US man laments decline of local shops in America, praises Europe's walkable street culture. Video
(Also read: 'Magnets abroad feel stronger': Indian man in Sweden on why NRIs don't return)
In the video, Adam remarks, 'America has lost the art of the mom-and-pop shop. In America, when you want coffee, you go to Starbucks. If you want art supplies, you go to Walmart. If you want fruit and vegetables, you probably also go to Walmart. But here in Europe and other places too, you have these small locally-owned shops for almost anything you can think of.'
Europe's walkable variety, America's corporate sprawl
He walks through a street, pointing to different niche shops — 'Fruit and vegetables here. A store for everything plastic. And your local coffee shop.' He adds, 'The craziest part is that almost all of these things are usually within a 10 or 15-minute walk. The American mind cannot comprehend this.'
Take a look here at the clip:
Caption fuels nostalgia for lost neighbourhood culture
In the caption of his post, Adam expands on his sentiment: 'America has lost the art of the mom and pop shop. I love being able to walk five minutes to a little store that sells exactly what I'm looking for, and being greeted by a nice person who's been running the store for probably 40 years. It just adds depth to your life that you can't get when your main place of shopping is Walmart.'
Internet reacts
Though the video has attracted nearly 4,000 views and several reactions. One user recalled, 'I remember thinking the exact same thing when I visited England for the first time. I saw a speaker music store, a vacuum shop, and a tailor all on the same street.' Another pointed the finger at big companies, saying, 'Corporations are 100 percent to blame.'
One user simply wrote, 'It's called community. America, unfortunately, has lost its value and respect for community.' Another added, 'True. America talks a big game on small business, but small businesses get short confession.' A commenter shared, 'I already left and I don't plan on ever going back!' to which Adam replied with a brief, 'Nice.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump says he'd ‘like to run' in 2028 for President—But ‘probably not'
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday (August 5) said he would like to run for President again in 2028, but quickly tempered expectations by adding, 'probably not.' 'No, probably not, probably not. I'd like to … I have the best poll numbers I've ever had,' Trump said in an interview with CNBC, referring to his current popularity among Republican voters and broader national polling. While Trump has not ruled out the possibility of running again after his current term, his comments suggest he may be leaning against seeking a third term. The remark comes as Trump continues to dominate the Republican Party. His brief comment — mixing confidence in his popularity with hesitation about extending his political future beyond 2028 — is likely to spark fresh speculation among supporters and political observers about the future leadership of the Republican Party. Trump's 2028 hint follows a series of recent campaign appearances where he has repeatedly emphasised his record while in office. However, at 82 in 2028, Trump would be older than President Biden is today. Despite the 22nd Amendment clearly limiting US presidents to two terms, Trump has repeatedly hinted at the possibility of seeking a third term—fueling speculation and controversy. Speaking to NBC News in March 2025, Trump said, 'A lot of people want me to do it,' and added he was 'not joking' about a possible third term. He even suggested there were 'methods' to make it happen, without elaborating on what those might be. When asked in the same interview about a scenario in which his Vice President, JD Vance, could run for office and then transfer power to him, Trump did not rule out the idea. He acknowledged the possibility, further stoking debate over how serious his intentions might be. Earlier in May 2025, Trump reaffirmed that he intended to serve only two terms but acknowledged continued pressure from allies. 'It's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else,' he said, appearing to question the legitimacy or interpretation of the rule. The US Constitution is clear on this matter. Ratified in 1951, the 22nd Amendment states: 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.' Changing or abolishing this amendment would be extremely difficult. It would require either: A two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, or A constitutional convention called by two-thirds of U.S. state legislatures. In either case, the proposed change must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. As the 2028 election cycle draws closer, Trump's mixed messages are expected to keep both supporters and critics on edge. His repeated teasing of a third term, even in the face of explicit Constitutional limits, ensures that the conversation around his future role in American politics will remain active.
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
Pfizer Q2 Results: Pharma major's sales jump to $14.65 billion; firm raises profit forecast for 2025 over cost cuts
Aug 5 (Reuters) - Pfizer raised its full-year profit forecast on Tuesday after topping Wall Street expectations for second-quarter results as it expects to benefit from its cost-cutting efforts and a weaker dollar. The company said the new forecast absorbs a one-time charge of 20 cents per share related to its licensing deal with China's 3SBio for experimental cancer treatment. Shares of the New York-based company rose 2.8% to $24.19 in premarket trading. The company's shares have lost more than half their value from their pandemic-era highs as the drugmaker deals with waning revenue from COVID products and looming patent expirations for key drugs. In response, the company launched cost-saving measures last year across its manufacturing and research operations. Pfizer said it was on track to deliver $7.2 billion in net savings from the programs by the end of 2027, out of which about $4.5 billion will be delivered by the end of 2025. J.P. Morgan analyst Chris Schott said that the quarterly beat and the forecast raise did not come as a surprise given the company's better-than-expected cost management. "We would not be surprised with additional upside to EPS as the year progresses," Schott said. The drugmaker now expects to earn $2.90 to $3.10 per share on an adjusted basis in 2025, compared with its previous expectations of $2.80 to $3.00 per share. Total quarterly sales topped estimates by $1 billion and came in at $14.65 billion, including a $22 million favorable impact from foreign exchange. Revenue from Pfizer's antiviral treatment, Paxlovid, was $427 million for the quarter, compared with analysts' expectations of $244.4 million. COVID vaccine Comirnaty, which Pfizer makes with German partner BioNTech, brought in sales of $381 million. Analysts were expecting sales of $188 million. On an adjusted basis, Pfizer earned 78 cents per share for the second quarter, compared with analysts' expectations of 58 cents. (Reporting by Bhanvi Satija and Mrinalika Roy in Bengaluru and Michael Erman in New York; Editing by Anil D'Silva)
Indian Express
11 minutes ago
- Indian Express
A reminder for Trump: US wanted India to buy Russian crude to keep oil market stable, prices in check
US President Donald Trump seems frustrated with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine, clearly wanting the over three-and-half-year-old war to end, while Putin appears unyielding. The American president, meanwhile, believes he has a lever the he can use to push Putin's buttons. That lever is India's significant oil imports from Russia. Trump has been berating India over its Russian oil imports and pressuring New Delhi into cutting down on imports from Moscow in the hope that threatening or penalising a key trade partner would force the Kremlin's hand into ending the war in Ukraine. While Trump evidently finds it convenient to go after India on the issue at a time when New Delhi and Washington are locked in tense trade pact negotiations, it is worth noting that the US had a major role to play in India ramping up oil imports from Russia, for which New Delhi is now being vilified by Trump and his administration. Over the course of the war in Ukraine, US officials have publicly stated that India's purchase of Russian oil had Washington's endorsement, at least implicitly. In his latest salvo, Trump on Monday said that threatened that he will 'substantially' raise tariffs on New Delhi for profiting from exporting fuels derived from Russian oil. Trump's latest attack came just days after he announced 25 per cent tariffs and an unspecified 'penalty' on India for its defence and energy imports from Russia. Responding sharply to Trump's remarks, India said that while it has been targeted by the US and the European Union for importing oil from Russia, these imports began as its traditional supplies were diverted to Europe, and the US at that time 'actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability'. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2024, Moscow's share in New Delhi's oil imports was less than 2 per cent. The reasons were obvious: Russia was a far-away geography and already had established markets where a bulk of its crude was exported. India, on the other hand, depended significantly on West Asian suppliers like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which are located close by. With much of the West shunning Russian crude following the invasion, Russia began offering discounts on its oil to willing buyers. Indian refiners were quick to avail the opportunity, leading to Russia—earlier a peripheral supplier of oil to India—emerging as India's biggest source of crude within a matter of months, displacing the traditional West Asian suppliers. Russia now accounts for 35-40 per cent of India's total oil imports by volume. As Europe decided to stop the import of refined petroleum fuels from Russia, Indian refiners increased fuel exports to the continent. Apart from alleging that India was helping fund the war in Ukraine by buying Russian oil, critics of India's oil and fuel trade argued that the country's refiners were facilitating a backdoor entry into Europe for fuels made from Russian crude. There was, however, nothing illegitimate about this trade as there was no specific ban on fuel imports from countries that were buying Russian oil. That ban has now been announced by the EU, and is slated to take effect from January 2026. Despite the noise from sections of the West against India over the country's hefty purchases of Russian crude, this shift in oil and petroleum product trade had Washington's blessings, as the US wanted energy markets to remain stable and well-supplied. In a recent interaction with CNBC International, global energy expert and Rapidan Energy Group President Bob McNally said that it was the Biden administration that 'begged' India to buy Russian crude to keep global energy prices in check. 'The Indians must be having some confusion (due to Trump's stance) because Joe Biden went to India after the invasion of Russia and begged them to take Russian oil…they begged India, 'Please take the oil', so that crude prices would remain low, and they did. Now we're flipping around, saying, 'What are you doing taking all this Russian oil?' The point is Trump is serious…he is frustrated with Putin,' said McNally, who served as the Special Assistant to the President on the White House National Economic Council and Senior Director for International Energy on the National Security Council during George W Bush's first term as US President. India's actions in line with US policy: Biden era officials Various US government officials during the Biden presidency also publicly acknowledged that India's actions helped balance the international oil market, and were in line with what the US wanted in order to keep the global market well-supplied. Had most of the Russian oil gone off the market—as happened with Iran and Venezuela—international oil prices would have shot up, which would have hit the global economy that was still fragile coming out of the pandemic. At an event in May 2024, the then US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti said, 'Actually, they (India) bought Russian oil because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil at a price cap. That was not a violation or anything. It was actually the design of the policy because as a commodity we didn't want oil prices going up, and they fulfilled that.' Garcetti was correct, as Rusian oil was and continues to be sanction-free, and only a price cap of $60 per barrel was introduced in December 2022 on seaborne Russian crude by the US and its allies. The cap prohibits export of Russian seaborne crude at over $60 per barrel if the trade involves Western shipping or insurance services. Oil importers like India, which are not part of the price cap coalition comprising G7 countries and their allies, are not bound by the price cap as long as their purchase of Russian oil does not involve any shipping or insurance service from providers in the coalition countries. In April last year, senior US officials had said at a New Delhi event that the US neither expected India to reduce its oil imports from Russia and had not even requested it to do so. The then US Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Eric Van Nostrand had said that the objective of the sanctions and G7 price cap regime was not to push Russian crude out of the market, but to keep it flowing while limiting Kremlin's revenue from oil exports, which in turn impaired Russia's ability to fund the war in Ukraine. 'The price cap is designed to leave Russia with only bad options…We want him (Putin) to choose between three bad things: selling with coalition services under the price cap, selling outside the price cap, or shutting his oil in and not putting it to market. With a strong and robust price cap regime, Putin is going to prefer to sell as much as he can outside the price cap. But in order to maximise his sales outside the price cap, when a large part of the global coalition is already involved in the price cap, he is going to have to offer it cheaper,' Nostrand said. Anna Morris, the then US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crime, said at the same event that from a technical standpoint, Russian oil once refined into petroleum fuels and products could no longer be considered of Russian origin, dismissing the argument that India refiners were facilitating Russian petroleum's entry into Europe. 'I also want to specify that once Russian oil is refined, from a technical perspective it is no longer Russian oil…If it is refined in a country and then sent forward, from a sanctions perspective that is an import from the country of purchase, it is not an import from Russia,' Morris said. While the Biden administration seemed satisfied with the price cap, while letting Russian oil flow, Trump has taken a much more aggressive stance, threatening financial costs on importers of Russian energy. Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
