My best guess as to Russian interest is that by performing the sabotage in a difficult-to-attribute manner it plants the seeds for anti-US (and by extent, anti-Ukraine) sentiment in the public perception in the EU. More or less the governments of EU countries need the will of the people to back military aid to Ukraine, so giving the public something to latch on to from an anti-US perspective is valuable in that it could lower or prevent aid.
The Russians can also probably be secure in knowing that NATO won't publicly identify Russia as responsible as that would probably mean war and it has been very clear that NATO's top priority is avoiding the spread of the war in Ukraine.
There are some other possible Russian motivations I've seen, but put less stock in like capability demonstration and limiting incentives for a coup.
I'm not an expert, but my reading of the IRS's FAQ [1] is that the cost basis of inherited assets gets reset to the fair market value of the assets on the date of death.
> > And then you pay the 40% federal inheritance tax and the 20% state inheritance tax on the total value at the date of death.
After the $12 million (nearly $13 million next year) exemption, the unused portion of which passes to the surviving spouse and increases their tax-free estate exemption.
But, yes, in the limit case estates aren't the tax-optimal way to transfer capital to survivors, which is why other vehicles are used for people for whom the estate exemption is small potatoes.
“But, yes, in the limit case estates aren't the tax-optimal way to transfer capital to survivors, which is why other vehicles are used for people for whom the estate exemption is small potatoes.”
Far beyond the value of TSMC, Taiwan is the lynchpin of the first island chain [1]. Taiwan remaining friendly to US interests is crucial to the integrity of the first island chain and thus the US island chain strategy[2]. In the event of conflict with China, control of the first island chain would allow the US to effectively interdict all maritime trade to China by denying access through the chokepoints created by the first island chain. This is frankly much more valuable to the US from a strategic perspective than TSMC (though TSMC is obviously very important).
You can also note the importance that Chinese planners place on this as well by looking at the Belt and Road Initiative, in particular the land-based projects that aim to connect China to European markets via rail [3][4].
Ultimately, yes. That problem is unsolvable. There will always be more of us than there is stuff to sustain us (unless you get rid of the people ;) ). Our survival—and arguably, sense of meaning—is dependent on our ability to produce value for others in exchange for money.
What Bitcoin solves is removing the ability for that money to be manipulated. For example, in the U.S., if I'm at a bank or a large enough company, I can get 0% interest loans from the Federal Reserve. That would be fine if the money was backed by something, but it isn't. As the Federal Reserve, I can print more and more money ad infinitum and then give it away at 0% interest. This is literally money that is not backed by a commensurate amount of value (e.g., gold or some other precious asset like my time/labor). In this model, I can take resources of the table without replacing them rendering me, effectively, a parasite.
The U.S. dollar (or any fiat currency) is not _real_ in the sense that it functions within a set of fixed, well-defined laws.
Bitcoin on the other hand functions based on the laws of mathematics and its own, publicly exposed source code (which can only be changed via majority network consensus). It has a fixed supply that is doled out on a predictable schedule in exchange for creating value (a miner processing transactions). Because of this and its inherent decentralization—meaning it can't be controlled by one or a few small players—its value exists in it being incorruptible.
In laymen terms, it means that what you make is _yours_ and can only be taken by force (and that's _if_ they can get access to your private keys). You can actually build savings and invest in the future. You can predictably plan for your business without having to constantly adjust for inflation. You can live without the boot of government on your chest.
This, inherently, will make the world more peaceful in time. The more peace we have, the more our minds function properly (a mind in a state of fear is easily controlled and limited). The more our minds function properly, the more creative we are. The more creative we are, the more we can invent solutions to our problems, etc.
The world used to run on exactly this type of currency: the gold standard. We had the gold standard during both World Wars, during colonialism, during slavery and every other atrocity in human history.
And of course inflation can still happen if the world were to run on bitcoin. If cost or supply of many goods are directly impacted (e.g. because of problems with oil supply, which underlies production costs of much of the goods and even services in the economy), then inflation can occur even with a fixed monetary supply.
Also note, the problem is not that there are more of us than stuff to sustain us. The modern economy produces more than enough to fulfill at least the base needs of each and every person on Earth. The problem is that many people believe that they are owed much more than others, either personally, organizationally, or nationally. Most likely wars over resources wouldn't go away to any significant extent even if the world's poorest 5 billion people were to drop dead tomorrow (well, once new soldiers are manufactured).
I appreciate the thorough response. I think I see what you are saying - the deflationary and decentralized nature of Bitcoin acts as a stabilizing force in the economy by enforcing a real value to money or resources to money relationship.
I'm not sure I see how that will "make the world more peaceful over time." Wouldn't the same issues still exist at the geopolitical scale (where the wars are)? The primary means of acquiring new or more resources for your nation have been the same for all of human history: trade and conquest. I can see a more stable economy being a benefit, but I don't really see how it changes that fundamental dynamic.
> Wouldn't the same issues still exist at the geopolitical scale (where the wars are)?
Not as easily. In order to finance those wars, assuming Bitcoin renders fiat currencies useless (not improbable), those governments would have to create value, which governments are terrible at. There's a "pipe dream" element to this, but it's not _impossible_. Adopting Bitcoin at scale would put a serious handicap on the ability for governments to pursue conquest or harass their citizens under the guise of "authority." Their only option would be to invest in entrepreneurs and citizens domestically, focusing on being the best place to be as opposed to the ape with the biggest or most rocks (nationalism without the "seig heil!").
That's why I'm so hyper about it. As a civilization, we've never been in this position before so there are a lot of unknowns. At the very least, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss Bitcoin as a "scam" or "bad invention" or fall under the all-too-common spell of "the important thing is the Blockchain technology" (false because you can implement highly-controlled blockchains which recreate the same problem).
The book The Sovereign Individual (interestingly written in the 90s) explains this idea in a more articulate/elaborate way.
The Russians can also probably be secure in knowing that NATO won't publicly identify Russia as responsible as that would probably mean war and it has been very clear that NATO's top priority is avoiding the spread of the war in Ukraine.
There are some other possible Russian motivations I've seen, but put less stock in like capability demonstration and limiting incentives for a coup.