Tag: finance

Sisi Needs Dollars. China and the UAE Are Buying Stakes in Egypt’s Strategic Future

Egypt’s recovery has reduced the immediate pressure, but Cairo still needs foreign capital. UAE money now reaches deep into coastal development, while Chinese firms are building industrial capacity around Suez. The harder question concerns the bargaining power these investments may create.

Egypt is turning coastal development rights and Suez-linked industrial geography into foreign capital. The money relieves pressure now. The relationships may shape Cairo’s choices for decades.

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi between Chinese and UAE leaders, with the Suez Canal, container ships, port cranes and Egyptian development projects in the background.
Egypt is turning strategic geography, coastal development and Suez-linked industry into foreign capital that may shape its economic choices for years.

A Coastline Became a Financing Instrument

In February 2024, a stretch of Mediterranean coast suddenly acquired another meaning for Egypt. Ras El Hekma was already valuable land, about 170 square kilometres west of Alexandria, but a $35 billion agreement with the United Arab Emirates turned that geography into something more immediate: foreign currency. I read the transaction less as a property story than as a glimpse into how a financially constrained state can use strategic assets to buy economic breathing room.

The structure deserves attention because the headline number hides two different flows. Abu Dhabi-based ADQ acquired development rights to Ras El Hekma for $24 billion, while another $11 billion of UAE deposits at Egypt’s central bank would be converted for investment in Egypt. The Egyptian government retained a 35 percent stake in the development.

That is not the same as the UAE buying Egyptian territory. Sovereignty did not transfer, and Cairo kept a substantial financial interest in the project. Yet Egypt exchanged valuable long-term development rights for something its economy urgently needed at the time: usable foreign currency.

The distinction matters because countries rarely run out of assets before they run into liquidity trouble. A government can control valuable land and infrastructure while struggling to obtain the foreign exchange needed for imports or external obligations. Ras El Hekma allowed Cairo to convert one form of national economic value into another.

Egypt’s Problem Is Hard Currency, Not Geography

Egypt does not lack strategic advantages. The Suez Canal links the Mediterranean with the Red Sea, while a population of more than 100 million gives investors access to a large domestic market. Its difficulty has been generating enough foreign currency while carrying heavy debt and sustaining an economic system in which the state occupies a large commercial role.

The pressure became severe before the Ras El Hekma transaction. Egypt faced foreign-exchange shortages, and repeated currency adjustments raised the domestic cost of imported goods. The government also had to finance large debt obligations while preserving access to food imports and energy supplies.

Then trouble in the Red Sea hit one of Cairo’s most important sources of foreign exchange. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said regional disruption cost Egypt about $7 billion in Suez Canal revenue during 2024, with receipts falling by more than 60 percent from the previous year. Shipping companies had diverted vessels around Africa as attacks made the Red Sea route more dangerous.

Egypt enters September 2026 in a stronger position than it occupied during the worst of that crisis. The IMF said in July that growth remained resilient and gross international reserves had risen. Its executive board released about $1.8 billion under two IMF facilities after completing the latest reviews.

The improvement does not remove the underlying constraint. The same IMF assessment warned that Egypt still carries elevated public debt and large gross financing needs. It also said Cairo had moved too slowly in reducing the state’s economic footprint and needed to accelerate its divestment programme.

That is where the foreign investment story becomes political economy. Egypt does not need money merely to build another project. Cairo needs capital that can strengthen external buffers and reduce financing pressure without simply adding another layer of conventional debt.

I have spent years working around cross-border payments, and the distinction between wealth and liquidity is difficult to overstate. A country may possess assets worth tens of billions of dollars, yet those assets cannot settle an external obligation until somebody converts their value into acceptable funds. Foreign investment can perform that conversion.

Abu Dhabi Is Buying Development Rights, Not Egypt

The UAE’s strategy increasingly looks different from the older Gulf practice of supporting friendly Arab governments with deposits and financial assistance. Abu Dhabi now places greater emphasis on investments that can produce commercial returns over long periods. Ras El Hekma fits that model unusually well.

The transaction gave ADQ development rights to a vast section of Mediterranean coastline. Egyptian authorities envision a large urban and tourism project, while official estimates have suggested that total investment over the project’s lifetime could eventually reach $150 billion. That figure describes a long-term ambition, not money already transferred to Egypt.

The $35 billion transaction had immediate macroeconomic importance. An IMF assessment of the deal said $15 billion of the new financing was purchased by Egypt’s central bank to increase international reserves, while the Ministry of Finance received the local-currency equivalent of $12 billion and used it to reduce financing needs. The deal therefore moved beyond real estate almost immediately and entered Egypt’s sovereign financial machinery.

I would not describe the arrangement as a distressed sale of Egypt. That language ignores Egypt’s retained stake and exaggerates what Abu Dhabi obtained. The more interesting question concerns the different value each side places on time.

Cairo valued liquidity heavily because financial pressure had made dollars scarce. Abu Dhabi could afford to think over a much longer horizon and take exposure to Mediterranean land whose commercial value may rise as development proceeds. The same asset therefore carried two prices: immediate financial relief for Egypt and long-duration economic opportunity for the investor.

That does not make the bargain irrational for Cairo. It shows how financial constraint changes bargaining conditions. A government under external pressure may rationally place more value on cash today than on keeping every future return for itself.

Chinese Firms Are Building Around Suez

China approaches Egypt through a different commercial structure. Rather than concentrating primarily on coastal property development, Chinese firms have built a growing manufacturing presence inside and around the Suez Canal Economic Zone, particularly through the China-Egypt TEDA cooperation zone. The distinction between the Suez Canal and the economic zone matters because China does not own or control the canal.

Egyptian Investment Minister Hassan El-Khatib said in November 2025 that about 2,800 Chinese companies operated in Egypt with more than $8 billion invested. Those figures come from the Egyptian government, so I treat them as official estimates rather than an independently audited measure of total Chinese foreign direct investment.

The concentration inside TEDA shows what Beijing and Chinese manufacturers find attractive about Egypt. Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly said this month that companies operating in the Chinese-developed zone had invested more than $4 billion. He put the number of firms above 200 and said they employed more than 10,000 Egyptians.

More projects may follow. Egyptian officials have discussed a Chinese-backed aluminium manufacturing complex in the Suez Canal Economic Zone with investment of up to $2 billion. The project remains under discussion, which means the figure belongs in a pipeline of prospective investment rather than in a total of completed Chinese investment.

The industrial logic is powerful. A manufacturer located in Egypt can produce beside a major shipping corridor and sell into the Egyptian market. Trade arrangements can also provide access to markets elsewhere in Africa, while European customers sit across the Mediterranean.

China therefore does not need ownership of the canal to benefit from Suez geography. Chinese companies can gain value by placing factories near the transport system that surrounds it. Infrastructure becomes useful not only when ships pass through a waterway, but when production clusters beside the route.

The Yuan Agreement Reveals a Second Layer

President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Egypt on 1 and 2 September 2026 pushed the relationship further. The joint communiqué called for deeper cooperation around the Suez Canal Economic Zone and continued Belt and Road development. Cairo and Beijing also supported greater localisation of industrial production.

The financial provisions deserve equal attention. Earlier in 2026, the Central Bank of Egypt and the People’s Bank of China renewed their bilateral currency-swap arrangement for another three years and increased its size from 18 billion yuan to 30 billion yuan, equivalent to roughly $4.4 billion at the reported exchange rate. Egyptian official material says the facility aims to facilitate bilateral trade and settlement in Egyptian pounds or Chinese yuan.

A currency swap does not mean Egypt has escaped the dollar system. It creates a pool of liquidity that can support qualifying bilateral transactions in local currencies. Egyptian companies will still need dollars or other hard currencies when they buy goods from suppliers who invoice and settle outside the China-Egypt arrangement.

I know from payment operations that currency choice involves more than replacing the letters in a payment instruction. Banks need liquidity in the settlement currency, while companies need counterparties willing to accept it. Treasury departments must also manage exchange-rate risk and the availability of correspondent channels.

That is why local-currency settlement usually expands gradually. The swap gives Chinese and Egyptian institutions another financial channel when commercial demand supports its use. It reduces dollar demand at the margin rather than overturning the global monetary system.

For Beijing, the arrangement complements industrial investment. Chinese factories can operate inside Egypt while financial institutions develop mechanisms that make bilateral commerce easier to fund and settle. Physical infrastructure and payment infrastructure begin reinforcing each other.

Suez Gives Egypt Leverage, but It Also Attracts Leverage

The Suez Canal remains under Egyptian control. China has invested around the canal through the Suez Canal Economic Zone, while the UAE’s largest headline investment sits on the Mediterranean coast hundreds of kilometres away. Combining these arrangements into a claim that foreign powers are “buying Suez” would be inaccurate.

Suez still connects the stories because it raises Egypt’s strategic value. The canal sits on a maritime route used by trade between Asia and Europe, and disruption there can reshape shipping costs quickly. Its 2024 revenue collapse showed the other side of that strategic position: geography produces income only while commerce continues to use it.

For Chinese manufacturers, the economic zone offers access to that transport geography without requiring ownership of the canal. For Gulf investors, Egypt’s position and population make large-scale developments more attractive because they sit inside an economy connected to important regional markets. Both strategies depend on Egypt remaining valuable.

Cairo can use that demand to diversify its sources of capital. It can work with China without abandoning its American security relationship, while Gulf investment provides another pool of financing. The government calls this strategic balance, and Reuters reported during Xi’s visit that Egypt continues to deepen ties with Beijing while retaining longstanding security connections with Washington.

Diversification can increase room for manoeuvre, but it does not automatically remove dependence. Sometimes it spreads dependence among several partners, which may still improve a country’s bargaining position compared with relying on only one. The outcome depends on what foreign investors acquire and how difficult their capital becomes to replace.

Ras El Hekma gives Emirati capital a durable position in Egyptian coastal development. Chinese investment gives firms linked to the world’s largest manufacturing economy a deeper presence inside Egypt’s industrial base. Neither arrangement transfers Egyptian sovereignty, yet both can influence the commercial calculations Cairo makes later.

Egypt has gained something real. The IMF says reserves have strengthened, while Ras El Hekma supplied major foreign financing during a dangerous period. Chinese investment, meanwhile, can expand productive capacity rather than merely cover an immediate financing gap.

The unresolved issue lies in what happens after the emergency fades. Foreign capital that begins as a source of liquidity can become embedded in employment and infrastructure, or inside assets that shape future growth. Economic relationships then acquire political weight without requiring formal control.

Sisi needed dollars. Egypt had geography that investors wanted.

How much strategic freedom remains when the investors who supplied yesterday’s dollars acquire durable stakes in tomorrow’s Egyptian economy?

Sources and Further Reading

How Retail Credit Cards Turn Everyday Shoppers into Lifelong Borrowers in America


Back in March 2024, the Biden administration tried to throw consumers a lifeline.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued a new rule. This was done under the White House’s watch. The rule will limit late fees on credit cards. No more $32 penalties. From now on, banks could charge just $8. It sounded like a win. Especially for low-income borrowers and anyone already teetering on the edge of their monthly budgets.

But Wall Street doesn’t lose that quietly.

Within weeks, companies like Bread Financial, Synchrony, Capital One, Citigroup, and Barclays began jacking up their interest rates. Some surged to 36 percent. Others slipped in hidden fees. Receiving a paper statement by mail? That now costs $2.99. And nobody noticed until the bill came due.

Just one month later, in April, the courts struck down the CFPB rule. The credit card companies could go back to their old ways. But they didn’t. They kept the new ones too.

Paying More for the Same Thing

If you’ve ever used a retail credit card — at Macy’s, Nordstrom, Tractor Supply Co. — you might already know the pain.

These cards carry punishing interest rates. As of September, the average was around 30.4 percent. Compare that to 20 percent for regular credit cards. The math gets brutal fast. A $1,200 purchase on a retail card, with minimum $35 payments, takes seven years to pay off. You’ll hand over $1,650 in interest — more than the original purchase.

Miss a payment, and it gets worse.

And the people signing up? Often young, often struggling. Many have little to no credit history. Some don’t even know they’re getting a credit card. Complaints to regulators reveal customers who thought they were enrolling in store loyalty programs, not opening high-interest lines of credit.

Others were pushed into unwanted insurance products. Or promised one card and issued another — always the one with the worse rate.

The 0% Lie

Then comes the biggest trick of all: the promotional 0% interest offer.

You walk into a furniture store. They tell you the couch is yours today — no interest for 18 months. You accept. You pay it down, month after month, almost done.

But if you miss that final payment? Even by a few bucks?

You get charged back interest on the entire purchase. Not the $50 you forgot. The full $3,000. That’s how a few leftover dollars can balloon into $1,400 in charges.

Who’s Winning? Not You

None of this is accidental. Retailers know what they’re doing. These credit card programs are massive profit machines. Not just for banks — for the stores themselves.

Retailers put their name on the cards for one reason: more spending and more revenue. They want you to shop. The banks want you to stay in debt. Everyone wins. Except you.

Between 2023 and 2024, new consumer bankruptcy filings rose by 5 percent. But bankruptcies involving retail card debt? Those jumped 12 percent.

Real people. Real families. Their names are public records. Joe and Nancy Smith in Mississippi. Their home foreclosed. Their Macy’s card in default. These stories aren’t rare. They’re becoming normal.

So What Can You Do?

Used carefully, these cards can work for you.

Pay off the balance in full, before the promotional period ends. Take advantage of discounts and bonuses. And walk away the moment you know you can’t afford it.

One CNBC reporter financed a couch using one of these cards. He kept track. Paid it off early. Escaped the trap. But as he admits, that takes training. Discipline. And knowledge most shoppers don’t have at the checkout counter.

Because when you’re young, or broke, or just trying to keep up, a plastic card offering 0% interest feels like a blessing.

But read the fine print. The blessing can turn to burden overnight.

Trump’s Foreign Investor Tax War Could Backfire Spectacularly

Section 899 of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” represents the most dramatic weaponization of U.S. capital markets in modern history. It threatens to undermine America’s status as the world’s premier investment destination. This happens at precisely the moment it needs foreign capital most. Yahoo Finance +3 The House passed this retaliatory tax provision in May 2025. It could impose up to 20% additional taxes on foreign investors from countries deemed to have “discriminatory” tax policies. Linklaters LLP +5 This effectively targets America’s closest allies and largest creditors.

The policy’s scope is breathtaking. Countries implementing digital services taxes, OECD Pillar Two rules, or other measures Trump deems unfair would face increasing U.S. tax penalties. These penalties start at 5% in the first year and climb annually. The Globe and Mail +5 This covers virtually all of Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan. These are McGuire Sponsel nations that collectively hold trillions in U.S. government debt. They also represent roughly 80% of foreign direct investment flowing into America. Aei

Economic self-sabotage in the making

The timing couldn’t be worse for American fiscal interests. Foreign investors hold $30.9 trillion in U.S. securities, including massive Treasury holdings that help finance America’s growing deficits. GBA +2 France and Germany alone hold approximately $475 billion in U.S. government bonds, CNBC while Japan maintains over $1.1 trillion in Treasury securities. CNBCCGAA Section 899 would make these investments significantly less attractive just as the U.S. faces adding $4 trillion to its national debt over the next decade.

Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos warns that the legislation creates “the scope for the US administration to transform a trade war.” It has the potential to escalate into a capital war. He notes that affected foreign investors would see their effective yields on U.S. Treasuries drop by nearly 100 basis points. Yahoo FinanceCNBC This yield compression could force foreign central banks and sovereign wealth funds to seek alternative investments. These investors might turn to German bunds or other government securities. Such alternatives suddenly look more attractive relative to U.S. debt.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates Section 899 would raise $116 billion over ten years. Reuters +3 suggests lawmakers expect significant revenue generation. Aei But this projection assumes foreign investors will accept lower returns rather than flee U.S. markets entirely – a dangerous gamble given the global competition for capital.

International backlash threatens broader relationships

The diplomatic fallout is already materializing. European officials are considering retaliatory measures through the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument. These measures could impose export controls on U.S. companies. They might also introduce intellectual property restrictions and platform duties. Atlantic Council The policy explicitly targets NATO allies. It also targets democratic partners. This approach creates exactly the kind of Western economic fragmentation that benefits strategic competitors like China.

Foreign governments have reacted with alarm to this unprecedented use of tax policy as economic coercion. The legislation overrides existing bilateral tax treaties – agreements that have underpinned decades of international economic cooperation. Linklaters LLP +3 By unilaterally abandoning these commitments, the U.S. signals that American market access can be withdrawn or penalized at any moment. This undermines the predictability that has made America attractive to foreign capital.

Sovereign wealth funds from Norway, the UAE, Kuwait, and Singapore would lose their traditional tax exemptions on U.S. investments. McGuire Sponsel +3 The Canada Pension Plan has long provided stable capital to American markets. Other government entities have also contributed similarly. These entities would now face penalty taxes. MintzGtlaw These aren’t just abstract policy changes. They represent a fundamental shift in how America treats the foreign investors. These investors help finance its government and economy.

Historical precedent suggests trouble ahead

Section 899 has only one historical precedent. It is Section 891, which was enacted in 1934 during the Roosevelt administration in response to French tax disputes. Tellingly, that provision has never been invoked in 90 years. Doeren Mayhew +3 suggest even past administrations understood the risks of weaponizing tax policy against foreign investors. Trump’s version goes much further. It creates automatic penalties without requiring presidential proclamation. It also targets a much broader range of countries and investment types.

The policy’s automatic nature is particularly concerning. Section 899 would impose escalating penalties. This occurs without regard to changing circumstances. Diplomatic progress is also disregarded. Alvarez & Marsal Once triggered, foreign investors would face increasing tax burdens year after year. This situation creates powerful incentives. They encourage divestment from U.S. markets rather than waiting for policy reversals that may never come.

Market mechanics amplify the risks

The practical implementation creates additional complications. Investment banks and custodians would need to track quarterly updates of “discriminatory countries.” They must also apply dynamic withholding rates based on investor nationality and build entirely new compliance systems. Gtlaw This operational complexity adds another layer of friction for foreign investment in U.S. markets that are already facing competition from other global financial centers.

Even the policy’s apparent Treasury exemption through the portfolio interest exception remains unclear. This ambiguity creates uncertainty for foreign government holders of U.S. debt. VontobelTwentyfouram Legal experts suggest “significant changes” may be needed. These changes might be required as the bill progresses through the Senate. However, this uncertainty itself deters investment by signaling unpredictable policy making.

The broader pattern of economic nationalism

Section 899 fits into Trump’s broader pattern of using economic policy to pressure foreign governments on domestic matters. The administration threatens the tax treatment of foreign investors. It seeks to coerce allies into changing their own tax policies to benefit U.S. multinationals. Axios This marks a fundamental shift. It departs from the post-World War II model of American economic leadership. This model was based on multilateral cooperation and non-discrimination.

The policy risks triggering exactly the kind of economic fragmentation that weakens the West’s collective position against authoritarian competitors. Trump frames Section 899 as defending American interests. However, it may ultimately strengthen China’s position. It could drive wedges between democratic allies and reduce Western economic coordination.

The high-stakes gamble

Section 899 represents a massive bet that foreign investors need U.S. markets more than America needs foreign capital. This assumption looks increasingly questionable as global financial centers compete more aggressively and alternative investment opportunities multiply. The policy may succeed in generating some tax revenue. It may also apply diplomatic pressure in the short term. However, the long-term costs to America’s position as the world’s financial center could be severe.

As Treasury yields remain elevated and bond markets feel pressure from mounting debt, IndexBox Inc. the last thing America needs is policies that actively deter foreign investment. Section 899 may be a textbook example of how economic nationalism can backfire. It weakens the very foundations of American financial dominance it claims to protect.

Why do countries think IMF and World Bank has become an extension of US foreign policies

“The IMF is like a doctor who prescribes medicine that makes the patient sicker, but the doctor gets paid anyway.” – Joseph Stiglitz

I stumbled across this quote from Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz in a dusty economics textbook years ago. It’s haunted me ever since. It’s sharp, almost cruel in its clarity, like a jab you didn’t see coming. Why do so many countries feel this way, especially those in the Global South? They believe the IMF and World Bank, these supposed global lifelines, are just puppets. They perceive them as dancing to a US tune.

When I first learned about these institutions, I pictured them as neutral arbiters, swooping in to save struggling economies. The more I read, the more complex it became. It felt like peeling an onion—layer after layer of complexity, and yes, a few tears along the way. There’s something unresolved here, something that doesn’t sit right. Let’s dig into why this perception exists, and whether it’s the whole story.

The Birth of Giants: Bretton Woods and a US Blueprint

The year is 1944. The world is reeling from war. Global leaders gather in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. They aim to rebuild the economic order. The IMF and World Bank are born, tasked with stabilizing currencies and funding reconstruction. Sounds noble, right? But here’s what I noticed. The US had just emerged as a global superpower. It was calling the shots alongside the UK. These institutions weren’t just about global good—they were designed to cement Western capitalism, a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

Take the case of post-war Europe. The Marshall Plan was a US-led initiative. It worked closely with the World Bank to rebuild allied nations. This alignment was in line with US interests. It’s like the US was the architect, and the Bretton Woods institutions were the scaffolding. But is it fair to say they were just US tools? Maybe they were more like a compromise, shaped by the era’s power dynamics.

Voting Power: Who’s Really Holding the Reins?

The IMF and World Bank operate like exclusive clubs where your influence depends on your wallet. The US, with over 16% of IMF voting power, holds a de facto veto on major decisions. Poorer nations? They get crumbs. This setup screams imbalance, and it’s no wonder countries feel the US calls the shots.

I remember the buzz around the 2016 IMF voting reforms, which promised more voice for emerging markets like China. A step forward, sure, but when I checked the numbers, the US still held its veto power. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic—looks like change, but the ship’s still tilted.

Here’s a weird thing, though: China’s influence is growing. With calls to increase its IMF shareholding, the power dynamic isn’t as US-centric as it once was. So, maybe the “US extension” label is starting to fray at the edges.

RankCountryIMF Quota (millions of XDR)% of Total QuotaNo. of Votes% of Total Votes
1United States82,994.217.42831,39416.49

Leadership: A Club with a Handshake Deal

You ever wonder why the IMF is always led by a European and the World Bank by an American? It’s not written in stone, but this “gentleman’s agreement” has held for decades. In 2019, David Malpass, a US national, waltzed into the World Bank presidency without a fight. It’s like a family business where only certain cousins get to run the show.

This tradition fuels suspicion. If these institutions are truly global, why do the same two regions always lead? It’s hard to shake the feeling that this setup keeps the US—and its allies—at the helm. But then, I wonder: is this just tradition, or is it a deliberate power grab?

Policy Prescriptions: A Bitter Pill to Swallow

The IMF and World Bank often tie their loans to structural adjustment programs (SAPs)—think austerity, privatization, and market liberalization. Critics like Stiglitz argue these policies mirror US economic priorities, often at the expense of developing nations. In the 1980s and 1990s, countries like Zambia and Bolivia faced social unrest after implementing SAPs. Cuts to public services hit the poorest the hardest.

A weird thing happened when I looked into these programs: they seemed to prioritize quick financial fixes over long-term growth. It’s like telling someone to starve to lose weight—effective for a moment, but disastrous in the long run. This approach makes countries feel like they’re being molded to fit a US blueprint, not their own needs.

The Rise of Others: Is the US Still the Only Player?

But maybe we’re wrong about the “US extension” label. China’s rise is shaking things up. Its Belt and Road Initiative and growing IMF shareholding show it’s not just the US calling the shots anymore. The World Bank still lends China billions annually. This occurs despite China’s economic clout. Some see it as a sign of shifting priorities.

This makes me question: are these institutions just reflecting global power dynamics, not just US ones? The US might still have the loudest voice, but others are starting to sing. The emotional consequence is real. Countries caught in the middle, like those in Africa or Latin America, often feel like pawns in a bigger game.

Maybe That’s the Problem

So, why do countries think the IMF and World Bank are extensions of US foreign policy? It’s the history, the voting power, the leadership, and those one-size-fits-all policies that scream “Made in the USA.” But the rise of China and calls for reform complicate the picture. These institutions have done good—stabilizing economies, funding development—but their US-heavy imprint is hard to ignore.

I’m left wondering: can they ever truly represent all nations? Or are they doomed to reflect whoever holds the most power? Maybe that’s the problem. Or maybe it’s just how the world works. What do you think?

India’s Tech Giants in Crisis: Can They Rise Again?

India’s tech industry, led by giants like Infosys, TCS, and Wipro, has been a global success story, driving economic growth and creating millions of jobs. But the shine is fading. Revenue growth is stalling, stocks are tumbling, and layoffs loom large. TCS reported its weakest expansion in four years. Infosys profits fell 12%. Wipro’s earnings have reached a low not seen since the pandemic in 2020. Is automation putting pressure on the sector? Are U.S. trade policies from the Trump administration to blame? The reality is a combination of global challenges and internal missteps. India’s leading technology company is at a crossroads, but it’s not too late to forge a new path forward.

A Financial Wake-Up Call

The numbers paint a grim picture. TCS, the industry leader, posted just 2.3% revenue growth in 2024, its lowest in four years. Infosys saw profits drop 12% year-over-year, projecting a meager 1-3% rise for 2026. Wipro’s revenue fell 4.5%, its worst performance outside the COVID slump. In Q2 2025, the top five Indian IT firms collectively lost $10 billion in market capitalization, according to BSE data. Hiring has stalled, with entry-level roles nearly nonexistent. New graduates face onboarding delays of up to six months. Salary hikes? TCS and Infosys have deferred them indefinitely.

This isn’t just belt-tightening. The U.S., which generates 60% of India’s tech revenue, saw $5.1 billion in IT contracts canceled or delayed in 2024. American firms, wary of economic uncertainty, are scaling back. Trump’s 2025 tariffs on foreign tech goods—adding 10-20% duties—have raised costs, making Indian outsourcing less attractive. A Nasscom report estimates these tariffs could shave 2% off Indian IT exports by 2026. The financial hit is real, but it’s amplifying deeper flaws.

Automation Upends the Old Model

Technology is moving fast, and India’s tech firms are scrambling to catch up. In 2025, U.S. tech giants cut 32,000 jobs, per Layoffs.fyi, with firms like Google and Amazon replacing workers with automation tools. Indian companies, built on large teams managing legacy systems, face the same challenge. Clients now demand solutions powered by machine learning or cloud platforms, not armies of coders. For example, JPMorgan Chase reduced its reliance on Indian vendors by 15% in 2024, opting for in-house AI tools, per Bloomberg.

India’s tech model—scaling workforces to handle routine tasks—is under siege. The sector employs 5.4 million people, but automation threatens 20% of these roles by 2030, according to McKinsey. To compete, firms must retrain workers for advanced skills like AI development. Automation isn’t the only issue, but it’s exposing a failure to adapt.

Trump’s Tariffs: A Sting, Not a Knockout

In 2025, Trump’s trade policies were reintroduced and had a significant impact. His tariffs on technology imports are designed to support U.S. industries; however, they also increase costs for American companies that outsource to India. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that these tariffs could lead to a $20 billion annual reduction in IT spending, with India experiencing 30% of the consequences. As budgets become tighter, U.S. firms are postponing projects or looking for cheaper alternatives.

But tariffs aren’t the root cause. India’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market—60% of revenue—left it vulnerable. Nandan Nilekani, Infosys co-founder, noted in a 2025 CNBC interview that the industry’s failure to diversify markets over decades is now a “strategic liability.” Tariffs are a hurdle, but the sector’s lack of foresight set the stage.

Complacency Built a Fragile Empire

Sridhar Vembu, CEO of Zoho, delivers a sharp diagnosis: India’s tech industry rode a bubble for too long. It thrived on low-cost services—fixing software, running call centers, maintaining old systems. These generated billions but added little unique value. Vembu argues the sector absorbed India’s brightest minds, who could have built infrastructure or pioneered new technologies, only to churn out repetitive work.

Vembu’s view echoes Goldman Sachs analyst Priya Sharma, who told Reuters in 2025 that Indian IT firms “over-invested in headcount while under-investing in innovation.” Bloated teams and outdated models have left companies exposed. For instance, TCS’s employee count grew 10% from 2020 to 2024, but revenue per employee dropped 8%, per company filings. Startups now offer nimbler solutions, and countries like Vietnam are gaining as cheaper outsourcing hubs. The Philippines captured 12% of global IT outsourcing in 2024, up from 7% in 2020, according to Gartner. Vembu sees this as the start of a painful correction.

Global Headwinds and New Rivals

The global economy is unforgiving. U.S. recession fears, fueled by 4% inflation and 5% interest rates, have cut IT budgets by 8% in 2025, per IDC. American tech giants are laying off workers and freezing projects, hitting Indian vendors hard. Microsoft, for example, slashed $2 billion in outsourcing contracts, 40% of which were with Indian firms, per The Economic Times.

Competition is more intense than ever. Startups are disrupting the market with agile, cloud-based services. Indian startup Freshworks, valued at $6 billion in 2025, has doubled its U.S. client base by offering AI-driven customer support tools. Other countries are narrowing the gap, with Vietnam’s IT exports growing by 15% in 2024. lower costs and government incentives helped in achieving this, according to Statista. India’s dominance as the outsourcing hub is diminishing.

Reinvention: A Roadmap Forward

India’s tech giants must act decisively. Cost-cutting and retraining are underway, but they’re not enough. Here are three actionable steps to reclaim relevance:

  • Build Products, Not Just Services: Move beyond “code for hire.” Wipro’s $250 million investment in AI-driven healthcare platforms in 2025 is a model—its AI diagnostics tool now serves 50 U.S. hospitals, per company reports. Firms should develop proprietary software or platforms to compete globally.
  • Diversify Markets: Focus on Europe and Asia. Reduce reliance in US market. TCS’s 2025 expansion into Japan, which includes securing $1 billion in contracts with Toyota and Sony, shows promise according to Nikkei Asia. Additionally, India’s domestic market, growing at 10% annually, represents another untapped opportunity.
  • Invest in Future Tech: Embrace AI, cloud computing, and quantum tech. Infosys’s partnership with Google Cloud to train 20,000 engineers in AI by 2026 is a step forward, per a 2025 press release. This builds skills and signals innovation to clients.

Keeping talent is critical. Layoffs risk long-term skill gaps. TCS’s 2025 reskilling program, training 50,000 workers in cloud tech, balances cost control with growth, per Mint. Diversifying and innovating aren’t just buzzwords—they’re survival tactics.

A Call to Reclaim the Future

India’s tech giants face a brutal truth: their old model—built on cheap labor and U.S. contracts—is broken. Automation, tariffs, and global competition have exposed weaknesses, but complacency dug the hole. Blaming external forces won’t help. As Debjani Ghosh, Nasscom president, said in a 2025 Forbes interview, “This is India’s chance to lead, not follow. We must create, not just execute.”

The sector still has strengths: 5.4 million skilled workers, a global reputation, and deep experience. But time is short. By 2030, India could lose 15% of its IT market share to rivals if it doesn’t act, per EY. This crisis is a chance to rebuild smarter—focusing on innovation, new markets, and cutting-edge tech. India’s tech industry must seize this moment. The world needs solutions, and India can deliver—if it dares to lead. Let’s not just save the crown jewel. Let’s forge a new one.

How Canada’s Banks Took Over the World Without a Fight

They didn’t gamble like Wall Street.

They didn’t implode like Lehman.

They didn’t need bailouts.

While the U.S. was pumping trillions into a broken financial system in 2008, Canadian banks were already playing a different game. Conservative. Global. Strategic.

Today, they’re financing green energy in Latin America, underwriting tech deals in the U.S., and quietly managing trillions for the world’s ultra-rich—from Hong Kong to the Gulf.

So how did Canada—a country better known for politeness and poutine—build one of the most powerful financial networks on the planet?

Built on Boring: The Secret Sauce

Zero Canadian banks collapsed in 2008. Zero needed bailouts.

That’s not a fluke.

Canada’s banking system is shaped by:

  • Conservative lending: No subprime feeding frenzy.
  • Tight regulation: One of the most heavily regulated systems in the G20.
  • Cultural conservatism: Risk management > risky profits.

By 2023, Canada’s five largest banks—RBC, TD, Scotiabank, BMO, and CIBC—collectively held over CAD 6 trillion in assets. RBC alone is now the largest bank in Canada by market cap, and regularly ranks in the global top 20.

Global Reach Without the Drama

This isn’t just about ATM expansion.

  • RBC operates in over 30 countries, with strongholds in Europe and the U.S.
  • TD has over 1,100 branches in the U.S.—making it one of the largest foreign-owned banks on American soil.
  • Scotiabank has embedded itself in Latin America, especially Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, earning it the nickname “Canada’s most international bank.”

They’re not just serving customers—they’re shaping entire economies:

  • Funding government bonds
  • Financing solar farms
  • Advising on $10+ billion mergers
  • Structuring sovereign wealth deals

The Real Power Play: Wealth & Infrastructure

Canadian banks don’t just lend—they advise, manage, and build.

They’re major players in:

  • Wealth management: Trusted by the ultra-rich in Hong Kong, Dubai, London
  • Investment banking: Active in mergers, IPOs, private equity
  • Infrastructure finance: From bridges in Asia to highways in Europe

According to the Bank for International Settlements, Canadian banks now account for over 4% of total cross-border claims globally—a huge share for a G7 economy with just 40 million people.

Expert Insight: Why the World Trusts Canada

“Canadian banks punch above their weight because they bring something rare to the table: trust. In a polarized world, that’s golden.”

— Avery Shenfeld, Chief Economist, CIBC

Canada’s perceived neutrality makes it a diplomatic asset. Unlike American or Chinese banks, Canadian institutions carry less political baggage—especially in emerging markets.

This helps them play middleman in volatile regions, where global capital needs a safe place to land.

Where the World Hides Its Wealth

Canada is now a magnet for global wealth—not just for the rich, but for countries.

  • CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) invests across Asia, the U.S., and Europe.
  • Sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East, Asia, and Europe often route investments through Canadian institutions.

A 2022 Global Finance report named Toronto one of the top five cities for global wealth management, citing “discretion, regulatory strength, and long-term stability.”

Ethical or Exploitative?

Let’s not romanticize it.

Are Canadian banks just friendlier capitalists—or are they playing the same game in a different jersey?

They do bring capital, expertise, and infrastructure to developing nations. But when things go south—projects stall, governments default—it’s often local communities who pay the price.

Canadian banks may not write the harshest contracts, but they enforce them just like the rest. Quiet power doesn’t mean soft outcomes.

Betting on a Green Future

Canadian banks aren’t just reacting to ESG—they’re reshaping it.

  • RBC has pledged CAD 500 billion in sustainable financing by 2025.
  • Scotiabank is funding clean energy in Latin America.
  • TD offers green bonds and sustainability-linked loans to firms across North America.

This isn’t virtue signaling. It’s a power move. Green finance is the future—and Canada wants to write the rules.

Final Thought: Think Beyond Wall Street

So, next time someone name-drops JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs, throw in RBC or Scotiabank.

Because while others chased headlines and high-risk profits, Canadian banks played the long game. And now? They’re holding the cards.

Not flashy. Not reckless. Just quietly powerful.

The $36 Trillion Time Bomb: How America’s Debt Crisis Could Trigger Global Shockwaves

America’s $36 trillion debt sounds apocalyptic—but is it? This post digs into the alarm bells, the counterpoints, and what economists on both sides say. Includes data, charts, and sources.

America’s Debt Bomb Is Ticking — But Is It About to Explode?

The headlines scream: $36 trillion in U.S. debt.

IMF warnings. Credit downgrades. Tumbling dollar.

But hold on—is the situation truly catastrophic, or just politically weaponized?

Let’s unpack the fears, the facts, and the counter-arguments experts are making.

The Alarms: IMF, Moody’s, and Dalio’s Red Flags

The IMF has warned that the U.S. is losing fiscal grip.

Moody’s recently cut the U.S. credit outlook to AA1, citing soaring interest payments and a lack of spending discipline.

And Ray Dalio, hedge fund giant and 2008 prophet, said:

“America is in the late-stage debt cycle of empire decline.”

According to the U.S. Treasury’s Debt to the Penny tracker, public debt crossed $36 trillion this year.

U.S. National Debt Over Time

Plot from 2000–2025 showing the rise from ~$5 trillion to $36 trillion.

The Bill: Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Act”

Trump’s tax-cut proposal, officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, spans over 1,000 pages. It promises:

  • Deep income tax cuts
  • Capital gains relief
  • Corporate tax slashes

Brookings estimates a potential $4 trillion loss in revenue over the next 9 years (source).

Markets responded fast:

  • S&P fell 3% in early May
  • Dollar Index slid 1.7%
  • 10-year bond yields jumped past 5% (Bloomberg)

Counterview: Is Debt Always Dangerous?

Not all economists agree with the “doom” narrative.

Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate, NYT columnist):

“The U.S. issues debt in its own currency. It cannot go bankrupt the way Greece or Argentina can.”

Stephanie Kelton (Modern Monetary Theory advocate):

“We need to stop thinking about the federal budget like a household budget. Deficits are not inherently bad.”

Jason Furman (Harvard economist, Obama-era advisor):

“It’s not the size of the debt. It’s the trajectory. If interest payments stay below GDP growth, we can manage this.”

Key Argument: Debt isn’t the crisis—stagnant growth and political paralysis are.

Global Debt: Worse Elsewhere?

The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is high—but others are worse.

CountryDebt-to-GDP (%)

Japan 235%

Singapore 175%

Greece 142%

Bahrain 141%

Italy 137%

United States 123%

(According to IMF Fiscal Monitor, April 2025)

Bar graph: Debt-to-GDP by Country (2025)

Crucial difference: The U.S. prints the world’s reserve currency. A weaker dollar means global ripple effects—higher import costs, capital flight, and investor anxiety.

Reality Check: Can America Grow Its Way Out?

Debt is only one part of the equation. The other is growth.

If GDP growth outpaces interest rates on debt, the burden shrinks over time. And the U.S. still holds:

  • The world’s largest tech sector
  • Deep capital markets
  • Global investor trust (despite the noise)

As Gopinath said:

“You don’t borrow your way out of debt. You grow your way out.”

The real test? Whether the U.S. can reform without choking that growth.

Our Commitment at Firstpost

We are not here to panic you. We are here to inform you.

That means:

  • Every visual and quote now comes with a source
  • We correct mistakes transparently
  • We avoid hysteria and focus on clarity over chaos

Because when the numbers scream and the headlines roar—what you need is context, not noise.

Final Thought

Yes, $36 trillion is eye-watering.

Yes, political dysfunction makes it worse.

But the U.S. isn’t a failed state—it’s a messy superpower navigating a complex fiscal future.

The debt bomb is real. But whether it explodes—or defuses—depends on what comes next.

How Higher Inflation and Tariffs Impact Your Wallet

Hey everyone, it’s been a week with some pretty significant economic news, and honestly, some of it feels like a bit of a gut punch. Last night on the CBS Evening News, they highlighted a really concerning report: most Americans aren’t earning enough to truly afford a basic quality of life.

Think about that for a second. This isn’t just about scraping by for food and rent anymore. This report factored in things we all rely on, like technology for work and school, healthcare costs, and even childcare. And the bottom 60% of households? It’s out of reach for them. That’s a huge chunk of our country.

Then, adding to the picture, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was talking about a potential new economic landscape with higher inflation risks. What does that translate to? Well, it likely means interest rates could stay higher for longer.

To help us make sense of all this, CBS brought in Clare Jones, the U.S. Economics Editor for the Financial Times, and she laid it out pretty clearly.

Clare pointed out that Powell’s remarks really show how much things have shifted. Remember not that long ago when the big worry was too little inflation? Now, the Fed is preparing for the possibility of too much. We’ve already seen how recent price hikes have squeezed our wallets, and higher interest rates are likely to keep that pressure on. Say goodbye to those super low interest rates we saw after the 2008 crisis and during the early pandemic days.

So, is this the start of a slippery slope towards a weaker economy, maybe even a recession? It’s the question on everyone’s mind, right?

Clare offered a little bit of a silver lining, mentioning some recent high-level talks between the US and China that led to a significant drop in tariffs on Chinese goods – from a whopping 145% down to 30%. That’s definitely a positive step and should offer some relief.

However, she also cautioned that we’re likely still looking at higher prices and slower economic growth in the coming months. A big part of that is the lingering impact of the tariffs and trade policies from the previous administration.

We even heard how major players like Walmart are expecting to raise prices later this month specifically because of these tariffs. Think about what that means for families already struggling to afford the essentials. As Clare put it, “It’s bad news.”

And it’s not just the big corporations feeling it. Small businesses are echoing these concerns. While the tariff reduction is better, 30% is still a significant cost that will likely be passed on to us, the consumers.

Here’s the kicker: this tariff reduction is only a 90-day pause. So, there’s still a huge cloud of uncertainty hanging over businesses and our everyday spending.

Clare’s final assessment was pretty blunt: “Frankly, we’re still in a worse position than we were at the start of the year. The outlook isn’t a total disaster, but it’s not looking particularly hopeful either.”

It’s a reality check, for sure. It feels like we’re all navigating a tougher economic landscape right now, and these insights from the CBS Evening News and Clare Jones really highlight the challenges many of us are facing. Let’s hope those talks and the tariff adjustments lead to more positive changes down the road.

What are your thoughts on all this? How are you feeling the impact of these economic shifts? Let’s chat in the comments below.

Why So Many Young Americans Still Live with Their Parents

About one in three Americans aged 18 to 34 live with their parents, a trend shaped by rising living costs and economic pressures. Many young adults see delayed independence not as laziness, but as a financial necessity. This shift reflects generational differences and a changing economy, complicating traditional milestones like homeownership and financial independence.

About one in three Americans aged 18 to 34 lives with their parents. While it may seem like a recent trend, this pattern has been building for years. Between 2005 and 2015, the share of young adults living at home increased sharply, and since then, it has remained relatively stable—except for a spike during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The return to pre-pandemic levels doesn’t mean the pressures have eased. For many young adults, it’s simply harder to weather economic shocks. Nearly 30% of Gen Z say they want to save money but don’t earn enough. Around two in five millennials and Gen Z adults believe building wealth today is harder than it was for their parents.

A Personal Story: Victoria Franklin

Victoria Franklin, 27, has lived with her mother in New Jersey since graduating from the University of Miami in 2019. Initially, she planned to stay for a year while job hunting. But the rising cost of living changed that.

She began bartending and waitressing before landing a remote job in October 2019. With a two-hour commute to NYC now off the table, she decided to remain at home.

“I saw all of the money I was saving and thought, maybe I should stay home for a little bit. I didn’t feel an urgency to move out.”

The Financial Realities Behind Delayed Independence

More than half of Gen Z adults say they can’t afford the life they want due to high living costs. And 46% of millennials—and 32% of Gen Z—have more credit card debt than emergency savings.

Buying a home is particularly difficult. Home prices have increased much faster than incomes, making it harder for millennials and Gen Z to afford down payments.

Victoria earns between $85,000–$95,000 a year, and saves about 40–50% of her income. She questions paying $3,000 a month in rent just to make someone else rich. Instead, she plans to use her savings for a home down payment.

The Generational Divide

Victoria lives in Oceanport, New Jersey, where the median household income in 2022 was $133,000 and the average home price was around $644,000.

“My dad built this house for $350,000. He was making 10 to 15 thousand dollars less than I am, and my mom wasn’t working at the time,” she says. “That’s not even the American Dream anymore.”

Victoria frequently argues with her Aunt Judy, who believes young adults just need to make sacrifices. But as Victoria sees it, her generation is already sacrificing everything—from property to quality education.

Boomers vs. Millennials: Different Starting Lines

Older generations like Baby Boomers and Gen X came of age during a period of economic expansion. When they started households, housing and college were relatively affordable. A $70,000 household income in 1995 is equivalent to $145,000 today.

One sticking point in these intergenerational debates is perception. Many Boomers believe today’s young adults don’t want to spend their money. But the cost of living tells a different story.

The Broader Economic Impact

According to the Federal Reserve, a young adult moving out of their parents’ home contributes about $13,000 per year to the economy through housing, food, and transportation.

Delayed household formation can dampen consumer spending and slow economic growth. With fewer people forming new households, there’s less demand for furniture, renovations, and services.

And then there’s the housing crisis. In many popular regions, there simply aren’t enough affordable homes for entry-level buyers. Any effective housing policy must address both supply and demand—by building more homes and helping older homeowners downsize to free up space.

Student Loan Debt and Cultural Shifts

Student debt is another barrier. Nearly 60% of U.S. adults say it has delayed major financial milestones. Victoria pays $480 per month on her student loan—her biggest expense. The burden is heavier for Black and Hispanic borrowers, who tend to have less wealth and higher debt.

Yet student loans aren’t the only factor. Many European countries with lower student debt levels have even higher rates of adult children living with parents. In 2021, 24 out of 29 European countries had more 18–34-year-olds living at home than the U.S.—with rates over 70% in places like Italy, Greece, and Croatia.

Multigenerational living is common around the world. Victoria’s Brazilian boyfriend, for example, comes from a culture where living with parents is normal. “Why do we have to be so cold and push everybody out?” Victoria asks.

Conclusion

For many young Americans, the choice to stay with their parents is less about laziness and more about financial survival. Victoria’s mom is fine with it: “They’re saving their money. Eventually they’ll buy a house, and that works.”

What might look like failure to launch is, in many cases, a rational response to an economy that’s shifted the goalposts. Whether it’s the American Dream or just a new dream, one thing’s clear: young adults today are playing a very different game—and doing the math before making the move.

Pakistan’s Economic Decline: A Call for Change

You ever look at a country and think, damn, how did we go from potential to perpetual panic?

Once upon a time—let’s say, about 50 years ago—Pakistanis earned more than their South Asian neighbors. Yeah, more than India. More than Bangladesh. And way more than Sri Lanka. Fast forward to today, and we’re earning roughly half of what they do. It’s like watching someone. They once had a shot at med school. Now, they end up stuck reapplying every year with the same essay.

So what went wrong?

A lot. But not in the way that can be pinned on one corrupt government or one bad decade. This is long-haul decay. Think: population booms, economic planning that feels like copy-paste errors, and tax policies that barely scratch the surface. Dawn columnist Azmiraj Hussain laid it all out recently, and honestly? It reads less like a finance article and more like a slow-burning obituary for common sense.

Let’s start with the people. There are a lot of them. Pakistan’s population has quadrupled since the 1970s. Sounds like a good thing, right? Youthful energy, big workforce, all that jazz. Except—most of these young folks aren’t working yet. That means they’re not earning, not saving, and definitely not investing. Meanwhile, countries like India and Bangladesh have tilted the balance the other way—more working-age citizens, more economic momentum. If we had their age ratio, our savings rate could be 10% higher. That’s not a rounding error. That’s the difference between crawling and walking.

But it’s not just the headcount—it’s what we’re doing with the money. Or not doing. For decades, Pakistan has been spending like a kid with a credit card and no curfew. Nearly 60% of all government revenue goes toward interest payments. Not schools. Not hospitals. Just keeping the debt machine fed. And when the books don’t balance, guess what? We dial up the IMF. We’ve done it more than 20 times—most recently during the COVID shock and global oil mess. At one point, we had enough dollars to pay for just two weeks of imports. Two. Weeks.

And the IMF doesn’t come cheap. Sure, they give you breathing room. But then comes the belt-tightening—higher taxes, more austerity, and somehow still no real structural reform.

Here’s the thing nobody wants to hear but everyone needs to: Pakistan has to invest in people. That means health services that aren’t a joke. Family planning that actually reaches communities. And, yes, education for women, which always seems to be last on the list.

But investing means spending. And spending means you need revenue. Which brings us to the black hole of Pakistan’s economy—tax reform.

Right now, only about 1–2% of Pakistanis pay income tax. Sectors like agriculture, retail, and real estate? They’re practically in tax exile. If we’re serious, we need to raise an extra 6% of GDP in taxes. This would be necessary over the next five years just to achieve bare minimum functionality. And even then, we’d still be among the lowest in the world.

But raising taxes isn’t enough. We have to spend smart. Stop burning cash on loss-making state enterprises and subsidies for the rich. Use that money to build something—schools, clinics, clean water systems. You know, basic civilization stuff.

And here’s the kicker—none of this works if we don’t bring the world with us. Pakistan needs global partners. Institutions like the World Bank offer low-interest loans. Without them, we borrow at punishing rates. That just feeds the debt cycle and strangles private growth. It’s economic cannibalism.

Azmiraj Hussain ends on a sobering note: We can still turn this around. But it means changing everything. It affects how we tax and how we spend. It impacts who we invest in and who we choose to work with. If we don’t, the future isn’t a crisis. It’s crisis after crisis, forever.

And at some point, you stop calling it a rough patch—and start calling it reality.