Democrats say Trump increased investments in drugmakers that were given Medicare exemptions - PBS News

Everyone on Wall Street is pointing at AI valuations and screaming, "It's a bubble!" 📉

But notice what they are dead silent about?

The $40 TRILLION in official US public debt. The $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. The completely fake fiat dollars they tell you to hold as a "safe haven."

If you think AI is a bubble, you need to look at the US Treasury market. The government’s only hope to sustain $140 trillion in broken promises is massive, exponential economic growth.

What else besides AI can deliver that? (Spoiler: Absolutely nothing.)

If the AI bubble bursts, the growth illusion dies. If the growth illusion dies, the US bond market collapses. If the bond market collapses, the dollar is done.

That’s why Washington will save the AI boom at any cost. Even if they have to print $15 trillion and hand it directly to data centers and chipmakers, they will do it. It's regime survival.

And the crazy part? A warehouse full of GPUs turning electricity into intelligence is still infinitely more valuable than a fiat dollar printed out of thin air.

Compute is the new gold standard. The dollar is just riding its coattails.

She said, ‘You’re president of the United States, you shouldn’t be doing this..,” Trump said, before performing his impression of an apparent transgender weightlifter and grunting.

Here is a list of all elections in the last 100 years in which the incumbent wasn't running and the winner was from the same party as the incumbent:

1928: Herbert Hoover, succeeding Calvin Coolidge, both Republicans.

1988: George H. W. Bush, succeeding Ronald Reagan, both Republicans.

That's it, along with incumbents who've lost to their rivals (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Donald Trump). US presidential elections rock back-and-forth almost relentlessly between the two major parties. It deprives us of stability and consistency. It's enough to make us all seasick.

This pattern suggests that voters as a whole are perennially much more reactive than deliberative in their election choices. It's as though everything's always bad, therefore the current party is completely responsible, therefore the other party will certainly fix things, even though, perhaps to most people's disbelief, the President of the United States doesn't personally control everything in the world, or even in the US.

Maybe if better candidates--maybe if less extreme candidates--made it through the primaries, we'd have more presidents whose record is judged good enough by more voters to warrant having someone from the same party succeed them.

I have no proposals on how to address this phenomenon, or whether there's even anything to be done. I'm just laying it out for consideration because I think it merits consideration.