Trade & Stephen Covey’s 3 Habits for Strong Relationships

Stephen Covey’s three key habits for building strong relationships are:
1. Think Win-Win
2. Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood
3. Synergize

Here’s how they work in practice:
• You approach others—whether people or organizations—believing there’s a way for both of you to win.
• You listen first, understanding what a win looks like for them before sharing what a win looks like for you.
• Then, you synergize, finding or creating an outcome where both sides win—maybe even more than expected.

Some people don’t think this way—but that’s their loss.
Win-win thinking requires assertiveness—you have to let others know what a win looks like for you. That takes courage. The courage to stand up for yourself.
But it also requires consideration—you have to listen. Seek first to understand means respecting the other person enough to hear what matters to them.

This is where relationships can break down.
• Sometimes, you’ll realize there’s no real overlap in what a “win” means for both of you.
• But even when there is overlap, synergizing means getting creative—maybe you find a compromise, maybe they do, maybe you arrive at a solution neither of you thought of before you engaged in conversation.

And if you can’t? That’s okay too. With 8 billion people in the world, you don’t have to force yourself into relationships that can only survive if one of you loses. Instead, find, create, and insist on win-win relationships.

Of course, any normal relationship will include some win-lose exchanges—that’s life. The point is:
• Don’t be the person who insists every relationship must be win-lose—where the other person is always subordinate to you.
• And don’t be the person who always loses. Standing up for your own goals and desires isn’t selfish—it’s essential.

Why This Matters Beyond Personal Relationships
I bring this up for two reasons:
1. It’s just great advice. Covey nailed something fundamental, and it’s worth sharing.
2. It applies beyond personal relationships—especially in trade and economics.

Empires treat their colonies as win-lose. Or at best win, not caring so much whether the colony wins or loses. They extract resources and wealth, ensuring the empire wins while the colony is largely left to fend for itself.

But trade between independent nations – trade in a post imperialistic, post-colonial world - is expected to be different. Nations, businesses, and individuals trade because both sides benefit. Business and economics lend themselves to the win-win dynamic.

Trade wars are fought by people who get none of this. Wars are win-lose. Trade should be win-win. To make it a trade war is to ignore whether you’re making progress and instead just focusing on whether you’re doing better than them.

People with a reptilian mindset still see trade as win-lose—as if crushing the other side is the goal. But we have better options. We can think bigger. Both sides can thrive and prosper and their win can actually enhance yours. Would you rather trade with a country that was prosperous and creative or one that had only mud to harvest and sell? Everyone should aspire to have a prosperous trading partner. Even if you have no normal empathy for the condition of others, prosperous trading partners could benefit you simply because they will pay more for your stuff and have cool stuff to sell to you. And that's win-win.

Donald and the Confederates: Foes of the 14th Amendment

Raise your hand if you’re surprised that Trump thinks he can rewrite the Constitution with a memo.

This week, Trump attempted to overturn the 14th Amendment with an executive order. The last people to oppose the 14th Amendment so openly? The Confederates.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery. But it quickly became clear that the former Confederates were intent on treating freed slaves as second-class citizens, denying them basic rights. For instance, even former slaves who had lived and worked in the United States for generations were barred from voting because they were deemed "the wrong sort of people." For the confederates, it didn't matter if you were born here if you were born to the wrong kind of woman. Race and ancestry mattered.

In response, the Republicans drafted and passed the 14th Amendment to guarantee birthright citizenship, ensuring that former slaveowners could not deny citizenship to freed slaves by claiming they were "lesser people." One of the most beautiful principles this country has embraced is that you don’t need to prove you were born to “the right people” to be a citizen—you simply have to be born here. The 14th Amendment fundamentally redefined citizenship, basing it on place of birth, not race, ancestry, or property ownership.

The 14th Amendment did even more—for example, it redefined representation in the House by counting all people in a state’s population. But its core principle was the realization of an ideal penned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal.

Donald Trump now holds the record as the oldest president ever sworn into office

Donald Trump now holds the record as the oldest president ever sworn into office. The Constitution specifies that one must be at least 35 years old to be president, but there is no upper age limit.

Donald Trump is older than Bill Clinton. Nonetheless, a person born during Bill Clinton's presidency would be old enough to serve as president by the end of Donald Trump's term. Clinton was first sworn into office 32 years ago.

Donald Trump was 14 when JFK was sworn into office in 1961. JFK has now been gone for more than 61 years.

George W. Bush was born 22 days after Trump, and Bill Clinton was born 44 days after Bush. All three were born within a year of Japan’s surrender. Rumor has it that someday baby boomers will die out, but there is, as yet, no evidence of this.

William Henry Harrison died just 31 days into his term. It took voters 140 years to summon the courage to elect another president (Reagan) older than Harrison. This decade, voters have shown no hesitation when it comes to electing the elderly.

The Alarming Math of Financing Retirement in a World With a Shrinking Population

The population explosion of the last century is poised to dramatically reverse in this century, and the consequences will be profound. One of the biggest? Financing retirement.

When FDR and Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins introduced Social Security in 1935, the math seemed almost too good to be true. By 1940, when monthly benefits began, there were nearly 160 workers for every retiree. To put that in perspective, if each worker donated just one hour of their monthly wages, it could fully fund a retirement income equal to the national average for every retiree in the country. Social Security wasn’t just a safety net—it was a hammock supported by a workforce the size of an army.

But by 1960, the ratio had dropped to just 5.1 workers per beneficiary. Fast forward to the program’s 100th anniversary in 2035, and we’re looking at a projected ratio of just 2 workers per retiree. Do the math: in this scenario, each worker would need to fork over nearly 80 hours of their pay—or about half of their monthly income—just to keep retirees afloat at the national average. That’s not a hammock; it’s a fiscal tightrope.

Faced with this reality, it’s hard not to root for a cavalry of saviors: immigrants, robots, AI, and grandchildren. So, let’s join hands across ideological lines. Team up with your conservative friends who champion family values and want more babies. Link arms with your globalist pals who advocate for more immigrants. High-five your tech-bro buddies banking on robots and AI to lighten the load. Cheer for all of these and all of them and all of us who aspire to enjoying retirement.

Or, if none of that sounds appealing, there’s always the option of redefining retirement as a couple of glorious weeks instead of a couple of decades. You know, like a vacation. Your call.

Reviewing Economic Forecast from One Year Ago and New Forecast for 2025 and 2026

2024 Forecast Recap (Posted 1/1/2024):
- Prediction: Unemployment would rise above 4%, possibly with one quarter of job losses.
- Prediction: Stock prices would rise along with unemployment, potentially dramatically.

What Actually Happened?
- Unemployment did rise above 4%, reaching 4.2% in November, up from 3.7% at the start of the year.
- Jobs: Despite higher unemployment, there was no month—let alone a quarter—of net job losses. The lowest job growth came in August, with fewer than 100,000 jobs added, the weakest since 2020.
- Stock Market: The NASDAQ soared, finishing the year up over 28%, fulfilling the prediction of a dramatic rise.

---

Forecast for 2025 and 2026:
The outlook depends entirely on whether the Republican-controlled Congress follows Trump’s policies of mass deportations and significant tariffs. If they do:
- Scenario: Deportations Exceeding 10 Million & Tariffs of 20–40%
1. Recession:
- The economy will contract for more than two quarters and shrink by over 2%, marking only the second recession since the Great Recession.
2. Inflation:
- Inflation will spike above 5%, driven by:
- Higher costs for goods due to tariffs.
- Domestic producers raising prices under tariff protection.
3. Stock Market:
- The market will decline by at least 5–10% as higher costs and retaliatory tariffs erode profits for U.S. companies facing supply chain disruptions and weaker sales.
4. Policy Response:
- Trump: Will remain oblivious to - but angry about - the economic consequences, offering no substantive explanation or course correction.
- Republicans in Congress: Some may recognize the damage and attempt to reverse these policies, though resistance within the party is likely.
- MAGA Supporters: Will reject economic reality, blaming the failure on conspiracies rather than the inanity of the policies themselves.
---
In Summary:
The economic trajectory for 2025 and 2026 hinges on whether Congress pursues policies that disrupt trade and labor markets. Sensible governance could avoid these pitfalls, but blind adherence to MAGA ideology will trigger self-inflicted economic wounds. We can only hope that Trump stays focused on crafting tweets rather than legislation.