economics

Will India Join The Asian “Squad”?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Romeo Brawner invited India to join the Asian “Squad” while speaking at the latest annual Raisina Dialogue security forum in Delhi. This neologism was reportedly coined by Pentagon officials last spring to refer to the multilateral cooperation between the US, Australia, Japan, and the Philippines. Brawner suggested that India can participate through the sharing of intelligence on their “common enemy” China. Here are five background briefings:

* 16 June 2023: “The US’ Nascent Trilateral Alliance With Japan & The Philippines Will Integrate Into AUKUS+”

* 27 January 2024: “Why’s Russia Letting India Export Jointly Produced Supersonic Missiles To The Philippines?”

* 29 March 2024: “India’s Support Of The Philippines In Its Maritime Dispute With China Isn’t Related To The US”

* 6 May 2024: “The US’ Newly Formed Asian ‘Squad’ Has Strategic Implications For India”

* 18 February 2025: “The Latest Modi-Trump Summit Showcased India’s Multi-Alignment Strategy”

To summarize, the Philippines is becoming the centerpiece of the US’ planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China, which will de facto expand the AUKUS alliance throughout the region. India is a founding member of the Quad alongside the US, Australia, and Japan, but it fiercely safeguards its hard-earned strategic autonomy and won’t subordinate itself to the US like the other two and the Philippines will in spite of its problems with China, which is why it wasn’t included in the “Squad”.

India and China also entered into a rapprochement after their leaders met on the sidelines of October’s BRICS Summit in Kazan, with the US being inadvertently responsible for this process as explained here at the time, yet tensions still remain. Trump’s return to the presidency changed India’s strategic calculations, however, since he’s tough on China and is prioritizing the “Pivot (back) to Asia”. The US’ grand strategic reorientation to that part of Eurasia will give India a larger role in American planning.

Indian policymakers might therefore see value in sharing intelligence on China with their Philippine partner, who’s one of the US’ mutual defense allies, through the “Squad” format. This could even lay the basis for a new “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance. Further ingratiating India with the Pentagon’s planning vis-à-vis China, so long as India retains its hard-earned strategic autonomy this entire time, might also result in less trade and tariff pressure from Trump or so Indian policymakers might think.

On the flipside, India could risk provoking China and thus further complicating their already difficult rapprochement if Beijing interprets this as signaling Delhi’s impending subordination to Washington, in which case their border tensions could once again worsen and last fall’s progress would be reversed. The bilateral sharing of intelligence with the Philippine would also likely be viewed as provocative by China but it would still be qualitatively different than India’s de facto or formal inclusion in the “Squad”.

Accordingly, one possibility is that India comprehensively ramps up its security cooperation with the Philippines without multilateralizing this through the “Squad”, all while communicating to the US how sensitive this issue…

The Global Economy As An After School Special

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

The Global Economy As An After School Special

This follows directly from Friday’s Warning, for lack of a better word, which leaned heavily on last weekend’s Be Afraid of Certainty, Not Uncertainty. Since anything can happen between the time this is distributed and “Liberation” Day, it seemed like a good time to take a view from 20,000 feet. Which leads me to discussing After School Specials.

For those who don’t know, the After School Special was a type of TV show. Longer (1 hour) with a bigger budget than a typical show aimed at children. But there was always a message or a moral to the show.

The typical show ran something along the lines of:

A bad person, or group (bully, extortion, protection, etc.) does something to a good person, or group (generally weaker, awkward, or “loners”).
Over time the “good” person or group trains, gets organized, or does something to fight back against the bad group or person.
After an attempt or two, the good people win.
More often than not, the “bad” people realize that they have been bad, and come to an agreement with the “good” people or even team up and let bygones be bygones. As “phony” as the rest of the plot, this ending always seemed the phoniest of all.
Right now, the trade war looks a lot like this, with a few plot “twists.”

The U.S. administration believes it has been taken advantage of for years hence it is the good team in this global economic “movie.” The administration is just starting to fight back as the underdog to get even with the bullies/extortionists/protection racketeers.
The rest of the world sees the U.S. as being the bully, the one upsetting the order, and flaunting traditional rules of engagement. Hence much of the rest of the world views themselves as the good people in the global economic “movie.”
Basically, the global economy (and some of this may apply to the ongoing wars and attempts at peace) is living in an After School Special – though everyone seems to believe they are on the “good” side.

The Problem with “An Eye for an Eye”

In theory an “eye for an eye” makes some sense. You poke out my eye, I poke out your eye. We are all even. We move on. Maybe this is where the concept of “reciprocity” fits in?

The problem is, in the real world, even at the After School Special level of preachiness, you can see how things can get out of control. No one can figure out who took the first eye, so it just keeps going on and on. Sound familiar to the tariff “negotiations” or rationalizations?

Why did you slap me?
Because you made fun of my girlfriend.
Oh, but I said that because you mushed my brother’s ice cream into his face.
And I’m sure there was a reason to mush the brother’s face in ice cream.
And on and on and on.
Okay, this sounds juvenile (and it is) but isn’t what we are…

SpaceX Offers Starlink To Myanmar, Thailand After 1000 Dead In Massive Earthquake

SpaceX announced on Friday that it is “prepared to provide Starlink kits to assist with communications and relief efforts” in Thailand and Myanmar (also known as Burma), after more than 1,000 people were killed when a 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck the country earlier in the day.

Devastating to hear of the earthquake’s toll on Thailand and Myanmar. The SpaceX team is prepared to provide Starlink kits to assist with communications needs and relief efforts, pending any necessary governmental approvals.
— Starlink (@Starlink) March 29, 2025
In addition to a death toll of 1,002 as of Saturday, there are 2,376 injured and 30 missing according to the military government, up sharply from the 144 dead reported by state media on Friday.

As the Epoch Times notes further, the U.S. Geological Survey said the epicenter of the earthquake—which was 6.2 miles deep—was close to the city of Mandalay in Burma.

A dramatic video circulating on social media shows a high-rise building in Bangkok collapsing in a cloud of dust as construction workers run for their lives. Thai authorities said nine people had died and 101 were missing in Bangkok, mostly laborers trapped in the rubble of the collapsed tower.

High-rise building collapses due to strong #earthquake in Chatuchak, Bangkok. #แผ่นดินไหว #กรุงเทพมหานคร pic.twitter.com/fiRV6ZIZq2
— Weather Monitor (@WeatherMonitors) March 28, 2025
The high-rise building was being built for the auditor general of the Thai government by the China Railway Construction Corporation.

The USGS’s predictive modeling estimated the death toll could exceed 10,000 people in Burma, and that losses could be greater than the value of the country’s gross domestic product.

In Burma, the military government has declared a state of emergency in six regions and states, including Mandalay and the capital, Naypyidaw.

It said on the Telegram messaging app, “The state will make inquiries on the situation quickly and conduct rescue operations along with providing humanitarian aid.”

The Red Cross said: “Initial reports from the ground suggest the earthquake has caused significant damage. Information on humanitarian needs is still being gathered.”
Machinery is moved on the site of an under-construction building collapse in Bangkok on March 29, 2025, a day after an earthquake struck central Burma and Thailand. Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP via Getty Images

The Burmese government’s spokesman, Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun, told state-run MRTV television channel that blood was in high demand in hospitals in Mandalay, Sagaing, and Naypyidaw.

The president of the European Commission wrote on X: “Heartbreaking scenes from Myanmar and Thailand after the devastating earthquake. My thoughts are with the victims & their families. Europe’s Copernicus satellites are already helping first responders. We are ready to provide more support. We stand with you in full solidarity.”

Chinese media reported that the earthquake was felt in Yunnan and Sichuan provinces.

Burma’s second biggest city, Mandalay, was close to the epicenter, and a local resident, Htet Naing Oo, said several people had been trapped inside a tea shop which had collapsed.

She said, “We couldn’t go in. The situation is very bad.”

Photographs and videos posted on Facebook showed widespread…

Federal Judge Halts Shutdown Of Voice Of America

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling Voice of America (VOA), the government-funded international news service whose 1,200 reporters and employees were placed on paid leave earlier this month.
The Voice of America building in Washington on June 15, 2020. Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

The judge, J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York, on Friday issued a temporary restraining order in favor of VOA employees and their unions. The order prevents the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees VOA, from shutting down the broadcasting network and its associated radio programs.

VOA employees filed the lawsuit against USAGM, its acting Director Victor Morales, and special adviser Kari Lake on March 21. The complaint accused the agency of failing to fulfill its legally mandated missions and violating both press freedom and the separation-of-powers doctrine when it took a “chainsaw” to the outlet, ordering the entire staff not to report to work, turning off the service, and locking the agency’s doors.

In his ruling, Oetken stated that VOA was likely to succeed on its claims, noting that USAGM’s actions appeared unconstitutional. He said that Lake lacked legal authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds or terminate USAGM staff, programming, or contracts.

“By withholding the funds statutorily appropriated to fully administer USAGM, VOA, and its affiliates … the executive is usurping Congress’s power of the purse and its legislative supremacy,” he wrote.

The judge did not require VOA to resume broadcasts, but made it clear that employees must not be terminated while the court determines whether the shutdown violates the Constitution or other federal administrative laws.

Friday’s order echoed a similar ruling by another district judge earlier in the week, which granted a temporary restraining order to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, blocking its funding freeze. The Trump administration has since stated in court filings that it has resumed funding for these outlets.

President Donald Trump and his supporters have been critical of VOA for years over alleged bias against conservative Americans and in favor of America’s adversaries.

In 2020, the White House sent an email accusing VOA of spending taxpayers’ money to “speak for authoritarian regimes.” It took issue with, among other things, a VOA social media post featuring a video of a light show celebrating the end of the lockdown in Wuhan, the Chinese megapolis where the COVID-19 virus first emerged; as well as the agency’s characterization of China’s effort to control the outbreak as a “model” for other nations.

“VOA too often speaks for America’s adversaries—not its citizens,” The White House said. “Journalists should report the facts, but VOA has instead amplified Beijing’s propaganda.”

The VOA first began broadcasting in 1942 in German-occupied territories as part of the Allies’ effort to engage Axis propaganda broadcasts with counterpropaganda. In the following decades, it became a staple in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union and other communist regimes. Over time, it evolved into a global news organization, now operating in more…

University Of Michigan Guts DEI Programs

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

The University of Michigan said it will eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts following the Trump administration’s warning that colleges with discriminative policies could lose federal funding.

The changes, announced on Thursday, include shutting down two diversity offices and ending its “DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan.” This follows earlier steps to phase out DEI-related requirements, such as removing mandatory DEI statements in admissions, hiring, promotions, awards, and performance reviews.

The university said individuals who previously worked on DEI initiatives across various schools, colleges, and departments will now “refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities.”

“These decisions have not been made lightly,” University of Michigan President Santa Ono and three top administrators said in a joint statement. “We recognize the changes are significant and will be challenging for many of us, especially those whose lives and careers have been enriched by and dedicated to programs that are now pivoting.

“We are deeply grateful for the meaningful contributions of leaders, faculty, and staff who have advanced our ongoing efforts to create an ever-more inclusive and respectful community.”

Federal Pressure Intensifies

The changes come as the Trump administration ramped up the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit discrimination based on race and sex, respectively, in education settings.

The University of Michigan specifically pointed to a “Dear Colleague” letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s civil rights division. The Feb. 14 letter warned that the 2023 Supreme Court decision that declared the use of racial preferences in college admissions unconstitutional would now extend to all university policies and programs beyond admissions.

“At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law,” the letter stated.

Moving forward, the university said it plans to increase investments in student-facing programs, including financial aid, mental health support, academic advising and counseling, and a scholarship for students from foster care.

Massive DEI Spending Under Scrutiny

The university has been known for a sprawling and costly DEI bureaucracy. According to an analysis by UMich economics professor Mark Perry, as of January 2024, the university spent $30.7 million each year on salaries for 241 employees who work in DEI offices or have the keywords diversity, equity, or inclusion in their job titles. This figure does not account for additional staff and resources spent to support those DEI employees.

A New York Times investigation published in October 2024 further estimated that UMich spent $250 million on DEI since 2016. The Times noted that despite this enormous investment, race- and gender-based grievances on campus actually increased, with students filing more complaints than ever before.

Following the Times report, UMich published a lengthy response in which Chief Diversity Officer Tabbye Chavous accused the article of being “filled with misinformation, disinformation, and, sadly, sexism.”

Some officials agreed that the university’s massive DEI spending failed to directly benefit students. Jordan Acker, one of the six…

US Office Focused On Shipbuilding Aims To Counter China’s Maritime Dominance

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Creating an office of U.S. shipbuilding to facilitate America’s return to being a true maritime power is long overdue and is necessary to counter China’s growing maritime dominance.

At the end of World War II, the United States had over 100 shipyards, and its flagged fleet, the largest in the world, carried  57 percent of U.S. trade, while the majority of world trade was carried in U.S.-built ships.

Today, only about 0.2 percent of global commercial tonnage is being carried in ships built in the United States. Collectively, China, South Korea, and Japan build over 90 percent of the world’s large commercial ships. And with China building over 50 percent of the world’s gross shipping tonnage, it is by far and away the world’s largest shipbuilder, with 232 times more shipbuilding capacity than the United States.

While the lack of commercial shipbuilding capacity is not the only reason we have seen the U.S. Navy decline in size and capability, it has created an environment that makes correcting the issues plaguing the Navy very difficult. Indeed, the lack of commercial shipbuilding is arguably the root cause of our Navy’s decline in readiness, its exploding ship costs, and its inability to hold vendors accountable when they deliver underperforming ships overbudget and years behind schedule.

Examples of underperforming, overbudget ships include the Constellation-class frigate, the Littoral combat ship, the Ford-class carriers, and the massive Zumwalt destroyer. It is the failures in these key shipbuilding  programs that has led to the decline of the U.S. Navy’s size and readiness. Moreover, the vendors associated with these failed and or grossly underperforming programs have at worst received a slap on the wrist and are collectively lined up to receive many hundreds of billions more in U.S. Defense contracts over the coming decades.

Shipbuilders have been able to underdeliver with near impunity, in part due to the fact that they are the only game in town, i.e., if you cancel major defense contracts then the government-dependent companies will go out of business and there will be no shipbuilding capacity. For example, there is currently only one shipbuilder that can build and execute the Refueling and Complex Overhaul work on U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. While there are two firms that can build U.S. nuclear submarines, they are suffering from a lack of skilled labor. In the vast majority of cases, the prime contractors who build the Navy’s ships are almost wholly reliant on military contracts to survive. 

All this means that when contracts are put in place, they are not just put in place to deliver the most powerful ships at the best price, they are put in place to ensure that the company executing the contract can keep its people employed from contract to contract. Thus, contracts are strung out for many years. This makes sense, as having enough people trained up in the skills to rapidly deliver a ship or a number of ships, only…

Judge Upholds California Law Restricting 18- to 20-Year-Olds’ Access To Guns

A federal judge has upheld a California law that restricts young adults from buying guns, finding the statute fits within the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations.

California penal code Section 27510 bars federal gun dealers from selling or otherwise giving possession of guns to people younger than 21. The law does allow 18- to 20-year-olds to buy certain types of guns if they obtain a hunting license, are serving in the military, or were honorably discharged from the armed forces.

Some young adults and gun rights groups challenged the law, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the case has been proceeding through the court system for years. U.S. District Judge James Lorenz said in 2020 that the law did not violate the Constitution, then an appeals court panel said it did. The appeals court later remanded the case back to Lorenz for renewed consideration following the U.S. Supreme Court ordering lower courts to figure out if gun regulations were based on the nation’s history of gun restrictions when deciding whether they are constitutional.

Lorenz on March 26 sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, concluding that even though 18- to 20-year-olds are part of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, the young adults have faced gun restrictions throughout much of American history.

The law “is consistent with the Founding Era common law that curtailed commercial firearm purchases by individuals aged 18 to 20,” Lorenz wrote in a 23-page decision.

He also said the law is constitutional because the young adults can buy guns that are not handguns or semiautomatic centerfire rifles if they receive a hunting license or are in the U.S. military. Tens of thousands of young adults have obtained guns under the exceptions in recent years, including 5,431 in 2022.

The young adults can also acquire guns as gifts from family members, the ruling noted.

“Defendants’ evidence supports a reasonable inference that Section 27510 is a commercial restriction that does not meaningfully impair 18-to-20-year-olds’ access to firearms and is therefore not covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the judge said.

The summary judgment ruling means the case is over, unless the plaintiffs appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said on social media platform X that it is reviewing the opinion.

Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that the ruling represents a victory in the fight against gun violence.

“This commonsense regulation will continue to protect our young and vulnerable communities from preventable gun violence,“ he said. ”I am proud of the countless hours my team has put in to defend this law and we know the fight is not over. We will continue to lead efforts to defend commonsense gun-safety laws and protect our communities from senseless violence.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/28/2025 – 23:00…

This Is The Income Needed To Be Middle Class In Every US State

How much do you need to make to be considered middle class in the U.S.? According to research by SmartAsset, that can range from $36,000 to $200,000, depending on where you live.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, illustrates the income needed to be considered middle class in every U.S. state. Middle class in this graphic is defined as earning between two-thirds and double the median household income. SmartAsset compiled the data as of February 2025.

To Be Middle Class

The median household income in the U.S. is approximately $75,000, with half of Americans earning less. States with high urbanization and economic activity, like California and New York, tend to have much higher income requirements to count as middle class, while rural states with lower costs, like West Virginia and Arkansas, have lower thresholds.

In Massachusetts, a household needs to earn between $67,000 and $200,000 to be considered middle class. The state has a high cost of living due to expensive housing, high taxes, and strong demand for services. Its economy is driven by industries like technology, healthcare, and education, attracting well-paid professionals and increasing competition for housing, especially in cities like Boston.

State
Lower bound on middle class income
Upper bound on middle class income
Massachusetts
$66,565
$199,716
New Jersey
$66,514
$199,562
Maryland
$65,779
$197,356
New Hampshire
$64,552
$193,676
California
$63,674
$191,042
Hawaii
$63,542
$190,644
Washington
$63,064
$189,210
Utah
$62,274
$186,842
Colorado
$61,934
$185,822
Connecticut
$61,104
$183,330
Virginia
$59,948
$179,862
Alaska
$57,748
$173,262
Minnesota
$56,718
$170,172
Rhode Island
$56,642
$169,944
New York
$54,725
$164,190
Delaware
$54,235
$162,722
Vermont
$54,135
$162,422
Illinois
$53,532
$160,612
Oregon
$53,435
$160,320
Arizona
$51,538
$154,630
North Dakota
$51,012
$153,050
Nevada
$50,904
$152,728
Texas
$50,515
$151,560
Idaho
$49,956
$149,884
Georgia
$49,750
$149,264
Wisconsin
$49,749
$149,262
Nebraska
$49,722
$149,180
Pennsylvania
$49,211
$147,648
Maine
$49,150
$147,466
Florida
$48,869
$146,622
Wyoming
$48,272
$144,830
South Dakota
$47,869
$143,620
Iowa
$47,617
$142,866
Montana
$47,198
$141,608
North Carolina
$47,198
$141,608
Kansas
$46,884
$140,666
Indiana
$46,313
$138,954
Michigan
$46,117
$138,366
Missouri
$45,692
$137,090
South Carolina
$45,198
$135,608
Ohio
$45,175
$135,538
Tennessee
$45,083
$135,262
New Mexico
$41,508
$124,536
Alabama
$41,471
$124,424
Oklahoma
$41,421
$124,276
Kentucky
$40,741
$122,236
Arkansas
$39,129
$117,400
Louisiana
$38,815
$116,458
West Virginia
$37,295
$111,896
Mississippi
$36,132
$108,406
Meanwhile, in Mississippi, the minimum household income to be considered middle class is $36,162. Mississippi is one of the cheapest states to live in due to its low housing costs, lower-than-average wages, and relatively low taxes. The cost of goods and services, including groceries, healthcare, and transportation, is also lower than the national average. Additionally, Mississippi has a lower population density and is less of an economic hub compared to wealthier states.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out this graphic, which ranks the income a family needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/28/2025 – 18:00…

Israel Parliament Passes Bill Bringing Judicial Appointments Under Political Control

Via Middle East Eye

Israel’s Knesset has passed a bill enabling greater political control over the appointment of judges, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court’s power.

The measure, which will come into effect after the October 2026 general elections, marks the first time in Israel’s history that the selection process for judges will be controlled by politicians.
Via Reuters

It will change the composition of the nine-member committee that selects judges, comprising judges, lawmakers, and bar association representatives, overseen by the justice minister.

The bill will see representatives of the Israeli Bar Association replaced with lawyers appointed by the ruling coalition and the opposition, and give politicians veto power over lower court appointments. It will also remove any influence of the three judges who sit on the committee overseeing appointments to the Supreme Court.

The committee is currently handling petitions against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, and the reappointment of Itamar Ben Gvir as national security minister.

The bill was passed almost unanimously after the opposition boycotted the vote, with 67-1 in favor of the legislation.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin will bar the committee from naming new judges until the law comes into effect, leaving the country with only 11 supreme court justices – short of the full complement of 15.

Knesset opposition leaders condemned the legislation, saying that its sole aim is “to ensure judges are subjected to the will of politicians”.

“This is happening while 59 hostages are still held in Gaza. Instead of focusing all efforts on bringing them home and healing the divisions in the nation, this government is once again engaging in the very legislation that divided the public before October 7,” they added.

A ‘dangerous direction’

A flurry of petitions against the bill were filed by opposition parties and a government watchdog to the High Court of Justice shortly after its approval. In one of them, opposition leader Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party stated that the law’s approval “is not an amendment, but the eradication of an entire system”.

National Unity party chairman, and former member of the war cabinet, Benny Gantz, warned lawmakers ahead of the vote that the nation was headed in a “dangerous direction”.

Meanwhile, thousands of Israelis gathered outside the Knesset to protest the legislation.Before October 2023, the Netanyahu government pushed a package of bills seeking to overhaul the judicial system, sparking mass protests across the country.

On January 1, 2024, the Supreme Court nullified controversial legislation passed by the government in July 2023 that eliminated the court’s ability to overturn government decisions.

The legislation eliminated the Supreme Court’s reasonableness clause, a power given to the court to overturn government rulings deemed unreasonable.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political party, Likud, called the court’s decision unfortunate and said it opposed “the will of the people for unity, especially during wartime”. Netanyahu is currently on trial for corruption. Since being indicted in 2019, he has railed publicly against the justice system, calling it biased against him.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/28/2025 – 06:30…