A technology that shapes our thinking: We have barely digested the shock known as "Artificial Intelligence" when the next one looms—the quantum era.

“The division of labor fragments us. There is no other way: everything I must do regularly and competently (for instance, to earn a living within the current economic order) demands knowledge and skills that—as I cultivate them—sever me from other innate talents, simply because I have neither the time nor the energy left for them. No one can do everything. Depending on the state of productive forces, technology expands the spectrum of knowledge and skills primarily by adding things that can be automated: construction robots, math software, translation programs. These embody the past efforts of human beings—intellectual efforts, initially. The next technology on the horizon has, for several months now, been preoccupying and exciting the venture capital world, Donald Trump, and Emmanuel Macron. They all speak of 'quantum' technologies with high expectations.

 

Computers developed using this field of research do not encode the data they process—as familiar machines do—in so-called bits consisting of two possible states (0 and 1); instead, they use 'qubits,' which can assume states of superposition between 0 and 1 [1]. 'Qutrits'—using ternary rather than binary units—are also conceivable; there is no telling what people might come up with next.

 

Quantum computers already exist, but they still require complex error correction and involve high manufacturing costs (involving photonics, spin technology, superconducting materials—the toolkit is full of exotic components). None of this is currently scalable—that is, suitable for mass production.

 

In practical terms, however, quantum computers promise processing speeds thousands of times faster than classical devices for specific types of problems.

 

In October 2025, Google’s 'Quantum Echoes' algorithm has already [tackled] one of these select problems - cracked thirteen thousand times faster than would have been possible using old-fashioned approaches.

 

However, it remains a matter of debate whether—and, if so, how quickly—the hurdles to efficient and profitable quantum computing can be overcome. Yet the emerging field of quantum technology encompasses more than just computers; it ranges from measurement technology for electromagnetic fields or acceleration (including gravitational effects) to applications in medicine, geosciences, and traffic control—and the list goes on. There is also significant potential for overlap with the field of AI.

 

"Telephone" and Startling Knowledge

 

Behind this lies a field of knowledge that severely challenges our intuition. Its reputation for extreme strangeness has long since permeated pop culture folklore—spread much like the game of "Telephone." The results range from psychological thriller novels (Robert J. Sawyer’s 2016 *Quantum Night*) and existentialist streaming dramas (Alex Garland’s 2020 *Devs*) to atmospheric background music (electronic pioneers Tangerine Dream, for instance, have described themselves as being in their "Quantum Years" for some time now). This folklore thrives on the thrill of goosebumps induced by peculiar rumors from the research world: light, it is said, is both wave and particle; indeed, every object in the world possesses a wavelength (a man named Louis de Broglie is said to have determined its measure); certain properties of tiny particles cannot be determined with arbitrary precision in tandem; and at the smallest scale, a form of mathematics prevails in which *p* times *q* is not the same as *q* times *p*.

 

And that is not all: matter can supposedly pass through walls (the "tunnel effect").

 

The craziest concept of all is "entanglement" [2]: two quantum particles that have once interacted remain connected in a way that no longer allows us to assign them specific, unambiguous individual attributes—"local" and "real"—prior to measurement to be categorized.

 

Is all of this accurate? More or less: there is a vast amount of popular literature and YouTube videos on the subject. The matter itself is, after all, nothing new. As the relevant equations, measurement protocols, tests, and counter-tests were developed over the course of roughly a century, those involved experienced a compulsion—unprecedented in physics—to interpret, construe, and explain: How can one express the insights of quantum physics in terms that connect to older, familiar worldviews? And if absolutely no such connections exist, what would a completely new worldview look like?

 

Well-known interpretations surrounding these questions include the "Copenhagen interpretation" ("quantum mechanics describes what we can measure, but not a world-in-itself"), the "Many-Worlds interpretation" (everything possible actually happens, just not here and now, in my world or yours), and "Bohmian mechanics" (there is a real configuration of the quantum system, even when unobserved). Joining these theories new ones are added from time to time—most recently, for instance, "QBism" (or "extreme quantum Bayesianism"), which we will discuss shortly.

 

In any case, all these theories attempt to come to terms with the more unsettling findings of quantum mechanics—findings that were long regarded as merely optional add-ons to the core subject matter. That core theory yielded laser technology, semiconductors, atomic clocks, and electron microscopes. However, with the latest technical developments now attracting investment—and quantum computing above all—the dictum of physicist A. Douglas Stone applies: "This time, the weirdness is the point"—the oddities are the crucial element (rather than just a nagging itch at the back of one's mind). This explains why scientific papers now bear titles such as "Multi-qubit nanoscale sensing with entanglement as a resource." What was once a source of bewilderment is becoming a raw material.

 

Physicist Christopher A. Fuchs—a leading figure behind the aforementioned "QBism"—described the evolution of his field in his book *Coming of Age with Quantum Information* (2011). Written in powerfully poetic prose and structured as a fascinating, entertaining collection of emails, the book notes that the field reveals "philosophy at every turn."

 

QBism, which Fuchs helped develop, is a prime example of this; it is built upon Bayes' rule [3], which structures expectation-based learning in light of probability assumptions and new information.

 

In doing so, it challenges—in a way that can certainly be described as "philosophical"—traditional views of probability based on objective occurrences ("frequencies").

 

Proponents of those traditional views regard the rule as a subjectivist aberration. Anyone wishing to join the discussion must engage with a dynamic interplay of distinctions, comparisons, and inferences drawn from premises—all of which require precise linguistic articulation. Rarely have there been problems that have so powerfully intertwined physics and language. It is hardly surprising, then, that the singular physics adventurer Bob Coecke—who, among other things, built a quantum guitar (and even performed with it for heavy metal fans)—is now applying his physics-inspired mathematical expertise to the understanding of textual structures. Language has always been in a state of historical evolution; it never stands still. Along the thread upon which language strings its philosophical pearls, quantum mechanics—one of the first of the exact sciences to do so—has fortunately learned to reflect on its own origins (yielding beneficial social effects, such as the book *Women in the History of Quantum Physics*, edited by Patrick Charbonneau, Michelle Frank, and Margriet van der Heijden, published last year).

 

Technology without science?

 

Thinking historically soon leads to thinking politically. The birth of new quantum technology is, after all, taking place under a political-historical imperative: "technological sovereignty." Who is ahead—Europe, the USA, or China? The People's Republic launched its quantum satellite, Micius, into Earth's orbit a full decade ago; Trump has made noises about government stakes in quantum companies; and Berlin now has something called "Leap," a coordination hub for a quantum business ecosystem.

 

Some pronouncements from the worlds of politics and finance sound as if the desire were for "technology without science"; capital likes to cut back on personnel, while authoritarian politics has no use for broad-based education (science's most important social prerequisite).

 

However, clarifying the relationship between humanity and nature—a relationship without which technology cannot exist—is impossible without the interplay of specialized sciences on the one hand and philosophical conceptual analysis on the other.

 

Rarely has this been more evident than with quantum technology. Here, the most profound insights and the most counterintuitive concepts complement one another to form a mirror—one into which the human being, no longer fragmented by the division of labor, might one day gaze and say: “Is that what I look like? I never would have imagined it!”” [4]

 

 

1. Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Superposition)

In quantum physics, a particle (like an electron or a qubit in quantum computing) does not exist in just one definite state. Instead, it exists in a superposition of all its possible states at once, behaving like a combination of those possibilities.

•           The Mechanism: The particle has a certain probability of being found in any given state.

•           The "Collapse": This superposition remains until an observation or measurement is made. The act of measuring "collapses" the quantum system, forcing it to choose a single, definite reality (e.g., a qubit becomes either a 0 or a 1).

•           Famous Analogy: Schrödinger’s Cat—a hypothetical cat placed in a box is considered to be simultaneously in a superposition of both dead and alive until you open the box to observe it.

 

2. Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two or more particles become inextricably linked so that they share a single quantum state. Measuring the state of one particle instantly determines the state of the other, regardless of the physical distance separating them.

Key Characteristics

•           Shared Identity: Instead of being two independent entities, entangled particles behave as a single, unified quantum system.

•           No Communication Lag: The correlation between them is instantaneous, occurring even if the particles are light-years apart. Albert Einstein famously referred to this as "spooky action at a distance".

•           Probabilistic Nature: Before they are measured, the particles exist in a state of "superposition" (a combination of multiple possible states). The specific outcome of a measurement is always random.

How It Works (The Shoe Analogy)

A common way to visualize this (though an imperfect analogy) is the "pair of shoes" concept. If you put a left shoe in one box and a right shoe in another, then shuffle them without looking. If you open your box and find the right shoe, you instantly know your friend has the left shoe, even if they traveled to Mars.

However, quantum entanglement takes this a step further. In the quantum realm, the shoe doesn't exist definitively as a "left" or "right" shoe until you open the box. Opening the first box (measuring the particle) forces the entire system to make a choice, instantly assigning properties to both boxes simultaneously.

Common Misconceptions

•           Faster-Than-Light Communication: You cannot use entanglement to send messages or information faster than the speed of light. Because the state of the first particle is entirely random, you have no way of controlling what information the distant particle will reveal upon measurement.

•           Changing the Other Particle: Measuring one particle doesn't actively "send a signal" to change the other. Instead, it simply reveals that the two measurements will always perfectly correlate with one another.

Why It Matters

While deeply weird, entanglement is a proven, fundamental rule of nature. It is the driving force behind modern developments in Quantum Information Science, such as Quantum Computing and hack-proof quantum cryptography.

 

 

3. Bayes' Rule (or Bayes' Theorem) is a fundamental mathematical formula used to calculate the probability of an event based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to that event. It allows you to update your beliefs as new evidence is introduced.

The Formula

In mathematical terms, Bayes' Rule is expressed as:

            P(A|B) = P(B|A) x P(A)/P(B)

Where:

•     P(A|B) (or "P(A pipe B)") (Posterior Probability): The probability of event A happening, given that event B has occurred.

•           P(B|A) (Likelihood): The probability of event B happening, given that event A has occurred.

•           P(A) (Prior Probability): The initial probability of event A happening before any new evidence is considered.

•           P(B) (Marginal Probability): The total probability of event B happening under any circumstance.

________________________________________

How it Works: Medical Testing Example

A classic way to understand Bayes' Rule is through a medical screening, where it corrects for "false positives" to find the real chance of an accurate result.

Let's say:

•           A rare disease affects 1% of the population: P(A) = 0.01

•           The test is highly accurate, identifying the disease 100% of the time: P(B|A) = 1.00

•           However, the test also gives a "false positive" for healthy people 10% of the time: (0.01 × 1.00) + (0.99 × 0.10) = 0.109 (or 10.9%)

If you test positive, what is the actual chance you have the disease? Intuitively, people might guess around 90-100% because the test is so "accurate." But using Bayes' Rule:

1.         Calculate the overall chance of testing positive P(B):

(True positive rate) + (False positive rate)

(0.01 × 1.00) + (0.99 × 0.10) = 0.109 (or 10.9%)

2.         Apply the formula:

(P(Disease|Positive) = 1.00 x 0.01/0.109 = approx 0.0917

Even though the test is fantastic, testing positive only gives you about a 9.2% chance of actually having the disease because the condition itself is so rare.

________________________________________

Real-World Applications

Beyond medical screening, Bayes' Rule is an essential tool in many fields:

•           Spam Filters: Evaluating the probability that an email is spam (Event A) given that it contains certain words like "buy now" or "viagra" (Event B).

•           Machine Learning & AI: Allowing self-driving cars and algorithms to update their predictions as new sensor data arrives.

•           Finance: Helping investors update the probability of a market event or stock movement as new economic data is released.

 

4. Eine Technik, die will, dass wir denken: Der Schock namens "Künstliche Intelligenz" ist noch nicht verdaut, da naht der nächste: die Quantenära. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Frankfurt. 12 Mar 2026: 11.  DIETMAR DATH

Berniukus mokome pramogoms, o ne darbui

 

„Skaitydama Jasono L. Riley skiltį „Amerikos laisvalaikis: darbo etika išeina iš mados“ (angl. „Upward Mobility“, birželio 3 d.), iš pradžių buvau šokiruota sužinojus, kad 1 iš 3 vyrų JAV nei dirba, nei ieško darbo.

 

Tačiau kuo daugiau apie tai galvojau, tuo mažiau stebėjausi. Tai tikėtinas rezultatas vyrų kartai, užaugintai priklausomybei nuo vaizdo žaidimų ir ekranų apskritai. Mes juos mokėme pramogoms. Iš tokių knygų, kaip Leonardo Saxo „Berniukai dreifuoja“ (2007 m.) žinome, kad berniukų smegenys buvo perprogramuotos taip, kad būtų priklausomos nuo malonumo, o smegenų motyvacijos centrai buvo paveikti. Mažylius raminame ekranais maisto prekių parduotuvių vežimėliuose, vaikams duodame planšetinius kompiuterius, užuot reikalavę pastangų ir dėmesio mokyklose, ir leidžiame ypač berniukams nuskausminti save vaizdo žaidimais, užuot išleidę juos žaisti lauke ar išnešti šiukšles. Mes mokėme tinginystės ir paklusnumo ir pjauname tai, ką pasėjome.

 

Tėvai turi būti pakankamai drąsūs, kad pasakytų „ne“ vaizdo žaidimams ir pripažintų jų daromą žalą. Lygiai taip pat galėtume duoti savo berniukams kokainą ir tikėtis, kad jie gyvens gerai. Turime išjungti ekranus, įkvėpti savo jaunus vyrus drąsos istorijomis ir reikalauti, kad jie dirbtų namuose ir atliktų sunkius darbus mokykloje. Jie gali tai įveikti. Vasara yra puikus metas pradėti.

 

 

Taresa Neale

 

 

Siloam Springs, Arkanzasas.“ [1]

 

1. We Train Boys for Entertainment, Not Work. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 June 2026: A14.  

We Train Boys for Entertainment, Not Work

“Reading Jason L. Riley's column "American Idle: The Work Ethic Goes Out of Style" (Upward Mobility, June 3), I was at first shocked to learn that 1 in 3 men in the U.S. is neither working nor looking for work.

 

The more I thought about it, however, the less I was surprised. It is the probable outcome for a generation of men raised to be addicted to video games and screens in general. We have trained them for entertainment. We know from books like Leonard Sax's "Boys Adrift" (2007) that boys' brains have been rewired to be addicted to pleasure, and the motivation centers in the brain have been affected. We pacify toddlers with screens in grocery store carts, hand kids tablets instead of requiring effort and attention in schools and allow boys especially to anesthetize themselves with video games instead of pushing them to play outside or take out the trash. We have trained sloth and docility and are reaping what we have sown.

 

Those of us who are parents need to be brave enough to say no to video games and recognize the harm that they cause. We might as well hand our boys cocaine and expect them to have a good life. We need to pull the plug on screens, inspire our young men with stories of fortitude and require them to work at home and do hard things in school. They can handle it. Summer is the perfect time to start.

 

Taresa Neale

 

Siloam Springs, Ark.” [1]

 

1. We Train Boys for Entertainment, Not Work. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 June 2026: A14.  

JAV aviacijos smūgis tanklaiviui nužudė tris Indijos jūreivius --- Kas galiausiai atgabens maisto ir drabužių tiems, kurie žudo jūreivius?

„Per JAV operaciją, kuria siekta užtikrinti Amerikos blokadą Iranui, žuvo trys Indijos jūreiviai, ketvirtadienį pranešė Indijos pareigūnas.

 

Blokada yra JAV bandymo atimti iš Teherano naftos dolerius dalis ir priversti jį sudaryti susitarimą dėl karo pabaigos. Šią savaitę Amerikos pajėgos Omano įlankoje taikėsi į tris naftos tanklaivius, gabenusius Indijos įgulą, grasindamos dar labiau įtempti diplomatinius santykius tarp Vašingtono ir Naujojo Delio, kuris protestuodamas iškvietė JAV diplomatą.

 

„Mes perdavėme suprasti, kad mūsų jūrininkų bendruomenės gerovė yra labai svarbi ir kad vykstantys išpuoliai turi liautis“, – ketvirtadienį sakė Indijos užsienio reikalų ministerijos atstovas Randhiras Jaiswalas.

 

Jaiswalas teigė, kad išpuolius surengė JAV karinis jūrų laivynas ir kad laivai, į kuriuos buvo atakuoti, nepriklauso Indijai.

 

JAV kariuomenė trečiadienį apšaudė Palau vėliavą turintį tanklaivį „Settebello“, kai šis nevykdė Amerikos nurodymų, pranešė JAV Centrinė vadovybė, kuri prižiūri Amerikos pajėgas Vidurio Rytuose. Rytai.

 

Pradiniame JAV pareiškime dėl „Settebello“, kuriame žūtys nebuvo minimos, teigiama, kad lėktuvas paleido šaudmenis į laivo mašinų skyrių. Prie pareiškimo pridėtame vaizdo įraše matyti didelis dūmų stulpas, kylantis iš laivo. „Centcom“ ketvirtadienį pakartojo, kad laivo įgula ne kartą nesilaikė nurodymų, ir teigė, kad JAV pajėgos prieš atidengdamos ugnį įspėjo.

 

JAV ambasada Naujajame Delyje teigė, kad palaiko ryšį su Indijos vyriausybe, tačiau atsisakė plačiau komentuoti.

 

Indijos užsienio reikalų ministerija iš pradžių teigė, kad iš 24 laive buvusių Indijos įgulos narių 21 buvo išgelbėtas, o trys jūreiviai dingo. Ketvirtadienį „X“ paskelbtame įraše Indijos laivybos ministras Sarbananda Sonowal teigė, kad rasti trijų dingusių jūreivių kūnai. Jis pridūrė, kad ir palaikai, ir išgelbėti jūreiviai bus grąžinti į Indiją.

 

Pirmadienį JAV kariuomenė smogė Palau vėliavą turinčiam laivui „Marivex“, pranešė JAV Centrinė vadovybė ir Indijos užsienio reikalų ministerija. JAV apkaltino laivą bandymu pažeisti Irano blokadą, bandant nuplaukti į Irano uostą.

 

Šią savaitę Indijos pareigūnas žurnalistams sakė, kad prieš apšaudymą tarp šio laivo ir JAV pajėgų buvo susisiekta. Visi Indijos įgulos nariai, buvę „Marivex“, buvo išgelbėti, pridūrė jis.

 

Naujausias tanklaivio išpuolis įvyko ketvirtadienį, kai JAV lėktuvas atakavo su Bisau Gvinėjos vėliava plaukiojantį laivą „Jalveer“, kuris, anot JAV centrinės vadovybės ir Indijos pareigūnų, tariamai bandė gabenti naftą iš Irano per Omano įlanką. Visi 20 Indijos įgulos narių buvo saugūs.“ [1]

 

1. World News: U.S. Airstrike on a Tanker Kills Three Indian Sailors. Li, Shan.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 June 2026: A6.  

U.S. Airstrike on a Tanker Kills Three Indian Sailors. --- In the end who will bring food and clothing for those, who are killing sailors?

 

“Three Indian sailors were killed in a U.S. operation to enforce the American blockade of Iran, an Indian official said Thursday.

 

The blockade is part of a U.S. attempt to starve Tehran of petrodollars and force it to make a deal to end the war. American forces have targeted three oil tankers carrying Indian crew in the Gulf of Oman this week, threatening to further strain diplomatic relations between Washington and New Delhi, which summoned a U.S. diplomat in protest.

 

"We conveyed that the welfare of our seafaring community is very important and the attacks that are happening must stop," Randhir Jaiswal, spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry, said Thursday.

 

Jaiswal said that the attacks came from the U.S. Navy and that the targeted ships aren't Indian-owned.

 

The U.S. military fired on the Palau-flagged Settebello Wednesday after the oil tanker failed to comply with American instructions, said U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East.

 

The original U.S. statement in reference to the Settebello, which didn't mention the deaths, said an aircraft fired munitions into the ship's engine room. A video accompanying the statement shows a large plume of smoke rising from the ship. Centcom on Thursday reiterated the ship's crew repeatedly failed to follow directions, and said U.S. forces issued warnings before opening fire.

 

The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi said it was in contact with the Indian government, declining to comment further.

 

India's foreign ministry initially said of the 24 Indian crew on the ship, 21 had been rescued while three sailors were missing. In a post Thursday on X, Indian shipping minister Sarbananda Sonowal said the bodies of three missing sailors have been located. Both the remains and the rescued sailors will be returned to India, he added.

 

On Monday, the U.S. military struck the Palau-flagged Marivex, according to U.S. Central Command and India's foreign ministry. The U.S. accused the ship of attempting to violate the blockade against Iran by trying to sail to an Iranian port.

 

An Indian official told reporters this week that there were communications between that ship and U.S. forces before it was fired upon. All of the Indian crew members on the Marivex were rescued, he added.

 

The latest tanker attack came Thursday when a U.S. aircraft attacked the Guinea-Bissau-flagged Jalveer, for allegedly trying to transport oil from Iran through the Gulf of Oman, according to U.S. Central Command and Indian officials. All 20 Indian crew members were safe.” [1]

 

1. World News: U.S. Airstrike on a Tanker Kills Three Indian Sailors. Li, Shan.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 June 2026: A6.  

Prekybos disbalansas kelia grėsmę pasauliui

„Kai prezidentas Trumpas kitą savaitę Prancūzijoje susitiks su savo kolegomis G-7 viršūnių susitikime, darbotvarkėje bus viena iš jo mėgstamiausių temų: didžiulis JAV prekybos deficitas.

 

Tiksliau sakant, Prancūzijos šeimininkai nori kalbėti apie pasaulinį disbalansą, tai yra, JAV“ einamosios sąskaitos deficitas (platesnis prekybos deficito matas, apimantis prekes, paslaugas ir investicijų pajamas) ir atitinkamas Kinijos bei, mažesniu mastu, Europos Sąjungos ir Japonijos perteklius.

 

Deficitas ir perteklius, žinoma, yra įprasti ir normalūs. „Mus neramina per didelis disbalansas“, – balandžio mėnesį mano moderuojamoje diskusijoje sakė Tarptautinio valiutos fondo generalinė direktorė Kristalina Georgieva.

 

Ir jie pradeda atrodyti per dideli. TVF skaičiuoja, kad deficitas ir perteklius (vienos šalies deficitas yra kitos šalies perteklius) praėjusiais metais pasiekė 3,7 % pasaulinio bendrojo vidaus produkto, po to, kai nuo pasaulinės finansų krizės laikų nuolat mažėjo. Iki 2000-ųjų pradžios jie svyravo nuo 1 % iki 3 %.

 

Tai kelia nerimą. Einamosios sąskaitos deficitas turėjo įtakos krizėms, kurios apėmė Lotynų Ameriką devintajame dešimtmetyje, Rytų ir Pietryčių Aziją dešimtajame dešimtmetyje, JAV 2007–2009 m. ir euro zoną nuo 2009 m.

 

Nes deficitas Nors deficitas turi būti finansuojamas kapitalo įplaukomis (pvz., skolinantis iš bankų arba parduodant akcijas ir obligacijas), didėjantis deficitas gali būti užsienio lėšomis maitinamo skolos ar investicijų burbulo požymis. Pavyzdžiui, JAV būsto burbulas buvo finansuojamas užsienio lėšomis, netiesiogiai patekusiomis į hipoteka užtikrintus vertybinius popierius.

 

 

Šiandieninis disbalansas atrodo kitaip. Nors metinis deficitas yra mažesnis nei prieš 15 metų, jis yra patvaresnis ir labiau įsitvirtinęs nacionalinėje elgsenoje.

 

 

Paimkime JAV, kurių 1,1 trilijono dolerių einamosios sąskaitos deficitas yra didžiausias pavienis disbalansas. Paklauskite Trumpo, kokia to priežastis, ir jis apkaltins kitų šalių nesąžiningą prekybos praktiką. Jo sprendimas: tarifai.

 

 

Tačiau TVF anksčiau šiais metais atliktame tyrime teigia, kad tarifai yra „mikroekonominės“ pramonės politikos forma, kurios poveikis einamajai sąskaitai yra minimalus dėl kompensuojančių investicijų, vartojimo, taupymo ar valiutų kursų pokyčių. Praėjusiais metais tarifai sumažino kai kuriuos importo kiekius, tačiau dėl to, kad dirbtinio intelekto bumas pritraukė užsienyje pagamintą technologinę įrangą, einamosios sąskaitos deficitas sumažėjo tik nežymiai.

 

 

Didesnis indėlis į JAV einamosios sąskaitos deficitas yra jos biudžeto deficitas, kuris palaiko per dideles JAV išlaidas ir nepakankamą taupymą. TVF apskaičiavo, kad 2 % BVP biudžeto deficitas padidina einamosios sąskaitos deficitą 0,5 % BVP.

 

Ir JAV nėra vienintelė atsakinga už savo deficitą. Jį įgalina kitų šalių perteklius. Tarp jų yra Vokietija, kurios problema yra lėtinis investicijų trūkumas, ir ypač Kinija, kurios perteklius yra didžiausias pasaulyje. Eksportuodama tiek daug, Kinija faktiškai verčia savo prekybos partnerius susidaryti deficitą.

 

Kinija, kaip ir Trumpas, teikia pirmenybę gamybai. Tačiau, skirtingai nei tarifai, Kinijos pramonės politika padeda jos prekybos balansui, nes ji yra makroekonominė, o ne mikroekonominė, rodo TVF analizė. Pavyzdžiui, Kinija naudoja užsienio valiutos intervenciją ir kapitalo kontrolę, kad išlaikytų pigią savo valiutą. Ji taip pat subsidijuoja investicijas per mokesčius namų ūkiams ir menką socialinės apsaugos tinklą, taip skatindama taupymą. Visa tai padeda eksportui, kartu mažindama vartojimą ir importą.

 

Prancūzijos prezidentas Emmanuelis Macronas norėtų, kad jam pirmininkaujant G-7 atsirastų koks nors koordinuotas šių disbalansų sprendimas. Be koordinavimo „šie disbalansai“ „rizika atsiskleisti netvarkingai“, – ketvirtadienį sakė jis.

 

Sprendimas atrodo akivaizdus: JAV turėtų sumažinti savo biudžeto deficitą, o Kinija – reformuoti savo finansų ir fiskalinę sistemą.

 

Kitas sprendimas galėtų būti sukurtas pagal 1985 m. Plaza susitarimą, pagal kurį G-5 susitarė leisti doleriui smarkiai nuvertėti Vakarų Vokietijos markės ir Japonijos jenos atžvilgiu. Vėlesniais metais disbalansas smarkiai sumažėjo.

 

Šiandien doleris yra pervertintas daugeliu atžvilgių, o Kinijos juanis, pasak Josepho Gagnono iš Petersono tarptautinės ekonomikos instituto, yra mažiausiai 15 % nuvertintas. „Didelio valiutos nuvertėjimo nutraukimas yra vienintelis politikos pokytis, kuris tiesiogiai subalansuotų pasaulinę prekybą“, – neseniai rašė buvę JAV ir Prancūzijos vyriausybių ekonomikos patarėjai Bradas Setseris ir Shahin Vallee.

 

Nė vienas iš šių sprendimų negresia. JAV dėl savo problemų kaltina kitus, ypač Kiniją. Kinija nemato reikalo keisti politikos, kuri, jos manymu, veikia.

 

TVF, vienintelė institucija, atsakinga už disbalanso drausminimą, neturi priemonių taip ir padaryti.

 

Taigi, jei koordinuoti vyriausybių veiksmai negali ištaisyti šių disbalansų, ar tam reikės krizės? Nėra gero šablono. Lotynų Amerikos ir Azijos finansų krizės prasidėjo nuo fiksuotų valiutų kursų, kurie skatino bankus skolinti užsienyje. Vėliau valiutos nuvertėjo, o tai sukėlė platesnio masto bankų krizes. Panaši dinamika lėmė ir euro krizę, nors euras nesugriuvo. JAV būsto burbulas daugiausia buvo finansuojamas privačiomis skolomis.

 

Valiutų kursai dabar dažniausiai svyruoja. Neseniai paskelbtame straipsnyje Masačusetso technologijos instituto ekonomistė Kristin Forbes ir trys bendraautoriai pažymėjo, kad JAV pastaruoju metu didelę dalį savo deficito finansavo parduodamos akcijas užsieniečiams: praėjusiais metais – 736 mlrd. JAV dolerių – tai rekordas.

 

Geros naujienos, anot „Forbes“, yra tai, kad akcijų kainų kritimas, kurį lėmė, pavyzdžiui, nusivylimas dirbtiniu intelektu, faktiškai nuvertintų JAV išduotas skolos obligacijas užsieniečiams, skirtas deficitui finansuoti. Tai taip pat galėtų sumažinti dolerį, dar labiau ištaisydama šį deficitą. Blogos naujienos yra tai, kad užsienio investuotojams patirti nuostoliai gali persikelti į obligacijų ir valiutų rinkas.

 

Ekonomistai su meile prisimena 1985 m. „Plaza“ susitarimą kaip geriausią ekonominio koordinavimo pavyzdį. Tačiau verta prisiminti, kad dėl šio susitarimo kilusios infliacinės jėgos padėjo sukelti 1987 m. akcijų rinkos krachą. [1]

 

1. U.S. News -- Capital Account: Trade Imbalances Pose Global Threat. Ip, Greg.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 June 2026: A2.  

Trade Imbalances Pose Global Threat

“When President Trump meets his counterparts at next week's G-7 summit in France, one of his favorite topics will be on the agenda: the massive U.S. trade deficit.

 

More precisely, the French hosts want to talk about global imbalances, meaning the U.S.' current-account deficit (a broader measure of the trade deficit which includes goods, services and investment income) and the corresponding surpluses of China and, to a lesser degree, the European Union and Japan.

 

Deficits and surpluses are of course common and normal. "It is excessive imbalances that we are concerned about," Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said at a panel discussion I moderated in April.

 

And they are starting to look excessive. The IMF calculates that deficits plus surpluses (one country's deficit is another's surplus) reached 3.7% of global gross domestic product last year after falling steadily from around the global financial crisis. Until the early 2000s, they fluctuated between 1% and 3%.

 

This is worrisome. Current-account deficits played a part in the crises that swept Latin America in the 1980s, east and southeast Asia in the 1990s, the U.S. in 2007-09 and the eurozone from 2009 on.

 

Because a deficit must be financed by an inflow of capital (e.g. borrowing from banks, or sales of stocks and bonds), widening deficits may be a sign of a debt or investment bubble fed by foreign funds. The U.S. housing bubble, for instance, was financed by foreign money indirectly finding its way into mortgage-backed securities.

 

Today's imbalances look different. While annual deficits are narrower than 15 years ago, they are more persistent and more entrenched in national behavior.

 

Take the U.S., whose current-account deficit of $1.1 trillion is by far the largest single imbalance. Ask Trump what the cause is, and he'll blame unfair trading practices by other countries. His solution: tariffs.

 

But the IMF, in a study earlier this year, says tariffs are a form of "microeconomic" industrial policy whose impact on the current account is minimal because of offsetting movements in investment, consumption, saving or exchange rates. Last year, tariffs did reduce some imports, but because the AI boom sucked in foreign-made tech equipment, the current-account deficit narrowed only slightly.

 

The bigger contributor to the U.S. current-account deficit is its budget deficit, which sustains excessive U.S. spending and inadequate saving. The IMF estimates a budget deficit of 2% of GDP increases the current-account deficit by 0.5% of GDP.

 

And the U.S. is not solely responsible for its own deficit. It is enabled by others' surpluses. They include Germany, whose problem is chronic underinvestment, and especially China whose surplus is the world's largest. By exporting so much, China effectively forces its trading partners to run deficits.

 

China, like Trump, gives priority to manufacturing. But unlike tariffs, China's industrial policy does help its trade balance because it is macroeconomic, not microeconomic, the IMF's analysis shows. For example, China uses foreign exchange intervention and capital controls to keep its currency cheap. It also subsidizes investment through taxes on households and a skimpy safety net, boosting saving. All of this helps exports while depressing consumption and imports.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron would love for some sort of coordinated solution to these imbalances to emerge from his chairmanship of the G-7. Without coordination, "these imbalances risk unwinding in a disorderly manner," he said Thursday.

 

The solution looks obvious: the U.S. should slash its budget deficit and China should reform its financial and fiscal system.

 

Another solution could be modeled on the Plaza Accord of 1985 under which the G-5 agreed to let the dollar depreciate sharply against the West German mark and Japanese yen. Imbalances narrowed sharply in following years.

 

Today the dollar is overvalued by many measures while China's yuan, according to Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is at least 15% undervalued. Ending "deep currency undervaluations is the one policy change that would directly bring balance to global trade," Brad Setser and Shahin Vallee, former economic advisers to the U.S. and French governments, respectively, recently wrote.

 

None of these solutions is about to happen. The U.S. blames its problems on others, especially China. China sees no need to change policies it thinks are working. The IMF, the one body charged with disciplining imbalances, has no means to do so.

 

So if coordinated action by governments can't correct these imbalances, will it take a crisis? There's no good template. The Latin America and Asian financial crises originated with fixed exchange rates that encouraged banks to lend across borders. Currencies then devalued, precipitating broader banking crises. Similar dynamics brought on the euro crisis, though the euro didn't collapse. The U.S. housing bubble was largely financed through private debt.

 

Exchange rates mostly float now. In a recent paper, Kristin Forbes, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and three co-authors noted the U.S. has financed a lot its deficit lately by selling stocks to foreigners: $736 billion last year, a record.

 

The good news, according to Forbes, is that a plunge in stocks driven, for example, by disappointment in AI would effectively write down the IOUs the U.S. issued to foreigners to finance its deficits. It could also lower the dollar, further correcting those deficits. The bad news is the losses inflicted on foreign investors could spill over to bond and currency markets.

 

Economists look back fondly at the 1985 Plaza Accord as economic coordination at its best. But it's worth remembering that inflationary forces originating with that accord helped cause the 1987 stock market crash.” [1]

 

1. U.S. News -- Capital Account: Trade Imbalances Pose Global Threat. Ip, Greg.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 12 June 2026: A2.