I would like to take the opportunity to say how impressed I am that the residents of this board are actually able to take this thread seriously yet narrowly as written, and not descend into partisan rants.
Sincere thanks and kudos to all.

Most of my wealth is tied to the fortunes of Berkshire, and most of Berkshire's prospects are inextricably tied to the US economy and its regulatory environment. To be very frank, as a non-US person it's an asset allocation that I continually have to evaluate for...appropriateness. For me, Job #1 is defending the family's assets from all risks, including tail risks. Despite tradition, and no matter how far we are from it, there must be a theoretical point at which it would become an unacceptable risk, so it's worth considering where that point might lie. And which assets would be negatively impacted, to what extent, should that point be reached.

I don't have any answers, but my cash allocation has never been higher in absolute or percentage terms. Followers of Hippocrates had useful advice for portfolio management: first, do no harm.

Jim