𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@Budoarstamning Att lära sig ett latinskt språk är en inkörsport för andra latinska språk. Att lära sig spanska är bra mycket lättare än franska. Enklare stavning, gramatik och uttal. Om du läser spanska i sex år i skolan kan du bra mycket mer än om du läst franska. Tyskar kan oftare engelska.

[Mustafa Suleyman @mustafasuleyman]

https://t.co/ziQVbIVdxJ

[The Economist @TheEconomist]

European cities are awash with knife crime. America is full of gun-toting gangsters. Such clichés are common on social media. What is the truth? Our charts help explain https://t.co/G5QeUVxhXQ

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@bensinmacke @AgnesWold @Erik81747804 Personligen så har jag vaccinerat mig. Bältros är ju inte roligt och skulle det visa sig minska risken för Alzheimers så får det vara en bonus.

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@bensinmacke @AgnesWold @Erik81747804 Vad jag förstår finns studier från Holland och Wales som visar på minskad risk för Alzheimers, men oxå en ny stor brittisk studie som inte visar något samband. Så lite oklart. Kanske för bra för att vara sant.

[MJ Murphy @hothingsgirlsay]

The Spiral of Silence

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@Aestheticsn1 Will you still need me, will you still feed me when I am....

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@NASAEarth @Astro_Christina Full moon! Nice.

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

https://t.co/LvZ4fHl020

[Macrobond @MacrobondAI]

Long time, big news!

Meet Macrobond Amplify

Turn static charts into an interactive research experience built for sharing and better conversations

With explorable charts, usage metrics and AI-powered discovery, Amplify expands the reach of your research

https://t.co/r8YhOGSxH0

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@AndreasSteno The need for reliable and verifiable data with a good ontology will be as valuable, or more, in the world of AI. The adage "garbage in gives garbage out " is as true as ever. To make investment decisions you need something you can trust, verify and document.

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@ChrisO_wiki @RadioFreeTom Mitterand

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@KristerThelin @Arden_2210 48

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@kamilkazani He probably had some sticks together with those carrots

[Velina Tchakarova @vtchakarova]

Dear Europeans,

Your political class continues to operate as though we are still living in the post-Cold War illusion of a non-existent global order. But the 21st century has delivered a radically different reality: Cold War 2.0 is upon us — a full-spectrum systemic confrontation between the United States and the DragonBear, the evolving axis of strategic coordination between China and Russia. This new bifurcation of the global system is not speculative. It is an objective, observable process that has been unfolding for many years.

What’s at stake? Everything. The decisions made today will chart the trajectory of Europe for the next 10 to 15 years — geopolitically, economically, and strategically. The window for serious strategic reflection is rapidly closing, and Europe faces three clear strategic options:

1. Strategic Autonomy
If Europe chooses this path, it must be prepared for a generational effort. Catching up with America and China in all systemically relevant domains will demand sacrifices: extended working lives, fewer leisure comforts, full labor force participation, a renewed focus on STEM education, and a strategic mindset oriented around hard power. Strategic autonomy cannot exist without energy independence, military credibility, and industrial sovereignty. This means prioritizing energy security and productivity over rushed decarbonization targets, investing at least €800 billion per year in reindustrialization and another €800 billion in rearmament. Only then can Europe credibly defend its southern and eastern flanks — and assert itself in the Arctic and beyond.

2. The Status Quo – Total Dependence on the United States

Europe’s former diversification — relying on Russian energy, Chinese manufacturing, and American security — has collapsed. Now, Europe is wholly dependent on the United States across all three dimensions. In the context of Cold War 2.0, this means one thing: if Europe is unwilling or unable to build true strategic autonomy, then it will be forced to align with Washington — not by design, but by default — in the unfolding global struggle against the DragonBear. This is not strategic sovereignty. It is strategic submission.

3. Deepening Relations with China

The third option — pursuing closer ties with China — would amount to a geopolitical self-destruction. In practice, this would reinforce the DragonBear architecture and directly undermine Europe’s own security interests by enabling Russia’s war on Ukraine and eroding the continental security order. No amount of “de-risking” will alter Beijing and Moscow’s joint strategic calculus. Their two-front strategy is clear: distract the U.S. and Europe with protracted instability in Ukraine and its periphery, while reshaping the Indo-Pacific through fait accompli military moves. Europe would be the weak link — and the ultimate casualty.

The choice is ours, but time is not. This is a moment for realism, resolve, and responsibility. Europe cannot afford to look away!

[𝓣𝓱𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓼 𝓞𝓵𝓼𝓼𝓸𝓷 @thriolsson]

@davidraxen https://t.co/D9LnLwH9Fk

[Spencer Hakimian @SpencerHakimian]

The spokeswoman for China’s ministry of foreign affairs just posted this:

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

This is batshit insane, no other way to call it.

We now have the first attempt by the White House—specifically by Steve Miran, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers—to justify the tariffs based on economic "theory", and it's without a doubt the most dishonest piece of economic reading that's I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon.

The gist of Miran's argument is to reposition the global reserve currency status of the dollar not as an exorbitant privilege (as erstwhile French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing once characterized it), but as somehow a "burden" that the rest of the world needs to compensate the US for bearing.

As Miran explains it, having the dollar as a reserve currency "has caused persistent currency distortions and contributed, along with other countries’ unfair barriers to trade, to unsustainable trade deficits" which "have decimated our manufacturing sector."

So he wants to give up the reserve currency status of the dollar, right? Wrong. He wants to have it both ways.

He says that America's "financial dominance cannot be taken for granted; and the Trump Administration is determined to preserve [it]" but this same financial dominance "comes at a cost" and "other nations" need to pay for it.

And he means this literally. He made a list of what exactly he means by "burden sharing" and one of the forms it can take is countries "simply writ[ing] checks to Treasury that help us finance global public goods."

Let's pause a moment here to contemplate the sheer insanity of this: the U.S. is literally suggesting that countries should mail checks to the US Treasury as tribute for the 'privilege' of maintaining the dollar as a global reserve currency, when it is this very reserve status of the dollar that is the cornerstone of US power.

It's the equivalent of Samson asking everyone to pay him to keep his hair.

Because that's what Miran is conveniently not mentioning in his text. The reason Giscard d'Estaing called it an "exorbitant privilege" is that it allows the U.S. to quite literally have its way of life subsidized by the rest of the world.

Miran (and Trump) complain about the trade deficits, but they are the very manifestation of this subsidization: countries normally cannot run a permanent trade deficit because they'd one day face a balance of payments crisis.

It's like a private individual: you cannot indefinitely buy more from others than what you yourself earn. At some point you'll have to pay up. Unless, that is, you're the issuer of the currency everyone uses, in which case the normal rules of economic gravity are suspended.

While other nations must balance their books eventually, the dollar's reserve status gives America the unique ability to consume more than it produces perpetually, with the world eagerly accepting dollars that cost nothing to create in exchange for real goods and services. That's not a "burden", it very much is an "exorbitant privilege".

So yes, sure, because America can effectively buy most of what it needs from the rest of the world for "free" (by printing dollars), this situation doesn't exactly create incentives to do the hard work of manufacturing goods domestically. But framing this as other countries taking advantage of America rather than America taking advantage of its currency dominance is an astonishing inversion of reality.

And even more astonishing is Miran's ask that countries now compensate the U.S. for this. Some people mention that it's like asking vassals for tribute but it's actually even worse than this. The tribute is already embedded in the global reserve currency status of the dollar: other countries work hard for the U.S. while they can just issue IOUs that never come due.

What Miran is thus proposing is effectively demanding vassals make payments for the privilege of already making payments—a double tribute system where countries first subsidize American living standards by accepting dollars as reserves, and then must pay an additional fee for the 'burden' this supposedly places on the US.

Miran's piece is replete with other complete inversions of reality. For instance, he now blames China for the 2008 crash because "their holdings of U.S. mortgage debt helped fuel the housing bubble, forcing hundreds of billions of dollars of credit into the housing sector without regard as to whether the investments made sense."

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the 2008 financial crisis would have their breath taken away by such brazen revisionism. Not only is the crisis universally known to have been caused by US regulatory failures and the reckless securitization of subprime mortgages by Wall Street firms, but China in this instance literally saved U.S. markets from complete meltdown after Hank Paulson personally appealed to Beijing to continue purchasing US Treasury bonds during the height of the crisis, which they did.

To now blame them for the very crisis they helped mitigate and played no part in creating is beyond dishonest—it's gaslighting on a geopolitical scale.

All in all, it's clear what the US is trying to achieve here, they effectively want to have their cake and eat it. They want to keep the privilege and want the rest of the world to pay for the downsides that come with it.

Which means we're truly at a crossroad in history where nations must make an immensely consequential choice: acquiesce to this insane double tribute system or stand against it. There are very few precedents in world history for such a nakedly exploitative power play, but history is very clear on two things: submitting to extortion only invites more of it, and collective resistance is the only effective response.

[Macrobond @MacrobondAI]

🚀 Cut your chart-making time by 75%! @CameronDawson, CIO at @NewEdgeWealth, shares how Macrobond helped free up time for high-impact projects, better client service & business growth. We can streamline your workflow—book a demo today: https://t.co/xgVI6yjwzD