This is a frustrating aspect of studies. You have to contact the authors for full datasets. I can see why it would not be possible to publish them in the past due to limited space in printed publications. In today's world though every paper should be required to have their full datasets published to a website for others to have access to in order to verify and replicate.

I live in the US and don't support the tariffs but I'll give my best shot at answering.

The US is fairly poorly educated on the whole. In order for people to survive, there need to be an abundance of low skilled jobs. AI and automation is threatening to remove these jobs. What are the poorly educated going to do? Decades ago, someone could work in a factory for their whole life. Yes it was monotonous work but it would provide a living and allow someone to buy a house and life their life. I know because my grandparents came over from Europe after WWII and did this. They spoke poor English but could work in a factory and have a house and a car and live a good life. That's not the case anymore. With further automation and the pace of change increasing, it worries a lot of these types of people. If you have no education and your factory closes, there are not many other options for you.

The idea isn't to bring just one manufacturing plant for snapping phones together. It's to bring many, many plants back to provide these jobs for the poorly educated. So instead of just having one plant in your town, you have several. That means there will be competition for workers and wages will rise.

That's the idea anyway. Do I think it's possible to rollback to that time? No, I don't. But this is what people, mainly in rural areas, want to hear.

Part of the problem is that the US doesn't want to invest in education as a whole. Education would be a better long-term solution. Instead, this leads to the visa situation where the US needs to import a lot of technically skilled workers rather than developing them locally.

It's strange how much reverence Americans place in the presidential role as if it were actually a king.

Over time the symbolism has evolved - the American people tend to want more pomp and ceremony than the presidents themselves.

We are looking for something like the Venetian Doge - a very showy anti-monarch.

The blurring of the executive and the military, the adoration of troops and war, etc. All very strange(?) for a country whose military has only ever been really involved in outside interference and war and not defense of homeland.

"Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? The US is at no risk of invasion.

Hegseth is a low-IQ fascist fool, but renaming to Department of War is at least acknowledging reality.

The Trump government just mostly says the formerly quiet part out loud.

Well they are serving the US military, which is generally used for the benefit of the US people. Does not mean it's defending their territory.

Now to be fair, when the US people thanks their soldiers for their service, I don't think they are necessarily thankful for the US threatening to invade what used to be considered as allies (like Canada or Europe).

But I do agree that it is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans.

So usually it’s said even if the nation isn’t at war because it’s not an easy job. You’ll hear Americans say it to first responders, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, &c.

Idk why it’s being characterized as weird though instead of what it is which is just an aspect of our culture to say thanks to others who are doing jobs you perceive to be dangerous or difficult.

As a veteran of the US armed forces I hate it because I never know what to say…”thanks for your service’ …uh you’re welcome? But it comes from a good place. Though I try to remind folks that saying thanks isn’t enough, spend time and money helping others, vote, keep your community clean, have high standards for yourself and others, because otherwise your fellow citizens are doing all this for nothing.

But the "service" is more likely to be "invading another country" than "defending the US territory from an invasion", so when you are not a US citizen, it may feel odd.

Again, the US have threatened to invade quite a few democracies in the last year. Not sure how happy the people living there are about that "service"...

I'd go further: I am not convinced the actions of the US military -- which are primarily abroad -- are always advancing the interests for all Americans. In fact they sometimes are directly undermining the interests of some of the poorest members of society. The US's imperial interests abroad can suppress global labour prices, it can contribute to climate change (by advancing and encouraging more fossil fuel exploration), among other things. It can indirectly or even directly harm the interests of some working people in the United States. While at the same time recruiting directly from those people.

So while I feel for armed forces members individually as people, the product of their service in their forces I don't think is some universal good. In fact, for much of the 20th century outside of WWII it's been mostly malevolent and imperial. And I'd argue not just to the world outside the US, but to many of its own broader population.

You're right that US military action sometimes cause harm even for people that are supposedly represented, but the military is just another tool leveraged by governments which do good or bad things all the time. It's really as simple as the US spending taxpayer dollars on initiative X with spending taxpayer dollars on initiative Y just with a bomb. You could argue that bombs kill people so the military is different, but so do rising interest rates and civil wars and famines. Even saying that some actions taken by the US might not be good for non-Americans it's kind of a weird criticism. It's true, but that applies to all countries and all peoples, and the United States has no moral obligation to take actions that are specifically good for other people while advancing American interests. Hopefully we do, and I think we should, but it's unfair to characterize the US as having a moral failure for not doing so unless you're going to apply those standards to everyone else. For example, if you are going to criticize the United States in this way, I'll criticize China for taking actions that harmed Americans by manufacturing products so cheaply and efficiently that it put American workers out of jobs. Many people died because of that over the years. Maybe China should do better and not undermine the interests of poor Americans for whom a manufacturing job is the gateway to as good of a life as they can expect?

I was one of those folks "recruited". The 4 years I put in including a tour taught me a lot not just about myself but about the countries I was stationed in, and eventually paid for me to college through a semester or two of grad school and allowed me to take college courses while I was in. I learned how to work out, learned about nutrition, and learned a lot about working with other people from different backgrounds, handling conflict, teamwork, all of those things. Many people make the military a career, too, or they're able to land jobs after their time in working as contractors helping to fix or maintain equipment. It's not all bad, and I think your characterization which is effectively: "the US takes actions that harm poor people and then recruits them to further harm those same people" is, well, to put it politely rather uncharitable.

I also don't think we should over-index on actions taken by a country undermining the interests of some of the poorest members of society. I think we should do what we can to help those who are the least well off at least here in the US. Healthcare, education, you name it. But we should not have a dogmatic approach toward helping one group at the expense of everyone else. If the US took an action that didn't benefit the poorest members of society but benefited everyone else at their expense, maybe it's still a good action and maybe we should continue to do it. It depends on the action and the effects. Was bombing Iraq good? Idk, maybe over the long term, but Americans including the poorest sure do like cheap gas prices.

Who says we aren't? There is always criticism against countries that invade other countries. Be it the US, Russia, China, you name it.

But it's not as if Greenland (or the EU, or Canada) was threatening to invade the US, is it?

> Was bombing Iraq good? Idk, maybe over the long term, but Americans including the poorest sure do like cheap gas prices.

I think this is an interesting point: people in many countries would not be grateful if their military invaded other countries. So they wouldn't "thank the military for their service". That the Americans do it may sound weird to non-Americans, given that the US are generally more invading than defending their own territory. "Thanks for destroying an entire country and disrupting millions of life, because I like cheap gas".

Because while I recognize the OP being about the US, the vast majority of the criticism and discussion takes place regarding the United States. But even in criticizing the US here one could in good faith argue a caveat is required saying "but this is done by all countries" or something along those lines.

> But it's not as if Greenland (or the EU, or Canada) was threatening to invade the US, is it?

No, but I don't think that's particularly relevant in this context? You're just venting.

> I think this is an interesting point: people in many countries would not be grateful if their military invaded other countries. So they wouldn't "thank the military for their service". That the Americans do it may sound weird to non-Americans, given that the US are generally more invading than defending their own territory. "Thanks for destroying an entire country and disrupting millions of life, because I like cheap gas".

Well my point here was just that the Iraq war is widely criticized, and in this context I think it's safe to assume that it would also have been criticized as not being good for the poorer folks in the United States, and I just wanted to point out that they want their cheap gas prices too, and they're also thanking the US military for bombing Iraq. Some want to try and say America is bad but not the poor people because of an internal juxtaposition they hold in their mind. The poor Americans are just as complicit and benefit too. In fact, they're typically more supportive of these endeavors than the wealthy elites regardless of who benefits.

> people in many countries would not be grateful if their military invaded other countries

Well most countries lack a military that is capable of doing much of anything so they don't really experience this happening, and if their country does try to invade another one it is usually facing repercussions from the United States, so your sample size is small.

But I also don't think this is quite true and you can broaden it to general military activity.

Iranians for example were celebrating in the streets over bombings of Israel. Israelis were celebrating the bombing of Iran's military and leadership. Do I need to even get in to Russia and Z? Nevermind Pakistan and India, even internally in countries like India you have religious or ethnic minorities murdered and it is celebrated. Do you think there is a lack of patriotic Chinese who are eagerly awaiting the bombing and invasion of Taiwan? You're thinking about this in an American-centric way. Americans aren't special, all countries like and do these things and have done so historically and will continue to do so in the future provided they have the means and internal justification.

Okay let me take a step back. The discussion starts with:

> The blurring of the executive and the military, the adoration of troops and war, etc. All very strange(?) for a country whose military has only ever been really involved in outside interference and war and not defense of homeland. "Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? The US is at no risk of invasion.

And you say that it's unfair because all countries who have a powerful enough military also invade other countries, and their people also thank them for doing it". Sounds like I am not the only one venting, to be honest.

Unless your company is a baseball team

The lesser title attracted candidates who were happy to take direction from founders, and the founder still stays in the “head of sales” seat.

Once the sales manager is ramped up, grow as much as possible then bring a VP to oversee it all, but with a larger team already in place it will be harder for them to mess up what’s working.

  1. Your career provides your wealth
  2. Don't assume you can replace your wealth
  3. Recognize the difference between investing and speculating
  4. No one can predict the future
  5. No one can move you in and out of investments consistently with precise and profitable timing
  6. No trading system will work as well in the future as it did in the past
  7. Don't use leverage
  8. Don't let anyone make your decisions
  9. Don't ever do anything you don't understand
  10. Don’t depend on any one investment, institution, or person for your safety
  11. Create a bulletproof portfolio for protection
  12. Speculate only with money you can afford to lose
  13. Keep some assets outside the country in which you live
  14. Beware of tax-avoidance schemes
  15. Ask the right questions
  16. Enjoy yourself with a budget for pleasure
  17. Whenever you’re in doubt about a course of action, it is always better to err on the side of safety