The systemic challenge for the U.S. is not China but the worst inflation in 40 years. In fact, fragmentation does not seem to be happening in the real world. Even an Asia-Pacific version of NATO will not likely divide the region, as China will continue to be a major trade partner.

Removing import tariffs on Chinese goods could lower consumer prices in the U.S. amid inflation, dissipate the U.S.-China trade war, and support the administration’s overall strategy to strengthen its presence and influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Expansion of the group can only bring positive results. When BRICS becomes stronger, it will provide other countries with bigger markets and contribute more to the green, high-quality and sustainable development of the global economy.

The American economy will inevitably experience a Volcker-style contraction — think early 1980s — and it will have a global impact. Today’s inflation is stubborn and structural, and it will be virtually impossible to bring it down to 2 percent without tipping the economy into recession.

Is the U.S. ready to meaningfully engage with the Asia-Pacific region? Their latest offering comes in the form of the IPEF, and the differences between the U.S.-led trade pact and competing ones led by Asian powers will show whether American leadership has brought enough to the table.

The IPEF - a U.S.-initiated trade and development partnership - is poised to bring in enthusiastic participation from several nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Notably, Southeast Asian states are well represented among members, giving the U.S. considerable influence right in China’s backyard.

Europe has taken a strategic stance when it comes to its relationship with the U.S. and with China. While the U.S. has strengthened ties with its European allies to contain China, Europe also supports China’s monetary ambitions regarding the RMB.

Globalization is at a crossroads. Compounded by U.S. geopolitics and the cost of economic development, de-globalization has huge economic and human damages.

In the short run, all increases in government expenditures have the same macroeconomic effects on both GDP and employment. However, in the long run, increases in real fixed-assets investments augment the real capital stock and increase the real GDP, whereas increases in consumption due to increases in disposable income through, for example, tax cuts and transfer payments, generate no direct lasting benefits. Infrastructural investment, which is often needed for the provision of public goods, can generate benefits that can be widely shared in the economy even though they cannot be fully captured or internalised by the projects themselves.

In economics, a public good is usually defined as a product or service that is openly available to be enjoyed by all members of a society. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a public good to be a product or service that is non-excludable and non-depletable (or “non-rivalrous”). Examples of such public goods include law enforcement, national defence, a stable local currency, and clean air and water. The elimination of a public bad, such as air pollution, is also a public good. The definition of a “public good” used in this article is slightly generalised to include potentially rivalrous goods, such as a seat on a train, so long as it is non-excludable ex ante. Basic education is a public good that is generally non-rivalrous; whereas mass transit is a public good that can at times be rivalrous.