本文来自微信公众号：局外人的视界，作者：卡夫卡不忙了，原文标题：《聊聊全面社保》，题图来 自：AI生成 不知道为什么有那么多人有那么大意见，这难道不是好事吗？ 最近这几天我看到网上很多文案，什么父母一个月一百多块养老金，自己要交一千多社保，还不如不要 中间商，自己拿钱给父母。 这背后到底是什么24K纯傻叉在有心人的忽悠下转发？ 无论是社保还是医疗保险，都是国家财政在背后提供补贴支持的。 自己去看看，什么叫国有企业股份划转社保。 再看看大A里绝对主力国家队社保基金，人家每年咔咔赚钱，这些钱进了社保的大池子，最后我们这些 参加社保的人都会跟着有收益。 当然了，看我文的粉丝，普遍都有一定的社会阅历，肯定说不出上面那些文案里幼稚的话。但屁股决定 脑袋，有些人自己是愿意交社保的，还跑去买商业保险补充，但人家就是不愿意给员工交社保。 但凡你问，必然振振有词，民营企业不容易，完善社保那就是不给企业活路。 从前农村搞新农合医疗保险，很多人都说太费钱了，不愿意参保，结果生一场病就知道了。 你以为你一年缴的几百块钱是国家坑你的？亲，去看看美帝是怎么给你玩医保的。小红书上中美对账， 大把美国人出来现身说法，咱还真没有恶意抹黑。 年 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Japanese Senate election is a critical test for Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's administration, impacting future Japan-U.S. trade negotiations and economic policies [1][3] Group 1: Election Context - The election commenced on July 20, with voting ending at 19:00 Beijing time, and results expected by early July 21 [1] - A total of 125 seats are up for grabs, with the ruling coalition needing at least 50 seats to maintain a majority in the Senate [1][3] - Current polls indicate Ishiba's cabinet support has dropped to 20.8%, below the critical 30% threshold [3] Group 2: Political Implications - If the ruling coalition loses its majority, Ishiba's government may resign, potentially halting crucial Japan-U.S. trade talks [2][8] - The rise of the far-right "Reform Party" reflects a shift in political dynamics, with predictions of winning 10 to 15 seats [4][8] - A "twisted parliament" scenario could emerge, complicating legislative processes and leading to a political deadlock [4][7] Group 3: Market Reactions - Morgan Stanley suggests that the market has priced in the likelihood of the ruling coalition losing its majority, anticipating a complex political landscape [5][7] - If the ruling coalition performs better than expected, a "bull flattening" in the market may occur; conversely, a poor performance could lead to a steepening of the yield curve [7][8] Group 4: Economic Policies - Nomura warns that a loss of majority could accelerate tax increases and disrupt ongoing trade negotiations [8][9] - Deutsche Bank views the election as a referendum on "financial repression" policies, with voters demanding tax cuts and cash subsidies [10][11] - The public's growing discontent with negative real interest rates and inflation is becoming a central issue in the election [13][15]

Core Viewpoint - The "Big and Beautiful Act" signed by President Trump represents a significant shift in U.S. fiscal policy, emphasizing tax cuts and spending reductions while exacerbating wealth inequality and increasing national debt [1][2]. Group 1: Legislative Overview - The act includes a $4 trillion tax cut over the next decade and a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, alongside a $5 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling, marking a substantial acceleration of previous fiscal reforms [1][9]. - The passage of the act was contentious, with a narrow vote of 51-50 in the Senate and 218-214 in the House, highlighting deep political divisions [5][6]. Group 2: Political Implications - The act reflects a direct clash between the interests of Republican and Democratic voter bases, with Republicans favoring tax cuts and deregulation, while Democrats advocate for increased taxes on the wealthy and expanded social welfare [6][7]. - Trump's push for the act is seen as a strategy to solidify his political agenda and maintain control over the Republican Party amidst significant opposition [7][8]. Group 3: Economic Consequences - The act is expected to create a $2.5 trillion deficit gap, which will necessitate increased borrowing, further exacerbating the national debt, projected to exceed $41 trillion [9][10]. - The increase in debt is likely to lead to higher borrowing costs and could undermine the credibility of the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency [11][12]. Group 4: Future Outlook - The act does not provide a viable solution to the existing debt crisis, leaving three potential paths—fiscal tightening, economic growth, or debt default—largely unfeasible in the current political climate [13][14]. - The most probable outcome may involve "inflationary debt," where the government allows inflation to erode the real value of its debt, potentially leading to long-term economic instability [15][16].

Core Points - The "Great and Beautiful Act" signed by President Trump on July 4, 2025, represents a significant legislative shift, extending previous tax cuts and spending controls while drastically reducing social welfare and government spending initiated during the Biden administration [1][2] - The act includes a $4 trillion tax cut over the next decade, a minimum $1.5 trillion spending cut, and a one-time increase of the federal debt ceiling by $5 trillion, which is unprecedented [1][6] - The act is seen as a redistribution of wealth, benefiting the wealthy while exacerbating the plight of the poor, reflecting a deep political divide between the Republican and Democratic parties [1][5] Legislative Process - The act passed through a contentious political process, with a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President, showcasing the intense partisan divide [2][3] - The final vote in the House was narrowly won, indicating significant opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned about the implications for national debt [2][3] Political Implications - Trump's push for the act aligns with his "America First" agenda, aiming to fulfill promises to his voter base by reducing taxes and supporting traditional industries [3][4] - The act's provisions, such as cutting clean energy subsidies and increasing defense spending, cater to Republican supporters and solidify political support in key states [4][5] Economic Consequences - The act is projected to create a $2.5 trillion deficit over the next decade, which will necessitate increased borrowing and exacerbate the national debt crisis [6][8] - The increase in the debt ceiling from approximately $36 trillion to $41 trillion is expected to add over $3.4 trillion in new debt, raising concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability [6][8] Future Outlook - The act does not address the underlying issues of income inequality, fiscal deficits, and social security gaps, potentially worsening these problems in the long run [5][7] - The U.S. may face a prolonged period of high inflation as a means to manage debt, which could undermine the dollar's status as a global reserve currency [10][14] - The reliance on inflation to dilute debt burdens poses risks to long-term economic stability and could lead to increased financial volatility [12][14]

Group 1 - The article discusses the likelihood of a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) scenario regarding tariff negotiations, suggesting that the probability of further tariff escalation is low and that a delay in negotiations is more likely [1][2][5] - It highlights the current market's optimistic pricing, which may not align with the underlying economic fundamentals, particularly focusing on the U.S. economy's performance in the upcoming year [1][6] - The article emphasizes the importance of employment data and its implications for interest rate expectations, noting that the recent job growth figures may not be as strong as they appear due to significant contributions from government employment [6][7][9] Group 2 - The article outlines the current U.S. employment situation, indicating that while the June non-farm payrolls showed a gain of 147,000 jobs, a substantial portion came from government sectors, raising concerns about the sustainability of this growth [7][9][11] - It discusses the potential economic implications of Trump's policies, suggesting that they may lead to increased fiscal deficits and inflationary pressures, particularly with the anticipated combination of fiscal stimulus and monetary easing [16][17][18] - The article presents an investment strategy in light of the expected economic conditions, recommending a diversified approach with a focus on strong equities, gold, and virtual assets while being cautious of potential market corrections [20][21][28]