Last August, my wife and I visited the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. While the landscape is stunning, what truly drew us there—since we are both economists—was the desire to stand in the very spot where, over three weeks in July 1944, delegates from forty-four nations laid the groundwork for a new world economic order.

What emerged from Bretton Woods was a vision of international cooperation grounded in three core pillars: the integration of national economies through trade and capital flows; institutional coordination via the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral organizations; and a stable geopolitical anchor—quietly yet decisively—provided by U.S. leadership.

This architecture has endured for nearly eighty years, and its economic legacy is nothing short of extraordinary. In 1950, 61.1 percent of the global population lived on the equivalent of $7 (2024 dollars) or less per day—the threshold widely used to define extreme poverty. By 2024, that share had fallen below 13 percent, and the pace of improvement continues. Never in recorded history have so many escaped poverty so quickly.

Few nations have benefited more from this system than the United States. After living here for nearly three decades, I still find the scale of American prosperity staggering. In the last forty years, no large, advanced economy has experienced faster growth. A child born today into an upper-middle-class household in Minneapolis or Atlanta will enjoy life opportunities—educational, professional, and technological—that remain inaccessible to all but the most privileged Europeans or Asians.

This precisely explains why the current direction of U.S. policy is perplexing. At a time when the global economic order faces increasing strain, the United States—particularly under its current leadership—is actively disengaging from the very system it established, with minimal reflection on what is being lost.

The tariff announcement made by the U.S. administration on April 2, 2025, is, quite simply, incomprehensible. Under the new policy, the United States intends to impose tariffs proportional to the size of its bilateral trade deficit with each trading partner, subject to a minimum rate of 10 percent. Since no existing economic theory supports this formula (and even more shockingly, the formula was misapplied—using an incorrect figure), economists across the political spectrum have been left baffled. After several days of reflection, I can only echo the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli: “It’s not even wrong.” The policy fails to meet even the most basic threshold of conceptual coherence.

Even if one accepts that reducing the U.S. trade deficit is a legitimate goal, there is no economic justification for doing so on a country-by-country basis. Bilateral trade balances reflect comparative advantages, global supply chains, and consumption preferences—not pathologies in need of correction. Countries with overall trade surpluses routinely run bilateral deficits with some partners. That’s the expected outcome of an open, integrated global economy.

More fundamentally, the trade balance (technically, the current account) equals national investment minus national saving. This is not a theory but an accounting identity—true by definition. If the United States experiences a trade deficit, it is because it invests more than it saves. Period.

In 2023, the U.S. current account deficit was 3.3 percent of GDP. Why did the U.S. save 3.3 percent of GDP less than it invested? There were two reasons: one good, one bad.

The good reason is that the U.S. is a prosperous, innovative economy with abundant investment opportunities. Like a promising firm borrowing to expand, the U.S. borrows from abroad to finance productive ventures. A modest current account deficit is consistent with this dynamic. But 3.3 percent may be too high; 1 percent of GDP might better reflect a sustainable balance between opportunity and risk.

The underlying reason is that the U.S. saves too little. National saving consists of two components: private saving and public saving. Public saving represents the difference between tax revenues and government spending. Herein lies the problem: in 2023, the federal budget deficit was 6.3 percent of GDP—a staggering figure for a country at peace and near full employment. To put it another way: the U.S. private sector saved 3 percent more than it invested; the remaining 3.3 percent gap had to be financed by foreign capital—that is, by running a current account deficit.

If the U.S. wants to reduce its current account deficit to a more sustainable 1 percent of GDP, the only path is to reduce the federal budget deficit. This should be done anyway—not just to improve the external balance but to safeguard long-term fiscal sustainability.

A federal deficit of around 2 percent of GDP would probably be sufficient to generate a current account surplus. Achieving this requires a mix of higher taxes and lower spending. As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has shown, while there is waste in federal spending, it is not remotely large enough to close the deficit. The four biggest budget items in the federal budget are Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt, and national defense. Cutting any of these meaningfully is politically difficult and economically painful.

Moreover, tariffs will not generate the needed revenue. They would raise only a fraction of what’s required and introduce far greater distortions than more efficient, broad-based taxes. Worse, they risk triggering retaliation and undermining the very export sectors we should be promoting.

What happens when countries avoid this reality and turn to protectionism instead? Economic history has an answer. In the twentieth century, countries like India, Argentina, and Spain embraced autarky, erecting high trade barriers. Spain, for example, had the world’s highest average tariff in the first half of the century. Yet its current account deficits persisted. Tariffs didn’t solve the problem—they just hurt consumers, stifled productivity, and slowed growth. India, Argentina, and Spain fell behind their peers, often in dramatic ways.

Why did protectionism fail? Because the reduction in imports shifted demand to domestic goods, raising pressure on limited resources—without any increase in national saving. Real interest rates had to rise to suppress investment and boost saving. That, in turn, appreciated the currency, making exports less competitive. The result: a current account deficit largely unchanged, but a more distorted economy with higher prices and reduced variety.

This cannot be emphasized enough: trade barriers are economically costly and generate huge misallocation of real resources. Yes, the U.S. had high tariffs in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and still grew rapidly. But the best economic historians agree: it would have grown even faster without them. America’s potential was so great around 1870 that not even bad policy could fully suppress it—but that is no excuse for repeating past mistakes.

Economists recognize a few limited cases where tariffs might be justified: during deep recessions to support demand or as strategic tools against countries that abuse trade rules. As grounds for the latter sort of tariff, China’s record over the past two decades—industrial subsidies, forced tech transfer, and market restrictions—fits the bill.

However, the actions of countries such as Australia, Canada, Mexico, the EU, Japan, and South Korea—let alone the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands, which face a 10-percent tariff—do not. While no country has a flawless trade regime—including the U.S.—there is no evidence whatsoever that these partners systematically skew the rules against the U.S.

As for Peter Navarro’s claim that Europe’s VAT system unfairly disadvantages U.S. exports, it reflects a deep misunderstanding. VAT is a destination-based tax: it applies equally to imports and domestic goods and is rebated on exports. There is no bias. In fact, the VAT was designed precisely to avoid this bias within the EU free trade zone. The persistence of this myth says more about the administration’s lack of basic economic expertise than it does about the facts.

Finally, the trade war risks undermining the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency and the status of U.S. Treasuries as the ultimate safe asset. While a full explanation of how this might unfold is beyond the scope here, as it involves a somewhat technical discussion—and the events of the past few days are especially alarming in this regard—it is enough to say that the welfare costs for the United States would be immense and potentially irreversible.

The U.S. does face real challenges: a large structural fiscal deficit and unacceptably high poverty in rural areas and disadvantaged urban communities. But trade restrictions won’t solve these problems—they’ll make them worse. Barriers reduce efficiency and shrink the economic pie.

It is time to put the adults back in charge of economic policy—those who rely on evidence, logic, and long-term thinking. They haven’t been in charge for some time. And the costs of that neglect are becoming painfully clear.

Note: This article borrows some material from a previous article published in ABC, a Spanish daily, on April 5, 2025.

Image by Travel mania and licensed via Adobe Stock.

This Holy Week, as we join spiritually in the cross of our Redeemer, let us keep the Blessed Virgin Mary as our model. We often hear our Lord’s words repeated: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but not always in the context of Our Lord’s Passion. The fact is, our sins crucified Our Lord, and therefore afflicted Our Lady’s heart with unspeakable sorrow.

Source

“Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs. He says that Covid, and the vaccines that didn’t stop it, are likely causing a global epidemic of terrifyingly aggressive cancers.”

TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) Why Are Cancer Rates Rising in Young People? (6:16) What Is Causing This Cancer Epidemic? (14:52) Is There a Connection Between Covid and Cancer? (25:33) Why Dr. Soon-Shiong Never Got Covid (39:36) How Big Pharma Tried to Undermine Dr. Soon-Shiong (47:35) Dr. Soon-Shiong’s Analysis of RFK Jr. (1:02:47) The Healthcare Industry’s Conflict of Interest (1:05:51) How to Strengthen Your Immune System (1:10:32) What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About How to Fight Cancer (1:20:58) Why Hasn’t Anyone Faced Consequences for These Crimes? (1:33:59) Why Dr. Soon-Shiong Bought the LA Times

VIDEO: https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1904941620283253060

It is Tuesday of Holy Week. Jesus likely arises early, as did all the ancients. Days both ended and started early, at dusk and dawn, prior to the advent of electric lighting. They leave Bethany and head back to Jerusalem. Perhaps a few converts can be made before the transcendent events of the Passion begin.

It is only a couple of miles, mostly downhill, to Jerusalem. As they come down the steep hill they see the fig tree Jesus had cursed the day before.

As they were walking back in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from its roots. Peter remembered it and said, “Look, Rabbi! The fig tree You cursed has withered.” (Mk 11:20-21).

Jesus had cursed the fig tree, a metaphor for the ancient chosen people, for lack of faith, justice, and charity, the expected fruits in its branches. (This was discussed in more detail in yesterday’s post.) The fig tree reminds us of the day of judgment. “Lip service” faith is easy, but Jesus is looking for real fruit in the branches.

The apostolic band walks on further with Jesus, and they eventually arrive at the Temple, where they are immediately confronted by the Temple leaders:

At their return to Jerusalem, Jesus was walking in the temple courts, and the chief priests, scribes, and elders came up to Him. “By what authority are You doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave You the authority to do them?” “I will ask you one question,” Jesus replied, “and if you answer Me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men? Answer Me!” They deliberated among themselves what they should answer: “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will ask, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men’…” they were afraid of the people, for they all held that John truly was a prophet. So they answered Him, “We do not know. And Jesus replied, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things” (Mk 11:27-33).

Jesus questions their question with a question. He seems to engage in the Socratic method, making them examine their premises. In this dialogue the leaders are confronted with their own insincerity. They are asked to consider that their own “authority” is based not on truth, but on power and its trappings. They are asked to consider that they have “too much to lose” because they root their authority in the power and accolades of the people. They are not true leaders, for they do not seek the truth but rather only what confirms their power.

Do not scorn or laugh at them—many of us are in the same condition.

Jesus turns to them and others in the Temple area, teaching them in numerous parables (Mk 12:1). In these parables He lays bare their hearts and reminds them that although they are leaders they are refusing God’s offer of salvation and His invitation to the true feast to which their rituals point.

Jesus begins,

But what do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he replied. But later he changed his mind and went. Then the man went to the second son and told him the same thing. ‘I will, sir,’ he said. But he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father? “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in a righteous way and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him (Mat 21:28-32).

Lip service is not obedience. Their refusal to come to faith is disobedience to God. He desires obedience more than ritual observances and sacrifices (see Psalm 40:6).

Jesus warns them that their plots to kill Him will end badly:

A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a wine vat, and built a watchtower. Then he rented it out to some tenants and went away on a journey. At harvest time, he sent a servant to the tenants to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized the servant, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent them another servant, and they struck him over the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and this one they killed. He sent many others; some they beat and others they killed. Finally, having one beloved son, he sent him to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized the son, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. Have you never read this Scripture: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (Mark 12:1-11)

At this, the leaders sought to arrest Jesus, for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them. Fearing the crowd, though, they left Him and went away (Mk 12:1-12). They will return shortly with other interrogators.

Matthew records that Jesus then told the following parable, likely to others in the Temple area. In it, He warns them of the urgency of the dramatic decision that is upon them. Do they want salvation in the way God offers? Do they desire the Kingdom of God and its values or do they prefer the present but passing desires of the world? Are they willing to be clothed in the garments of righteousness that God himself provides or do they prefer to wear the fashions of the world?

Once again, Jesus spoke to them in parables: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to call those he had invited to the banquet, but they refused to come. Again, he sent other servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner. My oxen and fatlings have been killed, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ But they paid no attention and went away, one to his field, and another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the crossroads and invite to the banquet as many as you can find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered everyone they could find, both evil and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he spotted a man who was not dressed in wedding clothes. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But the man was speechless. Then the king told the servants, ‘Tie him hand and foot and throw him outside into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:1-14).

Now come various interlocutors. Note that the Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees agreed on nothing but that Jesus had to go. They “teamed up” against the Lord! This indicates the depth of their fear: even enemies will be embraced to rid the city of this upstart preacher who so threatens their shared power.

Later, they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch Jesus in His words. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that You are honest and are swayed by no one. Indeed, You are impartial and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Now then, is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not?” But Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and said, “Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to inspect.” So, they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose likeness is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they answered. Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they marveled at Him (Mk 12:13-17).

This is an attempt to draw Jesus into a cheap political debate and thereby cause division among His admiring crowd. Their concern about taxes is insincere because even those who dispute paying taxes to Caesar walk about with Caesar’s money. Jesus will not be called off message; He says to them, “[Give] to God what is God’s.” In this case what they are to give to God is faith in the one whom He has sent, Jesus.

The next opponents of Jesus are the Sadducees, who deny that there is a resurrection of the dead and seek to ridicule belief in Heaven through a complex and unlikely scenario:

Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came and questioned Him: “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man should marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died, leaving no children. Then the second one married the widow, but he also died and left no children. And the third did likewise. In this way, none of the seven left any children. And last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For all seven were married to her.” Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven. And regarding the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken (Mk 12:18-27).

Yes, they are badly mistaken; they seek to understand heavenly realities using earthly notions. Because the Sadducees only accepted the first five books of the Old Testament, Jesus uses a passage from Exodus as well as their own logic against them. The Sadducees denied the resurrection by saying that God is a God of the living, not the dead. If that be so, though, why does the Lord call himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom have been dead for over four centuries? They must be alive to God! In this way, the Sadducees are set aside.

Finally, a scribe steps forth. Although he is likely seeking to refute Jesus, the conversation ends up being promising:

Now one of the scribes had come up and heard their debate. Noticing how well Jesus had answered them, he asked Him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your and and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.” “Right, Teacher,” the scribe replied. “You have stated correctly that God is One and there is no other but Him, and to love Him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that the man had answered wisely, He said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk 12:28-34).

Speaking to His claim to be Messiah and Lord, Jesus invokes the authority of Scripture, reminding them that in Psalm 110 (a messianic psalm) the Messiah is called “Lord,” not merely the Son of David.

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, He asked, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? Speaking by the Holy Spirit, David himself declared: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet.”’ David himself calls Him Lord. So how can He be David’s son?” And the large crowd listened to Him with delight (Mk 12:35-37).

Matthew records Jesus delivering a series of woes directed against the leaders and teachers of that time. These are delivered in a lengthy passage, which is available here: Seven woes. It is quite severe and shows a strong indictment of those who “major in the minors,” who maximize the minimum and minimize the maximum. Jesus concludes by saying,

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore, I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ (Matthew 23:33-39).

To emphasize the contrast, Jesus notes a poor widow who gives a small amount but in reality far more generously than do those “leaders” with hardened hearts. Matthew then observes,

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Matthew 24:1-2).

They crossed the Kidron Valley and went up on to the Mount of Olives. Matthew records,

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24: 3-4)

Sitting atop the Mount of Olives, with Jerusalem displayed before Him, Jesus gives the terrifying and yet exhilarating “Mount Olivet Discourse.” It is quite lengthy and is available here: Mt. Olivet Discourse. In it, Jesus describes the coming destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 A.D., forty biblical years after His Ascension. The destruction was the result of a foolish war with the Romans. Had the Jewish zealots accepted Jesus’ call to preach the gospel to the nations, the Romans would have been seen as brothers to convert rather than as enemies to kill. Over a million Jewish people died in that terrible war.

According to Matthew, Jesus also tells the “Parable of the Sheep and Goats” and the “Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins.” Mark concludes with this: And no one dared to question Him any further (Mk 18:34).

It seems it was back to Bethany that Tuesday night, likely to stay at the house of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, but perhaps with Simon the Leper. It has been a long day of parables and teaching and of engaging with hostile opponents.

Tune in tomorrow, when it is “Spy Wednesday.”

The post What Was the Lord Doing on Tuesday of Holy Week? appeared first on Community in Mission.

PCR in a Wide Ranging Discussion with Nima on Dialogue Works

https://www.youtube.com/live/-pTo4lSicsA

Federal Government Freezes $2.26 Billion Funding to Harvard After It Refuses to Comply

Why Have American Taxpayers Been Giving Harvard, the richest private university in the world, equivalent to a hedge fund some say, $2.26 billion?

Clearly, the federal budget has been used as a money-laundering operation:  Take from the poor and give to the rich liberals.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/harvard-rejects-trump-administrations-demands-tied-to-9-billion-funding-5841811?utm_source=RTNews&src_src=RTNews&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2025-04-14-5&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2025-04-14-5&utm_medium=email&est=mKv2rww7ja6561hmft6PchyL5uy6If1tM6qDRPUWExAhLwMe2cz8AQ== 

Market volatility is an inevitable part of investing. While short-term fluctuations can create uncertainty, a well-structured portfolio can help protect investments from volatility and ensure long-term financial stability. Managing market fluctuations requires a disciplined approach that includes diversification, asset allocation, and risk management techniques.

In this guide, we’ll explore why markets fluctuate, how investors can create a resilient investment strategy, and practical steps to navigate market turbulence with confidence.

Understanding Market Volatility

Market volatility refers to the degree of variation in asset prices over time. While some level of movement is normal, extreme fluctuations can create significant risk for investors. Some common causes of market volatility include:

• Economic Conditions: Inflation, interest rates, and employment data can influence investor sentiment.
• Geopolitical Events: Wars, trade tensions, and global crises often trigger sudden market shifts.
• Corporate Earnings Reports: Positive or negative earnings results can impact stock prices.
• Market Speculation: Rapid buying or selling can create excessive price swings.

While volatility can be unsettling, long-term investors can implement strategies to manage risk and stay on course toward their financial goals.

Diversification: The Key to Stability

One of the most effective ways to protect investments from volatility is through diversification. By spreading investments across various asset classes, industries, and geographies, investors reduce the impact of a single event on their portfolio.

A diversified portfolio may include:

• Stocks: Growth-oriented assets with long-term appreciation potential.
• Bonds: Fixed-income investments that provide stability and regular income.
• Alternative Investments: Assets such as real estate, commodities, and REITs that help hedge against inflation.

By maintaining a mix of high-growth and stable investments, investors can create a portfolio that withstands market downturns while still capturing long-term gains.

Asset Allocation: Finding the Right Balance

Asset allocation is the process of dividing investments among different asset classes based on financial goals, risk tolerance, and market conditions.

A well-balanced portfolio may include:

• Equities (Stocks): Typically offer higher returns but come with greater volatility.
• Fixed-Income (Bonds): Provide income and reduce risk during economic downturns.
• Cash Equivalents: Money market funds and Treasury bills provide liquidity.

How to Adjust Asset Allocation Based on Market Conditions

• In bull markets: Increase exposure to equities for growth opportunities.
• In bear markets: Shift towards bonds and defensive sectors to preserve capital.
• During economic uncertainty: Consider alternative assets like gold or real estate.

Rebalancing your portfolio periodically ensures that your asset allocation remains aligned with your long-term strategy.

Defensive Investments for Market Stability

During periods of high volatility, certain investments can help stabilize returns and mitigate losses. Some defensive strategies include:

1. Investing in Defensive Stocks

Defensive stocks belong to industries that remain stable during economic downturns, such as:

• Healthcare (pharmaceuticals, hospitals)
• Consumer Staples (food, beverages, household products)
• Utilities (electricity, water, gas)

These companies provide essential goods and services, making them less susceptible to market downturns.

2. Adding Bonds to Your Portfolio

Bonds provide predictable returns and act as a buffer against stock market volatility. Some popular bond options include:

• Government Bonds (Treasuries): Low-risk investments backed by the U.S. government.
• Municipal Bonds: Tax-free income options for high-net-worth investors.
• Corporate Bonds: Higher yield bonds from stable companies.

3. Exploring Alternative Investments

Alternative assets can add diversification and protection during volatile markets. Some options include:

• Real Estate (REITs): Provides steady income and hedges against inflation.
• Commodities (Gold, Silver): Safe-haven assets during economic downturns.
• Hedge Funds: Actively managed strategies designed to reduce downside risk.

Including defensive investments in a portfolio can help reduce risk exposure while ensuring steady long-term growth.

Practical Strategies for Managing Market Fluctuations

Beyond asset allocation, investors can use strategic approaches to maintain discipline and avoid panic-driven decisions.

1. Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA)

Dollar-cost averaging is a strategy where investors invest a fixed amount of money at regular intervals regardless of market conditions. This reduces the impact of short-term volatility and prevents emotional decision-making.

2. Portfolio Rebalancing

Over time, market fluctuations can shift the weight of asset allocations. Rebalancing restores your portfolio to its intended investment mix, ensuring that risk remains manageable.

3. Avoiding Emotional Investing

Investors often react emotionally during market downturns, leading to panic selling and locking in losses. Staying focused on long-term goals and maintaining a disciplined approach is key to investment success.

Staying on Course During Volatility

Market volatility is unavoidable, but with the right investment strategies, you can protect your wealth and capitalize on long-term opportunities. By focusing on diversification, asset allocation, and defensive investments, you can reduce risk and navigate market fluctuations with confidence.

At RIA Advisors, we help investors develop customized financial plans that balance risk and reward for long-term stability. Contact us today to create a portfolio that weathers market volatility and secures your financial future.

FAQs

How can diversification help protect my investments from volatility?

Diversification spreads risk across multiple asset classes, reducing the impact of a single market downturn on your portfolio.

What’s the best asset allocation for managing market fluctuations?

The ideal asset allocation depends on your risk tolerance, investment horizon, and financial goals. A mix of stocks, bonds, and alternative assets can provide stability.

Should I sell my investments during market downturns?

Reacting emotionally to volatility often leads to poor decisions. Long-term investors should focus on strategy and avoid panic selling.

How often should I rebalance my investment portfolio?

It’s recommended to rebalance your portfolio at least once a year or when asset allocations shift significantly due to market changes.

What is dollar-cost averaging, and how does it help during market volatility?

Dollar-cost averaging involves investing a fixed amount at regular intervals, reducing the impact of short-term price swings and minimizing emotional decision-making.

The post How to Protect Your Investment Portfolio from Market Volatility appeared first on RIA.

Never mind that “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6)…

Catholic Answers: God Can Choose to Save Atheists!

The California-based non-profit organization Catholic Answers, which aims to explain and defend the Vatican II religion in full communion with ‘Pope’ Francis, is becoming a parody of itself.

One of the many things published on the Catholic Answers web site is a brief post with the intriguing title, “Can atheists be saved just by acting charitably?” The truly Catholic answer would have been fairly simple — something along the lines of, “Of course not; for ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Heb 11:6).” … READ MORE

After 38 days in the Gemelli hospital and two weeks in the seclusion of Santa Marta, Pope Francis has been shown in public again since last Sunday. Following his surprising appearance at the Angelus on Sunday and the associated passing through the Holy Door, Francis was pushed through St. Peter's Basilica yesterday. 

Surprisingly, the head of the Church appeared for the first time without the white robes of the Pope. Had the Pope of gestures already put them aside? But the gestures didn't stop there.

Yesterday at 1 p.m., Francis was surprisingly pushed through St. Peter's Basilica. He greeted some people who happened to be there. During this appearance, he was not wearing the white robes of the Pope. He or any other Pope before him had never been seen like this. Had he become the Jesuit he was before again? He had never given up the black trousers; they were always visible under the white robes, as were the black shoes he had also worn as a Jesuit. The papal robes were placed over them, an always somewhat strange-looking combination that gave the impression of being put on top, as one sometimes perceives with mixed feelings with some religious.

Why such an appearance yesterday? Was there no time to put on the white robes? Why not?

Let's ask the question the other way around. What did Francis have so urgent or pressing to do? Francis was taken to the so-called Altar of Pius X (1904–1914), which means nothing other than the tomb of this holy Pope, with whom Francis actually has very little connection. Pius X is the terror of all progressives, as one tends to call the modernists of that time today. The holy Pope from Veneto actively fought against this intellectual current in the Church. At the same time, Francis also visited the recently restored tombs of Paul III (1534–1549) and Urban VIII (1623–1644).

So what was Francis doing in St. Peter's Basilica? Such visits have not been previously reported of him. We can note, if one wants to find a common denominator, that he visited three tombs. A signal? The three tombs are located in very different parts of St. Peter's Basilica. However, the Popes buried there do not seem to have been a substantive goal, as no common thread can be discerned, certainly not really related to Francis:

Paul III was a Pope of the Catholic renewal after the Protestant schisms. He convened the Council of Trent in 1545 and recognized the newly founded Jesuit order in 1540. Which would be a connection.

Urban VIII was a Pope of Baroque splendor, to whom significant nepotism is attributed and who mainly acted as a patron. Under him, the trial against Galileo Galilei took place, about which Black Legends, spread by enemies of the Church, persist in the collective consciousness to this day.

Pius X, the saint among those mentioned, was distinguished by deep piety and popular spirituality. His main area, for which he is noted in church history, was above all the aforementioned fight against modernism.

Francis asked the security personnel accompanying him to call the two restorers who were finishing work on the restored tombs to him, in order to shake their hands and thank them for their work.

Does the Jesuit order represent a connecting link between the three Popes? This cannot be confirmed either. While Paul III promoted and recognized this then very young order, Urban VIII had a rather ambivalent relationship with it, as he was confronted with conflicts between the Jesuits and other orders and European monarchies. Pius X, on the other hand, had a positive attitude towards the order, which was restored in 1814, which he supported as a defender of tradition as well as in education and mission. That was a long time ago.

It is still unknown whether Francis has meanwhile taken down the Rupnik picture in his study in Santa Marta. Yesterday, the Superior General of the Jesuit order, Father Arturo Sosa, commented on the work of the former Jesuit and artist priest Marko Ivan Rupnik, who is accused of multiple serious abuses, at the seat of the foreign press in Rome. General Sosa said that there is "no uniform rule" for dealing with Rupnik's works. The Jesuit from Venezuela literally said:

Arturo Sosa, Superior General of the Jesuit order, gave a press conference in Rome yesterday.

"I don't think there is a uniform rule for everything, but it depends on how much it really hurts someone."

The question of how to deal with Rupnik's oeuvre is therefore a question of whether someone demands its removal or not, with Sosa adding restrictively that "not a single person should make such a decision [of covering or removing]". Rather, it is the "community" that must "enter into a collective decision-making process."

The former Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had already established Rupnik's excommunication in the past, but it was miraculously not executed due to higher intervention. Under public pressure, Francis finally ordered a renewed investigation into the case, which has been dragging on without result for almost two years.

The reaction of General Sosa to possible further charges was somewhat strange, as he said: "We are not afraid. If there are complaints, they are welcome." So far, around 30 complaints in the Rupnik case have been received by the order.

However, Rupnik is no longer a member of the Jesuit order, as Sosa emphasized. He was excluded in June 2023 precisely because he did not cooperate with the "healing process." The Society of Jesus, in agreement with the victims, is trying to find "ways of healing," which requires an individual response, because every wound is different.

How Francis deals with Rupnik's legacy could soon become apparent as soon as new pictures from his study are published. What is to be said about yesterday's and the previous appearance, including the brief reception for King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and his wife Camilla? Apparently, these are first attempts, in the course of recovery, to sound out a public action by the Pope. Above all, however, the impression is that Francis is to be shown to the public in order to prove his ability to act, which has recently been strongly doubted. Whether this is actually the case remains to be seen. Francis also showed great difficulty speaking yesterday.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: Video/Facebook/X (Screenshots)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

You can only support the current manifestation of late-stage capitalism, if you believe that massive inequality of wealth is necessary to wealth creation, or if you believe that the total amount of wealth is unimportant so long as a very small minority are extremely wealthy.

“Trickledown economics” is at heart simply a statement of the idea that massive inequality of wealth is necessary to wealth creation. There is no evidence for it.

The truth is, of course, that the poor ultimately benefit only from the economic activity of the poor. But not nearly as much as the rich benefit from the economic activity of the poor.

Taking money off the poor does not lead to an increase in wealth creation. If you look at the billions the Labour government is seeking to remove from the disabled, that is not only money taken away from them, it is money taken out of the wider economy.

It seems astonishing that the Labour Party has forgotten the entire message of Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake. But then, the Labour Party expelled Ken Loach for opposing the genocide of Palestinians.

Those on benefits have a much higher propensity to spend than the more wealthy elements of society as they have no choice; they need to spend all their income to survive and enjoy a minimal acceptable standard of living. This income is spent on the local goods and services they need, again to a much higher degree than that of wealthier people.

Much of this spend benefits the landlord class, but it is almost all within the UK economy and it has a multiplier effect on economic activity. All of this is pretty obvious. By simply taking this money out of the economy (and it has no real relationship to taxes and revenue) the government is reducing the overall size of the economy.

This austerity is the opposite of pro-growth. It is absolutely anti-growth. It achieves the precise opposite of the alleged goal of Labour’s economic policy.

All this is designed to reduce the fiscal deficit, allegedly. But reducing economic activity will reduce revenue. It is a death spiral. If the aim were actually to reduce the fiscal deficit, taxing those who have money would be far more sensible than taking money from those who do not.

But actually that is not the object at all. The object is to convince the neoliberal finance system that this is a safely neoliberal government, willing to hurt the poor and leave the wealthy untouched.

That system brought down Liz Truss for failing to acknowledge orthodoxy on the fiscal deficit. The strange thing is that Truss was actually right on the non-importance of this shibboleth. Where she was wrong was in a desire to decrease still further taxation on the wealthy, rather than increase spending on the poor; but her attitude to deficit was not wrong.

A higher deficit only leads to an increase in interest rates if you wish to seek to maintain the value of your currency in international markets. But like so many of these economic targets, the justification of this is a matter of convention more than reason. I have seen massive swings in the value of sterling over my lifetime, which have had little impact on the UK’s steady economic decline, although a habitual tendency to over-valuation has contributed to the wipeout of British manufacturing industry.

We now have Rachel Reeves wedded to Gordon Brown’s doctrine on fiscal spend, that led to the horrors of PFI and paved the way for austerity. Yet when the Establishment want to bail out the bankers, unlimited money can simply be created, and when they want to boost the military, unlimited public spending is immediately possible.

New Labour’s economic policy is Thatcherism, pure and simple.

The truth is we do not really need economic growth. The UK economy produces enough wealth for everybody to live free of poverty and in real comfort. The problem is the distribution of that wealth. We live in a society where, astonishingly, 1% of the population own 54% of the wealth.

You can argue about the precise statistic but the massive inequality is clear. The cause of poverty is inequality. The answer is to reduce inequality in a variety of ways – not only by progressive taxation but also by changing the ownership structures of enterprises.

The purpose of reducing poverty and increasing comfort for the majority is to spread happiness. Eternal economic growth is not a necessity for this. Happiness is not merely derived from possession of stuff, and owning more stuff is not the panacea.

Happiness arises from comfort, good relationships, active and engaged minds and a balanced society. A society which prioritises the libertine wealthy over caring for its disabled can never be balanced and can never be happy.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: craigmurray1710@btinternet.com

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The post Starmer’s Thatcherite Economics appeared first on Craig Murray.