There is a village where the village chief is highly esteemed, and villagers are willing to lend money to him to earn some interest for household expenses. The village chief frivolously spends the borrowed money, and at first, everyone lives happily, fulfilling their own needs.
For a long time, the village chief's game of borrowing new to pay old debts has encountered difficulties; paying interest on borrowed money has become problematic. The village chief tells the villagers that if they do not lend him more money, he will use the new borrowed funds to repay their previous principal; otherwise, the money might go to waste. To ensure the village chief can continue to repay, the villagers lend him their household money again, allowing the chief to repay part of the previous loans while continuing to squander the rest.
Now, the villagers worry that one day the village chief might go bankrupt, and all their loans would be lost. They start secretly selling their IOUs at a discount and are unwilling to buy the village chief's new debts, meaning they do not want to lend him money anymore. Now the village chief has to extend the interest payments, and it seems that bad debts are imminent.
This is the current situation in the U.S. Last Friday, the latest data from the U.S. Treasury showed that as of September this year, U.S. debt has reached 8.82 trillion dollars, averaging 2.4 billion dollars a day, which is 3% of U.S. GDP and the highest since 1996.
Moreover, current interest payments account for 18% of federal tax revenue, meaning nearly 1/5 of the government's annual income goes to pay interest, not to mention repaying the principal. This is more than double the proportion from the previous two years.
Regarding the U.S. presidential election, neither of the candidates made reducing the fiscal deficit a core campaign issue. The focus was mainly on taxing the wealthy, trade deficits, and healthcare, with no opinions expressed on the high debt and deficit situation.
Why is there a 'selective blindness' to fiscal issues during the presidential campaign process, avoiding discussions on the global trust crisis towards the U.S. while repeatedly emphasizing the supremacy of America?
1: The difference in voter attention; ordinary voters only care about their own direct interests. When the government is in debt, they care more about who can bring them benefits, such as: medical security, education conditions, and increasing employment. These issues resonate with them. If a candidate says they will reduce social welfare to cut fiscal spending, voters will demand that they leave the White House.
2: For the wealthy, tax cuts and tax increases are the topics of concern. Advocating for tax increases can appeal to voters who believe the wealth gap is excessive, while advocating for tax cuts can attract those looking to alleviate economic burdens and promote business growth to create more jobs.
3: Reducing the fiscal deficit is a long-term policy implementation process. The causes of fiscal deficits are multifaceted, such as military aid to the Middle East, reducing social welfare, and taxing the wealthy, all of which encounter significant resistance, as vested interests will try to prevent policy implementation.
Thus, presidential campaign topics rarely choose to focus on reducing the fiscal deficit. The 42nd president, George H.W. Bush, in 1992, and the 39th president, Jimmy Carter, in 1980, both left the White House due to the implementation of fiscal policies that lost them the voters' support.
The reality is that regardless of how the president avoids fiscal issues, the fact is that U.S. debt has reached a historic high and is on the verge of collapse. Whether Harris or Trump is elected, fiscal issues cannot be avoided. According to data, Bitcoin has increased by more than 60% since the beginning of the year, and the trend of global capital allocation has arrived. The dollar is facing unprecedented skepticism, and non-American countries are beginning to form a consensus, no longer believing in America's ability to repay debts or resolve the debt situation.
This is the fundamental reason for Bitcoin's rise; geopolitical risks only play a catalytic role. Historically, the Middle East has never been stable, yet Bitcoin did not experience such significant increases. The backdrop of the times is different; past thinking struggles to explain the current surge of Bitcoin. With the decline of the dollar, its era has just begun.
From the current standpoint, looking back, the rise is indeed very high. If viewed from the future, the current price is merely a starting point. Earlier this year, a price of 50,000 seemed too high and 60,000 was unimaginable. Now at 70,000, when looking back at the end of the year, it will not seem like a high point at all. Bitcoin will continue to set new highs this year, whether you believe it or not!#BTC要挑战7W大关了吗？ #币安累计交易量突破100万亿美元 #特朗普家族加密项目 #BTC 
