White House spokeswoman Karina Jean-Pierre denied a report in the U.S. media on the 8th that President Joseph Biden did not receive treatment for Parkinson's disease. Biden had the first televised debate of the 2024 presidential election with Republican opponent Donald Trump on June 27, and his poor performance on the spot triggered discussions about his physical condition. The New York Times reported that a doctor specializing in the treatment of Parkinson's disease had "visited" the White House eight times from August last year to March this year. Facing the media's questions about Biden's health, Jean-Pierre asked and answered himself at a regular White House press conference on the 8th: "Has the president received treatment for Parkinson's disease? No. Is he currently receiving treatment for Parkinson's disease? No, he is not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's disease? No." Jean-Pierre said Biden had seen a neurologist three times, all related to his annual physical examination. She also took out the report issued by the doctor after Biden's most recent physical examination in February this year. The report said, "An extremely detailed neurological examination was once again reassuring" because no symptoms consistent with stroke, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease were found. The doctor who went to the White House mentioned by the New York Times is Kevin Kanal, a neurology and movement disorder expert at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland and an authority on Parkinson's disease. Jean-Pierre suggested that the doctor might have come to treat military personnel on duty at the White House.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

The June US Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data showed an increase of 206,000 jobs, exceeding expectations. Political uncertainty and the People's Bank of China's pause in gold purchases influence gold market dynamics. Recent technical developments in the gold market, including breaking the triangle formation and subsequent rally, indicate the potential for higher prices. Despite a bullish outlook, further consolidation is possible before a significant surge. The recent US Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data revealed a rise of 206,000 jobs in June, surpassing the market expectation of 190,000, despite a downward revision from 272,000 to 218,000 for May. The unemployment rate increased to 4.1% and the wage inflation declined to 3.9% year-over-year. These mixed employment signals have increased the likelihood of a rate cut by the Federal Reserve in September. Additionally, political developments in France, where the left-wing New Popular Front led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon is poised to win a significant number of seats, add to the global economic uncertainty. Meanwhile, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has paused its gold purchasing program, potentially waiting for a further price pullback. These factors collectively influence gold prices, providing a complex backdrop where the prospect of lower interest rates, political uncertainty, and central bank purchasing strategies are likely to drive market dynamics and investor behaviour in the coming months. Bullish Trends in Gold Prices The announcement of the NFP data has dropped the US Dollar Index and boosted gold prices. Since the gold market broke the triangle formation on Wednesday and formed an inside candle on Thursday, the break above Thursday's high on Friday initiated a strong rally, closing the price at higher levels. The red line was the first resistance of this breakout where the gold closed the last week. A clear break above this level may initiate another surge higher. The breakout of the triangle suggests higher prices, but the risk environment remains, as June was a correction month. It looks like the price is preparing for higher levels, but the possibility of consolidation before the surge cannot be ignored. Bottom line In conclusion, the increase in US employment, despite mixed signals in wage inflation and unemployment, has increased the likelihood of a Federal Reserve rate cut, boosting gold prices while weakening the US Dollar Index. Political uncertainties in France and the pause in gold purchases by the People's Bank of China further contribute to the complex economic landscape, indicating potential volatility ahead. The gold market's recent technical developments, including breaking the triangle formation and the subsequent rally, suggest readiness for higher prices. However, the possibility of consolidation before another significant surge remains, necessitating careful observation by investors as the market navigates these multifaceted influences.

WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - Problems with Boeing's Starliner capsule, still docked at the International Space Station (ISS), have upended the original plans for its return of its two astronauts to Earth, as last-minute fixes and tests draw out a mission crucial to the future of Boeing's (BA.N), opens new tab space division. NASA has rescheduled the planned return three times, and now has no date set for it. Since its June 5 liftoff, the capsule has had five helium leaks, five maneuvering thrusters go dead and a propellant valve fail to close completely, prompting the crew in space and mission managers in Houston to spend more time than expected pursuing fixes mid-mission. Here is an explanation of potential paths forward for Starliner and its veteran NASA astronauts, Barry "Butch" Wilmore and Sunita "Suni" Williams. THE CURRENT SITUATION Starliner can stay docked at the ISS for up to 45 days, according to comments by NASA's commercial crew manager Steve Stich to reporters. But if absolutely necessary, such as if more problems arise that mission officials cannot fix in time, it could stay docked for up to 72 days, relying on various backup systems, according to a person familiar with flight planning. Internally at NASA, Starliner's latest targeted return date is July 6, according to this source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Such a return date would mean that the mission, originally planned for eight days, instead would last a month. Starliner's expendable propulsion system is part of the craft's "service module." The current problems center on this system, which is needed to back the capsule away from the ISS and position it to dive through Earth's atmosphere. Many of Starliner's thrusters have overheated when fired, and the leaks of helium - used to pressurize the thrusters - appear to be connected to how frequently they are used, according to Stich.

From the perspective of the two major markets of the United States and China, the autonomous driving industry has fallen into a low tide in recent years. For example, last year, Cruise Origin, one of the twin stars of Silicon Valley autonomous driving companies and once valued at more than $30 billion, failed completely, its Robotaxi (driverless taxi) operation qualification was revoked, and autonomous driving models have been discontinued. However, as a new track with the deep integration of digital economy and real economy, automatic driving is a must answer: on the one hand, automatic driving will accelerate the process of technology commercialization and industrialization, and become an important part of the game of major powers; On the other hand, autonomous driving will also promote industrial transformation and upgrading by improving the mass travel service experience, seeking new engines for urban development, and injecting new vitality into the urban economy.