-deal.html

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/26/europe/ukraine-us-mineral-resources-deal-explained-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/122624-eu-moving-to-develop-infrastructure-for-nuclear-energy-expansion-officials

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-07/european-stocks-see-most-inflows-in-decade-amid-defense-splurge

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/business/ai-summit-paris.html

https://apnews.com/article/germany-ukraine-debt-brake-economy-military-spending-74be8e96d8515ddddd53a99a69957651

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/03/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-drones-deaths.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2U4.b15Z.1EA4tDb_37Bq

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-eastern-front-line.html

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/02/combat-losses-and-manpower-challenges-underscore-the-importance-of-mass-in-ukraine/

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-7-2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(1_January_2025_%E2%80%93_present)

This week we talk about Luna 2, soft-landings, and Firefly Aerospace.

We also discuss the private space launch industry, lunar landers, and regolith.

Recommended Book: The Mercy of Gods by James S.A. Corey

Transcript

In 1959, Luna 2, a Soviet impactor-style spacecraft, successfully reached the surface of the Moon—the first-ever human-made object to do so.

Luna 2 was very of its era; a relatively simple device, similar in many ways to the better-known Sputnik satellite, but getting a craft to the moon is far more difficult than placing something in orbit around Earth, in part because of the distance involved—the Moon is about 30-Earth’s from the surface of the earth, that figure varying based on where in its elliptical orbit it is at the moment, but that’s a good average, around 239,000 miles which is about 384,000 km, while Sputnik’s orbit only took it something like 359 miles, around 578 km from the surface. That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 670-times the distance.

So new considerations, like fuel to get there, but also charting paths to the moon that would allow the human-made object to actually hit it, rather than flying off into space, and even figuring out whether craft would need to be designed differently if they made it out of Earth’s magnetic field, were significant hurdles that had to be leapt to make this mission a success; everything was brand new, and there were gobs of unknowns.

That said, this craft didn’t settle onto the moon—it plowed into it like a bullet, a so-called ‘hard landing.’ Which was still an astonishing feet of research and engineering, as at this point in history most rockets were still blowing up before making it off the launch pad, including the projects that eventually led to the design and launch of Luna 2.

The US managed their own hard landing on the Moon in 1962, and it wasn’t until 1966 that the first soft landing—the craft slowing itself before impact, so that some kind of intact device would actually continue to exist and function on the surface of the moon—was accomplished by the Luna 9.

The Luna 9 used an ejectable capsule that was protected by airbags, which helped it survive its 34 mph, which is about 54 kmh impact. This successful mission returned the first panoramic photographs from the surface of the moon, which was another notable, historic, incredibly difficult at the time feat.

A series of rapid-fire firsts followed these initial visits, including the first-ever crewed flight to the Moon, made by the US Apollo 8 mission in 1968—that one didn’t land, but it did circle the Moon 10 times before returning to Earth, the first successful crewed mission to the surface of the Moon made by the Apollo 11 team in 1969, and by the early 70s humans had made several more moon landings: all of them were American missions, as the US is still the only country to have performed successful crewed missions to the Moon’s surface, but the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 missions all put people on the lunar surface, and then returned them safely to Earth.

The Luna 24, another Soviet mission launched in 1976, was the last big space race era mission to return lunar samples—chunks of moon rock and regolith—to earth, though it was a robotic mission, no humans aboard. And by many measures, the space race actually ended the previous year, in 1975, when Apollo and Soyuz capsules, US and Soviet missions, respectively, docked in orbit, creating the first international space mission, and allowing US astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts to shake hands, symbolically burying the hatchet, at least in terms of that particular, non-earthbound rivalry.

What I’d like to talk about today is a recent, successful soft landing on the lunar surface that’s historic in nature, but also contemporarily significant for several other reasons.

—

Firefly Space Systems was founded in the US in 2014 by a team of entrepreneurs who wanted to compete with then-burgeoning private space companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic by, like these competitors, reducing the cost of getting stuff into low Earth orbit.

They were planning to become profitable within four years on the back of the also-burgeoning small satellite industry, which basically means selling space on their rockets, which are capable of carrying multiple small satellites on what’s often called a ‘rideshare’ basis, to companies and agencies that were keen to launch their own orbital assets.

These smaller satellites were becoming increasingly popular and doable because the tech required was shrinking and becoming cheaper, and that meant you no longer needed a boggling amount of money to do basic research or to lob a communications satellite into orbit; you could spent a few million dollars instead of tens or hundreds of millions, and buy space on a rocket carrying many small satellites, rather than needing to splurge on a rocket all by yourself, that rocket carrying only your giant, extremely costly and large conventional satellite.

This path, it was hoped, would provide them the benefits of economies of scale, allowing them to build and launch more rockets, which in turn would bring the costs of such rockets and launches down, over time.

And the general concept was sound—that’s basically what SpaceX has managed to do, with mammoth success, over the past decade completely rewiring how the space launch industry works; their many, reusable rockets and rocket components, and abundant launches, many of which are used to lob their own StarLink in-orbit satellites into space, while also usually carrying smaller satellites provided by clients who pay to go along for the ride, bringing all of these costs down dramatically.

So that model is basically what Firefly was aiming for, as well—but the Firefly team, which was made up of folks from Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and other industry entities was sued by Virgin Galactic, which alleged that a former employee who left them to work for Firefly provided Firefly with intellectual property and committed what amounts to espionage, destroying data and hardware before they left.

These allegations were confirmed in 2016, and some of Firefly’s most vital customers and investors backed out, leaving the company without enough money to move forward. A second lawsuit from Virgin Orbit against Firefly and some of its people hit that same year, and that left the company insolvent, its assets put up for auction in 2017.

Those assets were bought by an investment company called Noosphere Ventures, which relaunched Firefly Space Systems as Firefly Aerospace. They then reworked the designs of their rockets a bit and relocated some of the company’s research assets to Ukraine, where the head of Noosphere Ventures is from.

They picked up a few customers in the following years, and they leased a private launch pad in Florida and another in California. In 2021, they were awarded more than $90 million to develop exploration tech for the Artemis Moon program, which was scheduled for 2023 and was meant to help develop the US’s private space industry; NASA was trying out a model that would see them hire private companies to deliver assets for a future moon-based mission, establishing long-term human presence on the moon, over the course of several years, and doing so on a budget by basically not having to build every single aspect of the mission themselves.

That same year, the head of Noosphere Ventures was asked by the US Committee on Foreign Investment to sell nearly 50% of his stake in Firefly for national security reasons; he was born in Ukraine, and the Committee was apparently concerned about so much of the company’s infrastructure being located in a country that, even before Russia invaded the following year, was considered to be a precarious spot for security-vital US research and development assets.

This is considered to be something of a scandal, as it was implied that this Ukrainian owner was himself under suspicion of maybe being a Russian asset—something that seems to have been all implication and no substance, as he’s since moved back to Ukraine and has gone on to be something of a war hero, providing all sorts of tech and other resources to the anti-invasion effort.

But back then, he complied with this request, though not at all happily—and it sounds like that unhappiness was probably justified, though there are still some classified documents on the matter that maybe say otherwise; we don’t know for sure publicly right now.

In any event, he and Noosphere sold most of their stake in Firefly to a US company called AE Industrial Partners, and the following year, in 2022 it successfully launched, for the first time, its Alpha rocket, intended to be its core launch option for small satellite, rideshare-style customers.

The satellites placed in orbit by that first launch didn’t reach their intended height, so while the rocket made it into orbit, another launch, where the satellites were placed where they were supposed to go, actually happened in 2023, is generally considered to be the first, true successful launch of the Alpha rocket.

All of which is interesting because this component of the larger space industry has been heating up; SpaceX has dominated, soaking up most of the oxygen in the room and claiming the lion’s share of available contracts. But there are quite a few private space companies from around the world profitably launching rockets at a rapid cadence, these days. And many of them are using the same general model of inexpensive rideshare rockets carrying smaller satellites into orbit, and the money from those launches then funds their other explorations, ranging from government mission components like rovers, to plans for futuristic space stations that might someday replace the aging International Space Station, to larger rockets and launch craft that might further reduce the cost of launching stuff into space, while also potentially serving as in-orbit or off-planet habitations—as is the case with SpaceX’s massive Starship craft.

This is also notable, though, because Firefly launched a lander as part of its Blue Ghost mission, to the Moon on January 15 of 2025. That craft reached the moon, and successfully soft-landed there, on March 2 the same year.

This lander was partly funded by that aforementioned 2021 Artemis award by NASA—it ultimately received just over $100 million from the agency to conduct this mission—and it was launched atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, as the company’s own Alpha rockets don’t yet have the right specs to launch their lander, the Blue Ghost M1; which interestingly shared space in this rocket with another lander produced by a Japanese company called ispace, whose name you might recognize, as ispace managed to get a previous lunar lander, the Hakuto-R 1, to the moon in 2023, but communication was lost with the craft a few seconds before it was scheduled to land. It was confirmed later that year that the lander crashed; though again, even just getting something to the moon is a pretty impressive feat.

So this SpaceX rocket, launched in mid-January of 2025, had two competing lunar landers on it, one made by Firefly and one made by ispace. That latter lander is scheduled to arrive on the surface sometime in early May of this year, though that might change, based on all sorts of variables. But the former, Firefly’s Blue Ghost, successfully touched-down, soft-landing on the lunar surface on March 2.

There’s another lander from Intuitive Machines—the American company that can claim to be the first to successfully soft-land on the lunar surface, but whose first effort tipped over. Their new lander could arrive as soon as March 6, just days after Blue Ghost, and it’ll be aiming for an area just 100 miles from the moon’s south pole; an area that’s of particular interest because of water ice contained in permanently shadowed areas thereabouts, which could be vital for long-term human occupation of the moon.

So things are heating up on the lunar surface these days, but soft-landing something on the moon is still an accomplishment that few nations, much less private companies, have managed.

In the past decade alone, India, Russia, and a nonprofit based in Israel have attempted and failed to achieve soft-landings, and those aforementioned Japanese and US companies managed to soft-land on the moon, but their landers tipped over, limiting the amount of research they could conduct once there. China is the only nation to have successfully achieved this feat on their first attempt, and they benefitted from decades of preexisting research and engineering know-how.

And it’s not surprising that this is such a rare feat: in addition to the incredible distances involved, the Blue Ghost lander was traveling at around 3,800 mph, which is more than 6,100 kpm just 11 minutes before it landed. It then had to slow itself down, while also adjusting its orientation in order to safely land on an uneven, crater-paved moonscape; it slowed to the pace of a slow walk just before it touched down.

Science-wise, this lander is carrying tools that will help it measure the stickiness of regolith on different materials, that will allow for more precise measurements of the distance between earth and the moon, and that will help researchers study solar winds, radiation-tolerant technologies, and the moon’s mantle. It has equipment that allowed it to detect GPS and Galileo signals from earth, which suggests these satellites might be used by craft and rovers on the moon, for navigation, at some point, and it has a drill that will allow it to penetrate the lunar regolith up to nine feet deep, among several other project assets.

This has also served as a sort of proof of concept for this lander and mission type, as another Blue Ghost lander is scheduled to launch in 2026, that one aiming for the far side of the moon, with a third currently meant to head out in 2028, destined for a currently under-explored volcanic region.

The aggregate goal of these US missions, alongside the research tools they deliver, is to eventually start building-out and supplying the necessary infrastructure for long-term human occupation of the moon, culminating with the construction of a permanently crewed base there.

These sorts of ambitions aren’t new, but this approach—funding companies to handle a lot of the legwork, rather than keeping those sorts of efforts in-house, within NASA—is novel, and it arguably recognizes the nature of the moment, which is increasingly defined by cheaper and cheaper, and in most ways better and better offerings by private space companies, while those deployed by NASA are still really solid and impressive, but incredibly slow and expensive to develop and deploy, in comparison.

This is also happening at a moment of heightened geopolitical competition in space, and one in which private entities are equipping the nation states that would have traditionally dominates this industry.

China’s space agency has enjoyed a flurry of moon-related successes in recent years, and many of these missions have relied at least in part on efforts by private, or pseudo-private, as tends to be the case in China, companies.

Business entities from all over the world are also regularly making the satellites and probes and components of landers that make these things work, so solar system exploration and space travel are no longer the exclusive wheelhouses of government agencies—the private sector is becoming a lot more influential in this area, and that’s led to some novel security issues, alongside massive swings in influence and power for the folks running these companies: perhaps most notably SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s increasing sway over governments and even inter-governmental conflict, due in part to his company’s space launch capabilities, and their capacity to beam internet down to conflict zones, earthside, via their StarLink satellite array.

So this is an area that’s heating up, both for earthbound and space-faring reasons, and the incentives and peculiarities of the private market are increasingly shaping the type of research and missions being conducted, while also changing the math of what’s possible, how quickly, and maybe even what level of risk is acceptable within a given mission or program.

Show Notes

https://www.cnn.com/science/live-news/moon-landing-blue-ghost-03-02-25/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuto-R_Mission_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuto-R_Mission_2

https://spacenews.com/ae-industrial-partners-to-acquire-stake-in-firefly-from-noosphere/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Alpha

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-selects-firefly-aerospace-for-artemis-commercial-moon-delivery-in-2023/

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18234604/firefly-aerospace-cape-canaveral-florida-launch-site-slc-20

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25861-next-generation-of-space-cowboys-get-ready-to-fly/

https://apnews.com/article/moon-landings-failures-successes-545ea2f3ffa5a15893054b6f43bdbb98

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/science/blue-ghost-firefly-mission-1-moon-landing.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Aerospace

https://www.space.com/the-universe/moon/were-on-the-moon-private-blue-ghost-moon-lander-aces-historic-lunar-landing-for-nasa

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9208qv1kzo

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-firm-fireflys-blue-ghost-moon-lander-locks-lunar-touchdown-2025-03-02/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/science/intuitive-machines-second-moon-landing-launch-how-to-watch.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_south_pole

https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/how-far-away-is-the-moon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

https://www.space.com/12841-moon-exploration-lunar-mission-timeline.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_24

This week we talk about arabica, robusta, and profit margins.

We also discuss colonialism, coffee houses, and religious uppers.

Recommended Book: On Writing and Worldbuilding by Timothy Hickson

Transcript

Like many foods and beverages that contain body- or mind-altering substances, coffee was originally used, on scale at least, by people of faith, leveraging it as an aid for religious rituals. Sufis in what is today Yemen, back in the early 15th century, consumed it as a stimulant which allowed them to more thoroughly commit themselves to their worship, and it was being used by the Muslim faithful in Mecca around the same time.

By the following century, it spread to the Levant, and from there it was funneled into larger trade routes and adopted by civilizations throughout the Mediterranean world, including the Ottomans, the Mamluks, groups in Italy and Northern Africa, and a few hundred years later, all the way over to India and the East Indies.

Western Europeans got their hands on this beverage by the late 1600s, and it really took off in Germany and Holland, where coffee houses, which replicated an establishment type that was popularized across the Muslim world the previous century, started to pop up all over the place; folks would visit these hubs in lieu of alehouses, subbing in stimulants for depressants, and they were spaces in which it was appropriate for people across the social and economic strata to interact with each other, playing board games like chess and backgammon, and cross-pollinating their knowledge and beliefs.

According to some scholars, this is part of why coffee houses were banned in many countries, including England, where they also became popular, because those up top, including but not limited to royalty, considered them to be hotbeds of reformatory thought, political instability, and potentially even revolution. Let the people hang out with each other and allow them to discuss whatever they like, and you end up with a bunch of potential enemies, and potential threats to the existing power structures.

It’s also been claimed, and this of course would be difficult to definitively prove, though the timing does seem to line up, that the introduction of coffee to Europe is what led to the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and eventually, the Industrial Revolution. The theory being that swapping out alcohol, at least during the day, and creating these spaces in which ideas and understandings and experiences could be swapped, without as much concern about social strata as in other popular third places, spots beyond the home and work, that allowed all sorts of political ideas to flourish, it helped inventions become realized—in part because there were coffee houses that catered to investors, one of which eventually became the London Stock Exchange—but also because it helped people organize, and do so in a context in which they were hyper-alert and aware, and more likely to engage in serious conversation; which is a stark contrast to the sorts of conversations you might have when half- or fully-drunk at an alehouse, exclusively amongst a bunch of your social and economic peers.

If it did play a role in those movements, coffee was almost certainly just one ingredient in a larger recipe; lots of variables were swirling in these areas that seem to have contributed to those cultural, technological, economic, and government shifts.

The impact of such beverages on the human body and mind, and human society aside, though, coffee has become globally popular and thus, economically vital. And that’s what I’d like to talk about today; coffee’s role in the global economy, and recent numbers that show coffee prices are ballooning, and are expected to balloon still further, perhaps substantially, in the coming years.

—

For a long while, coffee was a bit of a novelty outside of the Muslim world, even in European locales that had decently well-established coffeehouses.

That changed when the Dutch East India Company started importing the beans to the Netherlands in the early 17th century. By the mid-1600s they were bringing commercial-scale shipments of the stuff to Amsterdam, which led to the expansion of the beverage’s trade-range throughout Europe.

The Dutch then started cultivating their own coffee crops in colonial territories, including Ceylon, which today is called Sri Lanka, and the island of Java. The British East India Company took a similar approach around the same time, and that eventually led to coffee bean cultivation in North America; though it didn’t do terribly well there, initially, as tea and alcoholic beverages were more popular with the locals. In the late 18th century, though, North Americans were boycotting British tea and that led to an uptick in coffee consumption thereabouts, though this paralleled a resurgence in tea-drinking back in Britain, in part because they weren’t shipping as much tea to their North American colonies, and in part because they conquered India, and were thus able to import a whole lot more tea from the thriving Indian tea industry.

The Americas became more important to the burgeoning coffee trade in the mid-1700s after a French naval officer brought a coffee plant to Martinique, in the Caribbean, and that plant flourished, serving as the source of almost all of today’s arabica coffee beans, as it was soon spread to what is today Haiti, and by 1788, Haiti’s coffee plantations provided half the world’s coffee.

It’s worth remembering that this whole industry, the portion of it run by the Europeans, at least, was built on the back of slaves. These Caribbean plantations, in particular, were famously abusive, and that abuse eventually resulted in the Haitian revolution of 1791, which five years later led to the territory’s independence.

That said, coffee plantations elsewhere, like in Brazil and across other parts of South and Central America, continued to flourish throughout this period, colonialists basically popping into an area, conquering it, and then enslaving the locals, putting them to work on whatever plantations made the most sense for the local climate.

Many of these conquered areas and their enslaved locals were eventually able to free themselves, though in some cases it took a long time—about a century, in Brazil’s case.

Some plantations ended up being maintained even after the locals gained their freedom from their European conquerers, though. Brazil’s coffee industry, for instance, began with some small amount of cultivation in the 1720s, but really started to flourish after independence was won in 1822, and the new, non-colonialist government decided to start clearing large expanses of rainforest to make room for more, and more intensive plantations. By the early 1900s, Brazil was producing about 70% of the world’s coffee exports, with their neighbors—Colombia and Guatemala, in particular—making up most of the rest. Eurasian producers, formerly the only places where coffee was grown, remember, only made up about 5% of global exports by that time.

The global market changed dramatically in the lead-up to WWII, as Europe was a primary consumer of these beans, and about 40% of the market disappeared, basically overnight, because the continent was spending all their resources on other things; mostly war-related things.

An agreement between South and Central American coffee producing countries and the US helped shore-up production during this period, and those agreements allowed other Latin American nations to develop their own production infrastructure, as well, giving Brazil more hemispheric competition.

And in the wake of WWII, when colonies were gaining their independence left and right, Ivory Coast and Ethiopia also became major players in this space. Some burgeoning Southeast Asian countries, most especially Vietnam, entered the global coffee market in the post-war years, and as of the 2020s, Brazil is still the top producer, followed by Vietnam, Indonesia, Colombia, and Ethiopia—though a few newer entrants, like India, are also gaining market share pretty quickly.

As of 2023, the global coffee market has a value of around $224 billion; that figure can vary quite a lot based on who’s numbers you use, but it’s in the hundreds of billions range, whether you’re looking just at beans, or including the ready-to-drink market, as well, and the growth rate numbers are fairly consistent, even if what’s measured and the value placed on it differs depending on the stats aggregator you use.

Some estimates suggest the market will grow to around $324 billion, an increase of around $100 billion, by 2030, which would give the coffee industry a compound annual growth rate that’s larger than that of the total global caffeinated beverage market; and as of 2023, coffee accounts for something like 87% of the global caffeinated beverage market, so it’s already the dominant player in this space, and is currently, at least, expected to become even more dominant by 2030.

There’s concern within this industry, however, that a collection of variables might disrupt that positive-seeming trajectory; which wouldn’t be great for the big corporations that sell a lot of these beans, but would also be really bad, beyond shareholder value, for the estimated 25 million people, globally, who produce the beans and thus rely on the industry to feed their families, and the 100-110 million more who process, distribute, and import coffee products, and who thus rely on a stable market for their paychecks.

Of those producers, an estimated 12.5 million work on smaller farms of 50 acres or less, and 60% of the world’s coffee is made by people working on such smallholdings. About 44% of those people live below the World Bank’s poverty metric; so it’s already a fairly precarious economic situation for many of the people at the base-level of the production system, and any disruptions to what’s going on at any level of the coffee industry could ripple across that system pretty quickly; disrupting a lot of markets and local economies, alongside the human suffering such disruptions could cause.

This is why recent upsets to the climate that have messed with coffee crops are causing so much anxiety. Rising average temperatures, bizarre cold snaps, droughts, heavy and unseasonable rainfalls—in some cases all of these things, one after another—combined with outbreaks of plant diseases like coffee rust, have been putting a lot of pressure on this industry, including in Brazil and Vietnam, the world’s two largest producers, as of the mid-2020s.

In the past year alone, because of these and other externalities, the price of standard-model coffee beans has more than doubled, and the specialty stuff has seen prices grow even more than that.

Higher prices can sometimes be a positive for those who make the now-more-expensive goods, if they’re able to charge more but keep their expenses stable.

In this case, though, the cost of doing business is going up, because coffee makers have to spend more on protecting their crops from diseases, losing crops because of those climate issues, and because of disruptions to global shipping channels. That means profit margins have remained fairly consistent rather than going up: higher cost to make, higher prices for consumers, about the same amount of money being made by those who work in this industry and that own the brands that put coffee goods on shelves.

The issue, though, is that the cost of operation is still going up, and a lot of smallholders in particular, which again, produce about 60% of all the coffee made, worldwide, are having trouble staying solvent. Their costs of operation are still going up, and it’s not a guarantee that consumers will be willing to continue spending more and more and more money on what’s basically a commodity product; there are a lot of caffeinated beverages, and a lot of other types of beverage they could buy instead, if coffee becomes too pricy.

And at this point, in the US, for instance, the retail price of ground roast coffee has surpassed an average of $7 per pound, up 15% in the past year. Everyone’s expecting that to keep climbing, and at some point these price increases will lose the industry customers, which in turn could create a cascading effect that kills off some of these smaller producers, which then raises prices even more, and that could create a spiral that’s difficult to stop or even slow.

Already, this increase in prices, even for the traditionally cheaper and less desirable robusta coffee bean, has led some producers to leave coffee behind and shift to more consistently profitable goods; many plantations in Vietnam, for instance, have converted some of their facilities over to durian fruit, instead of robusta, and that’s limited the supply of robusta, raising the prices of that bean, which in turn is causing some producers of robusta to shift to arabica, which is typically more expensive, and that’s meant more coffee on the market is of the more expensive variety, adding to those existing price increases.

The futures markets on which coffee beans are traded are also being upended by these pricing issues, resulting in margin calls on increasingly unprofitable trades that, in short, have necessitated that more coffee traders front money for their bets instead of just relying on short positions that have functioned something like insurance paid with credit based on further earnings, and this has put many of them out of business—and that, you guessed it, has also resulted in higher prices, and more margin calls, which could put even more of them out of business in the coming years.

There are ongoing efforts to reorganize how the farms at the base on this industry are set up, both in terms of how they produce their beans, and in terms of who owns what, and who profits, how. This model typically costs more to run, and results in less coffee production: in some cases 25% less. But it also results in more savings because trees last up to twice as long, the folks who work the farms are much better compensated, and less likely to suffer serious negative health impacts from their labor, and the resultant coffee is of a much higher quality; kind of a win win win situation for everyone, though again, it’s less efficient, so up till now the model hasn’t really worked beyond some limited implementations, mostly in Central America.

That could change, though, as these larger disruptions in the market could also make room for this type of segue, and indeed, there has apparently been more interest in it, because if the beans are going to cost more, anyway, and the current way of doing things doesn’t seem to work consistently anymore, and might even collapse over the next decade if something doesn’t change, it may make sense, even to the soulless accounting books of major global conglomerates, to reset the industry so that it’s more resilient, and so that the people holding the whole sprawling industry up with their labor are less likely to disappear some day, due to more favorable conditions offered by other markets, or because they’re simply worked to death under the auspices of an uncaring, fairly brutal economic and climatic reality.

Show Notes

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/business/coffee-prices-climate-change.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20100905180219/https://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/12MB701.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1246099?origin=crossref

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jan/07/coffee-prices-australia-going-up-cafe-flat-white-cost

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y37dvlr70o

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/28/business/coffee-prices-climate-change.html

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/coffee-prices-food-inflation-climate-change-eggs-bank-of-america-2025-2

https://www.statista.com/statistics/675807/average-prices-arabica-and-robusta-coffee-worldwide/

https://www.ft.com/content/9934a851-c673-4c16-86eb-86e30bbbaef3

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/01/business/your-coffees-about-to-get-more-expensive-heres-why/index.html

https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/caffeinated-beverage-market-38053

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/caffeinated-beverage-market

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17th_and_18th_centuries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeehouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee

https://sites.udel.edu/britlitwiki/the-coffeehouse-culture/

https://www.openculture.com/2021/08/how-caffeine-fueled-the-enlightenment-industrial-revolution-the-modern-world.html