Through the Time Hole: A Walk into the Nordic Gaze of Asia

Last week, I found myself stepping through what felt like a time hole inside the National Museum of Sweden. The upper floors of the museum take you on a curated walk through history - beginning with the 16th century and moving forward through the 17th and 18th centuries. Each gallery marks a transition not just in time, but in the refinement of lifestyle, much of which was shaped by expanding sea trade.

There, amidst Flemish tapestries and Delft porcelain, I stumbled upon something quietly breathtaking: a map titled "GEOGRAPHIC MAP of the Great Empire of CATHAY", inscribed in Latin at the bottom right. At first glance, it was a cartographer’s fever dream - equal parts mythology and geography, beautifully distorted by ambition and awe.

The map offered more than geography. It captured a Nordic worldview in flux - shaped by the allure of distant lands, porcelain from China, and silk from India. It was a window into how the people of the North envisioned Asia, relying heavily on accounts by explorers like Marco Polo and the evolving reports from Jesuit missionaries and Portuguese traders.

“Cathay” was the term used - a name popularized by Polo to describe China - though the map also referred to “Sina Regio,” hinting at a transitional understanding of the same land. This region, as imagined by European cartographers, was immense. It was the seat of the empire, home to “Cambalu” (now Beijing), and stretched all the way from the Middle East and India on the left, across Southeast Asia, to Japan on the right.

The merging of myth, religion, and cartography was stark. The placement of the "Oceanus Indicus" and "Oceanus Chinensis" hinted at the emerging awareness of sea routes that would soon define colonial and commercial ambition. Meanwhile, landmarks like "Mare Caspium" (the Caspian Sea) were distorted and oversized - accuracy often gave way to speculation.

India appeared fragmented yet significant - “Regnum Decan”, “Regnum Orixa”, and “Regnum Bengal” spoke to the subcontinent’s political identities. “Taprobana” or “Ceilão”, the ancient names for Sri Lanka, floated nearby. Even rivers like the Indus and Ganges were present, though reimagined in scale and flow.

What struck me most was not the inaccuracy, but the intent. This map wasn’t just about plotting land. It was a narrative - of trade, power, belief, and curiosity.

The museum itself reflects this blend of history and storytelling. Housed in a grand 19th-century building along the Stockholm waterfront, its layout encourages a chronological journey, not just through art but through shifts in taste, culture, and contact with the wider world. Each floor reveals another layer of European - and especially Nordic - encounters with the global.

In the 16th-century gallery, this map reminded me that style isn’t just fashion. It’s also perception - of people, lands, and histories that once seemed distant, exotic, and full of mystery.

Beggary at Traffic Junctions – A Reflection

If you’ve ever waited at a busy traffic signal in any Indian city, you’ve probably witnessed the familiar sight: beggars swarming cars, tapping on windows, extending hands, and sometimes selling trivial items. They hunt in pairs, sometimes in larger teams, aiming to extract money in the precious 30 or 40 seconds before the light turns green. It’s a perfectly timed act of desperation and strategy, an organized dance of need and guilt.

What I find particularly irritating is not just their persistence, but the fact that some motorists, in their generosity, unknowingly extend the wait time for everyone behind them. A few seconds of alms-giving often lead to a ripple effect of delay, while the traffic builds up and tempers flare. Yet, police officers stand seemingly indifferent, oblivious to the mounting congestion and the plight of impatient motorists.

What’s striking is how organized this street-level operation appears. Each member of the team has a role:

• The youngest of the gang usually carries a cloth or a wipe, rushing to your windshield before you can protest, swiping it with a theatrical flair. You didn’t ask for it, but by the end of it, you feel a peculiar sense of obligation to pay for the effort.
• The oldest member, typically a frail man with a stick, ambles up to your window, attempting to sell earbuds, pens, or other trivial items. His tired eyes and worn-out appearance tug at your heartstrings.
• A female member carries a young child, cradling them while she pleads for money, ostensibly to feed the infant. The sight of a child, hungry and helpless, is a powerful nudge to open your wallet.
• The male member, more assertive, sells balloons or glass sun shields, often approaching with a sales pitch that is hard to ignore in the few moments you have.

It’s a choreographed act, a well-rehearsed routine designed to extract sympathy - and ultimately, money - in mere seconds. But what fuels this response? Why do we feel compelled to give, even when we know it might be part of a larger racket?

The Psychology of Guilt and Enabling

This behavior at traffic signals mirrors something deeper in our psychology. As described in research, financial enablers often suffer from guilt over their own financial stability. They may feel undeserving of their own success and become duty-bound to “help” those who are visibly struggling, even if the struggle is part of an organized act. The same way a financially stable friend or relative may bail out someone who is irresponsible with money, we find ourselves handing out cash at traffic signals, not out of pure generosity, but out of guilt and the desire to relieve our discomfort.

These enablers often discount the role of effort and attribute the misfortune of others solely to bad luck. It’s easier to give a few rupees and feel like a savior than to question the system that perpetuates this cycle. Interestingly, many of these enablers are not big donors to public causes; their generosity is restricted to these close, immediate circles where they can visibly witness their “help” being accepted.

Money, after all, offers power, control, prestige, social acceptance, and approval. Some even hide their own financial strains to continue offering support - whether to beggars at a signal or to irresponsible friends and family. This behavior, while seemingly charitable, can also demotivate, undermine, and perpetuate dependence.

The Broader Social Reflection

If we extend this analogy to our social circles, the pattern becomes clearer. Why does a relative or friend, who is better off financially, continually bail out someone who is financially reckless? Research indicates that the giver often suffers from a kind of “money disorder.” They feel an obligation, rooted in guilt or misplaced loyalty, to step in and save someone from their own financial irresponsibility. And just like at the traffic signal, this behavior only enables the cycle to continue.

The beggary at traffic junctions is more than just a minor inconvenience—it’s a window into our collective psyche. It’s a reflection of how guilt, misplaced compassion, and the need for social acceptance drive us to enable patterns of dependency, both on the streets and in our personal lives.

Perhaps the next time you’re at that signal, instead of giving in to guilt, you might think twice about what you’re really enabling.

Capitalism’s Harsh Lesson: Why 16,000 Billionaires Never Existed

 

I. Introduction – The Billionaires Who Never Were

I recently stumbled upon a compelling statistic: Had America's wealthy families in 1900 simply invested their riches in the stock market, spent a modest 2% annually, and maintained average population growth, today there would be 16,000 'old money' billionaires. Instead, there are fewer than 1,000. This revelation prompted me to ponder the nature of wealth preservation.

This isn't just a tale of missed financial opportunities; it's a reflection of capitalism's inherent Darwinian nature. In the economic ecosystem, wealth that remains stagnant is akin to an untended garden, susceptible to the overgrowth of inflation and economic upheaval.

II. The Premise: 1900 Wealth + 2% Spending + Stock Market = 16,000 Billionaires?

The hypothetical is straightforward: if affluent families in 1900 had invested their wealth in the stock market, limited their annual spending to 2%, and allowed their families to grow at an average rate, the compounding effect would have resulted in approximately 16,000 billionaire heirs today.

Yet, reality tells a different story. The vast majority of these fortunes have dissipated over generations. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental truth: in capitalism, as in nature, survival favors the adaptable.

III. Darwinian Law #1: Adapt or Die

In the natural world, species that fail to adapt to changing environments face extinction. Similarly, in capitalism, wealth that isn't actively managed and adapted to evolving markets and technologies is prone to erosion.

Consider the industrial magnates of the early 20th century. Many of their descendants failed to pivot their investments in response to technological advancements, leading to the gradual decline of their fortunes.

IV. Darwinian Law #2: Competition Is Relentless

Nature is characterized by relentless competition, where only the fittest survive. Capitalism mirrors this, with constant market competition challenging the dominance of established players.

New entrepreneurs, armed with innovative ideas and technologies, often outpace traditional businesses. Without continuous reinvestment and innovation, even the most substantial fortunes can be overtaken.

V. Darwinian Law #3: Resource Mismanagement Leads to Extinction

In ecosystems, mismanagement of resources can lead to the collapse of populations. In economic terms, extravagant spending, poor investment decisions, and lack of financial education can deplete wealth rapidly.

The adage "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" encapsulates this phenomenon, where wealth is built by one generation, squandered by the next, and gone by the third.

VI. Inflation: The Silent Predator

Inflation acts as a silent predator, gradually eroding the purchasing power of money. Without proactive investment strategies that outpace inflation, wealth diminishes over time.

Relying solely on the stock market without active management isn't sufficient. Diversification, regular portfolio reviews, and strategic asset allocation are essential to preserve and grow wealth.

VII. Conclusion – Prosperity Requires Participation

The hypothetical 16,000 billionaires serve as a cautionary tale. Wealth preservation isn't a passive endeavor; it demands active participation, adaptability, and continuous learning.

In the Darwinian landscape of capitalism, only those who evolve and engage with the ever-changing economic environment can ensure the longevity of their prosperity.

Trump Tariffs, Trade Wars & The Abel-Lerner Connection – What It All Means for the Real World ?

This whole thought came about after watching a video of Dr. Steve Hanke speaking to a think tank ...snippet below, where he pointed out something remarkably simple yet deeply profound: “Tariffs are a tax on your own exports.” That line hit me like a freight train - and sent me digging into the Lerner condition, a 1937 economic model influenced by the mathematical symmetry thinking of Niels Henrik Abel.

In the chaos of trade wars, tariffs, and political grandstanding, it’s easy to get lost in economic jargon. But sometimes, the best insights come from surprisingly elegant theories - like the one Lerner proposed.

Let me break it down.

Understanding the Lerner Condition and Abel’s Influence

Imagine you slap a tax on imports to protect your local industries. Sounds smart, right? But Lerner’s condition flips this idea on its head. He argued that an import tariff is economically the same as a tax on your own exports. That’s because when you make foreign goods expensive, your own exporters face retaliation or reduced foreign income, which means less demand for your stuff too. It's like trying to win a pillow fight by punching yourself in the gut.

Mathematician Niels Henrik Abel didn’t study trade, but his obsession with symmetry influenced Lerner’s thinking. Just like Abel found elegant balance in equations, Lerner applied symmetry to global trade. A tax on imports = a tax on exports. Simple. Brutal. True. So how will the present embroglio pan out?

Scenario 1: The Tariff Spiral – Everyone Loses

This is the “nightmare mode” of a trade war. Country A (say, the U.S.) imposes tariffs. Country B (China) hits back. Both sides keep raising the stakes.

We’ve seen this play out. Under Trump, U.S. tariffs on China soared. China retaliated, targeting American exports like soybeans - crippling U.S. farmers. Trade volumes shrank. Prices rose. Consumers in both countries paid more. Global supply chains bent and broke.

This spiral fits Lerner’s model perfectly. Both countries tried to win but ended up taxing their own economies. It's like two neighbors blocking each other’s driveways out of spite - and then wondering why no one can go anywhere.

Scenario 2: The Truce – A Pause, Not a Peace

Now picture this: after months of economic damage, both sides say, “enough.” They agree to a partial rollback. This happened with the Phase One trade deal in 2020. China promised to buy more U.S. goods. The U.S. backed off new tariffs.

Great, right? Sort of.

Yes, it eased tensions and helped some exporters (hello again, soybeans). But most tariffs stayed. China didn’t fully meet its promises. And the structural issues - tech theft, subsidies - remained unresolved.

This is the halfway house. The bleeding slows, but the wound is still open. Trade recovers slightly, but the trust is fractured.

Scenario 3: The Standoff – The New Normal

Finally, we have the long-term stalemate: tariffs remain, trade adjusts, and both countries “decouple” bit by bit.

This is where we are today.

The U.S. still has tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese goods. China retaliates. Both economies slowly shift - U.S. importers turn to Vietnam or Mexico; China looks to ASEAN and Europe. Supply chains evolve, but efficiency drops. Everything costs a little more. Growth lags.

And the Lerner symmetry still applies. Those tariffs? They’re quietly taxing exporters and raising prices back home. No fanfare. Just a slow burn.

Final Thoughts: Trade Wars Are Boomerangs

If the Lerner condition teaches us anything, it’s this: tariffs hurt both ways. You can’t win a trade war by throwing taxes around. They come right back at you - hurting your exporters, your consumers, and your long-term growth.

Trump’s trade war with China showed this in action. The U.S. paid more, sold less, and achieved little lasting change. China took a hit too, but adapted.

So what’s the big takeaway?

In trade wars, there are no clean victories. Just costs - some obvious, some hidden. And if we want smarter policies in the future, we’d do well to remember what Lerner (and Abel) taught us: economic systems have symmetry - and that symmetry bites back.