All these stories have one thing in common: these people are in the early or late thirties but unmarried/uncoupled, alone, paying rent & living alone in a city & so when the pandemic came the allure of the city disappears & only costs show up. Nothing wrong about coming home but
These adults represent the trends we see about millennials (older millennials shall I say) & that we treat our thirties like our twenties, prolonging life-long choices such as finding a life partner, a career to stick around & also investing in the future beyond the short-term.
All choices have costs. If they are lucky, parents live close to the city & nice & they get along with & basically providing the nuclear family that they should already be creating on their own. I wonder if going home helps them realize that they have to make adult choices soon.
Or it is just a crutch for them to flee to safety & stability & then return back to the way they were when being alone in the city is safe & fun again until another shock occurs. These stories aren't unique, they are the story of our generation & basically the future of us. Scary
Scary because we are all Peter Pans. We want to have fun & not grow up & learn & live whimsically & not make choices that are consequential for life, something people used to do.
And being free has costs too of course. If you don't commit, u don't have commitment. Feedback loop
An essay by Elizabeth Wurtzel, author of Prozac Nation, on what it's like to be 44 & living like u're 24 in New York City.
She refused to grow up: no husband, children, real estate, stocks, bonds, 401k, emergency funds, savings account.
She said, "It's not that I have not planned for the future; I have not planned for the present."
She hadn't planned for growing older (her friends all moved on beyond 24 w/ kids etc) & she said this:
I lived with intent, but at all specific, & had no ability to compromise.
I have not disciplined myself into the kinds of commitments that make life beyond the wild of youth into a haven of calm.
And I have spent that freedom carelessly. Would I do anything else? I did not expect, not ever, to be scared to death.
I made a career out of emotions.
Her bio:
Born in Upper West Side, educated at Harvard, published a book that became famous at 27 & got tons of $$$ for it & spent it all on drugs & fun & designer clothes. Wrote memoirs on addiction w/ mixed successs. Went to Yale Law School & worked as a lawyer & later writer.
Somehow her essay stuck with me & I remembered it. She was a great writer, quite honest & raw in her ability to reveal her vulnerability.
Don't forget that she was wildly successful in her youth & had plenty of talent & beauty.
Still, aging scared her. 44 going on 24 is no fun.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From winning the Trump trade war, India is now the US President’s biggest target. The Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on India. To add insult to injury, Trump announced another 25% tariff, effective tomorrow, on the grounds that India imports crude oil from Russia.
Indian goods bound for the US will now face tariff rates similar to China’s if we include the Trump 1.0 tariffs, making any China+1 strategy in India less competitive for US markets, and relative to Southeast countries, which for the most part face tariff rates of about 20 per cent.
Will the additional 25% tariff stick? While Russia’s war with Ukraine isn’t going to end by Wednesday, the secondary Trump tariff is likely temporary. Therefore, the question is not whether India will be able to bring the 50% back down to at least 25%, but when.
Eight months after Trump has been inaugurated and we of course have now the EU US deal. What do we know about Trumponomics?
I would say my read is the Miran paper is a blueprint for Trump actions so far on trade. Let's see what I mean by that. And this has consequences of how Trump sees India, which I think is not just escalation to gain leverage.
First, let's talk about an important ally, the EU. The details are out and I would say this is actually rather good for the EU in the context of out of control Trump tariffs.
Why? EU tariffs are NOT stacked. They are ceilings. As in, they get 15% max, including sectoral tariffs like auto (including car parts), pharma, semiconductor, lumber etc but not steel & alum, which they are still trying to negotiate. There are some additional exemptions for EU products such as aircraft, parts, generic pharmas & ingredients etc.
Meaning, to trade for this 15%, the EU is falling closer into the US orbit via investment and trade as well as defense, which it is working on being more self sufficient with increased spending but not just yet.
Anyway, what can you say about other allies? It means South Korea and Japan can and hopefully have similar terms.
Remember that reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA aren't the only ones. Section 232s are pretty scary and more stuff being added all the time without warnings.
An example is steel where a few days ago 400 more products were added to include steel derivatives.
So if you want to have access, this is basically what the costs are and so what does that tell you about others? Here I go back to the Miran paper.
Guys, let's do it. All things Trump tariffs. Here we go. First, let's talk about the basics. 10% is the floor as in everyone gets that. And these are the economies that get higher than that:
15% (EU, Japan, South Korea and 33 countries: Angola, Botswana, etc.)
18% (Nicaragua)
19% (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand)
20% (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Vietnam)
25% (Brunei, India, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tunisia)
30% (Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Libya, South Africa)
35% (Iraq, Serbia)
39% (Switzerland)
40% (Laos, Myanmar)
41% (Syria)
In Asia, it looks like this. Excluding China and Myanmar, Laos, India got the highest - 25% and maybe more.
China is waiting for talks on extension. Right now, it's 10% reciprocal + 20% fentanyl during extension + 25% during Trump 1.0
Southeast Asia gets 20% to 19% except Laos & Myanmar at 40%, Brunei is 25% but energy is exempt so...
India original was 26% so 25% seems bad but frankly not too far from the Southeast Asians. That being said, India was aiming closer to 15% as Vietnam got dropped from 46% to 20%.
Anyway, let's talk about details of the White House info.
It goes into effect 7th August. But if you got stuff in ports/front-loading and not yet consumed till 1 October, there are varied rates for them.
Long story short, there is still time to negotiate this down before it goes into effect basically.
Trump tariff strikes India at 25% plus Russian oil import punishment. Is it a surprise? Not exactly. I have been thinking for a week what a US India deal look like. And to be honest, I think I saw this coming. I think India can negotiate down from this threat btw. It's not final. But how much lower and what are the costs?
Why is it not a surprise that India is not getting the deal that it is working hard on?
First, let's look at the EU and Japan - they got smacked with 15% tariff & got reprieve for auto (and other sectors) but auto is key at 15%.
So 15% is the best India can get. And it won't get it. Why? Well, it has to offer a lot to Trump to get that and it won't.
Remember that this is just a threat (similar to what Trump did with Japan before they settled on a lower number) and the threat I suppose can be real or not. Irrespective, he cares about it enough to post about it.
Trump has a few agendas that he wants India or Modi's help with.
Ending that Ukraine War is one. And India is not interested in that. It's an emerging country that buys where it can cheapest.
Russian oil is cheapest & so it buys from Russia & Trump wants to starve Russia of oil revenue. India doesn't want to not buy the cheapest oil possible. Besides, Russia is neither a foe nor a friend.
Maybe the West's foe but not India. So on this point, very hard. What are the costs to India? Well, it will have to pay more for its oil if it doesn't buy the cheapest oil.