Japan built a national character through education—so what are we doing?
Five countries, five stories, and one question: where does India stand before the world’s education systems?
A few days ago I was having a fascinating dialogue with AI (Grok) on education. There’s a special charm in discussing education with AI, and it felt good to see that while Grok and I were talking, millions were reading our chat, asking questions and offering suggestions on education. People were deeply curious to know what the world’s education systems look like, where they stand, how they perform—and where India fits in.
Keeping that curiosity in mind, today I’m starting a series: “The World’s Education Systems and India.” In the first episode—five countries, five stories, and one question: where does Indian education stand compared with the world? Let’s begin with Japan.
About 150 years ago, in 1872, Japan’s leaders passed a law that made it the government’s duty to educate every child. What they did in 1872, we in India legislated only in 2011 as the Right to Education Act. Japanese leaders were thinking about every child in 1872; we started thinking about it in 2011. That is why Japan’s education system made every citizen so strong that, even after the most devastating nuclear attack in history, the country rose rapidly. In barely 20–25 years, through its education, technology, cameras, cars, robots and research, Japan once again became the king of technology—while here, in the eighth decade of our independence, we still celebrate merely achieving a passing percentage. Isn’t that worth thinking about?
In Japanese schools children don’t learn “I”, they learn “we”. All learning begins with teamwork, responsibility and patriotism—not in textbooks but in daily routines. I was amazed to see there are no janitors; children themselves clean their classrooms, toilets and corridors. Thus Japan built a national character through education.
Next, Singapore, a country that turned education into its survival strategy. Singapore became independent from Malaysia in 1965—18 years after our independence. In a TV interview right after independence, its first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, broke down and cried. Why? Because Singapore had no land for farming, no potable water, no minerals, no natural resources, no money—conditions like the slums of Delhi or Mumbai. But the leader said, “We have nothing except our children. We will give our children such magnificent education that a new Singapore will rise on their strength.” And so it happened. From engineers to street-cleaners, everyone in Singapore today receives world-class education. The cleaner gets the same quality of training as the engineer. Whatever was necessary to give every Singaporean excellent education, the leaders did. Thanks to that education model, a country with zero resources is now home to the world’s highest per-capita income.
After Singapore, look at China—an education model that has made its mark on the global economy through sheer schooling. China is the world’s fastest-growing major economy; its businesses dominate world markets; its cities are the most modern. The secret lies in education. China’s system has only one goal: make every child hardworking. It says, “We don’t ask how talented a child is; we ask how hardworking he or she is.” Laziness has no place. Chinese report cards don’t just state marks; they also state how much effort the child put in. In India we ask, “What percentage did you get?” In China they ask, “How much effort did you put in for that percentage?” That, too, is printed on the report card.
Another unique aspect: China’s system makes parents work just as hard as the children. Every parent receives at least 10 messages a day from school—about effort, conduct, class involvement, daily performance. The mantra is: hard work is a lifestyle. As a result, Chinese graduates don’t queue for government jobs; they think about which global market they can conquer with their effort.
If China’s specialty is that its goods are found in every market, there is another country whose schools and colleges contain children from every nation—Canada. In Canadian schools, more than 100 languages are spoken; children come from every country, race, culture and religion. Canada’s education system does not fear this diversity; it treats it as an opportunity, not a problem. Parliament itself sets the goals: by which age every child must develop which competencies. While schools teach every global subject—as we do—they also develop leadership, presentation skills, communication, vision-building, strategic planning and community building—skills we relegate to “extra-curriculars.” In Canada, leadership is part of the core curriculum. That is why Canada is a global education leader today.
Finally, Finland—an education leader that has stood at number one for decades. What matters is not that Finland is number one, but how it has stayed there. In the 16th century, a Finnish rule stated a child was marriageable only if he could read certain religious texts himself. Education, then, was not for jobs or degrees but a prerequisite for entering family and social life. From the 16th century to 1947, Finland had a basic system with no clear direction. Then, in 1947, all political parties formed an all-party committee that held over 200 public meetings and created a new system that took Finland to the top. Key reforms: all private schools were made public; formal schooling starts only at age seven—before that, children only play and grow, no alphabet, no numbers. Even today, a seven-year-old in Finland plays and explores but does not learn ABC or 123. Instead, talents of thinking, understanding, speaking and playing are nurtured.
Another Finnish feature: most countries use school inspectors to check quality; Finland abolished that post. The government says, “Instead of spending on inspectors, we spend on teacher training—we trust our teachers.” But that trust is earned. Becoming a teacher in Finland is perhaps the hardest in the world. Getting into a teacher-training university is tougher than getting into IIT or IIM in India, and then there are five rigorous years of study.
Countries like Finland, Singapore, Canada and China rise through education. The question for us is: which model can India adopt? Can we trust our teachers? Can we invest in education? Can we end the inequality of private schools? These examples do not mean we must become Japan or copy Singapore. We are India; our needs and realities are unique. The country will change when education changes, and education will change when the thinking of our leaders changes. And if leaders won’t change their thinking, we must change our leaders. That is the duty of every Indian. We must elect leaders who will give our children the education we want for them. That is the purpose of this video. Jai Hind.
The Deafening Silence: When Trump Called India a "Dead Economy" and Modi's Government Said Nothing
The words landed like a wrecking ball: "dead economy." Former US President Donald Trump, never known for diplomatic subtlety, didn't just critique India's economic policies; he delivered a brutal, public obituary. "They can take their dead economy down," he declared dismissively, lumping India with Russia in a sweeping condemnation during a campaign speech. Adding insult to injury, he quipped that perhaps one day, India might even buy oil from Pakistan – a remark dripping with sarcasm and geopolitical insensitivity, knowing full well the fraught history between the two nations.
This wasn't a minor policy disagreement. This was a direct, personal, and deeply humiliating attack on the economic standing of the world's fifth-largest economy. And the response from the government that tirelessly trumpets India's rise to becoming the "third largest economy"? Deafening silence.
This silence isn't just puzzling; it's alarming. It speaks volumes about the state of India's foreign policy and national self-respect under the current dispensation.
Beyond Tariffs: An Assault on Sovereignty and Dignity
Trump's rant wasn't confined to tariffs. While the 25% tariff announcement on certain Indian goods (effective August 1st) is a serious economic blow impacting exports, jobs, and sectors like pharmaceuticals, textiles, and electronics, his other comments crossed a critical line:
The "Dead Economy" Slur: This isn't policy critique; it's a wholesale dismissal of India's economic reality and potential. It ignores growth metrics (however contested) and the sheer scale of the Indian market. It's an insult aimed at the nation.
Sanctions for Dealing with Russia: Trump effectively threatened sanctions ("fines") on India for purchasing Russian oil and weapons, asserting US authority over India's sovereign right to choose its energy and defense partners. This blatant interference demands a robust rebuttal.
The Pakistan Oil Jibe: The suggestion that India might buy oil from Pakistan, punctuated with sarcasm, wasn't innocent trade speculation. It was a calculated dig, exploiting historical tensions to belittle India. It questioned India's energy autonomy and geopolitical standing.
"Noxious" Non-Tariff Barriers: Dismissing India's regulatory frameworks (like import licenses, customs checks) as "noxious" is an insult to the nation's administrative structures and its right to set its own trade rules.
The Government's Stunning Muteness
The government's reaction? Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal spoke in Parliament... but only about the tariffs and ongoing trade talks. The "dead economy" label? The sanctions threat? The Pakistan jibe? Ignored. The Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman? Silent. The External Affairs Minister, Jaishankar, known for sharp retorts to European queries on Russian oil? Mysteriously quiet. The Prime Minister? Invisible on the issue.
This silence is unprecedented. When China faced similar tariff threats or criticism, its Foreign Ministry issued swift, strong rebuttals. When Trump pressured Germany on Nord Stream, Merkel defended Germany's interests. Brazil's Lula openly challenged Trump's attempts to undermine their sovereignty. Yet, India, aspiring to be a global leader, offers only bureaucratic murmurs about "studying the impact" and "protecting national interests" – after the national dignity has been publicly trampled.
Selective Outrage and Political Theater
The silence becomes even more jarring when contrasted with the government's usual rhetoric. Ministers and the BJP machinery are quick to pounce on opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi for echoing concerns about the economy. When Gandhi noted Trump's "dead economy" remark reflected the ground reality (citing demonetization, GST, etc.), the BJP erupted in condemnation of him, not Trump.
This exposes a dangerous hypocrisy. Nationalism, fiercely brandished domestically against political opponents, evaporates when a foreign leader insults the nation. The "56-inch chest" seems to shrink in the face of Trump's bluster. Where are the fiery defences of "Bharat Mata's" honour now?
The Cost of Failed Foreign Policy and Personalised Diplomacy
Ravish Kumar's core argument resonates: India's foreign policy appears catastrophically adrift. What should be focused on securing national interests – protecting the economy, ensuring strategic autonomy, building strong alliances – seems subsumed by a focus on personal PR and projecting the Prime Minister's image. The much-hyped "bromance" with Trump, showcased in events like "Howdy Modi," now stands exposed as hollow theatrology.
This personalised diplomacy has yielded:
Humiliation: Enduring public insults without response.
Economic Vulnerability: Facing damaging tariffs with no clear counter-strategy.
Strategic Weakness: Appearing unable to defend sovereign decisions (like buying Russian oil) against US pressure, unlike China.
Damaged Credibility: The silence on Trump's insults makes the government's boasts about global standing ring hollow.
The Ghost of "Howdy Modi" and the Questions that Remain
The images of Modi sharing the stage with Trump in Houston, basking in chants of "Howdy Modi," now seem like a cruel joke. The "friend of India" turned accuser, calling its economy dead, while the Indian Prime Minister remains mute. The contrast is stark and deeply embarrassing for the nation.
Critical questions hang in the air, unanswered by the government's silence:
Why the lack of immediate, unequivocal condemnation? Basic diplomatic protocol demands a response to such egregious insults.
What leverage does Trump hold over Modi? The consistent silence suggests something beyond typical diplomatic friction.
Is national dignity now negotiable? At what cost is the government pursuing its undefined "deal" with the US?
Where is the strategic autonomy? Capitulating to threats of sanctions over sovereign energy choices is a sign of weakness, not strength.
How will India welcome Trump if he visits for the Quad summit? Will the architect of the "dead economy" slur be feted with silver thalis after such an affront?
Conclusion: Silence is Not Strength
Trump's "dead economy" remark wasn't just an economic assessment; it was a grenade thrown at India's national pride and global standing. The Modi government's failure to pick it up and throw it back, its refusal to even loudly say "We reject this," is not strategic patience. It's a failure of nerve, a dereliction of duty, and a stark admission of the hollowness of its projected strongman image and the bankruptcy of its current foreign policy.
The cost of this silence isn't just measured in potential tariff impacts or diplomatic points lost. It's measured in the erosion of national self-respect and the dangerous signal it sends to the world: that India can be insulted with impunity. Until the government finds its voice and forcefully defends the nation's honour and interests, the label "dead economy" will resonate less as Trump's hyperbole and more as an epitaph for India's diplomatic spine. The silence is deafening, and it speaks of a profound national humiliation.
Japan has experienced over 30 years of stagnant economic growth, low wages, and ultra-low interest rates, yet remains prosperous, safe, and highly educated.
Despite an aging population and low fertility rates, Japan maintains high life expectancy, low unemployment, and strong social welfare systems.
Japanese households are cautious spenders and savers, with a large portion of wealth held in cash rather than investments, limiting productive capital flow.
The labor market is characterized by low job mobility and a high share of 'irregular' work, contributing to stagnant wages and limited career advancement.
Japan demonstrates that it is possible to maintain a high quality of life and social stability even with slow or no economic growth, offering a potential model for other aging societies.
Japan’s Surprising Secret: Thriving Without Chasing Endless Economic Growth
When we think of a successful country, we often imagine booming economies, rising wages, and constant growth. But Japan is quietly proving that there’s another way to thrive—even when the economy barely grows at all.
A Slowdown That Didn’t Spell Disaster
Back in the 1980s, Japan was seen as an unstoppable economic force, rivaling the US and Europe. But after a huge boom, things slowed down. Since the 1990s, Japan’s economy has barely grown. Prices stayed flat, and interest rates dropped to zero or even below. Wages hardly budged—average annual pay was about $46,700 in 1990 and is still around that today.
You might expect this to cause chaos. But instead, Japan remains the world’s fourth-largest economy. Unemployment is low, people are highly educated, and life expectancy is among the highest in the world.
How Did Japan Pull This Off?
Japanese people have adapted to this new reality in some interesting ways:
Careful Spending: With an aging population, people are more cautious with their money. They spend more on healthcare and insurance, and less on shopping or travel. Instead of investing, many prefer to save—mostly in cash. In fact, about half of all household savings are just sitting in bank accounts or as physical money.
Stable Jobs, Little Job-Hopping: In Japan, it’s common to stay with the same employer for decades. The longer you stay, the better your pay and benefits. But if you leave, you often end up in a less secure, lower-paying job. As a result, very few people switch jobs, and wage growth stays low.
An Aging Society: Japan’s population is getting older faster than almost anywhere else. The birth rate is low, and the median age is now 49. Older people make up a big part of the workforce, and the share of working-age people is shrinking.
Still, Life Is Good
Despite these challenges, Japan has built a stable, safe, and comfortable society. Most people have jobs, and even those who lose work are well-supported. For example, a jobless couple with two kids can escape poverty with just 26 hours of minimum-wage work per week—far less than in the US. Unemployment benefits are generous, and healthcare is excellent.
A Glimpse Into the Future?
Japan’s experience may soon be relevant for the rest of the world. Many countries are seeing falling birth rates and aging populations. While Japan’s path isn’t perfect, it shows that it’s possible to live well—even when the economy isn’t growing fast. Instead of endless expansion, Japan has found stability and quality of life.
Maybe, just maybe, that’s a lesson worth learning.
US job growth slowed sharply in July 2025, with only 73,000 jobs added—the weakest monthly gain in over two years.
The unemployment rate rose to 4.2%, and major downward revisions to May and June job data revealed earlier growth was overstated.
Key sectors like retail, tech, and manufacturing are experiencing significant hiring slowdowns and layoffs.
President Trump's 2025 tariffs have raised costs for businesses and consumers, adding to inflation and economic risks.
The Federal Reserve faces increased pressure to adjust interest rate policy as labor market weakness raises recession fears.
Is the U.S. Economy Headed for Recession? July 2025 Jobs Report Raises Red Flags
The latest U.S. jobs report for July 2025 has sent shockwaves through Wall Street, government offices, and even regular households. For months, America’s job market seemed strong, helping the country bounce back from the pandemic. But the new numbers are raising serious concerns that the world’s largest economy could be heading for a recession.
What’s in the July 2025 Jobs Report?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 73,000 new jobs were added in July—the smallest monthly increase in over two years. To make matters worse, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%. While that might not sound huge, it’s a sign that fewer people are finding work, and more are losing jobs.
Even more worrying, the government revised its earlier job numbers for May and June, cutting a combined 90,000 jobs from previous estimates. This means the job market wasn’t as healthy as we thought earlier this summer.
Why Does This Matter?
The job market is often seen as the backbone of the economy. When hiring slows and unemployment rises, people have less money to spend, businesses make less money, and the whole economy can start to shrink. Sectors like retail, tech, and manufacturing are already reporting layoffs and hiring freezes.
At the same time, inflation is still higher than the Federal Reserve would like, running between 2.6% and 2.8%. This puts the Fed in a tough spot: if they cut interest rates to help jobs, inflation could get worse. If they keep rates high to fight inflation, it could make the job market even weaker.
What’s Making Things Worse?
President Trump’s new tariffs in 2025 have also made things harder. These tariffs are basically taxes on imported goods, and they’ve reached their highest level in over 100 years. This means higher prices for businesses and consumers, which can slow down spending and lead to more job losses.
What’s Next?
Financial markets reacted quickly to the bad news, with stock prices dipping and investors worrying about what’s ahead. Economists say the next few months will be critical. If hiring doesn’t pick up and unemployment keeps rising, a recession could be around the corner.
For now, everyone—from the Federal Reserve to everyday workers—is watching closely. The hope is that this is just a temporary slowdown, but the warning signs are getting harder to ignore.
Over the next decade, 1.2 billion young people will reach working age.
Only about 420 million jobs are expected to be created in that period.
This leaves hundreds of millions of young people without clear employment opportunities.
The lack of jobs for youth has significant development consequences.
Jobs are highlighted as the surest way to fight poverty and unlock prosperity.
Jobs: The Surest Way to Fight Poverty and Unlock Prosperity
Imagine a world where every young person has a good job waiting for them as they become adults. Unfortunately, that’s not the reality we’re facing. Over the next ten years, about 1.2 billion young people will reach working age. But here’s the catch: only about 420 million new jobs are expected to be created during that time. That means hundreds of millions of young people may not find work, which could have serious consequences for families, communities, and entire countries.
So, why are jobs so important in the fight against poverty? Let’s break it down.
Jobs Change Lives
Having a job isn’t just about earning a paycheck. It’s about dignity, purpose, and hope for the future. When people have steady work, they can provide for their families, send their children to school, and save for emergencies. Jobs help people escape poverty and build better lives.
But when there aren’t enough jobs, people struggle. They may not be able to afford basic needs like food, shelter, or healthcare. Young people without work can lose hope, and communities can become less stable. In the long run, a lack of jobs can slow down a country’s progress and make it harder for everyone to prosper.
The Challenge Ahead
The numbers are staggering. With 1.2 billion young people entering the workforce and only 420 million jobs expected, that leaves a gap of about 800 million. That’s a lot of dreams put on hold.
This isn’t just a problem for individuals—it affects entire societies. When so many people can’t find work, it can lead to higher poverty rates, more inequality, and even social unrest. It also means countries miss out on the talents and energy of their young people.
What Can Be Done?
Creating more jobs is one of the best ways to fight poverty and unlock prosperity. But how do we do it?
Invest in Education and Skills: Young people need the right skills for today’s job market. That means better schools, more training programs, and opportunities to learn new things.
Support Small Businesses: Most jobs around the world are created by small and medium-sized businesses. Helping these businesses grow can create more opportunities for everyone.
Encourage Innovation: New industries and technologies can create jobs we haven’t even imagined yet. Supporting entrepreneurs and investing in new ideas can open up new paths to employment.
Build Stronger Economies: Governments and organizations like the World Bank can help by investing in infrastructure, supporting fair policies, and making it easier for businesses to hire workers.
A Shared Responsibility
Solving the jobs challenge will take teamwork. Governments, businesses, schools, and communities all have a role to play. By working together, we can help more people find good jobs, lift themselves out of poverty, and build a brighter future for everyone.
In the end, jobs are more than just work—they’re the key to unlocking prosperity and giving everyone a fair shot at a better life. Let’s make sure we don’t leave anyone behind.
China's Economy: Defying Expectations Amidst a Storm
Imagine a giant economy, facing a tough trade war, a housing market crash, and even falling prices. You'd expect it to be struggling, right? Well, China's latest economic numbers are telling a surprisingly different story, leaving global experts scratching their heads.
For the past two quarters, China's economy has grown faster than most analysts predicted. In the first three months of 2025, it expanded by a healthy 5.4%. Then, from April to June, it grew by 5.2%. This is a big deal because many thought it would only manage around 4.5%. This means that despite the high taxes (tariffs) placed on its goods by the United States, China is on track to hit its annual growth target of "around 5%."
But it's not all smooth sailing.
For decades, China's economy boomed by being the world's factory, exporting goods everywhere, and building a massive amount of infrastructure at home. However, this reliance on exports and real estate created some big problems:
Export Slowdown: As global trade has slowed, China's reliance on selling goods abroad has become a weakness, even though exports still make up about 20% of its economy.
Real Estate Crisis: The country's massive property market, once a key driver, has collapsed. Companies like Evergrande, once a giant, have crumbled. This has hit people's savings hard, making them less confident and less likely to spend money.
Job Woes: With less spending and building, unemployment has risen, especially among young people (16-24), where it hit over 20% last year.
Deflation Fears: Unlike inflation (prices going up), China is facing deflation – prices are actually falling. While this might sound good, it's dangerous for an economy. People delay purchases hoping prices will drop further, businesses stop investing, and the economy can stagnate.
Global Pushback: Countries are increasingly trying to reduce their dependence on China ("China+1" strategy). The US, in particular, has continued its trade war, imposing tariffs and boosting its own tech industries to limit China's advance. In fact, the US economy has grown significantly faster than China's in recent years, widening the gap between the two giants.
So, how is China managing this?
Despite these significant headwinds, China's manufacturing sector has remained surprisingly strong, and its factories are still producing more than expected. While exports to the US have dropped, China has successfully shifted its focus, selling more goods to countries in Southeast Asia (ASEAN), Africa, and the European Union. This diversification has helped fill the gap left by the US trade war.
Can we trust the numbers?
For a long time, there's been skepticism about the accuracy of China's official economic data. However, recent research, including a study published by the US Federal Reserve, suggests that China's official growth figures might not be as exaggerated as once thought.
In essence, China's economy is a paradox: a powerhouse facing deep structural issues, yet still finding ways to grow and surprise the world. It's a complex picture of challenges and unexpected resilience.
## A Beacon of Freedom: Why the Dalai Lama Praises India Over China
Imagine a place where ancient traditions can truly flourish, free from political interference. That's how His Holiness the Dalai Lama sees India, especially when he compares it to China. During his recent visit to Ladakh, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism spoke highly of India, calling it a "free and flourishing environment" for studying deep Buddhist philosophies.
He specifically thanked India for its "immense support" to Tibetan refugees since his exile in 1959. This support wasn't just about shelter; it allowed them to rebuild their monastic universities and keep alive the rigorous scholarly debates central to Buddhist learning. The Dalai Lama noted that these vibrant institutions in India are crucial for preserving and spreading the authentic teachings of Buddhism, particularly those from the ancient Nalanda tradition.
But the picture is starkly different when he talks about China. The Dalai Lama lamented that the "precious traditions" of Tibetan Buddhism have "declined in Tibet" under Beijing's rule. He criticized China's tight political grip on religion, saying it "hinders genuine spiritual growth." In his words, it's "difficult to teach about Buddhism in a country where there is no freedom" because the political situation there isn't stable.
This isn't just about past events; it's about the future too. There's a big discussion brewing about who will be the next Dalai Lama. His Holiness recently stated that a non-profit trust he established, the Gaden Phodrang Trust, should have the sole authority to recognize his future reincarnation. Unsurprisingly, China quickly rejected this, insisting that the selection must follow a process approved by Beijing.
However, India's Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, a Buddhist himself, firmly backed the Dalai Lama. He emphasized that the decision rests purely with His Holiness and traditional Buddhist customs, without any government interference.
The Dalai Lama's words highlight a fundamental difference in how these two nations approach religious freedom. For Tibetan Buddhism, India has been a vital sanctuary, allowing its rich heritage to not just survive, but thrive. It's a powerful reminder of the importance of freedom for spiritual and cultural preservation.
## The Shocking Reason Bill Gates Just Lost $52 Billion and His Top 10 Spot!
Imagine waking up one day to find out you've lost a staggering $52 billion. For most of us, that's an unimaginable sum. But that's exactly what happened (in a financial sense) to Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, who recently dropped out of the world's top 10 richest people.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Gates saw his net worth plummet by this incredible amount in just one week, marking a 30% drop in his fortune. He went from being the 5th richest person on the planet to the 12th. His personal wealth, which was nearly $175 billion, is now estimated at $124 billion.
But here's the twist, and it's a truly inspiring one: this wasn't a financial disaster in the usual sense. A huge chunk of this "loss" is actually due to his incredible, ongoing commitment to philanthropy. Gates has been pouring billions into the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which aims to tackle some of the world's biggest problems, from global health to poverty.
As of late 2024, Gates and his former wife, Melinda French Gates, had jointly contributed an extraordinary $60 billion to the foundation. Gates has publicly stated his goal to give away almost all of his wealth within the next two decades, with the foundation projected to disburse over $200 billion by 2045. Analysts have even adjusted how they calculate his wealth growth to better reflect the sheer scale of his giving.
So, who stepped into his former fifth-place spot? None other than his former assistant and fellow Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer. While Gates is still incredibly wealthy, his move down the list highlights the dynamic nature of extreme wealth and, in his case, the powerful impact of intentional giving. The top spots are now held by familiar names like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, but Gates' story stands out.
This isn't a story of financial ruin, but rather a powerful testament to Bill Gates' dedication to using his fortune for global good. It's a reminder that for some, immense wealth isn't just about accumulation, but about making a lasting, positive impact on the world.
The Chip Giant That's Almost as Rich as India! Nvidia's Staggering Rise
Ever wonder how big a company can get? Well, get ready to have your mind blown by Nvidia, the tech world's current superstar. This week, the chipmaking titan hit a mind-boggling **$4 trillion in market value** – that's how much the company is worth if you add up all its shares.
To put that into perspective, Nvidia is now just a tiny 5% away from surpassing **India's entire economy**, which the IMF estimates at around $4.2 trillion for 2025. Think about that: one company, almost as valuable as everything a nation of over a billion people produces in a year!
Nvidia's incredible surge is largely thanks to the massive boom in **Artificial Intelligence (AI)**. Their specialized chips are the backbone of most AI systems, making them indispensable for everything from advanced chatbots to self-driving cars. This huge demand has sent their stock soaring. On Wednesday alone, their shares jumped nearly 3% on the stock market, hitting their highest price in a year. Over the past year, the stock has soared by over 24%, and it's already up 18% this year, far outpacing the general tech market.
But Nvidia isn't just about hardware. They're also making moves in software. Recently, Perplexity AI, a company backed by Nvidia, launched **'Comet,' a brand-new web browser**. Comet isn't just another browser; it aims to challenge Google Chrome's dominance by integrating powerful AI. Imagine a browser that can not only search but also compare products, summarize articles, book meetings, and even handle complex tasks for you, all through simple conversations. It's designed to be an 'agentic AI' – an AI that can think and act on your behalf. This is a bold move, considering Google Chrome currently holds a massive 68% of the global browser market.
This expansion into browsers shows Nvidia's ambition to grow beyond its core chip business. Already, Nvidia is more valuable than other tech giants like Microsoft ($3.7 trillion) and Apple ($3.1 trillion). The broader stock market also saw positive trends, reflecting investor confidence in the tech sector.
Nvidia's journey to a $4 trillion valuation is a testament to the transformative power of AI and the company's strategic vision. It highlights how quickly technology can reshape global economics. As AI continues to evolve, it seems Nvidia is poised to remain at the forefront, constantly pushing boundaries and redefining what a single company can achieve.
“Should you bargain with the Devil?” If I were pressed to provide a one-sentence answer to this question, it would be: “Not always, but more often than you feel like it.”
“Not always” because I reject categorical claims that you should always be willing to negotiate. “More often than you feel like it” for two different sorts of reasons. First, the negative traps and strong emotions may make you feel like fighting when clearheaded analysis would demonstrate that you should negotiate. The second relates to morality. You may feel that choosing to negotiate would violate a moral principle you hold dear, or be inconsistent with your sense of self. In the very hardest cases, you may feel deeply torn between the “principled” choice and the “pragmatic” one. When one is forced to choose between the two, I lean heavily in favor of pragmatism, but I want to acknowledge how painful that choice can be.
Why is it painful? Because you may feel that justice requires more than just a pragmatic resolution—it requires condemnation. In your eyes, the enemy has committed an act for which they should be punished, not rewarded. Your honor and integrity demand that you resist. This impulse can be just as powerful in business and family disputes as in international conflicts—perhaps even more so.
I have empathy for this desire to punish those who have wronged us. I share it. When we are caught between the demands of principle and pragmatism, what we really need to ask ourselves is, To what extent should we look backward and to what extent should we focus on the future? There's often an inescapable tension between achieving justice for past wrongs and the need for resolution. It is another aspect of the Faustian bargain. If you want to resolve the conflict and move forward, you may have to give the devil something you feel he doesn't deserve. This is a bitter pill to swallow.
Now that our journey is nearly over, I owe you some general advice.
We've explored together eight high-stakes conflicts where real people had to decide what to do. We've seen the traps at work. We've applied my framework. Eight stories can't capture the full range of situations in which the Devil may make an appearance; nor can they illustrate all the factors that may be relevant in applying my framework. But drawing on my framework and these stories, I can suggest four general guidelines.
1. Systematically compare the expected costs and benefits.
When we feel like fighting, we may jump to the conclusion that negotiating a satisfactory resolution is simply out of the question. The best antidote to that kind of knee-jerk impulse and the negative traps is to go through Spock's five questions carefully.
Who are the parties and what are their interests? What are each side's alternatives to negotiation? What are the costs of negotiation for each side? Are there any potential negotiated agreements that might better serve the interests of both sides than their best alternatives away from the table? If such a deal is reached, what is the likelihood that it will be implemented? (In other words, can you trust the other side to live up to it? If not, can it be enforced anyway?) I am the first to acknowledge that asking these questions will not necessarily lead to a single right answer. This isn't a mechanical exercise, like balancing your checkbook. This is tedious, it's hard, and it requires you to make predictions about future behavior in a context of uncertainty. It isn't value-free. Judgments about values and priorities—what's “good” and “bad,” what counts as a benefit and what counts as a cost—will of course beincluded in your analysis. For example, when evaluating costs, one might ask, “Will a deal here encourage more evil in the future?” Reasonable people assessing the same alternatives may reach different conclusions.
There are also deeper critiques of cost-benefit analysis, two of which I'll address briefly. They suggest that Spock's sort of analysis is not infallible and should not be your exclusive guide to decision-making.
The first is that it favors analytic over intuitive reasoning. As I said earlier, I believe that rationality encompasses both analysis and intuition.
(Think of an experienced doctor making a medical diagnosis.) But with cost-benefit reasoning, the analytic side of the brain is in charge. Spock doesn't understand intuition, so he may discount or ignore valuable information.
I am not suggesting you ignore your emotions or your intuitions. Instead I'm advising you to probe them. They may be traps, or they may be valuable insights. Ask yourself, What may have triggered this reaction? Is there evidence to support it? Evidence that would point in the opposite direction? A second criticism of cost-benefit analysis is that it values pragmatic concerns over moral categorical principles. This goes to one of the most profound issues in philosophy: Is it proper to judge the morality of an act only on an assessment of its consequences? Cost-benefit analysis is consequentialist at its core—one makes choices among alternative courses of action solely by evaluating and comparing the consequences of those actions. Some philosophers would argue that this is an incomplete and inadequate form of moral reasoning, and many ordinary people would intuitively agree. There are well-known philosophical puzzles that expose its limitations. Consequentialism doesn't explicitly leave room for philosophical and religious traditions that emphasize categorical principles for human conduct.
So why do I still insist, at least as a first step, that you assess costs and benefits? To prevent you from relying solely on intuition or unarticulated moral claims, and to be suspicious of those who do. Conduct the analysis first. If you are still conflicted, you must make the difficult decision whether your moral principle is so absolute that you cannot negotiate, even under these extenuating circumstances.
2. Get advice from others in evaluating the alternatives: don't do the analysis alone.
Like Churchill, you should be willing to expose your reasoning to rigorous questioning by people you respect. When they ask how you reached your decision about whether to negotiate, “I just know it in my gut, I can't explain it” is not an adequate response.
We saw how Churchill initially floundered under fire from Halifax and Chamberlain. It's hard to reduce a powerful instinct to rational explanation.
Churchill huffed and blustered, tossing out one half-baked rationale after another. But finally he managed to build a sound argument: Hitler had shown that he was an unreliable negotiating partner, there were substantial risks that negotiations would fail, and a failed negotiation would have a devastating effect on Churchill's ability to rally the British people for war.
This logic persuaded everyone but Halifax.
In our own lives, particularly in conflicts that involve demonization, there are times when we all need a War Cabinet. Talk with at least one person who's less emotionally involved. It may be a lawyer. It may be a trusted friend. It may be a group of advisors whose perspectives are different from yours. It may be a mediator who can help all the disputants understand the trade-offs. The point is, let other people help you weed out the traps.
In assessing the costs and benefits of the alternatives, members of your team may disagree. They may be making different trade-offs and predictions, or different value judgments about what counts as a benefit and what counts as a cost. Exposing these differences is helpful, for it will better ensure a considered decision.
3. Have a presumption in favor of negotiation, but make it rebuttable.
Suppose your advisors disagree. Suppose that after thinking it through carefully, your mind is in equipoise—you think the costs and benefits of negotiating are roughly equal to those of not negotiating. In case of such a “tie,” I would apply a presumption in favor of negotiation.Now the obvious question is: Why tip the scales in favor of bargaining with the Devil? Why not be neutral, or even have a presumption against negotiation? After all, this is the Devil we're talking about! The reason for the presumption is to provide an additional safe-guard against the negative traps: Tribalism, Demonization, Dehu-manization,
Moralism, Zero-Sum Thinking, the Impulse to Fight or Flee, and the Call to Battle. As we've seen, these traps can distort clear thinking. And their effect can be subtle. You may think you're en-gaging in pure Spockian analysis, but you may be fooling yourself. The traps may already have sprung. You may be starting with your conclusion—having already intuitively decided what to do—and selectively looking for evidence to justify it. My presumption can mitigate this risk.
Apart from breaking ties, my presumption operates in a second way. It puts the burden of persuasion on those who don't want to negotiate. Think of your pugnacious brother-in-law Fred Kramer from the early chapters, who wants to sue Bikuta. My presumption would require him to stop spouting clichés and explain why a lawsuit makes practical sense. It also puts the burden of persuasion on that part of yourself that wants to fight; it will force you to justify that impulse.
Note that my presumption is not a flat rule. It is simply a guideline—and it is rebuttable. If you think the situation through and decide you are better off refusing to negotiate, the presumption is overcome. We've seen several examples in this book.
4. When deciding on behalf of others, don't allow your own moral intuitions to override a pragmatic assessment.
When it comes to making decisions that involve a perceived “devil,” there is a difference between individuals acting solely on their own behalf and those acting in a representative capacity—deciding on behalf of others. For an individual, a decision to override a pragmatic assessment based on moral intuitions may be virtuous, courageous, and even wise—as long as that individual alone bears the risks of carrying on the fight. This is not true for a business executive deciding on behalf of a corporation, a union representative acting on behalf of a union, or a political leader acting onbehalf of his nation. Perhaps not even for a parent acting on behalf of a child.
A person acting in a representative capacity not only must carefully and rationally assess the expected consequences of alternative courses of action, but also should be guided by that assessment. If cost-benefit assessment favors negotiation, I think it is improper for the representative to decide nonetheless to go to battle based on his personal moral intuitions.
This last guideline brings to mind the challenges facing our national leaders in deciding whether to negotiate with terrorists or leaders of evil regimes.
In the Introduction, I said that my personal journey began shortly after 9/11, when President Bush had to decide whether to accept Mullah Omar's invitation to negotiate with the Taliban, which then controlled Afghanistan.
I explained why, after applying my framework, I agreed with Bush's decision not to negotiate with the Taliban. But I must confess that I became increasingly troubled during the remainder of his two terms with his general approach to the questions at the heart of this book. Indeed, there is evidence that the president violated all four of my guidelines. Let me explain.
1. According to Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, President Bush disliked and avoided systematic cost-benefit analysis of different policy options, preferring to make decisions based on his instincts. “President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve deeply into all the possible policy options—including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them—before making a choice. Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq.”11 In other words, Bush was not a Spockian.
2. President Bush, of course, had any number of foreign policy advisors.
But there is evidence that his “War Cabinet” acquiesced without pushing him very hard to think through costs and benefits, opportunities and risks.
According to McClellan, “[O]verall, Bush's foreign policy advisors played right into his thinking, doing little to question it or to cause him to pause long enough to fully consider the consequences before moving forward.
And once Bush set a course of action, it was rarely questioned. … That wascertainly the case with Iraq. Bush was ready to bring about regime change, and that in all likelihood meant war. The question was not whether, but merely when and how.”
3. President Bush's administration did not apply a presumption in favor of negotiation. Indeed, its rhetoric suggests quite the opposite. As Vice President Dick Cheney declared shortly after September 11, “I have been charged by the president with making sure that none of the tyrannies of the world are negotiated with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it.”
This implies a strong presumption—if not an absolute rule—against negotiation with “evil” regimes.
4. In refusing to negotiate with certain regimes, President Bush may have allowed his moral intuitions to override more pragmatic choices that would have better served the interests of the American people. His rhetoric was highly moralistic,14 often strident, and made frequent references to concepts of good and evil.
Of course, rhetoric and decision-making are not the same thing. The president's decisions may well have been made on the basis of a pragmatic comparison of the costs and benefits of different alterna-tives, and then only justified publicly on the basis of morality. With-out looking behind the veil, it is of course impossible to know. But a number of the administration's decisions and policies are consistent with the rhetoric. Bush did not negotiate with Saddam Hussein but instead invaded Iraq. His administration consistently refused to negotiate directly with Iran. And the administration refused to negotiate bilaterally with North Korea concerning its nuclear program. I am not going to explore here the wisdom of these particular decisions. Instead, my point is that President Bush may have relied on his own moral intuitions rather than a careful, pragmatic assessment of the alternatives.
President Barack Obama's strategy and rhetoric are much more consistent with my approach. He avoids public statements that demonize regimes or their leaders. The following example, regarding relations with Iran, is worth quoting at length because of its sophistication and good sense:As odious as I consider some of [Iranian] President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues … the use of tough, hard- headed diplomacy, diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity.
In other words, President Obama is not only willing to negotiate with evil, his rhetoric implies a presumption in favor of it. He is focusing on American interests—avoiding nuclear proliferation and not exporting terrorism.
That I like his approach does not mean that in the years to come President Obama's decisions will necessarily be wise. As of this writing in 2009, President Obama is still in the first year of his presidency. It is too soon to tell how his approach will translate into practice.
President Obama faces many of the same foreign policy dilemmas that President Bush did. Should we negotiate with the Taliban, Hamas, or Hezbollah? Even though none of these groups currently controls a national government, they each have the capacity to harm the United States. It is easy to imagine possible deals that might serve U.S. interests but would expose a tension between pragmatism and principle. Should we negotiate with Iran and North Korea, and if so, how? I am eager to see how President Obama manages the tensions we've explored in this book. As he and future presidents grapple with these questions, we as citizens will have to decide for ourselves whether their decisions are wise.
My goal in writing this book was not to offer easy answers. I end my journey with a deep sense of humility. Deciding whether to negotiate with the Devil poses profound questions and this book is hardly the last word.
But my approach should allow you to think more clearly about how to navigate this terrain with integrity—and wisdom.
Tags: Book Summary,Negotiation,Management,Politics,
