Robert Berza

e-commerce enthusiast, digital strategist, VoD pioneer.

[Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder]

Elon Musk’s Grok concludes that the Witkoff peace plan was translated into English from Russia.

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@AdamMoczar Yes, Europe is slow. Yet, 2.7% growth for USA in 2025 (after 1.3% in H1). What kind of sources do you use? Trump homself?

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@HansWerner85760 @StatisticUrban Tnx a bunch for the follow up

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@HansWerner85760 @StatisticUrban Aaaa, you meant history, not future :). Well, I thought the mastermind behind the tariffs was selling the idea of growth of manufacturing for the future.

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@HansWerner85760 @StatisticUrban How long is the run? Just name a month/year and put 2-3 arguments on why that date. Tnx.

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@unusual_whales Genius, Einstein: drop your GDP in Q1 2025 to -0.5% from almost 3% a quarter before and 2026 will look smoooth. Now, just curious, can you figure out a similar model where Q4 2026 could grow even more, to 5%, lets say! Start soon this mission: this October sounds just dandy!

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@MichaelAArouet You mean exactly like US that is in top5 GDP per capita but barely gets into top15 for wealth? What’s up with the risk there?

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@MichaelAArouet

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@MichaelAArouet … USA, for this old technology. Now, next question: and the winner WILL BE? And another one: in which race HUMANITY wins on the long term? Asking while waiting for my 2nd child to come into this world (of graphs).

[Jane of the North @JaneotN]

So Elon goes "Kill the Bill!" and Trump goes "Elon has TDS!" so Elon goes "I'm the reason Trump won!" so Trump goes "we waste billions on Elon!" so Elon goes "Epstein!" and a flunkie goes "Deport!" and Elon goes "Impeach!"

And THAT'S why women are too emotional to be President.

[Nicușor Dan @NicusorDanRO]

Fapte sau vorbe?
Alegeți întelept pe 18 mai!

[Premier League @premierleague]

This is Liverpool. This is history.

🗣️ Words by @OfficialJRbrts

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

@FlorinBilbiie Have you seen this one? And how are the game theories mixing with economics these days?

[Matthew Prince 🌥 @eastdakota]

I’m playing everyone’s favorite party game: guess the Trump administration’s strategy. Like most of you, I have no inside information. But that’s what makes it fun. Here’s my best theory.

Some assumptions first:

1) They’re not crazy. There is a strategy. It doesn’t align with conventional economic principles. But there’s something they’re playing toward.

2) They’re not stupid. I know enough of the players involved to know they’re not idiots. They may be making what will turn out to be accurately predicted to be horrible decisions, but they do have a plan and it’s coherent. As part of this, while I think they think they can increase U.S. manufacturing, they don’t really believe they can bring everything on-shore.

3) They’re intentionally being opaque as to what the real plan is. Trump fashions himself a negotiator. Holding his cards close to his vest, even lying about what cards he has, is part of the game.

4) They’re not just in it for themselves. I get that this has become non-conventional wisdom, but I am going to assume for this that the goal isn’t merely grift. Even if you believe it is, suggest that’s an easy out to thinking through what may be more complex motivations.

5) China is the real enemy. China has done some things in the last two years that have made even the China doves in the last administration into hawks. Again, I know there’s lots of media saying Trump wants to kiss up to Xi. But, having spent enough time with enough folks in this and the last administration, they really worry about China morning, afternoon, and all night.

So with that context, I posit the strategy is entirely: destabilize and ultimately decapitate China.

If that’s right, you could just impose tariffs on China. But China has lots of export markets, so goods will just flow out through those. What if instead you impose tariffs on everyone?

While China and the U.S. have similar GDPs, China is much more dependent on exports. That means while the countries of the world like cheap Chinese exports, they don’t depend on the Chinese market for their exports (yet). China has actually been on a nationalistic spree recently so foreign brands are more out of favor, meaning they’re an even less interesting market to sell to.

The U.S., on the other hand, is the world largest buying market. We are the consumers to the world. If we stop buying, everyone suffers. That means nearly everyone needs to come to the table with the U.S. if there are universal tariffs.

The U.S. is also unique in that it is among the only countries that doesn’t need to import anything. Don’t get me wrong, we want to import iPhones and PlayStations and French wine and German cars. But we don’t need oil or food or water or most the other raw materials to make sure people stay alive.

So the U.S. will hurt under a high tariff regime but won’t collapse. Some manufacturing will move back on shore. But the biggest thing is every country needs to negotiate with the U.S.

What does the U.S. ask for? I’m sure a bunch of nits with every country. But what if the big ask is: it’s us or them. You either trade with the United States, or you trade with China, but trading with both isn’t acceptable anymore.

For some countries — Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines — the promise is to be the next China, but this time under more careful rules dictated by the U.S.

For most the rest of the world, they’re already massive net importers from China. Forced to make a choice between selling to China or selling to the U.S. I’d guess most will pick the U.S. German automakers are terrified of BYD. And the Italians and French haven’t proven they can sell wine or cheese to China at any real volume.

What’s China’s response? It’s tricky because they’ve preached self-sufficiency and internal focus. But if the whole world order suddenly aligns against them, what do they do?

I have no idea if this is the Trump administration’s plan. But it’s the only thing I’ve come up with that passes the sniff test.

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

Early morning I read it; looked like a carefully built thought-process. I was trying - like millions around the world - to understand at least a bit wtf happens & whats Trump’s game besides bullying everyone.

Now, after the 125% for China & 10% for the rest, I say tnx Matthew!

[Matthew Prince 🌥 @eastdakota]

I’m playing everyone’s favorite party game: guess the Trump administration’s strategy. Like most of you, I have no inside information. But that’s what makes it fun. Here’s my best theory.

Some assumptions first:

1) They’re not crazy. There is a strategy. It doesn’t align with conventional economic principles. But there’s something they’re playing toward.

2) They’re not stupid. I know enough of the players involved to know they’re not idiots. They may be making what will turn out to be accurately predicted to be horrible decisions, but they do have a plan and it’s coherent. As part of this, while I think they think they can increase U.S. manufacturing, they don’t really believe they can bring everything on-shore.

3) They’re intentionally being opaque as to what the real plan is. Trump fashions himself a negotiator. Holding his cards close to his vest, even lying about what cards he has, is part of the game.

4) They’re not just in it for themselves. I get that this has become non-conventional wisdom, but I am going to assume for this that the goal isn’t merely grift. Even if you believe it is, suggest that’s an easy out to thinking through what may be more complex motivations.

5) China is the real enemy. China has done some things in the last two years that have made even the China doves in the last administration into hawks. Again, I know there’s lots of media saying Trump wants to kiss up to Xi. But, having spent enough time with enough folks in this and the last administration, they really worry about China morning, afternoon, and all night.

So with that context, I posit the strategy is entirely: destabilize and ultimately decapitate China.

If that’s right, you could just impose tariffs on China. But China has lots of export markets, so goods will just flow out through those. What if instead you impose tariffs on everyone?

While China and the U.S. have similar GDPs, China is much more dependent on exports. That means while the countries of the world like cheap Chinese exports, they don’t depend on the Chinese market for their exports (yet). China has actually been on a nationalistic spree recently so foreign brands are more out of favor, meaning they’re an even less interesting market to sell to.

The U.S., on the other hand, is the world largest buying market. We are the consumers to the world. If we stop buying, everyone suffers. That means nearly everyone needs to come to the table with the U.S. if there are universal tariffs.

The U.S. is also unique in that it is among the only countries that doesn’t need to import anything. Don’t get me wrong, we want to import iPhones and PlayStations and French wine and German cars. But we don’t need oil or food or water or most the other raw materials to make sure people stay alive.

So the U.S. will hurt under a high tariff regime but won’t collapse. Some manufacturing will move back on shore. But the biggest thing is every country needs to negotiate with the U.S.

What does the U.S. ask for? I’m sure a bunch of nits with every country. But what if the big ask is: it’s us or them. You either trade with the United States, or you trade with China, but trading with both isn’t acceptable anymore.

For some countries — Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines — the promise is to be the next China, but this time under more careful rules dictated by the U.S.

For most the rest of the world, they’re already massive net importers from China. Forced to make a choice between selling to China or selling to the U.S. I’d guess most will pick the U.S. German automakers are terrified of BYD. And the Italians and French haven’t proven they can sell wine or cheese to China at any real volume.

What’s China’s response? It’s tricky because they’ve preached self-sufficiency and internal focus. But if the whole world order suddenly aligns against them, what do they do?

I have no idea if this is the Trump administration’s plan. But it’s the only thing I’ve come up with that passes the sniff test.

[Andrea Junker @Strandjunker]

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but “I was only following orders” was rejected as a defense at the Nuremberg Trials.

[Julius Kim @Julius_Kim]

I apologize if this is triggering for anyone, but the United States has what amounts to an abusive spouse for a President. I spent most of my prosecutorial career prosecuting domestic violence cases, and I know so many have lived it (or are still living it). I’ve seen the type, and he’s it.

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

Nu toata lumea a trait in copilarie in Bucuresti, Constanta sau Timisoara, unde se gaseau mai usor niste lucruri. Apa calda duminica, lift oprit constant pt pene de curent, ratie la paine si ulei si banane de Craciun prin pile si dupa cozi; eu asta am trait in Campina. Nu in Timisoara la bunici…

[Robert Berza @robertberza]

CCR nu s a discreditat pt ca au luat anulat primul tur (pt ca exista argumentatie ok), ci pt ca a luat AZI decizia.

Judecatorii, toti numiti de PSD sau PNL/Klaus, s-au intalnit JOIA TRECUTA si aveau cel putin o parte din probe la indemana. Si au decis pe cerinta Terhes renumarare pt ca “Elena si Ludovic”, dar spunand negru pe alb ca nu anuleaza cerinta nr 2, care il viza direct pe Calin. CCR avea datele desecretizate.

Intre timp au iesit si spus ca nu mai pot anula turul 1 decat la cererea finalistilor. Si LUNI au decis ca mergem inainte, cu aceleasi informatii existente la CCR.

Au ratat de cel putin 2 ori ocazia sa ia o decizie pe baza informatiilor pe care le-au avut constant.

Azi, cu VOTUL PORNIT in diaspora au luat o decizie pe care o puteau lua acum 8 zile sau acum 4.

[Costel Patrascan @CostelPatrascan]

@costelpatrascan
#caricatura

[Brent Toderian @BrentToderian]

“A startling statistic emerged in Paris last month: during the morning and evening rush hours, on representative main thoroughfares crisscrossing the French capital, there are now more bicycles than cars – almost half as many again, in fact.”

Leadership. https://t.co/iuR1CQ0PqD