Author Archives: Stuart G. Hall

About Stuart G. Hall

Making a positive difference one day at a time. #London #Leicester

America the Martyr? The Empire That Wants Tribute for Its Privilege

Posted on by
Reply

On April 7th, 2025, CEA Chairman Steve Miran delivered remarks at the Hudson Institute that are, frankly, hard to categorize—somewhere between audacious and absurd.

In the official White House transcript, Miran proposes that the United States should be financially compensated by the rest of the world for the “burden” of providing global public goods—such as the U.S. dollar and Treasury securities, which underpin the international trading system.

“The U.S. provides the dollar and Treasury securities, reserve assets which make possible the global trading and financial system which has supported the greatest era of prosperity mankind has ever known.”
– Steve Miran, April 7, 2025

In response, Arnaud Bertrand offered a scorching critique on X, calling the speech:

“…the most dishonest piece of economic reading that I’ve ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon.”

He continues:

“What Miran is thus proposing is effectively demanding vassals make payments for the privilege of already making payments—a double tribute system where countries first subsidize American living standards by accepting dollars as reserves, and then must pay an additional fee for the ‘burden’ this supposedly places on the US.”
— @RnaudBertrand

It’s an excellent breakdown—eviscerating, justified, and clearly sourced in real economic history. But here’s where I want to add something a little different. Something… polymathic.

The Deeper Pattern: When Hegemony Poses as Martyrdom

What Bertrand lays out is the surface-level insanity of the argument. But dig a little deeper, and this speech signals a far more telling psychopolitical shift: we’re entering an era where dominance is reframed as sacrifice, and where hegemony starts wearing the costume of martyrdom.

This isn’t just bad economics—it’s imperial roleplay.

Throughout history, declining empires have used the same script. When the benefits of power become harder to justify, those in charge start portraying themselves not as privileged, but as put-upon. Not as beneficiaries, but as burden-bearers.

It’s Rome claiming the cost of policing the provinces. It’s Britain insisting it civilised the colonies. It’s the Ottoman Empire lamenting its thankless stewardship.

Steve Miran’s speech isn’t an economic proposal—it’s a ritual of imperial self-pity, the kind that precedes retrenchment, not revival. It’s the U.S. saying: “We are still the center of the world, but only because we suffer for it. And now you must compensate us for our suffering.”

That’s the real twist. The U.S. isn’t just demanding tribute. It’s asking the world to pay for the right to continue paying tribute—a double layer of financial and psychological submission.

Where This Leaves Us

When monetary dominance is no longer sufficient, and narrative control becomes the last tool in the chest, history shows us we’re near an inflection point.

So while Bertrand exposes the naked absurdity of Miran’s policy, we should also register what it signals: not just delusion, but a civilizational stage—a transformation of privilege into grievance. A moment when the emperor not only demands taxes, but asks to be thanked for wearing the crown.

The AI Power Struggle: What JD Vance Didn’t Say in Paris and Why It Matters for Europe

Posted on by
Reply

Vice President JD Vance’s recent speech at the Paris AI Summit was a masterclass in controlled messaging. With a confident tone, he outlined America’s commitment to AI leadership, deregulation, and economic expansion. But as the saying goes, it’s often what’s left unsaid that speaks the loudest. And in this case, the omissions raise fundamental questions about the future of AI and who will control it.

All the AI world’s a stage..

The Missing Debate: Who Controls AI Access?

Throughout his speech, Vance avoided one of the most crucial debates in AI today: who should control access to AI? Should it be the domain of governments, regulated by democratic oversight? Should it be the preserve of powerful tech corporations, shaping AI in the interest of their shareholders? Or should independent developers and open-source communities have the freedom to build AI outside of corporate and governmental control?

By sidestepping this issue, Vance implicitly reinforced the idea that AI leadership should remain in the hands of a few U.S. firms and a government intent on keeping its technological dominance. This omission should give Europe pause, especially as the EU pursues a vision of AI that prioritizes openness, transparency, and accessibility.

The Open-Source AI Revolution – And Why Vance Ignored It

One of the biggest technological shifts in AI today is the rise of open-source AI models. Until recently, developing cutting-edge AI required immense computing resources and access to proprietary datasets, effectively locking out smaller players. But that’s changing.

Lower Compute Requirements – New AI architectures allow powerful models to run on smaller hardware, breaking the dependency on massive cloud infrastructures.

Greater Accessibility – Open-weight models, such as Meta’s LLaMA or Mistral’s AI systems, are enabling researchers, startups, and even hobbyists to develop sophisticated AI tools.

Decentralization of Power – Open-source AI prevents monopolization by big tech and provides alternatives for countries looking to avoid overreliance on U.S. firms.

Yet, Vance said nothing about this trend. And for good reason: it undermines America’s dominance in AI. If AI can be developed independently without reliance on U.S. cloud computing giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, then the entire premise of U.S. AI superiority starts to erode.

China: The Omission That Speaks Volumes

Another striking absence in Vance’s speech? China. Given the geopolitical weight of AI, this is baffling. While he hinted at “hostile foreign adversaries” using AI for surveillance and censorship, he never explicitly named China as the U.S.’s main AI rival.

This raises several questions:

Is the U.S. avoiding a direct confrontation in AI policy?

Does China’s approach to AI—heavily state-controlled yet increasingly innovative—present a model that the U.S. isn’t ready to acknowledge?

Is America concerned about losing ground to China in AI research and implementation?

For Europe, which has to navigate the tensions between U.S. and Chinese AI ecosystems, this omission should prompt reflection. If AI is truly a strategic asset, why avoid naming the world’s second-largest economy in a speech about global AI leadership?

Indeed, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has warned that the West must prioritize open-source AI development or risk falling behind China, which has made significant strides in AI efficiency. Speaking at the AI Action Summit in Paris, Schmidt pointed to Chinese start-up DeepSeek’s breakthrough with its R1 model, which was built more efficiently than its U.S. counterparts.

He criticized the dominance of closed-source AI models in the U.S., such as OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Google’s Gemini, arguing that failing to invest in open-source alternatives could stifle scientific progress in Western universities. Schmidt cautioned that if the U.S. and Europe do not act, China could become the global leader in open AI, while the West remains locked into costly, proprietary systems.

The EU’s Role: Should Europe Follow the U.S. or Forge Its Own Path?

Vance’s speech was also a subtle pitch for Europe to align with the U.S. on AI policy. He criticized the EU’s Digital Services Act and GDPR, warning against “excessive regulation” that could stifle innovation. But the real question is: should Europe follow the American model, or does it have an opportunity to lead AI development on its own terms?

The EU has a strong case for taking a different path:

AI Sovereignty – Europe should not be forced to choose between U.S. corporate AI and China’s state-controlled AI. Investing in open-source alternatives could create a third way.

Ethical AI Leadership – While the U.S. focuses on deregulation, Europe has been shaping AI policies around transparency, bias mitigation, and safety.

Decentralization – Encouraging open-weight models can ensure AI remains accessible to a wide range of developers rather than being concentrated in a few Silicon Valley firms.

Conclusion: Is the U.S. Really in Control of AI?

Vance’s speech sounded powerful, but its omissions reveal deeper uncertainties. By refusing to discuss who controls AI access, dismissing the open-source revolution, and sidestepping China, the U.S. may be projecting confidence while secretly grappling with strategic vulnerabilities.

For the EU, the path forward is clear: rather than simply following the U.S. lead, Europe should double down on open-source AI, transparency, and digital sovereignty. Because in the end, AI’s future will not just be shaped by those who build the biggest models, but by those who ensure access to AI remains open, fair, and democratic.

References and Further Reading:

PS: Except Mistral repeatedly failed to identify me properly when I asked its new app “Who is Stuart G Hall @stuartgh”. Ironically, ChatGPT said this failure “exposes a fundamental weakness in Mistral’s approach—it’s not just a memory issue, but a broken search ranking and retrieval model”.

This article was written using ChatGPT-4, which is based on OpenAI’s GPT-4 model. Specifically, it was generated using the latest available version of GPT-4-turbo, optimized for efficiency and cost-effectiveness while maintaining high-quality outputs.