World Data Analysis

America’s incredible arms sales Europe, Middle East & South Asia (2008–2025) FMS (Foreign Military Sales) notifications, 2024 prices, $ billions Europe Largest buyers: Poland ≈ $60–70 bn Turkiye ≈ $45–55 bn Finland ≈ $45–50 bn Germany ≈ $35–40 bn Netherlands ≈ $30–35 bn Most other countries (UK, Sweden, Norway, Romania, Greece, etc.) fall within the $10–30 bn range. ** Estimated total for Europe: ~$350–450 billion Middle East & South Asia (Near East) The most striking figures: Saudi Arabia ≈ $160–180 bn Qatar ≈ $70–90 bn Kuwait ≈ $50–60 bn UAE ≈ $40–50 bn Iraq ≈ $40–50 bn Egypt ≈ $30–40 bn Pakistan and Afghanistan are smaller but still notable. ** Estimated regional total: ~$500–650 billion East Asia & Pacific Major buyers: Australia ≈ $80–90 bn Japan ≈ $70–80 bn India ≈ $50–60 bn Others (Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) mostly range between $10–25 bn. Estimated total: ~$250–350 billion Approximate totals: Europe: ~400 bn Middle East & South Asia: ~600 bn East Asia & Pacific: ~300 bn Grand total: roughly $1.3–1.5 trillion !!! This means..... This isn’t just arms sales. It represents: * Long-term military integration * Maintenance and supply dependency * Strategic alignment * Geopolitical leverage These figures highlight the economic dimension of America’s global #security architecture. Source: @Bruegel_org by Juan Mejino-López, Javier Octavio Ospital Greslebin, Guntram B. Wolff

Thanks for the data An additional perspective: Ningbo–Zhoushan port complex handles ~1.3 billion tons, while Shanghai , the world’s largest container port, handles ~800 million tons. Europe’s largest port, Amsterdam, stands at ~438 million tons. So the scale difference is striking: Ningbo–Zhoushan ≈ 3× Amsterdam Shanghai ≈ ~2× Amsterdam

The Busiest Ports in Europe (Annual Cargo Tonnage) 🇳🇱 Rotterdam — 438.8 mil. tons 🇧🇪 Antwerp-Bruges — 271 mil. tons 🇷🇺 Novorossiysk — 161.4 mil. tons 🇩🇪 Hamburg — 114.3 mil. tons 🇷🇺 Ust-Luga — 112.5 mil. tons The Port of Rotterdam remains the undisputed gateway to Europe, handling nearly double the tonnage of its closest rival.

@Aligarciaherrer @AJEnglish That was highly informative thanks

My TV interview with AL JAZEERA @AJEnglish Media Network: "Could the US-Israel war with #Iran fuel global #inflation?" aljazeera.com/video/counting…

@grok what could be the effects of narrowing interest rate differentials and the resulting capital outflows on India?

/!\ Not everything is going according to plan in India Economic systems are about balance. Any shift in a key variable does not settle immediately, it keeps adjusting until a new equilibrium is reached. India is a good example of this dynamic. Strong growth, especially in services exports, can mask underlying imbalances. Capital flows ! As the interest rate differential with the U.S. narrows, capital becomes more sensitive and begins to move !! We observe large and volatile outflows, particularly in recent periods. In some episodes, net outflows spike sharply, highlighting how quickly global capital can react. For example, the interest rate differential with the U.S. has narrowed sharply * from around 8–9% to nearly 1–2% * At the same time, capital outflows have reached $15–20B+ in certain episodes !! These are massive. !!! Growth can hide imbalances, but capital flows eventually reveal them. Source: @Deloitte @DeloitteIndia by Dr. Rumki Majumdar and Debdatta Ghatak

Mixed indicators in India India’s macro picture looks strong, but the data tells a more nuanced story: Growth remains high: ~8–10% in recent years Inflation is falling: from ~6.9% >> 1.8% (2023–2026) But underneath: Fiscal deficit: still elevated at ~4–6% of GDP Current account: mostly in deficit (as low as -3.0%) Strong growth is coexisting with structural imbalances And as interest rate differentials narrow, these imbalances become more visible through capital flows Source: @Deloitte @DeloitteIndia by Dr. Rumki Majumdar and Debdatta Ghatak

@MarkRid31548165 Well said, thanks

@World_Data_A National security 1. Primary = climate change water + crop security, novel diseases, mass migration, socioeconomic breakdown, big wars for resources. 2. Ai = millions sacked. Massive increase in social security + massive loss of taxable base. We need to figure stuff out.

*** Exclusive analysis *** USA in 1982 vs. USA in 2025: National Security Strategy The framework of national security has fundamentally changed. What once revolved around a single military adversary has evolved into a multi-dimensional competition across economic, technological, and geopolitical systems. Today, power is no longer defined solely by weapons and alliances, but by who controls supply chains, data, innovation, and global networks. The table below captures this transformation.

@moving_markets You are right

@World_Data_A In 1982 the Soviet Union was already not that strong. 3 years later started the "Perestroyka". 9 years after 1982 the Soviet Union collapsed. I remember that time a bit.

@NihatTopalakci Thanks for sharing

💢🇺🇸 Abd Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji değerlendirmesi, 1982 - 2025 karşılaştırması👇

@marklevinshow Thanks for the analysis From a world defined by military deterrence (1982) to one shaped by economic, technological, and systemic competition (2025). The real question is no longer just “who is tougher,” but what kind of power actually matters today x.com/World_Data_A/s…

In this Liberty’s Voice clip, I break down how Democrat, Obama, and Biden policies on Iran weakened U.S. national security—while President Trump’s “peace through strength” strategy drew a clear line against nuclear threats. From sanctions relief, Iran funding, China oil deals, and Middle East policy to the risks of undermining the commander-in-chief during military operations, this is about Trump vs Obama vs Biden, Iran nuclear weapons, U.S. foreign policy, and national security leadership. Watch the entire episode; Rumble: rumble.com/v77af62-ep015-… YouTube: youtu.be/hJFLtgBrk84

@grok could the 1982 strategy have anticipated today’s developments and the expanding dimensions of global competition?

+ /!\ It seems risks in China are embedded in a broader institutional framework !!! What the chart shows (PDD / Temu case) Risks are not isolated events, they appear systematic and multi-dimensional Regulatory & competition risk US proposal to curb duty-free imports (de minimis rule) EU tighter customs checks on e-commerce shipments Germany anti-competitive practice complaints Data security risk US state-level lawsuits (Nebraska, Kentucky) Allegations of: * unlawful data collection * spyware-like behavior * potential government access Political / party-state risk US Congress pressure on Chinese firms listed in the US Reports linking platforms to state influence and strategic objectives Labor & supply chain risk UK Parliament scrutiny over labor rights & sourcing Ongoing concerns around forced labor links

Fantastic chart and analysis: Fundamental risk in Chinese equities *-* This chart asks a simple but critical question: When you invest in Chinese companies, what risks are you actually taking, and how big are they? Issuers are entities that issue financial securities In practice, this means: * Chinese companies and institutions * Firms issuing equities (stocks) or bonds like large corporates, state-owned enterprises, and listed firms This chart maps the fundamental risk distribution of 1,000 Chinese (PRC) issuers across five key dimensions: * Military affiliation * Party-state affiliation * Human rights & surveillance exposure * Engagement with sanctioned/pariah states * Beneficiary of industrial policy Each bubble = a company Size = market capitalization Color = risk level (green >> low, red >> severe) Political and state-linked risks stand out * Party-state affiliation shows a large concentration of high and severe risk (red clusters) * This indicates strong links between firms and state structures Industrial policy creates mixed risk * Companies benefiting from state support show medium to high risk concentration. * Growth opportunities come with policy dependence risk Military and geopolitical exposure is present but more dispersed * Military-linked firms exist but are less dominant than political ties Human rights & surveillance risk is more limited but not negligible * Mostly low-to-medium risk * But some large high-risk firms stand out Pariah state engagement is relatively contained * Majority low risk * But a few high-risk outliers exist What this means This is not just a financial market It is a system where: politics, security, and capital are deeply intertwined Investors are exposed not only to: market risk but also * regulatory risk * sanctions risk * reputational risk Source: @rhodium_group

@grok @grok political linkages seem to be becoming increasingly important in Western markets as well

Investing in Chinese companies adds distinct layers of risk beyond typical Western markets. Western (e.g., US/EU) focus is primarily financial: earnings volatility, competition, litigation, and regulatory compliance under independent rule of law and transparent governance. China layers on: - Party-state affiliation & policy dependence (heavy red clusters in the chart) - Military/geopolitical exposure & sanctions risk - Surveillance/human rights factors - Capital controls & VIE structure uncertainty Result: more intertwined political/security risks, fewer shareholder protections. Overall more dimensions, not fewer. Data from sources like Rhodium Group supports this pattern.

@zgizemozpinar @turkiyetodaycom Thanks

@World_Data_A @turkiyetodaycom Thank you for your comment. You can read my latest opinion piece for the answer to your question. dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/…

Konuyu @turkiyetodaycom'da yayınlanan "Türkiye, Irak petrolünün Hürmüz Boğazı krizini aşmasına yardımcı oluyor" başlıklı yazımdan okuyabilirsiniz. turkiyetoday.com/opinion/turkiy…

Gas producers aren’t giving up They’re trying to stay in the market by cutting emissions Like many others, I had no idea this was even possible... Emission intensity can be reduced significantly, even within current systems: Reducing venting >> ~38% emission reduction Using gas locally instead of LNG exports >> ~26% reduction Electrified liquefaction >> ~19% reduction What this means Natural gas is not being abandoned Instead >> it is being “cleaned” to remain viable Producers are adapting to climate pressure, not exiting the market Source: @RockyMtnInst

@MG_Feed Sure 👍, a deficit is not always bad, and a surplus is not always good

@World_Data_A Very thought-provoking. So I don't want to give it away. I'll just say that a country's growth is also what it creates for internal consumption, not just exports.

Russia vs the United States: a question to answer The chart below shows two lines representing the balance of payments positions of Russia and the United States. One line (green) reflecting a surplus, the other (blue) a deficit. One of these belongs to a country under long-term sanctions- Russia The other to the world’s largest economy- the USA Which is which?

@grok without giving away clues from the chart, what could be the implications of a balance of payments deficit versus a surplus