#European Union Trade Data

[reasonsforhope]

"The Netherlands is pulling even further ahead of its peers in the shift to a recycling-driven circular economy, new data shows.

According to the European Commission’s statistics office, 27.5% of the material resources used in the country come from recycled waste.

For context, Belgium is a distant second, with a “circularity rate” of 22.2%, while the EU average is 11.5% – a mere 0.8 percentage point increase from 2010.

“We are a frontrunner, but we have a very long way to go still, and we’re fully aware of that,” Martijn Tak, a policy advisor in the Dutch ministry of infrastructure and water management, tells The Progress Playbook. 

The Netherlands aims to halve the use of primary abiotic raw materials by 2030 and run the economy entirely on recycled materials by 2050. Amsterdam, a pioneer of the “doughnut economics” concept, is behind much of the progress.

Why it matters

The world produces some 2 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste each year, and this could rise to 3.4 billion tonnes annually by 2050, according to the World Bank.

Landfills are already a major contributor to planet-heating greenhouse gases, and discarded trash takes a heavy toll on both biodiversity and human health.

“A circular economy is not the goal itself,” Tak says. “It’s a solution for societal issues like climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental pollution, and resource-security for the country.”

A fresh approach

While the Netherlands initially focused primarily on waste management, “we realised years ago that’s not good enough for a circular economy.”

In 2017, the state signed a “raw materials agreement” with municipalities, manufacturers, trade unions and environmental organisations to collaborate more closely on circular economy projects.

It followed that up with a national implementation programme, and in early 2023, published a roadmap to 2030, which includes specific targets for product groups like furniture and textiles. An English version was produced so that policymakers in other markets could learn from the Netherlands’ experiences, Tak says.

The programme is focused on reducing the volume of materials used throughout the economy partly by enhancing efficiencies, substituting raw materials for bio-based and recycled ones, extending the lifetimes of products wherever possible, and recycling.

It also aims to factor environmental damage into product prices, require a certain percentage of second-hand materials in the manufacturing process, and promote design methods that extend the lifetimes of products by making them easier to repair.

There’s also an element of subsidisation, including funding for “circular craft centres and repair cafés”.

This idea is already in play. In Amsterdam, a repair centre run by refugees, and backed by the city and outdoor clothing brand Patagonia, is helping big brands breathe new life into old clothes.

Meanwhile, government ministries aim to aid progress by prioritising the procurement of recycled or recyclable electrical equipment and construction materials, for instance.

State support is critical to levelling the playing field, analysts say...

Long Road Ahead

The government also wants manufacturers – including clothing and beverages companies – to take full responsibility for products discarded by consumers.

“Producer responsibility for textiles is already in place, but it’s work in progress to fully implement it,” Tak says.

And the household waste collection process remains a challenge considering that small city apartments aren’t conducive to having multiple bins, and sparsely populated rural areas are tougher to service.

“Getting the collection system right is a challenge, but again, it’s work in progress.”

...Nevertheless, Tak says wealthy countries should be leading the way towards a fully circular economy as they’re historically the biggest consumers of natural resources."

-via The Progress Playbook, December 13, 2023

[rjzimmerman]

A Banggai cardinalfish swims in Indonesia’s tropical waters. Photo: Jens Petersen (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Excerpt from this story from The Revelator:

Nothing fascinates Monica Biondo more than the animals often referred to as the ocean’s “living jewels” — the vividly colored little fishes who dance around in its waters.

Biondo, a Swiss marine biologist, became enamored with ocean life as a child after spending many summers snorkeling along the Italian coastline. Nowadays you’re more likely to find her deep-diving into trade records than marine waters. As the head of research and conservation at Fondation Franz Weber, she has spent the past decade searching through data on the marine ornamental fish trade.

These are the colorful fish you see in home aquariums or for sale at pet stores; Biondo wants to know where they came from, how they got there, and what happened to them along the way.

Compared to the clear waters around the coral reefs she’s explored, the records on these fish are frustratingly murky. Wading through them has though provided her with clarity on her calling: shining a light on the aquarium trade’s vast exploitation of these glamorous ocean dwellers.

Her entry into the fray came in the form of a Banggai cardinalfish, a striking little fish endemic to an archipelago in Indonesia that first became known to science in the 1930s. A scientist redescribed the species in 1994, kickstarting a tragic surge in the fish’s popularity for aquariums. Within less than a decade, 90% of the population had disappeared, Biondo says.

After witnessing that rapid decline, along with the failure of countries to subsequently regulate global trade in the species, Biondo was hooked. “That really pushed me into looking into this trade,” she says.

In her search for information she has pored over paperwork in the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office’s records warehouse. She and her colleagues at Pro Coral Fish have also spent years rifling through a European Union-wide electronic database called the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES), which collects information on animal imports.

Although the datasets varied, the questions have remained the same. How many marine ornamental fish are being imported? What species are they? Where did they originate?

These straightforward questions are hard to answer to because the trade — despite being worth billions annually — has no mandatory data-collection requirements. As a result, information gathered about trade in these fishes tends to be opaque and haphazard compared to information on live organisms like farmed food animals.

[thoughtportal]

Here's everything you need to know about the tariffs. Why they're happening, why now, and what to do as a lowly little peasant with no power. First off, you need to know that it has nothing to do with bringing manufacturing back to the US. Tariffs are happening because the US empire is crumbling. Basically Trump is doing the work of the financial and tech elite who are trying to claw their way back into the center of global finance. How? By reasserting dominance by state-backed protectionism. Really since the 70s, the US has been the global reserve currency because of a deal that we made with OPEC. That deal said that oil would be priced exclusively in US dollars and that oil profits would be reinvested into US assets and in exchange that would get US military protection and weapons. This petrodollar system let the US run massive deficits without crashing the currency. This artificial dollar demand meant that we could print money infinitely. Waging wars, tax cuts, bailouts, without worries of immediate inflation. Meanwhile, all that oil profit that was being funneled into the US economy meant that we could keep interest rates low, feed all these speculative bubbles, and support stagnant wages with increasing consumer debt. But quite possibly the most important thing this did was give the US incredible power on the global stage. We could discipline and control entire nations through access to the IMF and World Bank or sanctions. This is how we have destroyed or stunted the development of socialist nations across the world. But now that system is unraveling. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are de-dollarizing. They're trading oil and other currencies, they have alternative payment systems, and they're rapidly dumping US assets. If the dollar loses its reserve status, the US loses its exorbitant privilege, the ability to spend without consequences and bully others through financial dominance. How the US and US capitalists are trying to reconstitute their hegemony, and that's where the tariffs come in. Tariffs are a power play to shield the US from the consequences of its own decay. Through tariffs, trade policy, and military threats, the US government is trying to force the world to play by the rules of American tech and financial institutions. This new strategy has a goal to make US tech the infrastructure for the global economy. If we can't rule because of oil and debt, we can try and rule through cloud storage or payment facilitation or surveillance infrastructure. The government wants US companies like Apple, Google, Stripe, PayPal, or MasterCard or whatever be indispensable nodes in the circuits of global commerce. These tariffs also punish other countries like China or India or the European Union for passing data privacy laws, anti-monopoly rules that cut into the profits of US tech companies. The US is both protection but also coercion, make them both back off and pay up. So will it work? Probably not. But that doesn't mean you're not going to feel the effects of it. Higher prices and more instability are going to become the norm. So what do we do? The biggest thing is to reduce consumption wherever possible. The less you feed the beast, the less it feeds on you. Cut off US companies from your data and your dollars. Delete the apps, quit the brands, starve the machine. Build solidarity networks. Support your friends materially and emotionally. Strengthen the relationships that capitalism has hollowed out. Join a union, join a community organization, join a mutual aid group. Broaden your relationships into your larger community. And definitely join a political party that isn't the Democrats. Remember, AOC and Bernie won't save us. We save us. I wish there was more we could do right now, but that's at least stuff we can do right now.

Video by Means TV

[ruddentropptabornok]

"3. Tesla February market share in Europe dips

Tesla’s European sales slumped just over 40% in February as the electric car maker grappled with tough competition and growing ire towards the political activities of CEO Elon Musk.

Sales of the battery-electric vehicle brand in the European Union, the European Free Trade Association, and the United Kingdom slid by 40.1% year-on-year in February to 16,888 units. So far this year, the figure has dropped by 42.6%.

The company’s market share in the region also shrank to 1.8% from 2.8% a year earlier, data from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association showed on Tuesday.

Tesla’s weak February sales came even as overall battery EV registrations in Europe grew 26.1% year-on-year in February, with Tesla rivals such as China’s SAIC clocking strong growth for the ..." Csak azok kedvéért akik szerint a januári visszaesés a modellfrissítési várakozások miatt volt.

[beardedmrbean]

Prices for goods and services moved up less than expected in February, providing some relief as consumers and businesses worry about the looming impact tariffs might have on inflation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday.

The consumer price index, a wide-ranging measure of costs across the U.S. economy, ticked up a seasonally adjusted 0.2% for the month, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.8%, according to the Labor Department agency. The all-item CPI had increased 0.5% in January.

Excluding food and energy prices, the core CPI also rose 0.2% on the month and was at 3.1% on a 12-month basis, the lowest reading since April 2021. The core CPI had climbed 0.4% in January.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for 0.3% increases on both headline and core, with respective annual rates of 2.9% and 3.2%, meaning that all of the rates were 0.1 percentage point less than expected.

Stock market indexes were mixed after the release after initially moving higher. reasury yields rose. Markets have been highly volatile as the Dow Jones Industrial Average has slipped 6% over the past month.

“A lot of this inflation data does not incorporate what is to come and what already has happened for tariffs,” said Kevin Gordon, senor investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “The vagaries and uncertainties associated with policy are still a much stronger force in the market than anything CPI-related or in terms of one data point.”

Shelter costs moved up 0.3%, less than in January but still responsible for about half the monthly increase in the CPI, the BLS said. The annual increase of 4.2% was the smallest since December 2021. The category makes up more than one-third of the total weighting in the CPI, with particular focus on a measure in what homeowners estimate they could get in rent for their properties, which also increased 0.3%.

Food and energy indexes both increased 0.2%. Used vehicle prices jumped 0.9% and apparel rose 0.6%. Within food, egg prices soared another 10.4%, taking the 12-month increase to 58.8% and pushing a broader measure that also includes meat, poultry and fish up 7.7% on the year. Beef prices also climbed 2.4% in February.

Motor vehicle insurance posted a 0.3% increase on the month and was up 11.1% annually. However, airline fares slipped 4% in February and were down 0.7% from a year ago.

Inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings increased 0.1% for the month and were up 1.2% from a year ago, the BLS said in a separate release.

“The market’s interpretation is appropriate. We still don’t know anything about how inflation is going to work with the new tariff regime,” said Thomas Simons, chief U.S. economist at Jefferies. “At least for now, the momentum is moving in the Fed’s favor.”

The report comes at a potentially critical juncture for the U.S. economy and financial markets, which have been shaken lately as President Donald Trump escalates a trade war and concerns rise of a growth scare.

In the latest developments, Trump’s 25% duties on steel and aluminum took effect Wednesday, prompting retaliatory measures from the European Union. Trump also has slapped 20% levies on goods from China.

“Today’s CPI report shows inflation is declining and the economy is moving in the right direction under President Trump,” Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, said in a statement. “This inflation report, much like last week’s jobs report, is far better than the media predicted and the so-called ‘experts’ expected.”

Federal Reserve officials also are watching the developments closely. Central bank policymakers generally consider tariffs to have modest impacts on inflation and often are viewed as one-off measures that don’t have lasting impact on longer-term gauges.

However, a broader trade war could change that if the pace of increases becomes more ingrained in the economy. Markets currently expect the Fed to resume cutting interest rates in June, with a total of 0.75 percentage point in reductions by the end of 2025.

“The February CPI release showed further signs of progress on underlying inflation, with the pace of price increases moderating after January’s strong release,” said Kay Haigh, global co-head of fixed income and liquidity solutions at Goldman Sachs Asset Management. “While the Fed is still likely to remain on hold at this month’s meeting, the combination of easing inflationary pressures and rising downside risks to growth suggest that the Fed is moving closer to continuing its easing cycle.”

The Fed meets next week and is widely expected to hold its key borrowing rate in a target range between 4.25%-4.5%.

Economic growth is trending negative in the first quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker of incoming data. The measure has pegged Q1 growth at a 2.4% decline, which would be the first negative growth quarter in three years.

[landrysg]

After a brief shutdown, many of Europe’s schools reopened in the spring, welcoming back millions of children, and the data show what happened next: a long decline in cases. European Union ministers announced in May, and again in June, that they had seen no negative impact on society from opening schools. Their comments should have made headlines and quelled concerns in the U.S. Instead, they were largely ignored by our officials and the mainstream media. ...

Then a sort of nationwide uncontrolled experiment got underway when (mostly) red states and regions started opening while (mostly) blue states and regions remained closed—or open for so few hours and with so many restrictions, they might as well have remained shut. The results were brazen and inequitable: For more than a year, our country systematically denied an essential service to some children while providing it to others. And today, millions of children are still paying the price. ...

The establishment narrative today is that closing schools was regrettable, but a reasonable decision during a chaotic time. But, in reality, evidence that showed schools were not driving transmission—and that they could be open without impacting the community—was available and known in real time. In the end, there was no benefit to keeping schools closed for so-called safety reasons out of “an abundance of caution.” And there were no reasonable trade-offs in doing so. There were just harms.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Time for Brazil to accelerate trade talks with Asia

Asian nations beyond China present opportunities amid U.S. and European protectionism

When former French Prime Minister Michel Barnier went to Brussels to advocate for halting the European Union-Mercosur trade agreement, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen countered: “If we don’t sign the treaty, China will take our place.”

However, in the name of French agricultural protectionism, French Trade Minister Sophie Primas argued that the agreement would not weaken the influence of China or the United States in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay, just as a failure in the agreement would not prevent Europeans and French from being present in these countries.

If France is determined to sacrifice preferential access to Mercosur and blow up a crucial economic and geopolitical deal, Europe is going to need all the luck it can get. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) recently reported that the European industry is facing its third consecutive year of recession. It predicts that exports from emerging markets could increase by 5%, compared to the stagnation of exports from developed countries. At the same time, France is one of the largest exporters in agribusiness.

In the United States, Donald Trump threatens to open a unilateral and protectionist toolbox in 2025. The U.S. will be an additional source of uncertainty and instability for Europe and globally. Mr. Trump has already threatened tariff increases against Mexico, Canada, China, and BRICS nations. Brazil will be subject to this situation, compounded by the rise of restrictive measures on global trade.

In this turbulent and unstable scenario, accelerating Brazil’s trade diversification towards Asia is evident. All trade data, in general, and current and future growth figures are more favorable in Asia, excluding China. The OECD projects growth of 6.9% for India next year and 5.2% for Indonesia, for example.

Continue reading.

[thoughtlessarse]

Keir Starmer is under growing pressure to forge closer economic links with Europe five years on from Brexit, as a major new poll shows voters clearly favour prioritising more trade with the EU over the US. The MRP survey of almost 15,000 people by YouGov for the Best for Britain thinktank shows more people in every constituency in England, Scotland and Wales back closer arrangements with the EU rather than more transatlantic trade with Washington. MRP polls use large data samples to estimate opinion at a local level. Even in Nigel Farage’s seat of Clacton, more people think the UK is better off trading more with its neighbours on the continent than with the US under the Reform UK leader’s ally Donald Trump. The findings come as the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, on Sunday tells the Observer that Brexit has harmed the UK economy and that she is determined to claw back some of the lost gross domestic product (GDP) by reducing trade frictions for UK small businesses wherever possible. In one of the clearest statements by a senior government minister on Brexit, Reeves answered yes when asked if she was clear that leaving the EU had damaged the UK’s financial position. The chancellor, who discussed possible ways to improve trade with EU finance ministers and others at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, said there were “loads of external estimates” showing the negative impact of Brexit on the UK economy and added: “What I want to do is get some of that GDP back by having a better trading relationship with the European Union.” Reeves also enthused about one specific proposal, saying it was “great”, made by the EU’s new trade chief responsible for post-Brexit negotiations, Maroš Šefčovič , who floated the idea of the UK joining the Pan-Euro Mediterranean convention (PEM). The PEM is a set of common rules for sourcing parts and ingredients for use in tariff-free trade.

continue reading

Reeves might have enthused about the proposal, but the message from No. 10 was 'not yet'.

[devoted1989]

65,000 non - human primates are used in laboratory experiments every year in the united states

Each year, more than 110 million animals - including mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, fish and birds - are killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. In order for a drug to be approved in the United States, the FDA typically requires toxicity tests on one rodent species such as a mouse or rat and one nonrodent species such as a monkey or dog.

Around 65,000 non - human primates (NHP) are used every year in the United States, and around 7,000 across the European Union. No new biomedical research projects have been approved on chimpanzees in the US since 2015.

Macaques are now the most commonly used NHP - most are imported from China and Cambodia.

The huge demand for research monkeys and their rising costs have created a market for monkey smugglers.

While most macaques imported by the US are identified as captive-bred on paper, some experts believe that many of those in US labs have been trafficked from the wild as the illegal trade in wild-caught macaques is widespread. Sources state that prices vary from $5 000 - $20 000 per monkey.

NHPs are used because of their similarities to humans with respect to genetic makeup, anatomy, physiology, and behavior which make it possible to approximate the human condition.

NHPs are used in research into HIV, neurology, behavior, cognition, reproduction, Parkinson's disease, stroke, malaria, respiratory viruses, infectious disease, genetics, xenotransplantation, drug abuse, and also in vaccine and drug testing.

The NIH is the largest public source of funding for biomedical research in the United States.

Last year new U.S. law eliminated the requirement that drugs in development must undergo testing in animals before being given to participants in human trials. It allows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve new drugs without requiring animal data.

Signed in December, the law doesn't ban the testing of new drugs on animals outright. Instead it simply lifts the requirement that pharmaceutical companies use animals to test new drugs before human trials. Companies can still test drugs on animals if they choose to.

And pro-research groups are downplaying the law, saying it signals a slow turning of the tide. Jim Newman, communications director at Americans for Medical Progress, which advocates for animal research, argues non-animal technologies are still “in their infancy” and won’t be able to replace animal models for “many, many years.” The FDA still retains tremendous discretion to require animal tests, he says.

- National Institutes of Health ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Science Direct, World Animal Protection, science.org, National Anti - Vivisection Society and HSUS.

Image with kind permission from The Ethic Whisper.

@theethicwhisper

[mariacallous]

Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has pursued a series of head-spinning moves to reorient U.S. foreign policy, from initiating a global trade war to threatening long-standing NATO allies to teasing a takeover of Canada. Political analysts like to say these shifts reflect Trump’s transactional, zero-sum worldview—an “America First” approach that prioritizes a narrow conception of national interest and deprioritizes moral concerns.

This approach seems a far cry from previous U.S. administrations, which espoused, to varying degrees, a commitment to values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights. While often criticized for hypocrisy or a failure to live up to such ideals, a “values-based” foreign policy remained a core component of U.S. policymaking in the decades after the Cold War.

Yet beneath the surface, the reality is murkier. Since taking office, key members of the Trump administration have, in fact, begun to pursue a values-based foreign policy of their own—albeit a very different one than before.

Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference in February formed the blueprint for this new values-based foreign policy, which is now embraced, to varying degrees, by other Trump officials and allies. In his speech, Vance stunned European attendees by taking them to task for what he described as “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” Vance argued that Europeans were failing to live up to shared commitments to democracy and free expression, highlighting the cancelation of Romania’s election results due to alleged Russian meddling and the suppression of right-wing voices across the continent.

At its core, Vance’s speech was a rejection of the interpretation of freedom and democracy that has been a mainstay of U.S. politicians and diplomats for decades, casting it as liberalism run amok. But it was couched in the language of those very ideals. Repeated references to “shared values,” a call for partnership in promoting “freedom,” and a commitment to standing up for “the people” bear striking similarities to prior U.S. foreign-policy pronouncements.

The speech represented a plea to embrace a new interpretation of “shared values” in guiding foreign relationships, not to throw them out entirely. In 2025, Washington has adjusted which values it prioritizes. LGBTQ rights and women’s empowerment are out; free speech absolutism, anti-“woke” censorship, and a defense of Western culture are in. While the approach isn’t fully consistent, it’s far more ideological than many pundits might have us believe.

Other U.S. officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio have since echoed these sentiments. And many of the Trump administration’s actions evince a similar ethos: the move to cut aid to South Africa in response to what officials allege are “serious human rights violations” related to its new land law, which critics have argued enables the expropriation of white Afrikaner property; an embrace of figures such as Javier Milei, Argentina’s aggressively libertarian president, who said that “the winds of freedom [were] blowing stronger” after Trump’s election; even a campaign against the European Union’s data privacy protections, which State Department officials have framed as an effort at “shutting down the global censorship-industrial complex.”

These are not the actions of policymakers following the hard-nosed logic of realpolitik. They represent instead a strong ideological undercurrent, at times at odds with the core material interests that Trump allegedly prioritizes. U.S. pressure on the United Kingdom to repeal hate speech laws initially emerged as a stumbling block at the outset of trade negotiations between the two countries in April, for example.

Washington is also redeploying the tools of the old values-based foreign policy toward new targets. Visa bans and revocations, traditionally used to punish rights-abusing regimes, have taken aim instead at prominent Trump critics. Meanwhile, as Trump threatens to deport various groups seeking safety from persecution in their home countries, his administration has harnessed refugee resettlement infrastructure to welcome white South Africans fleeing what Trump and others in his orbit have called “genocide.”

Even Trump’s embrace of Russia, which has upended long-standing U.S. policy, is consistent with a new values-based foreign policy, which sees Moscow’s championing of so-called traditional values and broadside against Western moral decadence as causes to be celebrated.

Similarly, it’s no secret that Trump and his supporters have long admired Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has reshaped his country as a model for the international conservative movement. Trump-aligned members of Congress have sought to defend Orban and reorient U.S. foreign aid to support rather than challenge his autocratic tendencies. But viewing support for Orban merely as an affinity for autocrats overlooks the deeper ideological motivations of Trump’s support. It is connected to an international right-wing movement that seeks to strengthen global freedom—so long as that freedom yields conservative policy wins.

Indeed, the new values-based foreign policy is largely unconcerned about seeming partisan or appearing to intervene in the domestic affairs of other states. “Lecturing” was a common accusation directed at proponents of the old values-based foreign policy. Autocratic governments complained that U.S. calls for reform and human rights were unwelcome barriers to collaboration, and advocates of transactionalism and restraint argued that the insertion of values weakened the United States’ capacity to achieve its goals.

Yet the policy approach embraced by leaders today is often unabashedly interventionist. Telling other countries how to police hate speech or run migration policy, for instance, has remained on the agenda. The Trump administration even declared the South African ambassador persona non grata for unofficial statements he made about white supremacy in the United States. Trump-aligned figures such as Elon Musk explicitly endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) before Germany’s February election and called the sitting German president an “anti-democratic tyrant” when he objected. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency later labeled the AfD as “extremist,” it elicited a strong rebuke from Vance and Rubio, among others, who said the move amounted to “tyranny.”

Ultimately, the ideological struggle at home is permeating abroad. A battle to “own the libs” now motivates not only domestic politics but increasingly foreign policy as well. The struggle over foreign aid is case in point. Feeding the U.S. Agency for International Development “into the wood chipper” was about much more than cost savings (which turned out to be minimal). For those leading the charge—including Musk and Pete Marocco, the official who oversaw the dismantling of the agency—it was about challenging the “globalist” agenda and supporting an entirely different notion of “freedom” and “rights”—righting the ship of so-called American values that, in their eyes, had been set off course.

Although internal incoherence within the MAGA coalition may stymie its advance, the new values-based foreign policy could quickly become more intrusive, more partisan, and more willing to take sides than the old version ever was. A move back toward a world where sovereignty norms are sacrosanct seems less likely by the day.

Nevertheless, the new values-based foreign policy has thus far remained parochial, concerned much more with the West than with the “rest.” Indeed, it has relatively little to say about countries and regions beyond Europe and the Americas. The ideological landscape of other places, such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East, is more challenging to pin down and, perhaps, uninteresting to many in Trump’s orbit. This may put countries in these regions at an advantage, as they are less likely to attract the ire of U.S. officials.

But it also may undermine the capacity of actors within these countries to appeal to the administration on “values-based” grounds—which may be frustrating for Iran or China hawks, who have long relied on moral framing to make their case. In the case of China, the result has been inconsistency: no clear strategy, just an ambient desire to win, absent the ideological scaffolding that shapes the administration’s antagonistic posture toward the West.

The new values-based foreign policy is neither entirely coherent nor the sole driver of decision-making within the new administration. At times, Trump himself seems happy to focus on cold-blooded dealmaking, absent sentimentality or the squishiness that comes with ideological sacred cows, as he exhibited on his recent trip to the Gulf. Nevertheless, values have clearly crept in, and it is increasingly difficult to understand the foreign policy of the current administration without an ideological lens. Even for an America in transition, old habits can be sticky.

[caustic-caffeine]

my thoughts on the instagram ai situation, as a digital artist on the platform

figured i’d write and share this around so others in the community i’m in know my status. sooo, some basics for starters:

“Are you leaving Instagram? Where can I find you active?”

i’m staying on instagram for the time being. seeing as instagram almost certainly already has the data of my past posts, i won’t be deleting anything; going forward, i’ll be using ai disturbance filters and other anti-ai overlays for any stills i post. i anticipate using instagram for reels primarily, as well as staying in communications with mutuals and other artists. i do have a cara account, but will likely be posting intermittently until some issues i’ve noticed get addressed. going forward, i’ll most likely be at my most active over here! growth, fortunately, never was a priority in my social media presence so i’m not super concerned about that.

tldr:

instagram: gonna continue posting reels and occasional stills, will be primarily focused on interacting with fellow artists

here: most active! will post both rough and polished stills, as well as lore and whatever random thoughts pop into my head. (see pinned post for a tag guide)

cara: activity will be low unless shit really hits the fan on instagram and i can no longer protect my work via overlays. if you’re an insta moot, feel free to dm me if you want me to share your posts around, though! if the link doesn’t work: i’m @/asphodelity [EDIT] cara does work with an ai organization, hive; here is a post that goes into it and other things people have said about the platform! as i already wasn’t intending to use the platform all that often this won’t change anything for me, but make sure to do your research if you’re looking into the platform!

“Will this affect how much you post?”

not really! i already have a fairly sporadic posting schedule, so i’ll just be continuing what i’ve been doing: posting when i have things i wanna share :]

“Help! I’m an Instagram artist and want to know how to protect my art!”

i gotchu.

[EDIT] the non-glaze/nightshade/artshield filters are mostly ineffective! it won’t hurt you to use them, but if you can stick to using the glaze and nightshade sites!! if you don’t have a pc, you can apply to get a webglaze account!

how to (hopefully) opt out of your art being scraped in the european union (i think?)

how to (hopefully) do the same in the united states (note: post could be outdated)

other ways to protect your art: one, two, three, four

ai disturbance filters: one, two, three (set these to overlay at 30% as the top layer for most effectiveness! these aren’t as effective as using a website like glaze, but are better than nothing)

after june 26, no matter your region, you’ll be unable to opt out of ai data training. this affects, to my knowledge, everything you post, including captions.

“Any other thoughts?”

now, more than ever, we as a community need to stick together and support each other. don’t let anyone tell you your art isn’t worth anything; we as artists have something very special in our ability to create, express ourselves, and connect with the world around us, an algorithm and misguided techbros will never be able to take that away from us. keep pursuing what you love, my friends; we have to weather the storm to see the rainbow.

my dms are always open for art reasons. need a pep talk? i’m around. wanna collab or trade? i’d love to! need help boosting your social medias? i’m happy to help (although my presence is admittedly very small). whatever it is, i’m here and willing to help!

i’ll keep updating yall on this platform as my activity changes (or, perhaps, something big related to ai happens), so be sure to stick around if that seems interesting! also, please feel free to reblog this post and add more information i may have missed, that’s all for now, thank you for your time <3

[darkmaga-returns]

For all the criticism of Trump and the risk of a global trade war, as Macron wants to unleash a trade war to elevate France to the top of the EU, if we just look at the data, we can see why Trump has taken this approach. Even those Republicans like Rand Paul joining the Democrats in calling tariffs a tax, none of them are looking at this issue objectively or seriously. Under the Biden Administration, not only was there a wholesale invasion of illegal immigrants, but on the trade front, he paid no attention at all, and most seemed to assume he was too senile to pay attention.

They are resoundingly calling Trump insane, mainly because they have something to lose. Free Trade has been one-sided. There is a risk that France will push to impose trade barriers against others to support their Marxist agenda. That will be devastating, but we see the world economy headed into a recession for the USA, yet a Depression for the EU. The fact that Trump imposed a 10% tariff on the UK but 20% on the EU is actually driving a wedge between Starmer’s dream of overruling BREXIT to get back into the Marxist utopia of the EU.

In addition, the belligerence of Macron is having an impact. There is a growing discontent with the European Union and the 20% tariff on the EU, with Macron vowing that full retaliation may prove to be the wedge that starts the fragmentation of the EU. Hungary has its own currency and can quickly leave the EU and resume trade with both the USA and Russia. Ukraine has long suppressed the Hungarian people trapped within the boundaries of Ukraine. The same is true for all of those members questioning the EU yet did not join the euro.

[labourmarketanalysis]

Wage Inequality and Labour Market

By Sraddha R

In this blog post, we'll look at three compelling studies that shed light on wage disparities in Europe and India, as well as the critical role of labour market institutions. Take a seat, and let's get started!

INTRODUCTION

The labour market serves as a barometer for trends in employment, economic well-being, and the broader societal challenges posed by wage inequality. Our investigation begins with an acknowledgement of the modern global economy's profound impact on globalisation, technological advancements, and evolving work structures. These seismic shifts reshape industries, redefine skill requirements, and, as a result, affect wage structures. Wage inequality, which reflects the unequal distribution of earnings across gender, ethnicity, education, and occupation, is at the heart of this complex issue.

Study 1: The Structure of the Labour Market and Wage Inequality in European Countries

This study focuses on France, Germany, and Italy, meticulously analysing changes in wage inequality from 2005 to 2013. The findings show distinct patterns, such as a decrease in wage inequality in Germany, a decrease in France with explicit job polarisation structures, and a significant increase in Italy. Using a decomposition approach, the study considers variables such as gender, marital status, health, experience, education, contract type, economic status, and job categories.

The study emphasises the role of national labor-market protections, historical policy spending, and broader socioeconomic and political factors in shaping wage inequality trends. Tailored policy recommendations are emerging, urging France and Germany to implement policies that promote women's participation and improve job-related careers. In contrast, Italy faces challenges such as a lack of a legal minimum wage and political instability, necessitating specific policy responses.

Study 2: Recent Trends in India's Wealth Inequality

Using data from the Annual Income and Expenditure Surveys, this paper investigates wealth inequality in India using decomposition analyses. The study differentiates contributions from within and between group components, identifying sources of wealth concentration and drawing parallels between wealth and consumption inequality trends.

According to the study, increasing wealth concentration in India is linked to neoliberal growth, emphasising the failure to address employment and earnings disparities. While the study provides valuable insights, it is suggested that a more explicit discussion of policy implications and interventions be included. A complex policy framework is required to guide future research and inform effective policy decisions.

Wage Inequality and Low Pay: The Role of Labour Market Institutions, Study 3

The impact of labour market institutions on low-wage employment in OECD countries is investigated in this study. It seeks to comprehend the impact of trade unions, collective bargaining, and wage regulations on wage distribution, particularly in low-wage industries. The study distinguishes between different wage distribution segments, recognising variations in the analysis through the use of bivariate correlations and incorporating various control variables such as minimum wages and unemployment benefits.

According to the study's findings, labour market institutions account for more than 60% of cross-country differences in low pay. According to the study, strong unions protect against low pay, whereas centralised bargaining systems effectively limit wage disparities at the top. Minimum wages and welfare systems have varying effects across wage distribution segments. Governments, according to the study, can address rising earnings disparities and low-wage employment by supporting effective labor market institutions.

Comparative Evaluation

Our comparative analysis reveals the distinct perspectives provided by each study, shedding light on various dimensions and dynamics in different countries. The in-depth examination of economic inequality ranges from changes in wage inequality in European countries to wealth dynamics in India and the impact of labour market institutions on low-wage employment in OECD countries.

Conclusion

Taken together, the studies emphasise the interconnectedness of factors influencing income distribution and the importance of nuanced, context-specific policy decisions. The journey has shed light on labour market dynamics and economic outcomes, emphasising the complexities of addressing wage inequality in our pursuit of an equitable future where the benefits of economic growth are shared by all.

[seairexim]

Soybean Export from India: Trends, Data, & Market Outlook for 2025

India's agricultural exports continue to gain momentum, with soybean standing as a key contributor. Known for its high nutritional value and diverse industrial applications, soybeans play a pivotal role in the global agri-commodity market. As the world’s demand for plant-based proteins and sustainable oils increases, India's position as a significant player in soybean exports strengthens. This article delves into the current trends in soybean export from India, examines soybean export data, highlights key soybean exporters in India, and explores major soybean-exporting countries for 2024-2025.

The Landscape of Soybean Export from India

India has emerged as a prominent exporter of soybeans, contributing significantly to global trade. Factors such as robust agricultural policies, advancements in farming techniques, and a focus on export-oriented production have bolstered India's soybean export capabilities.

In the 2024-2025 period, soybean exports from India are expected to grow due to increasing international demand. Indian soybeans are sought after for their quality, competitive pricing, and adherence to international standards. The primary export destinations for Indian soybeans include Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and European countries.

Soybean Export Data for 2024-2025

Tracking soybean export data reveals significant insights into India’s performance in the global market.

Volume and Value of Exports: India exported approximately 2.5 million metric tons of soybeans in the fiscal year 2023-2024, generating over $1.2 billion in revenue. The 2024-2025 projections suggest a 10-12% growth, driven by increasing demand from new and existing markets.

Major Importers of Indian Soybeans:

Indonesia and Vietnam: These countries use Indian soybeans primarily for feed and food processing industries.

United Arab Emirates (UAE): A significant importer due to its booming food industry and demand for plant-based products.

European Union (EU): Particularly Germany and the Netherlands, where soybeans are used for biofuels and plant-based protein products.

Export Growth Drivers:

India’s strategic position in Asia ensures shorter shipping times to key markets.

Increased global preference for non-GMO soybeans, a segment where India has an advantage.

Key Soybean Exporters in India

India’s soybean export industry is supported by numerous stakeholders, including farmers, processing companies, and export houses top soybean exporters in India are.

SOPA (Soybean Processors Association of India): SOPA plays a vital role in promoting soybean exports from India. It ensures the quality and branding of Indian soybeans, making them competitive in global markets.

Major Exporting Companies:

ITC Limited: Known for its robust supply chain and adherence to quality standards.

Adani Wilmar: A significant player in agri-exports, including soybeans and soy-derived products.

Ruchi Soya Industries: One of India's largest exporters, supplying non-GMO soybeans globally.

Emerging Players: Smaller exporters and agri-tech startups have also entered the market, leveraging technology to enhance productivity and streamline exports.

India’s Position Among Soybean Exporting Countries

Globally, India ranks among the top 10 soybean exporting countries. However, countries like Brazil, the United States, and Argentina dominate the export landscape.

Global Competitors:

Brazil: The world’s largest soybean exporter, primarily supplying China.

United States: A major exporter with advanced farming technology and extensive trade networks.

Argentina: Known for its high-quality soymeal exports.

India’s Competitive Edge:

Organic and non-GMO soybeans.

Competitive pricing compared to Western exporters.

Proximity to Asian and Middle Eastern markets.

Challenges in Competing Globally: While India has advantages, challenges such as inconsistent yield, fluctuating prices, and logistical issues need addressing to solidify its global standing.

Emerging Trends and Opportunities in Soybean Export

The soybean industry is undergoing transformation due to changing consumer preferences and technological advancements. Key trends for 2024-2025 include:

Shift to Plant-Based Diets: The rise of veganism and plant-based diets globally is driving demand for soy products, including tofu, soy milk, and soy protein isolates.

Sustainability and Traceability: Exporters focusing on sustainable farming and traceability in supply chains will have a competitive edge in international markets.

Government Support: Initiatives such as export incentives, enhanced logistics, and trade agreements are expected to boost soybean exports.

Value-Added Soy Products: Diversifying into soy-derived products like soymeal, soy oil, and soy protein can open new revenue streams for Indian exporters.

Challenges Facing Soybean Export from India

Despite its growth potential, the industry faces several hurdles:

Climate Change: Unpredictable weather patterns can impact crop yields.

Infrastructure Bottlenecks: Limited storage and transportation facilities hinder efficient exports.

Price Volatility: Global soybean prices are influenced by geopolitical and economic factors, impacting Indian exports.

Addressing these challenges through policy reforms and industry collaboration will be critical for sustained growth.

Future Outlook for Soybean Export from India

The future of soybean exports from India looks promising. With the global demand for soybeans expected to rise by 15-20% in the next decade, India has the opportunity to enhance its market share. Key strategies for growth include:

Investing in sustainable farming practices.

Strengthening trade relations with emerging markets like Africa and Latin America.

Promoting value-added soy products through branding and innovation.

Conclusion

Soybean export from India are poised for remarkable growth in the 2024-2025 period. By leveraging its strengths in quality production and strategic geographic positioning, India can expand its footprint in the global soybean market. However, addressing challenges like climate change, infrastructure, and price volatility will be essential for realizing its full potential. With the concerted efforts of farmers, exporters, and policymakers, India is set to cement its position as a leading player in the global soybean trade.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Stephen Brodner

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 18, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 19, 2024

It seems to me that the news tends to be slow on weekends during the Biden administration, while Mondays are a firehose. (In contrast, Trump’s people tended to dump news in the middle of the night, after Fox News Channel personality Sean Hannity’s show was over, which may or may not have been a coincidence.) 

So, lots going on today as the Biden administration continues to make the case that a democratic government can work for ordinary Americans while Trump and his supporters insist that a country run by such an administration is an apocalyptic nightmare. 

First, economic analyst Steven Rattner reported today that according to The Economist, since the end of 2019 the American economy has grown about 8%, while the European Union has grown about 3%, Japan 1%, and Britain not at all. Rattner and economist Brendan Duke reported that entrepreneurship in the U.S. is booming, with 5.2 million “likely employer” business applications filed between January 2021 and December 2023, more than a 33% increase over those filed between 2017 and 2019. 

Economists Justin Wolfers and Arin Dube noted that, as Wolfers wrote, “[f]or the first time in forever, real wage gains are going to those who need them most.” Wages have gone up for all but the top 20% of Americans, whose wages have fallen, reducing inequality. 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) head Lina Khan announced that after the FTC challenged a set of AstraZeneca inhaler patents last September as being improperly listed, today AstraZeneca said it would cap patients’ out-of-pocket costs for its inhalers at $35, down from hundreds. Earlier this month, Boehringer Ingelheim did the same.

The Environmental Protection Agency today announced it was banning asbestos, which is linked to more than 40,000 deaths a year in the U.S. and was already partly banned, but which is still used in a few products. More than 50 other countries already ban it. 

Also today, President Joe Biden issued an executive order to advance women’s health research to integrate women’s health into federal research initiatives, strengthening data collection and making funding available for research in a comprehensive effort to equalize attention to men’s and women’s health across their lifespans. The federal government did not require women’s health to be included in federally funded medical research until 1993. In a speech today, First Lady Jill Biden recalled that in the early 1970s, researchers studying estrogen’s effect in preventing heart attacks selected 8,341 people for the study. All of them were men. 

Last month, First Lady Biden announced $100 million in funding for research into women’s health, and last Thursday Vice President Kamala Harris visited a Planned Parenthood clinic that provides abortion care in addition to breast cancer screening, fibroid care, and contraceptive care. She noted that women’s reproductive health has been in crisis since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, with women in some states unable to access the care they need.

Former president Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, prompted some of the economic reporting I noted above when he tried to spark attacks on President Joe Biden by asking on social media if people feel better off now than they were four years ago. This was perhaps a mistaken message, since four years ago we were in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Supermarket shelves were empty, toilet paper was hard to find, healthcare professionals were wearing garbage bags and reusing masks because the Trump administration had permitted the strategic stockpile to run low, deaths were mounting, the stock market had crashed, and the economy had ground to a halt. 

On this day four years ago, I recorded that “more than 80 national security professionals broke with their tradition of non-partisanship to endorse former Vice President Joe Biden for president, saying that while they were from all parties and disagreed with each other about pretty much everything else, they had come together to stand against Trump.”

Here in the present, Trump appears to be getting more desperate as his problems, including his apparent growing difficulty speaking and connecting with his audience, mount. Last week, in an interview, he echoed Republican lawmakers and pundits when he suggested he was open to cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, something Republican lawmakers try to avoid saying to general audiences because it is hugely unpopular. Trump has since tried to repair that damage, for example, when he insisted on Saturday that it was he, rather than Biden, who would protect those programs. (In fact, Biden has called for expanding the social safety net, not contracting it, and last year forced Republicans to back off from proposed cuts.)  

Saturday’s speech illustrated the degree to which Trump’s rhetoric has become more profane and apocalyptic as he vows revenge on those he sees as his enemies. Campaigning in Vandalia, Ohio, for his chosen Senate candidate, Trump suggested that certain migrants “are not people.” Then he said he would put tariffs of 100% on cars manufactured in Mexico by Chinese companies for sale in the U.S., “if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole—that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

By Sunday, Trump’s embrace of the word “bloodbath” had created a firestorm. Surrogates insisted that he was talking about the auto industry alone, but as scholar of rhetoric Jen Mercieca and legal commentator Asha Rangappa note, Trump is a master at giving himself enough plausible deniability for his supporters to claim that, as Rangappa put it, “he wasn’t saying what he was saying. I know what he meant. He knows what he meant. You know what he meant.” In the same speech Saturday, Trump called those convicted of violence on January 6, 2021, “hostages” and “patriots,” and has said he would pardon them, appearing to endorse violence to return him to power.

This morning, Trump’s lawyers told a court that Trump cannot come up with either the money or a bond for the $454 million plus interest he owes in penalties and disgorgement after he and the Trump Organization were found guilty of fraud in a Manhattan court earlier this year. The lawyers say they have approached 30 different companies to back the bond, and they have all declined. They will not issue a bond without cash or stock behind it. Trump's real estate holdings, which are likely highly leveraged, aren’t enough.

Last year, Trump said under oath that he had “substantially in excess of 400 million in cash,” and that amount was “going up very substantially every month.” Apparently, that statement was a lie, or the money has evaporated, or Trump doesn’t want to use it to pay this court-ordered judgment on top of the $91.6 million bond he posted earlier this month in the second E. Jean Carroll case.

Timothy O’Brien of Bloomberg notes that Trump’s desperate need for cash makes him even more of a national security threat than his retention of classified documents made it clear he already was. “[T]he going is likely to get rough for Trump as this plays out,” O’Brien writes, “and he’s likely to become more financially desperate with each passing day,” making him “easy prey for interested lenders—and an easy mark for overseas interests eager to influence US policy.”

This morning, Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post reported that Trump is turning to his 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort to advise him in 2024. Dawsey notes that the campaign’s focus appears to be on the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee in July, which suggests Trump’s people are concerned that his nomination will be contested. Manafort has been known as a “convention fixer” since 1976.

Manafort is also the key link between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Manafort worked for many years for Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovich, who was closely tied to Russian president Vladimir Putin. When Ukrainians threw Yanukovich out of office in 2014, Manafort was left with large debts to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. In 2016, Manafort began to work for Trump’s campaign. An investigation by a Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee into the links between Trump’s campaign and Russia determined that Manafort had shared polling data from the Trump camp with his partner, Konstantin Kilimnik, who the senators assessed was a Russian operative.  

In 2018, as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Manafort was found guilty of hiding millions of dollars he had received for lobbying on behalf of Yanukovych and his pro-Russian political party, then getting loans through false financial records when Yanukovych lost power. A judge sentenced him to more than seven years in prison.

Trump pardoned Manafort in December 2020, shortly after losing the presidential election.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[beardedmrbean]

President Donald Trump announced that he is extending the deadline for a 50% tariff on the European Union until July 9, a measure he had earlier said would go into effect on June 1.

"I received a call today from Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, requesting an extension on the June 1st deadline on the 50% Tariff with respect to Trade and the European Union," Trump posted on Truth Social on May 25, adding that he agreed to the extension and that von der Leyen said "talks would begin rapidly."

In a post on X, von der Leyen described the conversation with Trump as a "good call."

"The EU and US share the world’s most consequential and close trade relationship," von der Leyen added. "Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively. To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9."

Trump's announcement comes just two days after he threatened the EU with a 50% tariff after having paused reciprocal tariffs on it and other nations in April.

"The European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of taking advantage of the United States on TRADE, has been very difficult to deal with," Trump said in a social media post on May 23, a resumption of his threats after pausing reciprocal tariffs on the EU and other nations in April. "Our discussions with them are going nowhere!" the president added.

Trump’s proposed 50% tariffs on European Union goods would hit roughly $606 billion in imported products. That’s the value of goods exported to the United States from the European Union in 2024, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

The United States is the EU’s largest trading partner, purchasing 21% of its exports, according to EU data.

The top EU export to the United States is pharmaceuticals. Other leading EU exports include cars and other vehicles, aircraft, engines and motors, other machinery, petroleum oils, and alcoholic beverages, according to the EU.

Trump on April 3 announced global "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs, sending the world's financial markets into a nosedive before pausing the tariffs for 90 days for most countries except China. The Trump administration has been negotiating trade deals with various countries since April.

The only deal reached so far has been with the United Kingdom. Talks with China, which imposed tit-for-tat tariffs on the U.S., are ongoing after both countries agreed to lower steep tariffs.