Home Blog Page 19

Decoding Sugiono’s Doctrine Through The Eye of Pop Culture

Indonesia

By Darynaufal Mulyaman

This essay decodes Indonesia’s Doktrin Sugiono of Foreign Minister Sugiono’s diplomatic framework through pop culture. One Piece’s relational multilateralism, K-drama’s interiority, Pokémon’s strategic diversification, and Digimon’s responsive resilience. As an aspiring middle power, Indonesia tries to assert dynamic, networked engagement despite domestic fragilities and a fragmented global order, proving doctrine and storytelling share the same survival logic despite its challenges and flaws.

There is something quietly revolutionary about watching a foreign minister frame national resilience not through the cold grammar of realpolitik, but through the language of networks, adaptability, and strategic courage. When Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Sugiono outlined what has since been called the Doktrin Sugiono, he was not merely articulating a policy position. He was proposing a way of being in the world, one that resonates far beyond the corridors of Kementerian Luar Negeri and lands, curiously, in the very same emotional registers that fans of anime, K-drama, and pop culture have inhabited for decades.

At the center of the doctrine lies the idea of dynamic resilience, a concept that refuses stillness. In One Piece, the long-running manga and anime by Eiichiro Oda, the protagonist Monkey D. Luffy does not survive a world of rival pirates and corrupt governments by holding a fixed position. He survives because he moves, adapts, and builds crews, alliances, and loyalties across the Grand Line. When Luffy declares that he will become the King of the Pirates not alone but surrounded by friends, he is, in diplomatic terms, describing multilateralism from a position of relational strength. This is not a coincidence. Dynamic resilience, as Sugiono presents it, is precisely this kind of elastic forward motion, surviving and shaping outcomes rather than merely enduring them.

The doctrine’s insistence on living in a multiplex world with many centers of power is, in cultural terms, a repudiation of the unipolar narrative that once dominated both geopolitics and popular imagination. Think of how long K-drama itself was dismissed as peripheral to so-called global culture, only to gradually become one of the most watched genres on Earth. Shows like Crash Landing on You and My Mister do not derive their power from mimicking a single dominant aesthetic tradition. They derive it from being distinctly Korean, emotionally honest, and deeply networked within a regional and then global audience. Strategic diversification in culture looks exactly like this, and in foreign policy, Sugiono is making the same argument: Indonesia’s strength emerges from its relationships, not from subordination to any one axis.

This brings us to one of the doctrine’s most politically important claims, that Indonesia does not place all its bets on a single partner or platform. The language is deliberately economic, almost casual, but its implications are profound. In the world of Pokemon, trainers who rely on a single powerful creature are vulnerable the moment that creature is countered. Ash Ketchum’s most enduring lesson across seasons and regions is that versatility, a team of diverse abilities built over accumulated experience, is what wins not just battles but championships. By keeping options open, Indonesia retains room to maneuver. This is not neutrality in the old Cold War sense. It is active strategic optionality, an approach that requires constant cultivation rather than passive non-alignment.

Perhaps the most emotionally resonant phrase in the entire doctrine is the warning that a country fragile at home will have limited leverage outside. This is the part where K-drama’s obsession with interiority becomes unexpectedly illuminating. In the beloved series Reply 1988, the drama’s power comes not from grand external events but from the painstaking attention it pays to neighborhood bonds, family fractures quietly mended, and the interior architecture of community resilience. The show argues, without ever stating it explicitly, that how you treat your own determines everything about how you stand in the world. Sugiono’s doctrine is making the same claim at the level of the nation-state. Domestic fragility is not a private matter. It becomes a structural vulnerability in every negotiation table you sit at.

Digimon, which many Indonesian children of the nineties grew up watching alongside Pokemon, offers another useful frame. The central conceit of Digimon is that digital monsters can digivolve, but only in response to the emotional and psychological state of their human partners. Resilience in that universe is not programmed. It is relational and responsive to context. The doctrine’s architecture follows similar logic. Indonesia’s capacity to safeguard policy space and protect its people is not a function of fixed military or economic mass alone. It is a function of how dynamically the country reads and responds to a fragmented, multiplex environment.

The Strengths of Sugiono’s Doctrine

The most immediately compelling argument in favour of the Doktrin Sugiono is that it is calibrated for the actual world Indonesia inhabits rather than a simplified version of it. The doctrine does not pretend that the rules-based international order is functioning smoothly, nor does it pretend that any single great power is benevolent enough to be trusted unconditionally. This is realistic in the best sense of the word, honest about constraints without being defeatist about possibilities. For a country of Indonesia’s size, geographic centrality, and demographic weight, the doctrine’s emphasis on network-building and diversification opens more doors than any single alignment would. In K-drama terms, it is the strategic posture of a protagonist like Kim Ji-Young in the film Kim Ji-Young, Born 1982, who does not wait for a system designed against her to reform itself but instead maps every available option and moves through them deliberately. The doctrine, similarly, refuses to be a passive object of forces larger than itself.

A second strength lies in the doctrine’s grounding of foreign policy in domestic resilience. This is not merely a rhetorical gesture. There is a coherent analytical claim embedded in it, namely that a state’s bargaining power externally is always a downstream function of how coherent, legitimate, and capable it is internally. This is something the international relations literature has known for a long time but that policy documents often elide in favour of simpler narratives about alliance structures or military capability. Sugiono’s doctrine makes the linkage explicit and puts it at the centre of the framework. In the Digimon universe, this is the difference between a Digimon that digivolves out of genuine partnership and one that is forced into a dark evolution by external pressure. The former produces sustainable power. The latter produces spectacular but ultimately self-destructive capability. The doctrine is, at its core, arguing for the former.

A third strength is the doctrine’s potential to speak credibly to multiple audiences simultaneously. In an era when Indonesian foreign policy must navigate relationships with China, the United States, the European Union, ASEAN partners, the Global South, and the Islamic world all at once, a doctrine organised around diversification and dynamic engagement is far more flexible than one that privileges any single relationship. This is a point that K-pop has, in its own domain, understood with remarkable sophistication. BTS does not make music for a single demographic or a single national market. Its artistic and commercial strategy is to build genuine connections across audiences without requiring any one of them to feel secondary. The result is a fandom that is globally distributed but locally resonant. Sugiono’s doctrine is reaching for something analogous in diplomatic terms, and the ambition is well-founded.

The Tensions and Limits of the Doctrine

The doctrine’s greatest strength, its deliberate ambiguity and flexibility, is also the source of its most significant analytical vulnerability. A framework that insists on dynamic resilience, strategic diversification, and engaged optionality without specifying the conditions under which any of these imperatives takes precedence over the others is a framework that can justify almost any policy after the fact. Critics of Indonesian foreign policy have long noted that bebas aktif, the free and active tradition that the doctrine clearly inherits, has sometimes functioned less as a coherent strategy and more as a retrospective justification for inaction or inconsistency. The Doktrin Sugiono, unless accompanied by more precise operational guidance, risks reproducing this pattern at a more sophisticated level of articulation. In One Piece terms, even Luffy eventually has to decide which enemies to fight and which islands to pass. A philosophy of perpetual flexibility becomes paralysis when hard choices arrive.

There is also a tension in the doctrine’s simultaneous insistence on domestic resilience and external engagement that deserves more serious interrogation than the document currently provides. Building genuine domestic resilience in Indonesia, a country with significant inequality, ongoing democratic consolidation challenges, and a complex relationship between central government and regional autonomy, requires precisely the kind of sustained, patient, politically costly investment that the pressures of active foreign policy engagement tend to crowd out. The K-drama Nevertheless, which traces a relationship that is clearly unhealthy but nonetheless compelling to its participants, captures something of this dynamic. The appeal of external visibility, of being present and engaged at every international table, can become its own form of distraction from the harder, less glamorous work of internal repair. The doctrine names the problem correctly but does not reckon fully with the trade-offs involved in addressing it.

A further concern is the doctrine’s treatment of what it means to engage from a position of strength in practical terms. The phrase is evocative and clearly intentional, but strength in international relations is not a single variable. It is a composite of military capacity, economic leverage, institutional credibility, and what scholars call soft power, the ability to attract and persuade rather than merely coerce. Indonesia’s portfolio across these dimensions is uneven. Its military capability, while significant in regional terms, is not a primary source of bargaining power. Its economy is large but unevenly developed. Its institutional credibility has been dented by democratic backsliding concerns that international observers have noted with increasing frequency. The doctrine assumes a position of strength that, in several of these dimensions, still needs to be built. Pokemon, once again, offers an instructive analogy. Even Ash does not walk into the Elite Four with an undertrained team and expect the power of optimism to compensate. Preparation precedes the position of strength. The doctrine would benefit from a more explicit account of what that preparation actually entails.

A Doctrine Worth Taking Seriously

What Sugiono is ultimately constructing is a doctrine of engaged presence. To stay engaged from a position of strength is a deceptively simple phrase that contains a very demanding set of requirements. It means that Indonesia must be strong enough internally that engagement is always a choice rather than a concession. It means that the networks built externally must be genuine and diversified, not transactional dependencies dressed up as alliances. And it means that resilience is not a destination but a continuous practice, something closer to the daily discipline that fans admire in their favorite characters across seasons, sequels, and story arcs.

In a world where the grand ideological contests of the twentieth century have given way to a more diffuse, fragmented competition among many centers of power, doctrines like this one matter precisely because they resist easy categorization. Sugiono’s framework is neither isolationist nor simply multilateralist in the old institutionalist sense. It is something more dynamic, more attuned to a world that looks, frankly, a great deal like the complex, multi-faction universes of the stories that have shaped the imagination of a whole generation of Indonesians and people around the world. To decode this doctrine through the eye of pop culture is not to trivialize it. It is to recognize that the most durable ideas about survival, adaptability, and dignified engagement with a difficult world have always lived in the stories we tell. The question now is whether the machinery of diplomacy can move with the same agility as the world it is trying to navigate.

Go to top

About the Author

Darynaufal Mulyaman

Darynaufal Mulyaman or Dary is currently an assistant professor at International Relations Study Program, Universitas Kristen Indonesia. His research interests including Soft Power, that include but not limited to Pop Culture, Korean studies, Asia Pacific region, third world, international development, cooperation, and political economy.

7 Practical Tools for Effective Nonprofit Finance Planning and Budgeting

nonprofit finance planning

By Ryan Alexander

Planning and budgeting determine whether nonprofit strategy becomes operational reality. The most effective organizations use them not as annual compliance exercises but as forward-looking management systems. These seven practical tools help leadership teams align resources with mission, build financial resilience and make decisions with confidence in an increasingly challenging funding environment.

Too often treated as technical finance tasks, planning and budgeting are the primary mechanism high-performing nonprofit organizations use to turn mission into execution. Their purpose is not simply to produce a balanced budget, but to direct limited resources toward the outcomes that matter most while protecting the organization’s long-term stability.

Planning and budgeting are also being reshaped by external conditions. Revenue variability, longer funding timelines and rising delivery costs are forcing leadership teams to make financial commitments with greater uncertainty. In that environment, the quality of the planning process determines whether strategy can be executed or remains aspirational.

The following seven tools shift planning and budgeting from a historical reporting exercise into a leadership discipline.

1. Start with a clear destination and design the plan backward

Effective budgets begin with the organization’s strategic priorities and the financial position it intends to reach at year-end. When planning starts with last year’s numbers, existing activities are automatically preserved. When it starts with mission and outcomes, resources can be allocated deliberately. 

Backward design forces clarity about what the organization will and will not do. It also reduces the risk of accepting funding for activities that are not central to the mission and that create future financial obligations. 

2. Build genuine organizational ownership

Budgets succeed in implementation, not in approval. That requires participation from the people responsible for delivering them. 

Senior leadership, program managers and finance must work from a shared set of assumptions. Boards and finance committees should be involved early enough to shape priorities rather than reacting to a finished document. 

When the process is collaborative, the final budget becomes a plan the organization is prepared to execute. 

3. Allocate resources through a mission–community–funder lens

Financial sustainability depends on the degree of alignment between three elements: 

  • the mission 
  • the needs of the community served 
  • the priorities of funders 

Perfect overlap is rare. The task of leadership is to maximize alignment and make deliberate trade-offs where it does not exist. 

4. Build reserves as a planned outcome

Budgets that aim only to break even leave no margin for disruption. Reserves are not a byproduct of success. They are the result of deliberate planning. 

A reserve position allows an organization to continue operating during funding delays, adjust to revenue volatility without immediate cuts and pursue strategic opportunities when they arise. 

5. Monitor performance in real time

A budget becomes a management tool only when it is used throughout the year. 

Managers need regular budget-to-actual reporting. Executives need an organization-wide view of the financial position. Boards need clear confirmation that the approved plan is being executed. 

Linking financial results to program performance shows whether resources produced the intended outcomes. 

6. Use conservative assumptions and predefined decision points

Many financial crises are caused by revenue that was treated as certain but never materialized. 

Conservative planning means recognizing only secured funding, fully costing operations and making assumptions explicit. Predefined decision points allow hiring, program expansion and new initiatives to be activated only when defined thresholds are met. 

7. Apply the same discipline across all entities

For private foundations and multi-entity organizations, the revenue model may differ, but the planning principles remain the same. Long-term commitments must be evaluated against available resources, realistic projections and secured funding. 

Planning and budgeting as a leadership system 

Individually, these tools improve financial management. Together, they change how an organization makes decisions. 

Planning begins with the future rather than the past. Resource allocation reflects mission rather than habit. Financial results are reviewed in time to influence action rather than explain it. 

As funding becomes less predictable and operating costs rise, this shift is not technical. It is structural. Organizations that treat planning and budgeting as a leadership system gain the ability to: 

  • commit to multi-year priorities with confidence 
  • absorb disruption without immediate program cuts 
  • evaluate opportunities based on available financial capacity rather than the need to secure near-term funding 

Without this discipline, operational decisions are dictated by cash timing rather than strategic intent. 

Making sustained execution possible 

The strongest nonprofit organizations are not those with the most detailed budgets. They are those where planning, budgeting, reporting and strategy operate as a continuous cycle. 

In that environment: 

  • financial information arrives in time to guide day-to-day decisions 
  • program and finance operate from the same assumptions 
  • boards focus on direction and oversight rather than reviewing past performance 

This is where planning and budgeting serve their real purpose. They make sustained execution possible.

Go to top

About the Author

Ryan Alexander

Ryan Alexander, author of Protect Your Mission, is the founder of RA Partners, a firm that helps nonprofit leaders build financial systems that support growth, accountability, and mission delivery. Drawing on more than two decades of experience across finance, operations, and social impact, he created the IMPACT Framework for Nonprofits™, a practical model for strengthening nonprofit financial systems.

How to Steer Growth, Not Stumble, in the Tariff Aftermath

post-tariff strategy

By Dr. Rebecca Homkes 

A landmark Supreme Court ruling declared the Trump administration did not have the authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Powers Act.  While the decision provides an element of clarity, we are far from trade certainty.  Leaders looking to navigate by steering growth, not stumbling in policy aftermath, now have an opportunity to pause, reset, and thrive in this changing environment. 

A landmark Supreme Court ruling declared the Trump administration did not have the authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).   While the decision provides an element of clarity, we are far from certainty for trade policy.  Tariffs are a pressing leadership topic, but the changing on/off nature is making strategic discussions and subsequent decisions difficult.  But these fuzzy environments actually represent great growth opportunities.  Leaders looking to navigate by steering growth, not stumbling in policy aftermath, now have an opportunity to pause, reset, and thrive in this changing environment. 

Where are we, what’s next, and what can leaders do? 

Where we are

The Supreme Court arguments in November were narrowly focused on the legality of the tariffs: whether they are ‘good’ for U.S. companies or consumers was not in play. The Court, with a 6-3 majority, ruled that in IEEPA Congress did not delegate the authority to the President to enact tariffs. It remains a highly consequential ruling, though it is a narrower one than some wanted.   

The process of issuing refunds (more than 130 billion was collected under IEEPA) was also not addressed in the Supreme Court decision.  This was delegated to a lower court, and in early March the U.S. Court of International Trade wrote all importers of record were entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court ruling, though all refund cases had to flow through the Court.   

What’s next

As this was a narrow statutory (not constitutional) ruling, the administration has plenty of other statute-driven options, and tariffs enacted under something besides IEEPA remain in place.  The next set of tariffs are imposed under Section 122, a trade statute that says the executive can impose tariffs to settle international payments problems.   They can only last 150 days without congressional approval, and the tariffs cap at 15%.  Once these run out, there are a few other options exist, but these statutes are more time-limited and narrow, such as Section 232 for threats to national security or Section 201 for threats to domestic industry.    

Cost of tariffs

Tariffs are a tax, and taxes have costs.  Multiple studies show that over 90% of the tariff costs were paid by the importer, whereas anywhere from 20% to 50% of these costs were passed onto consumers, so far.  This has led to a tax of around $2,000 per American household, but this will fall to only a few hundred dollars under 122 tariffs.  The impact on inflation is likely around 0.4% and 0.5% of the CPI impact.  Tariffs are also universally disliked, with most polls showing the majority of Americans are concerned about the impact of tariffs on their finances and are making everyday items less affordable.  Tariffs, even if they worked in boosting US production, were going to be a midterm effect, but the short-term impacts were dire: manufacturing output rose by only 1% in 2025. Updated estimates show 108,000 jobs were lost in the sector in 2025.  

What not to do: 

  • Distraction or delusion: Assuming a ruling will lessen the significance of tariffs as a policy play or negotiating tactic is delusion.  Keeping your head down and ploughing forward is not recommended: we have one element of clarity, but we do not have certainty.  Distraction is just as troubling, getting bogged down into rebate policies or the minutia of court filings.
  • Holding pattern: It’s tempting to pause and wait ‘until we get more information’ – this decision-making paralysis where you punt decisions for weeks or months places your company in a constant holding pattern.  In-decision has a cost just as poor ones do.
  • Prediction time: Key to performing through uncertainty is to acknowledge that while we cannot predict the future, we can instead focus on making great decisions, even though we cannot make great predictions.  Predictions are tempting but a trap 

What to do:  

The leadership power move is to shift from planning to preparing.  Here’s a few ways to do so: 

  • Articulate your beliefs.  Key to any strategic decision is separating the trend (what we are seeing and hearing) from your belief (your stance on how it will play out) from the implication (what you should do).  Most organizations fall into the trap of jumping from trend to implication: we are seeing X, so we must do Y.  That is, we are seeing a threat of 25% tariffs, therefore we must stockpile inventory.  Given the current administration’s tendency to bold announcements and scattered action, knee jerk responses are especially problematic. 
  • Identify your kickers and killers: Shift the conversation from ‘what could happen’ to ‘what could make us’ or ‘what could break us.’  These are your kickers and killers.  Identify the potential big upsides and the business model killers (For example, 90% of a critical and price sensitive supply is in China).  When you have killers, you need to start making moves, even when beliefs remain untested. 
  • Isolate your no-regret moves: When making decisions, look for ‘no regret’ moves.  These are moves that even if you got your beliefs wrong, you would not regret making this move.  Investing in your own manufacturing facility is a regret move – if tariffs don’t materialize you would regret that massive capital outlay, but vetting additional suppliers is a no-regret move.  
  • Use multiple strategic stances: We are programed to act, and most leaders pride themselves on a bias to action, but sometimes it’s ok to wait, if it’s purposeful.  You can actively wait while you watch and learn.  And when you act, you can also make moves to shape the environment in your favor through advocacy, lobbying, or related.   And, critically, you can also act to learn more.  Lean in and learn faster than any other.  How? Map out supply chain, talk to key customers, and work with partners.  

Value creation does not change: Keep your focus  

When times feel volatile, it is easy to focus on what is changing, but as leaders the key is to also anchor on constants.  One non-changing element in the current strategic environment is the definition of growth strategy.  Strategy remains an articulation of how an organization creates value, and the role of value creation is to guide your organization as it drives the biggest gap possible between two levers: your customer or client willingness to pay for your products, services, and solutions and your total cost of delivering them that value. 

It is easy to get distracted from the main purpose, but leaders should stay laser focused on value creation insights and opportunities.  Tariffs, and similar macro events, are what I call a fair disadvantage: they are in the market for all.  Your role is to turn these fair disadvantages into unfair advantages and continue to create value through this uncertainty.   

Go to top
 

About the Author

Dr. Rebecca Homkes

Dr. Rebecca Homkes is a high-growth strategy specialist and CEO and executive advisor.  She is a Lecturer at the London Business School, Faculty at Duke Corporate Executive Education, Advisor and Core Faculty for BCGU (Boston Consulting Group), and a former fellow at the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance.  She earned her doctorate at the London School of Economics as a Marshall Scholar and is now based in Miami, San Francisco, USA and London. UK. 

Diet and Nutrition: The Role of Wellness Counselling in Modern Family Medical Insurance

Life insurance concept. Insurance for family and life Finance and health insurance.

When you buy household cover, you want support with hospital bills, but you also want fewer health worries in everyday life. That is why wellness counselling is now being bundled with family medical insurance, with diet and nutrition guidance taking centre stage.

Here is how this support fits into modern cover and what to look for when comparing health insurance plans in India.

Why Wellness Counselling is Showing up in Family Medical Insurance

Wellness support is meant to help you stay healthier between claims, not only pay after illness. Nutrition matters because meals are shared at home, habits spread quickly, and small changes often benefit everyone.

Here’s why this trend makes sense:

  • Insurers are nudging prevention, so families worry less between claims.
  • Shared meals make small nutrition tweaks feel doable for everyone.
  • Counselling cuts through online noise and gives you simple weekly steps.
  • It fits your work hours, sleep, and doctor’s advice, not trends.

In a counselling session, you discuss routine, food preferences, work timings, sleep, and any doctor-advised restrictions, and then the plan is shaped around what you can sustain.

How Nutrition Counselling Supports Everyday Family Health

The best guidance feels realistic. It focuses on portion awareness, balanced plates, and simple swaps within familiar foods like dal, sabzi, roti, rice, idli, and home snacks, rather than extreme rules.

For Working Adults

If your day includes long commutes, late meetings, or frequent ordering in, counselling can help you:

  • Plan easy meals and snacks that reduce last-minute choices
  • Handle tea, coffee, and cravings without cutting out everything you enjoy
  • Build steadier meal timings so you are not constantly skipping or overeating

For Children and Teens

With kids, the goal is routine, not pressure. Counselling often supports:

  • Lunchboxes that balance taste and nutrition
  • Healthier snacking that still feels fun
  • Food habits that fit school days, sports, and study periods

For Older Family Members

For elders, advice should align with existing treatment. Counselling may cover:

  • Lighter meals that are easier to digest
  • Steady protein and fibre intake throughout the week
  • Meal timing that matches medication guidance from the treating clinician

Where it Fits Inside Health Insurance Plans in India

Wellness counselling usually sits alongside preventive benefits such as health check-ups and doctor consultations, so you can act early when risk markers are detected. While assessing health insurance plans in India, treat wellness features as service benefits.

Here’s where it usually helps most:

  • Links nutrition guidance with check-ups, so you spot issues sooner.
  • Encourages timely consultations and helps you prepare questions for your doctor.
  • Keeps you on track between visits, without replacing clinical treatment.
  • Works best when access is easy, and your family actually uses it.

Their value depends on access, professional quality, and whether your family will actually use them.

What to Check Before You Rely on a Wellness Feature

Marketing lines can sound similar, so focus on how the service works in real life. This matters when you shortlist family medical insurance options for a mixed-age household.

Look for:

  • Clear information on who provides counselling and their qualifications
  • Simple booking for each family member, including follow-ups
  • Clarity on limits, eligibility, and exclusions in the policy wording
  • Privacy terms, especially if the service runs through an app

Choose the option your family will actually use, not just what sounds impressive.

Getting the Most From Counselling as a Family

Counselling works when you treat it as a conversation, not a judgement. Share your real routine, including festivals, fasting, eating out, and travel days, so the guidance stays relevant.

Here are a few quick pointers:

  • Bring your real week, including snacks, late nights, and festivals.
  • Pick one change for everyone, then build slowly from there.
  • Loop in the home cook, so meals support the plan effortlessly.
  • If someone is under treatment, confirm advice matches the doctor’s guidance.

You will usually get better outcomes when you start small, involve whoever plans meals at home, and keep your doctor in the loop for any medical condition.

Conclusion

Diet is not only a personal choice but also a family pattern. When wellness counselling is done well, family medical insurance becomes more supportive across the year, helping you build steadier habits and use preventive care with confidence, without losing the comfort of familiar Indian food. It also gives you a clearer path from check-up reports to everyday action, so your cover feels useful at home even when nobody is unwell.

Go to top

White House Seeks $200BN Boost for Military Spending as Iran War Drives Costs Higher

Military Spending Seeks $200bn Boost

The White House is asking Congress for another $200 billion in military funding as the war with Iran continues to drain resources.

Donald Trump said the extra money will go toward restocking weapons and supplies, noting that stockpiles have already been reduced by the current conflict and earlier support for allies like Ukraine. He described the situation as unpredictable and said the US needs to stay prepared.

At the same time, officials are starting to put a price on the war. The Pentagon estimates it cost more than $11 billion in just the first week, and the fighting is still ongoing. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the military has to be ready for what comes next, not just what’s happening now.

Still, the request may not pass easily. Congress has to approve the funding, and some lawmakers are already pushing back. A few have questioned why the administration moved ahead with strikes without broader consultation, while others are wary of the growing cost.

Public opinion could also become a factor if the conflict drags on.

For now, the administration is pressing its case, arguing that the funding is necessary to keep operations going and avoid falling behind in a tense global environment.

Related Readings:

US Intelligence Official Resigns

Iran’s Supreme Leader Calls to Keep Strait of Hormuz Closed

Go to top

Customer Experience as a Competitive Edge: Real-Time Tracking, Personalization, and Communication in Last-Mile Delivery

Last-Mile Delivery - Customer Satisfaction Rating

There is a specific kind of anticipation that comes with a delivery. You have placed the order, received the confirmation, and count the minutes to your tasty pleasure. You check the tracking page once. Then again. And again. That small window between ‘out for delivery’ and the doorbell ringing is where customer experience truly lives.

Last-mile delivery is no longer just logistics, considering the e-commerce world we are living in. It means emotion, expectation, and brand perception wrapped into one final interaction. And increasingly, it becomes the thing businesses win or lose customer loyalty.

The Last Mile: Where Experience Becomes Reality

Think about it, everything leading up to delivery is digital – product pages, checkout flows, confirmation emails. But the last mile is tangible because it is the moment your promise becomes real.

A smooth, transparent delivery can leave a lasting positive impression. In contrast, a missed order, vague tracking, or silence during delays all trigger frustration. That feeling tends to stick longer than the excitement of the purchase itself.

That is why companies are rethinking last-mile delivery. They begin to treat it as a customer experience opportunity rather than just as an operational challenge.

Real-Time Tracking: Reducing Waiting Anxiety

We have all been in a situation of staring at a tracking update that says ‘arriving today’ with no further details. It creates uncertainty, which, in turn, erodes trust. Real-time tracking changes that dynamic, so instead of guessing, customers can:

  • See where their package is at any moment
  • Get accurate, dynamically updated delivery times
  • Follow the driver’s route in real time

It seems a small shift at first sight, but it has a powerful psychological impact. Transparency replaces anxiety, while control replaces guesswork.

Looking from a business perspective, it also quietly solves a major problem of fewer messages, like Where is my order? How long should I wait? Customers don’t need to ask when they can already see.

There is something more subtle at play here, too. Real-time tracking keeps the brand present in the customer’s mind, even after checkout. Every interaction with the tracking page becomes another touchpoint, encouraging future collaborations.

Personalization: Deliveries That Fit Real Lives

It is natural that not all customers live the same way. So last-mile deliveries shouldn’t also have to be universal. Personalization in last-mile delivery is about meeting customers’ lifestyles, literally and figuratively. It recognizes that convenience looks different for everyone.

For some, it might mean choosing a precise delivery window after work. For others, it might be redirecting a package to a nearby locker or pickup point, or simply adding a note like ‘please leave behind the gate.’ These options are small, but together they create a strong sense of oversight, being a powerful driver of satisfaction.

How personalization evolves over time is even more interesting. When systems learn from customer behavior, involving preferred delivery times, locations, or communication styles, the experience starts to feel intuitive and almost effortless. It is an essential shift from just casual delivery to a service that mindfully adapts.

Communication: The Quiet Hero of Great Delivery Experiences

If real-time tracking translates to visibility, communication translates to trust. Customers don’t expect perfection. They want to be informed. A simple message at the right moment can completely transform how a delivery is perceived:

  • ‘Your order is on its way’ builds anticipation
  • ‘The driver is 10 minutes away’ brings readiness
  • ‘There is a delay, here is the new time’ shows respect

On the other hand, silence creates frustration and can kill the impression of the brand at its roots.

The most effective last-mile delivery experiences are established on proactive communication. Many misconsider it with a fast reaction when something goes wrong, but it is actually about guiding the customer through the process step by step.

That way, when issues do happen – as they inevitably will – clear, human-centered communication can turn a negative moment into a surprisingly positive journey. Customers tend to remember how they were treated, not just the mishaps, at the end of the day.

Technology Working Behind the Scenes

Things flowing smoothly for the client are often powered by complex systems behind the scenes. Route optimization tools calculate the most efficient paths. AI models adjust delivery estimates in real time. Integrated platforms ensure that updates are sent seamlessly across SMS, apps, and email. But the truth is, customers don’t see the technology. They touch the result.

  • They feel it when a delivery arrives exactly when expected.
  • They notice it when updates are timely and accurate.
  • They appreciate it when everything performs.

So the goal should be to remove friction instead of illustrating cutting-edge technology.

The Challenges: Balancing Experience and Complexity

Of course, none of this comes without challenges. Providing flexible last-mile delivery options increases complexity. Implementing advanced tracking requires a great deal of investment. Handling customer data in a responsible way demands careful attention. Maintaining consistency can be especially difficult during peak periods.

Strategy plays a significant role here. The common mistake is to offer everything instead of offering what truly improves the experience sustainably. The most successful companies prioritize thoughtful innovation over more features.

Looking Ahead: The Future Feels Personal

Customer expectations will only rise along with technological progress. We are already seeing early signs of what is next – predictive delivery windows, hyper-personalized options, even autonomous delivery methods.

However, customers seek clarity, understanding, and control beyond the innovation. Keeping that in mind, the future last-mile delivery is going to be more intuitive and human-oriented.

Bottom Line

Last-mile delivery is often the most complicated part of the supply chain. While that is true operationally, it represents the most human touchpoint in the entire customer journey. It is the moment when expectation meets real experience, with the brand’s promise either fulfilled or undermined.

Real-time tracking, personalization, and clear communication are not just functional improvements in this context. They become strategic signals of reliability, respect, and customer-centric thinking. These elements do more than improve delivery – they demonstrate that a business values the time, preferences, and trust of its customers, framing the overall brand experience in an increasingly competitive market.

Go to top

From Strategy to Start-Up: How Anderson Kurunczi Domingos Structures Execution in Capital Programs

Start-Up Execution - startup strategy

This profile is based on and a review of selected project artifacts, sanitized to protect confidentiality. Supporting materials for this type of work may include governance templates, procurement documentation, and commissioning readiness checklists.

Large capital programs rarely fail in a single dramatic moment. More often, they drift—through unclear scope, slow decisions, unmanaged change, vendor misalignment, and interface gaps that surface when commissioning is already underway. Anderson Kurunczi Domingos has built his work at the point where that drift can be contained early, before options narrow.

Domingos

Domingos is a capital programs governance and project controls leader with experience across industrial environments, including process-industry settings connected to biomanufacturing. Rather than treating execution as a downstream phase, he emphasizes controls designed to make delivery repeatable: decision-quality baselines, explicit decision cadence, disciplined change control, vendor accountability, and clear ownership of interfaces from engineering through start-up readiness and handover.

His perspective was shaped close to operations, where constraints are real and performance is visible. That grounding informs a pragmatic view of capital delivery: success is framed around safe start-up and stable operation—not mechanical completion alone. He holds doctoral-level training in chemical and biochemical process engineering, which he applies to translate technical complexity into sponsor-ready scope and execution controls.

“I materialise complex initiatives into operating assets by governing the mechanics sponsors care about,” Domingos said.

At the center of his approach is decision clarity. In sponsor-facing environments, he prioritizes making scope usable for procurement and delivery—not merely aligned in principle. Once baseline information is decision-grade, he focuses on cadence—who decides what, when, with what evidence—and ensures changes are assessed and governed rather than negotiated informally.

Micro-case 1: Execution readiness before procurement

In one multi-discipline biomanufacturing expansion, Domingos’ role centered on preparing the program for technical procurement. The work focused on execution-readiness documentation suitable for RFQs and on technical alignment so proposals could be compared on deliverability rather than narrative.

The practical outcome is a procurement process anchored in evidence: clearer assumptions, fewer interpretation gaps in vendor commitments, and decisions that move without late reversals driven by scope ambiguity. Typical supporting artifacts include sanitized RFQ packages, technical evaluation summaries (bid tabs), decision logs, and controlled-change registers. — Dr. Saiful Seraji

Dr. Saiful Seraji, PhD in Chemistry (University of Connecticut), an experienced process engineer with hands-on expertise in technology development, said: “What stood out in Anderson’s work was his insistence on decision-quality scope. Once baselines were clear, procurement discussions shifted from opinion to evidence, and decisions moved faster with less rework.”

Micro-case 2: Owning interfaces before commissioning forces the issue

In multi-contractor delivery environments, Domingos consistently emphasizes interfaces—the handoffs between disciplines, vendors, and operations where issues often surface late. His governance routines are designed to keep interface ownership explicit, define readiness criteria early, and make change visible as execution progresses in parallel.

The practical outcome is earlier exposure of integration gaps—while fixes are still manageable—so commissioning is less about surprises and more about controlled readiness. Typical supporting artifacts include interface registers/RACI, readiness checklists, handover criteria, and commissioning punchlists (all sanitized for confidentiality). — Eng. Fabrício Pereira Mota

In a separate biomanufacturing project where he worked alongside Domingos, Eng. Fabrício Pereira Mota, CEO (company administrator) at Prioridade Engenharia e Comercio Ltda, said: “From a maintenance perspective, the projects Anderson governed arrived better prepared. Interfaces were clearer, and start-up issues surfaced earlier, when they were still manageable.”

What he audits first

Across roles, Domingos’ early audits tend to focus on five elements:

  • Baseline quality: Is scope decision-quality and usable for procurement?
  • Decision cadence: Who decides what, when, and with what evidence?
  • Controlled change: Are impacts visible and governed consistently?
  • Vendor deliverability: Are commitments tied to acceptance criteria and executable constraints?
  • Interface ownership: Are handoffs owned before commissioning makes gaps expensive?

The result is a delivery rhythm that resists drift—clearer handoffs, fewer late surprises, and readiness criteria defined before start-up becomes urgent. In capital programs where complexity is normal, predictability is not a personality trait. It is a system built from mechanics that hold under pressure.

Go to top

About the Author

Anderson Kurunczi Domingos is a capital programs governance and project controls leader with experience in multi-vendor delivery environments across process industries. He holds doctoral-level training in chemical and biochemical process engineering.

Half of New Entrepreneurs Work Solo: QNET’s Model Fits the Individual-Driven Trend

QNET business model

Entrepreneurial activity surged across 79 economies in recent years, with half of new business owners now operating without traditional employees, according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

Professor Niels Bosma, research director at GEM, characterized this development as more than temporary adaptation. “We are seeing a clear global trend toward solo entrepreneurship,” he told the International Business Times. “It’s not just a stopgap, but a fundamental redefinition of what work looks like in a digital economy.”

Direct sellers like QNET have built operational frameworks that accommodate this shift toward individualized businesses. The wellness and lifestyle company provides centralized infrastructure—inventory management, payment processing, shipping logistics—that allows distributors to build sales teams while avoiding the overhead typically required to run product-based businesses.

“It’s really micro entrepreneurship,” said Ramya Chandrasekaran, QNET’s head of communications, in a recent interview. “We give people the opportunity to build their own sales business without establishing their own company.”

Early Digital Adoption Enabled Solo Operations

Trevor Kuna, chief marketing officer at QNET, traced the company’s solo-entrepreneur compatibility to strategic decisions made decades ago.

“In the early 2000s, we made a decision that changed everything. We embraced e-commerce long before the rest of the direct selling industry saw digital platforms as the future,” he told MediaBrief. “While many companies were still relying only on door-to-door sales and in-person gatherings, we built a digital-ready business that removed borders and allowed our distributors to grow without limitations.”

That infrastructure became essential as individual entrepreneurship accelerated. QNET’s e-commerce platform handles functions that would otherwise require staff or capital investment. Distributors receive unique referral codes that track transactions automatically. Products ship directly from company warehouses to customers. Customer service operates through corporate channels rather than individual seller management.

The operational setup mirrors how gig economy platforms removed friction from solo work. Where Uber provided the app and rider network, QNET provides product sourcing, fulfillment, and compensation tracking. Independent distributors build a sales team, but they operate as individuals enabled to focus on customer acquisition and relationship management rather than operational infrastructure.

“QNET began in 1998 with a simple belief: entrepreneurship should be open to anyone with the drive to build a better life, and the products behind that opportunity must genuinely improve everyday living,” Kuna explained. “That belief has guided us for 27 years and still defines who we are.”

The model reduces what economists call entrepreneurial barriers. Startup capital remains minimal: distributors pay registration fees rather than inventory costs. And while team building is at the heart of the direct selling business, no physical storefront or warehouse space is required.

Numbers Behind the Trend

The World Federation of Direct Selling Associations estimated 104.3 million people participated in direct selling globally in 2024, with retail sales reaching $163.9 billion.

WFDSA data showed the count of independent sales representatives held steady year over year despite flat global sales, suggesting the channel retained participants even without explosive growth. Nearly half of reporting markets showed positive sales expansion in 2024, with average market growth rates returning to positive territory after pandemic disruptions.

WFDSA research identified nearly 1 billion latent entrepreneurs globally: individuals not currently operating businesses but planning to start within three years. That figure represents 18.9% of the working-age population across 49 countries surveyed.

Countries with challenging business environments showed particularly strong entrepreneurial intentions. Qatar posted the highest rate at 60.8%, while India held the largest absolute number with approximately 275 million latent entrepreneurs. These populations may face barriers that make solo, low-capital ventures more practical than traditional business formation.

Digital Infrastructure as Entrepreneurial Enabler

QNET’s digital infrastructure allows the company to scale resources without requiring distributors to invest in technology, in many cases launching businesses using only their smartphone. To prevent scammers from taking advantage of the QNET name, the company’s verified mobile app processes transactions, displays product catalogs, and provides training materials. Distributors access the same systems whether operating in Malaysia, Ghana, or India.

“In response to the evolving e-commerce landscape, QNET has implemented several strategies to stay ahead in the industry,” Kuna said in a previous interview. “Among these, our award-winning QNET mobile app takes center stage, playing a pivotal role in enhancing the overall shopping experience for our valued customers and distributors, anytime, anywhere.”

A single person can manage multiple customer accounts because the platform automates administrative work. Sales volume, rather than operational capacity, determines workload and team-building decisions.

The pandemic accelerated reliance on these digital systems. “While lockdowns slowed down traditional direct selling models, our digital ecosystem, online training, content engines, mobile-first tools, allowed our distributors to operate fully online,” Kuna noted. “What could have been a setback became a moment of acceleration.”

Competitive Positioning in the Solo Economy

Direct selling competes with other solo work models: freelancing platforms, e-commerce marketplaces, rideshare services. Each removes different friction points. Freelancing platforms match skills to projects. Marketplaces provide storefronts. Rideshare apps coordinate transportation.

QNET’s differentiation centers on product access and training. Distributors sell exclusive items unavailable through retail channels. The Bernhard H. Mayer watch collection, HomePure water systems, and Amezcua wellness devices require direct relationships with manufacturers that individual sellers couldn’t establish independently.

“Another turning point was our decision to focus deeply on wellness and home health solutions backed by research,” Kuna explained. “As global interest shifted toward preventive care and holistic well-being, we were already moving in that direction.”

The solo entrepreneur trend speaks to direct selling’s structural approach while creating new challenges. There is an increasing acceptance of flexible, independent work, particularly among Gen Z, but challenges arise from increased competition for attention and time.

Kuna acknowledged the shift in how consumers make purchasing decisions. “The funnel exists, but it is no longer a straight line. It has become a network where people enter and exit from any point based on recommendations from friends, communities, and creators they trust,” he said. “In a way, this shift validates our model, because direct selling has always been built on personal recommendations and real stories from real people.”

Go to top

Some Economic Consequences of the Iran War

By Dr. Jack Rasmus

As the US-Israel war on Iran enters its third week, the outlines of the economic consequences and fallout of the war have begun to emerge. As the war continues—and by most indicators it appears it will for months longer—the War’s negative impact on the US and world economies will deepen further.

What are some of the economic dimensions for the War’s negative consequences?

First and most obvious is the current oil price shock’s effect on inflation. Not for just US prices but other countries as well. And not just for goods and services but for asset prices (i.e. stocks, bonds, forex, derivatives, gold, silver, etc.).

Another is the long term disruption of global supply chains and the volume of global trade.

As inflation rises, central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, will continue to raise interest rates with a corresponding negative impact on the US and other economies, many of which are already nearly stagnant or are beginning to enter recession. Most heavily impacted will be Europe, the Gulf States, and middle east energy dependent countries in east Asia like Japan and South Korea.

Another negative impact will be on global money capital flows—both real investment and financial portfolio asset markets (stocks, bonds, forex, derivatives, etc.).

Then there’s the US budget deficit and national debt. The deficit will now approach $2 trillion a year, for the third straight year. That deficit will drive the national debt to exceed $39 trillion by later this spring and possibly $40 trillion by year end.

Another negative impact will be on global money capital flows—both real investment and financial portfolio asset markets

The Iran war and its costs converge with a host of other forces driving the deficit and the debt into ever greater crisis: Trump’s escalating war spending (including his plan for $400 billion more for just the Pentagon), the current sharply slowing US real economy (that grew at a mere 0.7% rate in fourth quarter 2025), the present collapse of employment and job creation now underway in the US and Trump’s massive 2025 $5 trillion tax cuts benefiting mostly investors and corporations at the expense of US Treasury tax revenues which is estimated to reduce corporate income tax revenues by $77 billion in 2026.

Not least, the war will accelerate the current fiscal crisis of the American Empire. The costs of Empire now exceed $2.2 trillion a year when all categories of ‘defense’ in the US budget are considered, not just the Pentagon and the US Department of Defense—the latter alone which now exceeds $1.1 trillion a year.

Trump’s war in Iran will exacerbate all these negative economic trends, US and global; and the longer the war continues—which by all indicators it will—the worse the negative economic consequences.

Putting some numbers and facts around the above trends, the picture now beginning to appear in terms of economic consequences of the Iran war is as follows:

Oil Price Shock

Throughout 2025 the price of global crude oil remained at around $60 a barrel. It began to rise in late January 2026 and hit $71 just before the war began Saturday, February 28. Prices initially spiked to $118 the following Monday, March 2, but then settled down below $100 the rest of the first week. On March 9 they were still $98. At the start of the second week Trump tried to talk down the price by saying the war was “over soon”. His Energy Secretary then posted on the department’s website that US warships had begun escorting tankers through the Hormuz strait. Oil prices quickly fell to $87. But when the facts revealed the war was not about to end in a week, and that there were no escorts, the Energy Secretary quickly took down the fake claim from the department’s website and oil prices rose again. By Thursday, March 12 they were $101. On March 15, $104. On Monday, March 16 the price of benchmark Brent crude oil hit $106. The price of crude oil will fluctuate day to day with events in the war in the short run but steadily rise over time.

At the retail gasoline level in the US, the Trump administration has continued to under report the price of gasoline at the pump, after two weeks of war claiming it has risen only 15 cents a gallon. In fact, the average was closer to 70 cents, according to other official estimates, and in regions like California more than $1.50/gallon.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Failure

Trump’s major policy response to address the crude oil supply shock during has been to announce the release of 172 million barrels from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). After Biden’s SPR release in 2022, the reserve was never restored. Before Trump’s recent announcement, the SPR held only 412 million barrels or about 60% of its total capacity. That’s to be reduced now by another 172 million barrels. Europe, Japan and other countries have also announced inventory releases, for a global total of around 400 million barrels of extra crude supply for the global market. But neither the 172 or 400 million barrels will have much effect on global and US prices. Here’s why:

The shutdown of the Hormuz strait results in a 20.3 million barrels a day reduction in total global oil supply, which is about 30% of all seaborn crude oil.

At 20.3 million barrels a day, 400 million additional barrels from the US SPR and global reserves provides for roughly 20 days additional supply to offset the closure of the straits. But 20 days assumes that 20 million barrels from the SPR and other inventories are released to the market immediately on day one. That cannot occur.  There’s a ‘flow rate’ limit of release from the SPR which is no more than 2 million barrels a day.  That means it will take 200 days—not 20—for the SPR and other sources to reach global oil markets. So global supply is still reduced by 18 million barrels a day due to the Hormuz closure. The SPR release will hardly dent the supply effect of the Hormuz closure and so little to dampen rising global crude prices in coming weeks. Nor will it effect much the price of US gasoline at the pump which will also keep rising—as Biden discovered when he released SPR oil back in 2022.

And there’s countervailing forces why gasoline at the US retail level will continue to rise.  Whenever there’s a jump in crude oil supply—due to SPR release or other causes—US oil companies simply reduce their output accordingly and/or US drilling companies take a number of their drilling rigs temporarily offline. The result is not a net increase in supply of gasoline even if there’s an excess of crude oil supply from the SPR.

Moreover, US oil companies control the retail price of gasoline at the pump by manipulating refinery output—not by changes in crude supply. They have purposely not built a new refinery in the US in 50 years! As a result, they can turn off the supply spigot at the pump whenever they want by simply reducing refinery output regardless of crude supply changes. That typically occurs after announcing refinery shutdowns for maintenance, repairs, fires or other such excuses. So forget the politicians’ and media talk about the global price of crude. Oil companies control gasoline prices by controlling the bottleneck of oil refinery operations.

As the war drags on—likely now for weeks if not months—the global price of crude may spike much higher than the current $100 a barrel. The Goldman Sachs bank has forecast the price can potentially rise to $200 a barrel, or more. Not coincidentally, the Iran government has indicated its target is to push the price to $200.

Global Supply Chain Disruption

The closing of the straits is not only disrupting global crude oil supply but other commodities supply as well.  20% of the world’s natural gas supply also ships through the Hormuz strait. A significant supply of fertilizer, petrochemicals, plastic packaging, and some metals also pass through the strait. Their supply will be disrupted as well, with various price impacts. The supply of fertilizer may especially have an impact on crop production and food prices in emerging markets in Asia and Africa.

There’s also the matter of the disruption of the supply of shipping containers. A significant supply of containers are locked up now in the Persian Gulf. That will have repercussions on the availability of shipping containers world wide, creating shortages in places and raising container prices.

US Dollar and Gold

The Iran war and rising oil prices will have a significant impact on the value of the US dollar and in turn on the price of Gold. The war and its effects comes on the wake of the bubble in Gold prices in 2025 which rose from $1900 an ounce to more than $5000 throughout the year. Conversely, 2025 witnessed a 10% devaluation (price decline) of the US dollar. Both assets, the dollar and gold, have surged as the War erupted, as investors seek safety havens. The Gold price surge will now continue. The US dollar recovery will not.

The dollar will resume its decline eventually as Demand for dollars to buy oil declines as 20% of the global supply of oil is taken offline. Investors will shift asset investing more to Gold, continuing to drive up its price. In turn rising gold price will further depress the value of the US dollar. Thus, longer term, the dollar will devalue further by year end while gold will rise further.

To try to accelerate the dollar’s decline, Iran has announced policies to hasten decline in its Demand and thus the value of the dollar. It has announced it will allow tankers to pass through the strait of Hormuz so long as they carry oil that is bought and sold with the Chinese Yuan.

US Inflation

Economists’ estimates are that the US consumer price level will rise by 1.3% points should the price of crude oil remain around $100/ barrel. The US CPI has hovered in the 2.5%-2.9% range. That means the CPI rises to more than 4.0%. But that’s not the full impact of inflation on the consumer. The CPI (or its cousin US price index the PCE) does not include interest rates which have already begun to spike, impacting auto loans, mortgages, and credit cards. Nor does it fully reflect prices in other categories of purchases that impact consumer budgets. The 1.3% estimate is for the direct cost on energy expenditures, primarily regular gasoline (note most US car owners buy premium but the media likes to quote regular). The CPI won’t fully reflect the coming rise in utilities (gas and electric), transport (airlines, trucking, railroad), and food prices as fertilizer and plastic packaging costs rise with global crude prices. Nor does the estimated 1.3% account for consumers’ inflationary expectations almost certainly to rise as well in coming months.

Financial Asset Price Volatility

Effects on the US dollar and gold have already been noted. But what about other financial assets like stocks, bonds, derivatives, forex, etc.?  The disruption of trade, energy, and money capital flows will likely mean a shift by investors out of certain stocks and bonds and a rise in the cost of derivatives insurance.

More instability in US stock and bond markets is already appearing, and it comes on the wake of a significant correction in February in US financial markets. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq markets have contracted 5-7% since February. The economic uncertainty unleashed by the War will dampen financial asset investment further.

And what about that sector that had driven almost all of stock price appreciation in 2025—i.e. the tech and AI boom? What will be the impact of $100 or more oil prices on energy costs on the huge investments now underway in Artificial Intelligence,  most of which is targeted for the energy hungry AI data centers being built out at present? The AI bubble was already showing signs of contraction before the war. Will sustained surging energy prices lead to further AI stock related instability?

While some asset prices will accelerate further due to the War, others may deflate due to the same. That includes certain stocks and bonds as interest rates rise, emerging market currencies, and of course the dollar.

Interest Rates

Another direct consequence of the War is the rise of interest rates in the US. Already 10 and 30 year Treasury bonds have begun to rise since the start of the war two weeks ago.  They will rise further.

The US Federal Reserve will now be even more reluctant to reduce US short term rates at its next and subsequent meetings, out of concern for rising inflation on the horizon. The Fed cut rates three times last year. Trump opened a war on the Fed to force it to reduce rates again further and faster. He needs big cuts in order to have an effect on a US real economy that is weakening fast. He needs lower rates at least six months before the US November 2026 elections. He’s running out of time. Trump just lost a major court case in which he tried to legally force Fed chair, Powell, out of office. Given the inflationary pressures generated by the War, the Fed is now less likely to bow to Trump’s pressure and reduce rates. And the longer the war, the less likely the Fed will reduce rates.

US Real Economy

The US real economy enters the War on particularly shaky ground. As previously noted, real US GDP for fourth quarter 2025 was a mere 0.7% and for all of 2025 barely 2%.  US job growth for all of 2025 was only 181,000 when 1.2m are needed just to absorb new entrants to the labor force. February’s latest job numbers showed, moreover, a contraction of 92,000 jobs. The US employment sector is already in recession.

Consumer spending has recently also slowed down. That’s 2/3s of US GDP. And the Net exports category of GDP will again now worsen due to global trade disruptions. That leaves business investment even more dependent on the AI bubble, as US government spending continues to cut social program spending to make way for more war spending.

In short, the war may well push the US economy into a condition of Stagflation—i.e. rising prices amidst declining jobs and slowing GDP.

One should not forget the role that oil price spikes can play in economic recessions. Economists generally overlook the role spiking oil prices played in the 2008-09 great recession.  It was in the spring-summer 2008 that global crude oil prices shot up to $147 a barrel—a record level which helped precipitate the great recession that year. The financial crash of 2008 played a major role in causing the recession but the oil price explosion that occurred in parallel with the financial crash contributed as well. One should therefore not overlook the potential of price shocks in precipitating recessions—whether 2026 or 2008.

Europe, Russia, Asia and Emerging Economies

Europe economies are in an even worse condition than the US. Already battered by energy costs of US LNG gas and oil six times higher than former Russian natural gas, Europe’s economies have been hovering around stagnation or mild recession, according to official statistics.  Europe political elites have exacerbated the conditions by continuing to divert critical money capital for investment in their own economies to Ukraine instead. Now the Iranian war effects will exacerbate energy cost inflation and slow growth in Europe even further.

Europe gets much of its oil and most of its natural gas from the Gulf states. With that blocked, it will have to buy more from the US—at likely even higher prices. The rising cost of energy may well push the major economies of Europe—Germany, France, UK—over the recession cliff.

The Gulf states economies are in even worse state than Europe’s. Their main money engine of oil and gas is virtually shut down or damaged. It will take months, perhaps years, to restart production and repair damages. Their economies are clearly already contracting sharply.

Asian countries like South Korea and Japan are heavily dependent on middle east oil and gas. Japan had created a significant stored reserve. But South Korea had not. That country will almost certainly have to start rationing energy use soon.

Then there are those emerging economies that are heavily dependent on the dollar, having ‘dollarized’ their economies. As interest rates rise, the price of the bonds they have issued or hold will decline sharply. Their currencies will decline and their reserves for purchasing critical imports will dry up. Some will have to borrow more again from the IMF. Others, cut social spending. They will import less food due to rising prices and their falling currencies. Serious food shortages may occur in these dollarized emerging market economies.

In contrast, Russia is a big winner economically from the Iran war. The surge in the price of crude from $60 to more than $100 a barrel is estimated to result in $150 million a day in additional revenue for Russia.

China benefits as well. While China imports a significant amount of its total oil imports from Iran, it is thus far not significantly impacted. Iran has reported it continues to export a significant volume of its oil to China. China has developed alternative global sources for its oil imports and has amassed a reserve of oil that reportedly can last five months. In addition, it can always import more from Russia.  Its net assets will rise appreciably with the rising price of gold, which it has been acquiring and storing for years.

Finally, as the war in Iran drags on, there will be a further drift from the use of the dollar to purchase oil and toward alternative currency arrangements now being prepared by the BRICS. The war and its economic dislocations will benefit the BRICS at the expense of the US dollar.

Exodus from the Gulf States

Reports abound of the growing exodus of investors and wealthy local populations from the Gulf states as the war intensifies and Iran continues to bomb their infrastructure and US military bases, from the UAE in the south of the Gulf to Kuwait in the north. As the wealthier population leaves, they take their wealth with them. That means investment projects throughout the region are on hold or even being cancelled. In addition, Western money capital is not entering the region now, and Gulf investors are moving their capital from the region and investing it mostly in Gold and other metals elsewhere. The entire economies of the region are being severely disrupted, in other words, not just the flow of crude oil and natural gas.

US Costs of Empire

A generally overlooked consequence of the Iran war is the effect it will have on an already out of control US defense spending and related costs required to maintain the US empire today in general.

The US mainstream media and politicians like the public to think that Pentagon spending represents the total costs of defense in the US budget. That Pentagon spending is now more will exceed $1 trillion in 2026. But that’s not all the US defense department spends. Its total expenditure is now more than $1.1 trillion. And that doesn’t include other obvious ‘defense’ or ‘war’ expenditures like funding the CIA and intelligence agencies, costs of past wars in veterans benefits, development of nuclear weapons in the Energy Department budget, military aid and assistance to allies, Homeland Security escalating costs, costs for secret new weapons development not indicated in the US budget, and interest payments on the national debt due to defense/war spending’s share of deficits and national debt interest payments.

Nor does the US budget$1.1 trillion authorization for the Pentagon and Defense Dept. include Trump’s 2026 current spending on what’s called ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’ for direct war actions in Venezuela and now Iran. It is estimated the US has been spending $2 billion a day on the war in Iran. And that probably doesn’t include weapons replacement costs. Deploying three aircraft carrier tasks forces is not cheap. Committing one third of US aircraft to the region isn’t either. Nor repairing eventually the damage to the US dozen plus bases in the Gulf and aid for the Gulf states to replace their destroyed air defense systems, the radars of which alone cost $1 billion each.

In short the tab for the Iran war after 20 days is at least $50 billion in OCO. And if Trump sends in the Marines and tries to have the US navy escort ships through the Hormuz straits that tab will rise by tens of billions $US more.

In addition to all that Trump is calling for an increase of another $400 billion for the Pentagon in the next budget as he obviously plans for more wars.

Conclusions

The longer the war the greater the costs to the US across multiple dimensions. Moreover, the longer the war the more likely Iran will ‘win’.

The longer the war the greater the costs to the US across multiple dimensions. Moreover, the longer the war the more likely Iran will ‘win’.

Iran is approaching the war strategically, while the US is doing so tactically. Trump thinks bombing Iran’s infrastructure will force Iranian capitulation. Iran believes if it an keep the Hormuz straight shut long enough it can create enough damage to the US and western economies that Trump will have to ‘declare victory’ regardless of the facts and discontinue the conflict.

Trump started the war in expectation he could repeat the outcome of Venezuela. His US deep state neocons, US oligarch Zionist campaign contributors, and his friend Netanyahu no doubt convinced him that was possible—even as senior US military advisors forewarned him it wasn’t.  

So now he has a wildcat in a bag and he can’t decide whether to let the cat out or drop the bag and run.

Meanwhile, the US and world economies steadily deteriorate and the November 2026 US elections grow closer and with it potential political disaster for his war plans—unless of course his plan to somehow overturn or negate the elections prove successful.

Go to top

About the Author

jack_rasmusJack Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, 2020. He publishes at Predicting the Global Economic Crisis. 

From Robo Tools to Real Life: Nathan Sealey on the Limits of AI in Financial Planning

Use of AI in financial planning

The most influential financial decisions many Americans make this year will not happen in a meeting with an advisor. They will happen on a phone, between a notification and a lunch break, prompted by an auto-categorized transaction, a “smart” savings rule, or a portfolio suggestion that appears to arrive from nowhere.

Artificial intelligence has become the default understudy of personal finance. It sits inside budgeting apps and payroll platforms. It forecasts cash flow. It flags fraud. It nudges users toward debt payoff strategies. It selects model portfolios and automatically rebalances them. In many cases, it does all of this without ever announcing itself as “AI.”

The popular story about this shift is tidy: AI makes advice faster, cheaper, and more accessible. That is true, in the way most tidy stories are true, because they leave out the hard part. The real question is not whether algorithms can generate recommendations. It is whether anyone remains accountable for what happens after a recommendation becomes action.

Nathan Sealey has spent almost three decades working in financial planning, often with people who do not have the time, appetite, or margin for error that complex finance tends to assume. Through his work at Brass Ring Wealth, he has focused on blue-collar workers, pre-retires, and young professionals navigating what he calls “money in motion” moments: the life events that force financial planning to become urgent rather than theoretical.

A job change. A new child. A divorce. A layoff. A sudden inheritance. A decision to buy a home, or to move closer to family, or to finally confront a debt load that has been quietly shaping every other choice. In these moments, the financial challenge is rarely a lack of information. It is the inability to translate information into decisions that match a real life.

That translation, Sealey argues, is where the industry’s fascination with AI needs restraint.

The Quiet Invasion of AI in Personal Finance

AI is already embedded in daily financial behavior. Some of it looks like automation, such as rules that move money between accounts. Some of it looks like prediction, such as risk models that infer a customer’s tolerance from behavior rather than conversation. Some of it looks like persuasion, such as “nudges” designed to shape choices in the direction a platform believes is optimal.

This is not inherently sinister. It is also not neutral.

When finance becomes an environment of invisible prompts, the user can feel supported while gradually losing a clear sense of why decisions are being made. The conversation around AI gets oversimplified as efficiency, while avoiding the more uncomfortable topic: accountability.

If an algorithm nudges a person into a choice that is statistically sound but personally wrong, who owns the outcome?

What AI Actually Does Well in Wealth Management

AI is powerful in areas where the job is primarily pattern recognition at scale. It can rapidly parse spending behaviors, model scenarios, identify inconsistencies, and surface anomalies across large datasets. It can improve access by lowering barriers to entry, especially for people who cannot afford traditional advisory fees or who feel intimidated by financial jargon.

Sealey sees real value in AI’s ability to summarize and explain concepts, particularly for clients who need clarity before confidence. A tool that can condense information and translate definitions can reduce friction for a person who is trying to understand the basics without drowning in terminology.

AI also excels at consistency. It processes the same inputs the same way, without fatigue or mood. It can remove certain forms of emotional bias from narrow decisions, like categorization, initial projections, or routine calculations.

But the benefit has a ceiling. The ceiling appears the moment the client asks, “What should I do?”

Where AI Breaks Down: The Limits Algorithms Cannot Cross

The danger is mistaking data optimization for wisdom.

AI can draft a plan in seconds, but drafting is not advising. Sealey’s central concern is not that AI produces information. It is that people implement the information as if it were personal guidance.

“Implementation of a plan” is where he sees the highest risk, especially when the plan exists in a vacuum. Without a full picture of current accounts, liabilities, constraints, and priorities, a generated strategy can easily point a person toward actions that are misaligned with their best interest. Investment selection and account decisions become particularly fragile when someone is acting on automated confidence rather than informed understanding.

There is also the problem of life context, which does not behave like a spreadsheet. Fear, family dynamics, values, and uncertainty shape financial behavior in ways that are often invisible in a dataset. During a personal crisis, a person may need a financial decision that is imperfect mathematically but stabilizing emotionally, because stability is what allows the next decision to be made well.

Market volatility is another area where AI’s perceived power can be overstated. Sealey is blunt about the myth that technology becomes a crystal ball. Markets remain complex systems with too many moving parts and unknowns. Faster models do not eliminate uncertainty. They can simply disguise it.

The Trust Gap: Why Financial Advice Still Requires a Human Core

Financial advice is still built on trust, judgment, and responsibility. Those qualities cannot be delegated to software.

Sealey does not believe AI replaces the importance of initial discovery meetings or the “personality match” that makes a client feel safe enough to be honest. If anything, he believes AI can create new failure points after the meeting, when clients take partial recall of a recommendation and run it through a tool that generates an opposing viewpoint.

He compares it to the game of telephone: by the time an idea passes through incomplete memory and a simplified prompt, it can become a different sentence entirely. The client may not realize what was lost, and the advisor may not realize what the client thinks they heard.

This is how AI can quietly erode trust. Not through dramatic errors, but through subtle distortion.

And when a client acts on AI-generated “advice” and the outcome goes poorly, there is no clear path for recourse. As Sealey points out, you cannot complain to regulators about a generic chatbot response in the same way you can hold a licensed professional accountable for unsuitable recommendations. The accountability gap is built into the premise.

A Responsible Model: Human Judgment Enhanced by AI

Sealey’s approach is intentionally limited. He uses AI for note-taking, summaries, and task lists, applications that save time without outsourcing judgment. He does not rely on it to create financial plans because, in his view, that is the advisor’s role.

He is also wary of using AI to automate client interactions. Financial planning is not only about accuracy. It is about relationship. Outsourcing communication to an automated system risks turning guidance into a transaction, and clients can feel that shift immediately.

A responsible model, he argues, treats AI as decision support rather than decision authority. The tool can inform better conversations, but it should not dictate outcomes. The guardrails are transparency and education: clients should understand what a tool is doing, what it cannot do, and why a recommendation does or does not apply to their situation.

When clients feel pressure to trust AI because it sounds more advanced, Sealey’s response is practical: bring it into the meeting. Put the recommendation on the table. Walk through it together. Explain, in plain language, what fits and what does not, and why.

In that framing, the advisor becomes an interpreter rather than an intermediary. The goal is not to block technology, but to keep the client anchored in understanding.

The Future of Financial Advice: Precision Without Losing the Human Element

The next era of wealth management will reward clarity and restraint. Firms that blindly adopt AI risk commoditizing the very thing that makes advice valuable: trust. The more finance becomes automated, the more clients will seek professionals who can slow the moment down, translate the tradeoffs, and carry responsibility for the recommendation.

For working Americans navigating “money in motion” moments, the win is not a faster plan. It is a plan that fits. It is guidance that can be implemented without confusion. It is confidence built through comprehension, not through automation.

Sealey’s outlook is less about resisting AI and more about refusing abdication. Tools can improve the industry, but only if professionals remain accountable for the human consequences of financial decisions.

Closing Reflection: Progress Without Abdication

The real risk is not AI itself, but an unexamined dependence on it.

In personal finance, confidence does not come from an optimized output. It comes from understanding the decision well enough to live with it. AI can help explain. It can streamline. It can reduce friction. But it cannot hold responsibility, and it cannot know the weight of a choice inside a person’s life.

Accountability still belongs to humans. That is not a limitation of progress. It is the condition that makes progress worth trusting.

To get in touch with Nathan Sealey – a finance advisor you can trust – visit https://www.brassringwealth.com/

Go to top
1...181920...1,125Page 19 of 1,125

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

CFO's new mandate. CFO explaining the presentation

The Performance and Transformation Orchestrator: The CFO’s New Mandate in the Age of AI

Anglea 0
By Terence Tse CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value. A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
Read more

WISE DECISION MAKER GUIDE

POWER INFLUENCERS

Emerging Trends

BUSINESS AND INNOVATION

FINANCE & BANKING

The Future of Global Trade

© 2025 The World Financial Review | Empowering communication globally