A Simple Thank You to Mr. Trump Would Have Gone a Long Way

When tensions flared between India and Pakistan, many around the world held their breath. It was a delicate situation, and any misstep could have had grave consequences. At that critical moment, then-U.S. President Donald Trump stepped in—not with force, but with diplomacy. His intervention helped cool down a potentially explosive conflict. Regardless of one's politics, this was a noteworthy contribution to peace and stability in the region.

And yet, from the Indian establishment, there was a conspicuous silence. Trump, characteristically forthright, later remarked that he felt India hadn’t shown enough appreciation for his efforts. While some may dismiss that as ego, I find it quite understandable. Gratitude is not a weakness. A simple acknowledgment—publicly or diplomatically—could have signaled goodwill, maturity, and respect for a gesture that was ultimately in India’s own interest.

After all, he wasn’t asking for money or concessions—just a “thank you.” That’s not a tall order. Leaders, like the rest of us, want to feel that their efforts are seen and valued. In international diplomacy, such small courtesies matter. As someone who resonates with Trump’s blunt and transactional style, I see his point clearly. More than that—I understand the way he thinks extremely well. When he says he doesn’t "want to hurt anyone," he actually means it—once you begin to understand the world as he does. A few words of appreciation might have gone a long way toward strengthening the relationship between two powerful democracies.

Indeed, if there’s one thing I can say with confidence, it’s that I understand people.

Inkredebla

A message from Qwykr Technologies is posted below.

[=+=]

What needs to be said about the Trump tariffs that has not already been said? 

I read an article today on MSN.com with Ray Dalio himself warning about the United States sliding into a 'recession' or 'worse'.

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, one of the world’s largest Hedge funds, recently issued a stark warning on NBC’s “Meet the Press” show, cautioning that the American economy is teethering on the edge of a recession—or may be potentially something worse—if the current economic policies are mishandled. Dalio, who accurately predicted the 2008 financial crisis, pointed to President Trump’s aggressive tariff policies as a major destabilizing force.

I will say it again, and this time in Esperanto:

La tarifoj estas malbona ideo. Ili estas terura politika instrumento.

A direct appeal to Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage is all that is needed. How did Atanu not see something like this coming?

Dalio's analogy of it being similar to "throwing rocks into the production system" is quite accurate.

Dalio criticized the chaotic implementation of Trump’s tariffs, aimed at boosting U.S. manufacturing and jobs, likening their impact to “throwing rocks into the production system.” He emphasized that the difference between a “stable” and “disruptive” approach to tariffs could determine whether the economy weathers the storm or plunges into chaos.

How did Atanu not see something like this happening?

Inkredebla! (Trans. : "Unbelievable!")

[=+=]

I personally don't want to get involved in political debates this week, involving the current administration as far as possible. I also don't want to get personally involved this month also if possible, lol.

En la Studio kun Prof. Devi Sridhar

On Pronunciation, Presentation, and the Right Kind of Guidance

I recently came across an Instagram video by Prof. Devi Sridhar, where she’s in a studio talking about how the producer gives her tips on pronunciation and delivery. Interestingly, she even pronounces the word “adult” in two different ways—something that really caught my attention.

What struck me is that I’ve been thinking about this kind of thing too. The way we speak—especially in public or professional settings—is shaped by a whole web of factors: regional accents, audience expectations, even the medium we’re speaking in. And getting all of this right isn't quick or automatic. It takes time, attention, and, more often than not, the right kind of support.

That’s why having a producer, coach, or someone experienced to guide your presentation can make such a difference. Whether it's refining pronunciation or just helping you come across more clearly, these details matter more than we often realize. 

I am saying all this because I am thinking of similar issues, as I am also at the same time as Devi Sridhar, also thinking about production quality, et cetera.

Here’s the post I’m referring to:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Devi Sridhar (@profdevisridhar)

Dua Longa Afisxo - Message for the movie maker Lakshmi Iyer

 

🎬 Message for Lakshmi Iyer (Part 2): On Budget, Vision, and the Magic of Collaboration

Hi again Lakshmi,

I wanted to share a quick follow-up to my earlier message, just to clarify a few things that might help frame the context better.

The projects I’m working on — particularly the short films — are currently being funded out of my personal resources, so the budget is modest. We’re not talking about full-length feature films or large-scale productions here — just short-format creative pieces that explore some powerful ideas in a compelling, accessible way.

That said, I’m acutely aware of how much of a difference it makes when a film is crafted by someone with real experience and artistic vision. A short film made by someone outside the industry can be well-meaning but amateurish — while a short film shaped by a real filmmaker can transform the same material into something truly special.

That’s where your potential involvement becomes so exciting.

With your name and touch, these short films could go from thoughtful side projects to impactful cultural pieces — and possibly even something widely noticed. I mentioned earlier that one of the videos will likely be retweeted by Shashi Tharoor, which could immediately give it hundreds of thousands of views. And beyond numbers, the right creative partnership could take these ideas — philosophical, political, and technological — into realms we can’t yet predict.

Who knows? One of these pieces could be the spark that brings not just attention, but lasting recognition. Maybe even make you famous in a different, unexpected dimension.

If this resonates with you and you’re curious to explore more, I’d be very happy to discuss — especially while you’re still in Bangalore.

Warmly,

Anand

Longa Afisxo - Message for Lakshmi Iyer

 Longa Afisxo - Message for Lakshmi Iyer

Hi! I’m Anand Manikutty. I'm the founder of Qwykr Technologies, where we develop innovative tools and ideas at the intersection of tech, society, and thought.

One of the key technologies we have developed is RALPH, a literacy-support technology aimed at improving reading and comprehension. Alongside this, I've developed a new Theory of Political Science,. In addition, I have also developed a brand new Philosophy that offers an alternative to classical systems like Advaita and Dvaita — as well as Western schools like Stoicism and Epicureanism. It’s called La Gxoia Filozofio and is about cultivating joy and resilience in a structured, thoughtful way.

In parallel, I’ve been looking into short films as a medium to bring these ideas to a wider audience. Through friends in the industry (some of whom are filmmakers or know directors), I’ve started assembling concepts for short, compelling pieces.

In one instance, I happened to correspond with Shashi Tharoor’s sister, and she mentioned that Shashi has agreed to retweet one of our upcoming videos — which means that even a modestly-budgeted film could get hundreds of thousands of views, just based on that visibility.

Funding for the initial project will come from my own resources. But given the nature of film, who is involved matters just as much as the content. That’s why I’m reaching out to experienced and respected voices like yours — your name alone would bring visibility and credibility.

I tend to work closely with all collaborators, and value deep discussion and shared vision. If this piques your interest, I’d be thrilled to explore possibilities together.

Filozofio Afisxo Kvina: Limits of the Tao – A Gentle Critique of Taoism - Mesagxo pro Prof. Tyler Cowen

 

Filozofio Afisxo Kvina: Limits of the Tao – A Gentle Critique of Taoism

Taoism, with its graceful embrace of wu wei (effortless action), non-duality, and harmony with nature, offers a profoundly beautiful way of being. Yet no philosophy is without its limitations. In this post, we explore the quieter shadows of Taoism—not to dismiss it, but to understand where it may fall short, especially when confronted with the modern world’s complexity.

One central criticism of Taoism is its passivity in the face of injustice. The Taoist ideal of non-interference can lead to an almost fatalistic outlook. In moments where active resistance is necessary—against tyranny, exploitation, or systemic oppression—Taoism often remains silent. While personal peace is admirable, there are times when moral clarity demands action. A philosophy that always yields risks enabling that which should be opposed.

Another weakness lies in Taoism’s lack of practical guidance for complex social systems. It excels in offering spiritual wisdom for individuals, or perhaps small, close-knit communities. But it struggles to address questions of governance, economics, or large-scale coordination. Taoism’s aversion to rigid structures and explicit plans makes it poorly suited to guide modern institutions, which require clarity, accountability, and collective planning.

Taoism also tends toward a romanticization of nature and simplicity that may not be feasible or desirable for everyone. The idea of retreating to nature and simplifying one’s life presumes a certain privilege—a life not burdened by survival pressures or systemic constraints. For the poor, the marginalized, or the politically oppressed, Taoist detachment may offer little in terms of real empowerment or transformation.

Lastly, Taoism can at times veer into ambiguity and poetic mysticism, which, while beautiful, can become inaccessible or frustrating for those seeking concrete answers. Its core texts like the Tao Te Ching are open to interpretation and lack analytical clarity. This openness is part of their charm—but also makes Taoism easy to misread, misuse, or dilute into vague platitudes.

Still, Taoism endures because of its serenity, its reverence for mystery, and its critique of human arrogance. Recognizing its limits does not diminish its value; rather, it invites us to complement Taoism with other traditions that foreground justice, rationality, and civic engagement.

[+]

Filozofio Afisxo Kvara: Taoism and The Way of Harmony - Mesagxo pro Prof. Sonja Lyubomirsky

 Filozofio Afisxo Kvara: Taoism and The Way of Harmony

Here is my introductory post on Taoism.

Taoism, also spelled Daoism, is one of the great philosophical traditions to emerge from ancient China. At its heart is the concept of the Tao (or Dao), meaning “the Way.” Unlike rigid systems of doctrine or law, the Tao is fluid, natural, and mysterious—it cannot be fully described in words or grasped through intellectual analysis. As Laozi, the reputed author of the foundational text Tao Te Ching, writes, “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” Rather than prescribing a fixed path, Taoism encourages attunement to the rhythms and patterns of nature and life itself.

Central to Taoist thought is the idea of wu wei, often translated as “non-action” or “effortless action.” This doesn’t mean passivity or laziness, but rather an intuitive and adaptive mode of being—acting in harmony with the flow of circumstances rather than resisting them. A skilled martial artist or a great calligrapher may embody wu wei: their movements are not forced or premeditated but arise naturally, fluidly, and effectively. In Taoism, success comes not from domination or control, but from flexibility, receptivity, and timing.

Taoism offers a gentle critique of ambition and the human tendency to overreach. It values simplicity, humility, and retreat over competition and ego. By letting go of rigid desires and the urge to control outcomes, the Taoist practitioner finds peace and clarity. This resonates with modern concerns around burnout, overconsumption, and environmental degradation. In a world driven by metrics and speed, Taoism reminds us to slow down, observe, and find wisdom in the quiet unfolding of life.

Though it originated as a philosophy, Taoism also evolved into a religious tradition, complete with rituals, deities, and spiritual practices such as alchemy, meditation, and breathing exercises. Religious Taoism shares much in common with Chinese folk traditions and incorporates elements of Confucianism and Buddhism. However, even in its religious form, the emphasis on naturalness, spontaneity, and the interconnectedness of all things remains central.

Today, Taoist principles influence everything from holistic health practices to ecological thinking and personal development. Whether one approaches it as a philosophy, a spirituality, or simply a poetic way of viewing the world, Taoism offers a timeless and serene counterpoint to the driven, goal-oriented culture that dominates modern life. In a chaotic and noisy world, the Tao quietly whispers a different possibility: to live well, begin by living gently.

However, Taoism is not without its weakness and limitations. I will address these in a future post.

[+]

~ Wax exhibit. National Museum: wax exhibit in 2006 before completion of museum renovation.~ Link ~

[+]

Filozofio Afisxo Unua: Stoicism vs. La Gxoia Filozofio: Two Paths to Peace, Two Visions of Joy

 Filozofio Afisxo Unua: Stoicism vs. La Gxoia Filozofio: Two Paths to Peace, Two Visions of Joy

As I continue this year’s series of philosophical reflections, it seems only fitting to compare the well-known with the personal. Stoicism, that ancient and powerful philosophy, has shaped countless lives with its call for inner resilience. But what if we imagined an alternative—one that doesn’t simply help us endure suffering, but invites us to celebrate life’s pleasures as well? Enter La Gxoia Filozofio—my new Philosophy that is meant to be a rival to not only Stoicism, Epicureanism and other premodern philosophies but also modern philosophies such as Existentialism. It is my own evolving approach to a joyful life.

Let’s begin with what Stoicism and La Gxoia Filozofio share. Both are responses to the unpredictable nature of the world. Stoicism counsels calm acceptance of fate (what the Stoics call the Logos or divine order), and La Gxoia Filozofio similarly encourages us to detach from outcomes we cannot control (but guided by science). Both stress the importance of internal clarity over external circumstances, and both suggest that a good life requires philosophical self-discipline.

But their tone is quite different. Stoicism is sober, restrained, and a bit ascetic. It says: "Don’t get too attached. Don’t get too emotional. Keep a cool head." La Gxoia Filozofio, by contrast, says: “Revel in small joys. Laugh more. Dance, if possible. Don’t just survive life—delight in it.” It’s not that Stoicism is anti-joy, but it’s cautious about joy’s volatility. La Gxoia is more forgiving—more playful—and sees joy not as a danger, but as a compass.

Then there’s the role of emotion. Stoicism teaches us to master our passions, lest they lead us astray. La Gxoia Filozofio encourages emotional intelligence too, but with a twist: it celebrates certain emotions as signs of aliveness. Gratitude, wonder, warmth—these aren’t distractions, they’re the music of a well-lived life. You don’t need to suppress emotion; you need to tune into the right emotional frequency.

There’s also a difference in aesthetic sensibility. Stoicism is granite and steel—strong, reliable, timeless. La Gxoia is a garden after rain—colorful, surprising, fleeting, but beautiful in its transience. Stoicism gives you shelter; La Gxoia invites you on a walk. It’s a softer philosophy, not in the sense of being weak, but in the sense of being gentle, and open to beauty. It can make individuals stronger than Stoicism makes them and even more resilient.

Finally, there’s a subtle divergence in purpose. Stoicism is ultimately about virtue and harmony with nature. It sees suffering as something to rise above. La Gxoia Filozofio doesn't necessarily seek to transcend suffering—it seeks to counterbalance it with joy. It acknowledges life’s harshness, but it insists on noticing the birdsong anyway.

So, if Stoicism is a fortress in the storm, La Gxoia is a candle in the dark. One guards you; the other warms you. Perhaps we need both. But in a time when life can feel especially anxious and grey, I believe we need more than just stoicism—we need gxoia, too.

Philosophy Post #11: What Is Epicureanism? (And Why It’s Not What You Think) - Mesagxo pro Prof. Jeffrey Sachs

 What Is Epicureanism? (And Why It’s Not What You Think)

Let’s clear something up: Epicureanism is not about fine wine and expensive cheese.

The word “Epicurean” has been mangled by time. Today, it suggests someone who lives for gourmet food, luxury vacations, and sensual pleasure. But the original philosophy—founded by Epicurus around 300 BCE—is something much more radical and, frankly, more relevant than ever.

At its heart, Epicureanism is a philosophy of freedom through simplicity.
It says: don’t chase more—chase peace.
Don’t be rich, be unbothered.

Epicurus argued that what we truly want is ataraxia—a state of calm, serene happiness, free from anxiety and pain. And the fastest way to get there? Eliminate unnecessary desires. Most of the things we chase—fame, status, wealth—aren’t just distractions. They’re traps. They create new needs, new fears, new dependencies. And suddenly, we’re no longer free.

So what do we need?

According to Epicurus:

• Friendship

• Freedom (self-sufficiency)

• Philosophical reflection

• A little food and shelter, sure—but not much.

He ran a kind of proto-commune just outside Athens, where people lived simply, talked about ideas, grew their own food, and avoided politics like the plague. (Honestly? Not a bad life plan.)

Now here’s the kicker: Epicureanism isn’t hedonism in the “party hard” sense. It’s hedonism in the “don’t give yourself a hangover” sense.

Pleasure, yes—but wisely chosen. Long-term. Sustainable. Gentle.

You want wine? Fine. But only if it doesn't make tomorrow worse.
You want fame? Probably not—too much anxiety.
You want peace and joy that lasts? Then subtract more than you add.

It’s about smart pleasure, not loud pleasure.

In a world that rewards overstimulation and burnout, Epicureanism feels almost punk. It says: walk away from the noise. Your happiness might be hiding in a quiet room, not a crowded hall.

That said, Epicureanism is not without its limitations. And that is a subject for a future post.

Economic Philosophy Post #1: Institutions, Economists, and the Real Work of Building Societies

 Economic Philosophy Post #1: Institutions, Economists, and the Real Work of Building Societies

A response to Atanu Dey's reflections on Friedman and Buchanan

Atanu Dey’s recent piece in Deeshaa on the economists Milton Friedman and James Buchanan is a blog post on two influential thinkers in the 20th-century liberal economic tradition. It’s also a window into a certain ideological stance—one that places a great deal of faith in the power of institutions, markets, and rules that are meant to withstand human fallibility. (Markets, especially markets!) There is, to be sure, much to admire in such a focus on part of Friedman and Buchanan. But we must be wary of its blind spots.

Milton Friedman, in particular, is a polarizing figure. While his advocacy for school vouchers, floating exchange rates, and drug liberalization certainly had a contrarian flair, they also revealed an often narrow understanding of human wellbeing. Friedman frequently reduced questions of justice and morality to matters of market efficiency and voluntary choice, sidelining structural inequities and the role of power. His notion of freedom was one tied almost exclusively to the absence of state intervention—not necessarily to the flourishing of individuals or communities. And yet, that concept of freedom has deeply shaped public policy debates, often with long-term consequences that are still playing out. 

At this juncture, we might ask: is it time for a new economic philosophy—one rooted not merely in efficiency, but in wellbeing? Should economic policy be executed with a view to "maximize shareholder value" or "maximize happiness, overall"? That is the question of economic philosophy that Friedman and his acolytes failed to full address.

Buchanan, as Atanu notes, offers something more nuanced—especially in his distinction between the economics of voluntary exchange and the politics of coercion. His insistence that we design institutions that are robust to human flaws is well taken. But even Buchanan’s constitutional economics sometimes leaned too heavily on idealized notions of “contract” and not enough on history, culture, or the messiness of lived experience. Institutions are not created in a vacuum, nor are they always chosen in a deliberative marketplace of ideas. They emerge from struggle, compromise, and often, deep inequalities.

One danger in overly admiring economists like Friedman and Buchanan is that it can obscure the real-world failures of the systems they championed. Deregulated markets did not, as promised, always lead to widespread prosperity. Vouchers didn’t solve educational inequity. Floating exchange rates came with their own volatilities. And in societies marked by entrenched disadvantage, the rhetoric of individual choice often becomes a smokescreen for inaction. And what happens when authoritarian leaders come to power and exploit economic systems for personal or political gain? (Yes, I am referring to Trump here.) Friedman and his acolytes never addressed that. 

So yes, let’s talk about institutions. Let’s talk about rules that can endure in a world of fallible humans. But let’s also ask who those institutions serve, who gets to write the rules, and who bears the brunt when those systems fail. Economics needs not just logic and elegance, but empathy, context, and a deep engagement with social reality.

To quote Frank Knight, as Atanu does: "The game of being a society can rarely just dissolve." True. But it can unravel in slow, silent ways—when inequality festers, when trust erodes, and when too many people feel the rules were written without them in mind.

[+]

And to bring things to a proper conclusion, some thoughts in Esperanto.

Kion mi neniam komprenos estas kiel Atanu alvenis al la konkludo, ke Trump estis la pli bona kandidato en la elekto de 2024.  Kia terura ekonomikisto Atanu estas.

[+]