Reality on the ground is: US has been amassing troops in tens of thousands. Their mercenary IDF is claiming territory like a field day. Market has barely capitulated (which is the only thing this admin care about).

I expect this is just Trump buying time until he launches ground invasion after two weeks of failed negotiation. You don't spend millions sending tens of thousands of soldiers and billion dollar worth of hardware to just call them back to base.

Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time). Possibly also replenish their interceptor stocks from other regions which has been running low.

If you follow the kind of people advising him and have his ears (Witkoff, Kushner, Loomer, Levin) they are all for ground invasion.

But yeah, win for US. Oil prices will rebound giving economy the breathing time. Possibly also time to arm the insurgents to regroup for regime change.

Our government in my generation failed me and my kids, they are busy in fighting wars, manufacturing crises abroad, and doing other nefarious things.

Question: can I use the means in this article to avoid my last year's tax? What asset categories are available to invest to defer my taxes, where can I learn more?

Sure, Mark Carney gave his little speech in Davos. The same Mark Carney, that led Brookfield while its finance arms operating out of US.

But realistically, how is opening up to China more even considered as the alternative? When has any deal with China worked at a strategic advantage for the other side? Is not the whole reason the so called globalization project failed was because players like China did not play by the same rule or did not even have to play by the same rule? What gives they will when you open up the market more to them? All it takes is for them to take your product, copy it and sell it 20x cheaper and flood the market everywhere else.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-185202466

https://www.lynalden.com/fraying-petrodollar-system/

Reality is, these institutions have failed for a long time. It gave me a chuckle when I read the line "maximum unemployment and price stability". The official fed numbers for those are way off, you tell Americans spending >50% on their groceries compared to 2-3yrs ago that the inflation is 4%. Or unemployment rates for that matter. All the numbers are garbage, nothing means anything anymore.

If congress and Fed had a spine to enforce meritocracy, Jerome and all the "transitory" shenanigans would have been out long ago. And so there you have it. Officials with 10 years terms with zero accountability for their decisions with revolving doors to follow having big bucks consulting gigs for big banks awaiting moment they retire will say and do anything to preserve the self-serving institutions. Not its mandate. And cherry on top, if they are lucky to play out well, on their way out will get the glory of "serving the people and protecting the institutions".

As much as there are all the science around low carb diet and optimizing calories, macros and what not, I think there are some wisdom to it in the long game view.

Someone that had a good nutritious breakfast (you will notice every major culture has its variant of breakfast akin to "English breakfast"), would have less difficulty resisting food with empty calories and doing frequent snacking. Contrary, if you had packaged "cereal" with questionable ingredients and nutrition density, no wonder by 11 you will feel the need to snack. And then if you happen to have a lunch in one of the typical take out restaurants optimized for cost at the expense of quality, a 3pm snacking is more likely than not.

By the end of the day, you had racked up calories intake with bunch of empty calories from those snacking episodes that could be entirely prevented with a solid dense breakfast.

I am not against government spending for dominance but I am just simply asking a question when the deficit spending is high and soon the line item for interest expense is greater than the defense budget, is dominance still more of a concern than say, I don't know, Govt unable to pay its debt or inflating away the currency?

Why should my tax dollar subsidize for the dominance of US in science? How has US dominance in science helped the average American taxpayer in last decade other than funneling billions to arms or pharma industry or funding academians being out of touch with the rest of the country?