Warnings from the 1920s: the KKK, Tariffs, and the Devolution of Trade Wars into a World War

In 1925, the Ku Klux Klan marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., in a demonstration the Washington Post called "one of the greatest demonstrations this city has ever known." Estimates of participants ranged from 30,000 to 60,000. The marchers protested what they saw as foreign threats to their way of life: immigrants and imported goods they claimed were polluting their country.

The 1920s were marked by economic growth. GDP rose steadily, and the stock market climbed—first at a steady pace, then spectacularly in the latter half of the decade. Yet, many Americans remained angry, convinced that their struggles stemmed from “them”: immigrants and foreign producers. Feeding this resentment was a new form of media—radio.

In 1923, only about 1% of American households owned a radio. By 1931, more than half did. This rapid adoption made radio a powerful tool for spreading fear and fueling the resurgence of extremist groups like the KKK. Voices on the airwaves amplified suspicions of "outsiders," heightening nativist and isolationist sentiment.

Politicians responded. In 1924, a year before the KKK marched in D.C., Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act). The law slashed immigration quotas to 2% of each nationality based on the 1890 census—a deliberate choice to limit newcomers from Southern and Eastern Europe. It also effectively banned immigration from Asia. On the economic front, a series of tariff bills raised barriers to foreign imports. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 escalated this trend, imposing duties of 40-48% on over 20,000 imported goods. Despite warnings from over 1,000 economists and 24 foreign nations, President Hoover signed the bill, triggering retaliatory tariffs that further strangled global trade.
By the time the Great Depression hit, Hoover presided over an economy in freefall. Unemployment soared to 25%, and GDP was cut in half. Meanwhile, Europe—still reeling from the devastation of World War I—sank deeper into economic and political chaos. Chronic unemployment and inflation gave rise to extremist movements, most notably in Germany. The Great Depression brought Hitler and FDR to power within five weeks of each other in early 1933.

The protectionist sentiment of the 1920s wasn’t limited to the U.S. or Europe. Across the globe, nations turned inward. Japan, angered by a Chinese boycott of its goods, attacked Shanghai in 1932. For the first time on a large scale, bombs rained down on civilians, setting the stage for the Pacific theater of World War II. This chain of events culminated in Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entering a global conflict that would claim over 100 million lives.

How did the U.S. transform the Roaring Twenties into the Great Depression and World War II? In part, by turning fear of others into policy. Efforts to isolate the U.S. from the world—through immigration restrictions and protectionist tariffs—did not insulate the country. Instead, they contributed to a collapse of global trade that turned the exchange of goods into the exchange of bads: insults, bombs, and bullets. Modern nations will almost inevitably trade. The only question is whether they will trade goods—products, people, investments, and services—or bads—conflict, poverty, and obstacles to prosperity.

A century later, we can still draw lessons from the 1920s.

The Performance of Job and Stock Markets Through 48 Years and 8 Presidencies

Here is data for the last 48 years on labor and capital markets.

The stock market performance (orange line) represents the average annual return of the three major indices (Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500). The timeframe runs from the day after each presidential election to the day the next president is declared the winner.

The job number reflects the average monthly employment figure reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) during each president's full term, from their first to last complete month in office.
There are many factors outside a president's control—and many within it. For instance, the Great Recession that tanked George W. Bush’s economic numbers was largely a consequence of policies championed during his presidency. Bush’s administration embraced financial deregulation, undoing safeguards put in place after the Great Depression. These included the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and looser oversight of financial derivatives. The ensuing financial crisis was not mere coincidence but evidence that, as in sports, financial markets thrive best when they strike a balance between free competition and effective regulation. Bush’s poor stock market and job performance stemmed from these flawed policies.

Luck matters too. For example, Donald Trump faced the worst pandemic in a century, which disrupted the economy and labor markets worldwide. However, governance also plays a role. Trump refused to coordinate a national COVID-19 response, leaving states to act independently. In his final month in office, his focus was not on the pandemic but on contesting the results of the 2020 election, culminating in a riot at the Capitol. Meanwhile, COVID-19 deaths reached staggering levels, averaging 3,000 deaths per day—equivalent to a 9/11 attack every 24 hours.

Joe Biden inherited these challenges but immediately launched a coordinated national COVID-19 response. His administration passed a sweeping recovery bill to support job creation and stabilize the economy. This proactive approach likely prevented the sharp contraction or sluggish recovery that could have occurred under a laissez-faire approach, akin to the post-Great Recession recovery during Obama’s presidency. At that time, Congress pressured Obama into austerity measures that prioritized deficit reduction over aggressive job creation, resulting in years of depressed employment growth.

The takeaway? Demographics, pandemics, and policy all play roles in shaping labor and capital markets. Like in bull riding, the difficulty of the circumstances ("the bull") matters as much as the skill of the president ("the rider"). Strong governance can make all the difference between a sharp fall and a smooth landing.

The 14th Amendment As an Obstacle to Trump's Policies

Today Trump stated that he was going to end birthright citizenship - something granted by the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment was created after Republicans recognized that Southern Democrats were freeing slaves but denying them citizenship based on race. This amendment redefined citizenship, making it about more than bloodlines or tribal affiliations—it became a shared commitment to ideals and opportunities. It stands as one of the most fascinating experiments in the broader sweep of American innovation, defining the nation as something profoundly different from what had come before. Here was identity rooted in shared ideals, not shared ancestry—a nation striving for equal opportunity, despite its diverse histories and conditions.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery. The 14th Amendment completed the transformation by granting citizenship, guaranteeing it through the simple fact of being born in this country. To ignore the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship to those born here is to abandon the principle that defines America. It reduces citizenship to ancestry rather than potential, binding people to their parents’ past rather than opening the door to their own future.

Unsurprisingly, Trump and the MAGA boys who are fascinated by race, heritage and genes find the 14th amendment an obstacle to his policy. We fought a civil war to put up that obstacle. He thinks he can remove it with an executive order.

The Invention of Psychology Predated the Invention of Macroeconomics

What I can tell you: Sell your stock at the market’s peak and buy when it hits bottom.
What I can’t tell you: When the market is at its peak or when it’s hit bottom.

Finance and economics exist at the intersection of hard facts and human behavior—the interplay between mathematical calculations and animal spirits. In retrospect, it seemed inevitable that William James and Sigmund Freud would invent modern psychology before John Maynard Keynes invented macroeconomics. Human psychology is as influential as industrial capital in shaping economies and markets, driven in part by the power of mood and in part by analysts making precise calculations with inherently speculative numbers.

A Long Walk and a Moonwalk - Armstrong and Aldrin's & Lewis and Clark's Journey's To Define America

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (A&A) traveled to the Moon in 1969.
Lewis and Clark (L&C) explored the American frontier, reaching Oregon and returning, from 1804 to 1806.
Here are some intriguing comparisons between their historic journeys.
________________________________________
Top Speed:
• L&C: ~3 mph (on foot, horseback, and by boat).
• A&A: ~25,000 mph (during re-entry to Earth's atmosphere).

Total Distance Traveled:
• L&C: ~8,000 miles (round trip).
• A&A: ~478,000 miles (round trip).

Support Crew:
• L&C: 33 members in the Corps of Discovery.
• A&A: Over 400,000 NASA employees and contractors supported the mission.

Length of the Journey:
• L&C: 2 years, 4 months, and 8 days.
• A&A: 8 days.

Communication
• L&C were out of contact with Washington, D.C., for their entire journey (~2.5 years).
• A&A maintained near-continuous communication with NASA Mission Control, with brief blackouts during lunar orbit.

Languages Encountered:
• L&C: In addition to English and French, they encountered ~50 Native American tribes, each with their own language or dialect.
• A&A: In addition to English, they navigated the specialized "dialects" of engineering, computer science, and flight operations.

Legacy:
• L&C: Lewis & Clark’s expedition led to westward expansion and the transformation and settlement of the American frontier, changing the lives of millions of Americans who have turned a former frontier into home.
• A&A: Armstrong and Aldrin’s mission pioneered a different kind of frontier—one settled not by homesteaders but by computer scientists, entrepreneurs, communication satellites, and new technologies. Their journey was a catalyst for the creation of new industries, companies, wealth, products, and technologies, transforming the lives of people around the globe. Like the Apollo team, people today communicate almost instantly across vast distances, connecting through spaces as immense as the surface of the Earth that was first seen as a whole on a NASA mission and now is increasingly treated as one globe in daily communication, trade, development and finance.

William Browder on Russia's Curious Lose-Lose Tendencies

William Browder ran the largest investment fund in Russia until Vladimir Putin effectively drove him out of the country. Ironically, Browder's grandfather had run against FDR as the Communist Party candidate. As a teenager, Browder rebelled against his family’s history by embracing capitalism. The symmetry appealed to him: just as his grandfather became a communist in capitalist America, Browder would become a capitalist in communist Russia.

By the early 2000s, he was managing the biggest investment firm in Russia, achieving years of extraordinary returns. But he describes Russian culture as deeply rooted in a peculiar form of lose-lose thinking. He cites a popular Russian folktale that illustrates this mindset: A man discovers a genie who grants him one wish, with the caveat that whatever he wishes for himself, his neighbor will receive double. Immediately the man says, “Poke out one of my eyes.”

Biden's Very Wise Choice to Pardon His Son

Trump has made it clear that he intends to use the presidency as a tool for revenge.

Mitt Romney, a former Republican nominee for president, has reported spending thousands of dollars per day on protection for his family after publicly criticizing Trump. Trump has also made shocking, violent comments about Liz Cheney, once one of the most powerful Republicans, whom he despises for having the courage to stand against him.

Trump and his MAGA allies have already targeted Hunter Biden with a relentless barrage of accusations, many of which have been debunked or exaggerated. Let’s not forget that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to falsely implicate Hunter Biden in Ukrainian politics, threatening to withhold congressionally approved military aid if Zelensky did not comply. This was a key element of Trump’s first impeachment.

Given Trump’s vindictive nature, it’s almost certain that he would weaponize the presidency to make Hunter Biden’s life as difficult as possible, turning his son into a proxy for his ongoing grudge against President Biden.

President Biden, a man who has endured profound personal tragedy—the loss of his first wife and daughter in a car accident and his son Beau to cancer—is someone who deeply loves his family and his country. Pardoning his son to spare him from relentless harassment and potential imprisonment by the world’s most powerful man is a decision I can understand.

Perhaps Trump supporters might struggle to see it this way, but as a father who loves my son, I can relate. Moreover, I believe it’s profoundly un-American to use the highest office in the land to settle personal scores. Biden’s choice resonates with me because it reflects values that stand in stark contrast to vindictiveness and abuse of power.

Once Upon a Time ... They Set Aside Some Time for When There Was No Time

Once upon a time, December was the 10th month, and the Roman calendar from January through December covered about 300 days. That left roughly 60 days off the calendar—a stretch of time with no farming schedules, no religious obligations, and not even named months to worry about.
Imagine it: two whole months without tracking months, let alone days. 

Not just free time, but free of time.

Am I the only one who finds that idea incredibly appealing?

Post-WWII Germany: A Four-Zone Experiment in Governance

After World War II, Germany became a real-world experiment in governance, divided into four zones administered by the USSR, France, the UK, and the US. Each zone reflected the priorities and ideologies of its occupiers, creating strikingly different paths to recovery.

In the American zone, the focus was on "denazification, re-education, and democratization." As Tony Judt noted, the U.S. sought to “abolish the Nazi Party, tear up its roots, and plant the seeds of democracy and liberty.” U.S. efforts extended beyond politics to include cultural reconstruction, economic revitalization, and the use of psychologists to understand and address the emotional underpinnings of the German collapse. Americans uniquely understood that emotions like fear and hope shaped not just politics but economics.

By contrast, the Soviet zone aimed to suppress Germany's industrial capacity and promote communism. The command economy imposed by the USSR prioritized heavy industry over prosperity, creating stagnation and a legacy of underdevelopment that persisted after reunification.

The French zone was marked by reparations and resource extraction. France’s own communist influence after the war—reflected in a parliament where communists won 26% of seats—meant greater reliance on central planning than in the American zone, though not to Soviet extremes. French policies, combined with less Marshall Plan aid, slowed the zone's recovery.

The British zone, home to the Ruhr Valley’s critical industrial base, initially prioritized controlling industrial output to prevent German rearmament. While this delayed recovery, the region ultimately became a cornerstone of West Germany’s economic strength.

---
Why the U.S. Zone Succeeded
The American zone outpaced the others in economic growth, innovation, and cultural development, thanks to its emphasis on market liberalization, infrastructure investment, and fostering entrepreneurship. Success included:
- Economic Hubs
- Frankfurt became Germany’s—and later the EU’s—financial center.
- Munich emerged as a cultural capital and hub for technology and media.
- Stuttgart and Bavaria (formerly more rural areas) transformed into centers of high-tech industries and manufacturing, driven by companies like Siemens and BMW.
- Cultural and Educational Reconstruction:
The U.S. rebuilt universities and promoted democratic ideals, creating a foundation for long-term prosperity.

---
The Broader Takeaway
To be clear, Germany was the most advanced economy in Europe - and for quite some time was more advanced than the US. By no stretch of the imagination is its success simply the product of post-WWII American administration. But the difference in the four zones administered by four different countries does suggest lessons about effective governance. The American approach struck a balance between markets and government intervention, avoiding the extremes of Soviet central planning and libertarian laissez-faire economics. This pragmatic strategy fostered stability, growth, and innovation. In contrast, the Soviet zone lagged significantly, and the French and British zones, while successful, lacked the same dynamism.

The division of Germany was more than a political boundary—it was a test of competing ideologies, with the American zone emerging as a model of balanced governance driving long-term prosperity and innovation.

Conversation Starters for Thanksgiving Dinner

At tomorrow's Thanksgiving dinner, here are some conversation starters, rated from safe to hell-bent on never getting invited anywhere ever again:

1. Isn't this delicious? (Safe. Everyone loves a compliment to the chef.)

2. Do you like my hat? (Mildly quirky, harmless.)

3. Do you think AI will make us all smarter but feel dumber, or dumber but make us all feel smarter? (Moderately provocative. Good for the tech-savvy crowd.)

4. Should I put my life savings into crypto, NVDA, or Russian rubles? (Risky. Proceed with caution if you had any plans for enjoying that pumpkin pie.)

5. Do you think Revelation 13:7-8—“And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast”—is proof that Trump is the Antichrist? (Nuclear. Just hand them the mashed potatoes and prepare for exile.)

Money Spent on Presidential Campaigns Ballooned After 2010 Citizens United Ruling

U.S. presidential campaign spending has grown dramatically over the past few decades.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling changed campaign finance by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political ads, fueling the rise of Super PACs.

While U.S. GDP has grown roughly sevenfold since 1984, spending on presidential campaigns has increased by an astonishing 154 times. To put it another way: in 1984, campaigns spent about 120,000 times the president’s four-year salary. By 2024, that figure had ballooned to nearly 10 million times the president’s pay—which itself had doubled during that time.

And even with all that, this last election is the first in which we finally got past the amount we spend on Halloween - the other Fall classic designed to frighten people.

Trump's Zero-Sum Notions of Trade and How Far That Falls From The Ideal

In an exchange with my friend Brian Blackwell, we were discussing tariffs. One often-overlooked aspect of this topic is the extent to which the U.S., as a dominant global power—both militarily and economically—could theoretically force trading partners into agreements that disproportionately benefit itself at the expense of other nations. This approach would echo the exploitative dynamics of empires and their colonies, where economic relationships were heavily one-sided.

If you view the world as zero-sum, your goal is straightforward: to take as many of their marbles as possible. But if you adopt a variable-sum perspective, you’d focus on creating arrangements that inspire and enable others to produce even more marbles—or perhaps something entirely new and better.

The first objection to exploitative trade practices is clear: while a monopolist might coerce workers into accepting pay cuts because they lack alternatives, such behavior is widely regarded as amoral. Exploitation—even when driven by power rather than necessity—raises ethical concerns that shouldn't be ignored.

The second objection is subtler but equally compelling. Trade, at its core, is a partnership. If you’re going to engage in trade, wouldn’t you prefer a partner who is prosperous, innovative, creative, and productive—someone capable of generating value comparable to your own? And someone just as excited about your trade arrangement as you are, just as motivated to innovate and profit? Why enter into a trade agreement with 'Dennis the Peasant,' whose only offering is mud? Wouldn't you rather trade with someone rich than someone poor - someone who makes or has great goods and services? A really valuable trade relationship is one where both sides contribute meaningfully, fostering mutual growth and long-term prosperity.
If history teaches us anything, it is that progress emerges from cooperation - from people playing variable-sum rather than zero-sum games and creating wider and wider circles of collaboration and mutual benefit.

American Politics: Rich Communities Voting for More Help for Poor Communities Lose to Poor Communities Voting for More Tax Cuts for Rich Communities

Silicon Valley (SV) and King County, Washington (KCW) have created more wealth—in the form of market capitalization—than all of Europe. Let that sink in for a moment.

Now consider the population difference:
- SV and KCW: 6 million
- Europe: 742 million

That’s right: a tiny fraction of America’s population has outpaced an entire continent in generating financial wealth.

And here’s another striking detail: the Americans who create this wealth happen to live in counties with the highest average wages. Unsurprisingly, they also overwhelmingly voted for Harris in the last election. Just look at the five U.S. counties with the highest wages—they went blue by huge margins.

Cambridge, Massachusetts—the intellectual hub home to Harvard and MIT—gave Harris a 79-point margin of victory. So, the counties that generate the bulk of our financial and intellectual capital were decidedly out of sync with the nation as a whole.

Here’s the weird thing: these affluent communities didn’t vote for policies that just benefit themselves. They voted for aggressive investments in health, education, infrastructure, and subsidies to factories—the kinds of policies that help poorer communities most. Meanwhile, less affluent communities, often struggling economically, voted for policies favoring tax cuts for the wealthy.

It feels like voters are going against their self-interests. Wealthy communities are voting to share the pie, while poorer ones are voting to give the wealthiest an even bigger slice. What’s driving this? Are voters in less affluent areas being misled by cultural wedge issues? Have tax-cut advocates turned elections into culture wars, distracting from policy discussions that would directly improve lives?

It’s a paradox worth pondering: why are those with the most often the ones pushing hardest to help those with the least?

Trump’s Paradoxical Path to a Popular Presidency

Donald Trump’s best strategy for his second term might be to do... nothing. If he adopts an “inactive executive” approach—focusing on rallies rather than policy—he could leave office boasting of presiding over one of the strongest economies in recent history.

Here’s why: Trump is inheriting what may be the most remarkable economy of our lifetimes, certainly since the late 1990s. The forces driving this prosperity have built-in momentum that could generate stellar results—if Trump doesn’t derail them with his campaign promises.

The private sector is creating new businesses at double the rate it was in 2000, even in the face of high borrowing costs. As interest rates fall, we can reasonably expect that rate of new business formation to accelerate further. Private sector R&D spending is also at an all-time high, growing nearly twice as fast under Biden as it did during Trump’s first term. These investments are the seeds of future growth, sparking breakthroughs that will compound over time.

The public sector, too, is contributing. Biden’s extensive infrastructure plan is stimulating the economy and creating jobs on a scale never before seen. With over 60,000 projects underway, the effects of these investments will ripple through the economy for years, much like Eisenhower’s interstate highways did in the 1950s.

This combination of research, entrepreneurship, and public investment creates a virtuous cycle. Wealth, knowledge, and innovation all compound over time. Consider how mapping the human genome has enabled thousands of new projects, each one paving the way for tens of thousands more breakthroughs. Or how Amazon’s success didn’t just enrich Jeff Bezos—it empowered millions of small businesses to grow. Growth begets growth.

If Trump simply stays the course, GDP growth and job creation are poised to shine. A strong stock market and falling interest rates could provide further fuel, making the economy virtually self-sustaining.

But Trump’s campaign promises—tariffs and mass deportations—could wreck this golden opportunity.

A 10% tariff would add hundreds of billions in consumer costs, cut GDP growth in half, and stoke inflation. Mass deportations would be even worse: removing 16 million workers and consumers could shrink GDP by 4-7%, a blow greater than the Great Recession. Beyond the economic devastation, these policies would uproot families and communities, triggering public outrage—and for a president who thrives on adulation, that could mean a steep decline in popularity.

Ironically, the most effective path for Trump might be inaction. By allowing private investments and the long-term benefits of Biden’s infrastructure projects to work their magic, Trump could ride the wave of economic growth without lifting a finger. For a man whose greatest strength is holding rallies and energizing his base, doing less might actually achieve more.

In short, Trump’s best chance at a successful and popular presidency is to resist the urge to meddle. The economy’s trajectory is already set to thrive—if left undisturbed. He might do best if, instead of implementing policy, he just travels the country holding rallies. And given he’ll soon once again be our president, we, too, will benefit from him doing his best – even if it comes from him doing very little.

Elections as a Choice Between Exploring New Frontiers or Settling Into the Past

Every four years, 338 million Americans—roughly 160 million of them voters—engage in the process of choosing the next president. It’s remarkable that such a diverse electorate can narrow its choice down to two candidates, much less settle on one. But beyond selecting a candidate, this choice represents something deeper.

Embedded in the national conversation is a debate over which future is desirable: one grounded in familiar tradition or one open to progress. Louis Menand explores this contrast between premodern and modern life: “The problem of change is the problem of modern cultures. In a premodern society, the ends of life are given at the beginning of life. When you are born you understand what your tasks are because it is given to you by your family, your community, your nation. And the task of the community and the task of the nation is the same as your task – which is to reproduce the customs, the practices and the values of that group. So at the end of life you can look back and see that you have fulfilled this role that you were born into, with the understanding that if you have been successful in reproducing the customs, you are successful in life.”

“In modern cultures,” Menand continues, “you don’t have that assurance because the ends of life are not given at the beginning of life.” Modernity replaces certainty with choice, creating a life path that is less defined by the past and more open to the future.
Each election, Americans vote not only for a leader but for a vision of the future—whether to reach toward a familiar past or to embrace an uncertain future. This tension represents an ongoing national decision between the comfort of tradition and the potential of change. 

Tradition offers a certain future, where continuity defines success, while progress introduces the potential for a better, if unpredictable, future.

In 1800, when Thomas Jefferson—who would double the size of the country through the Louisiana Purchase—was elected, America’s frontier faced uncharted lands. By moving the frontier westward by a thousand miles, he expanded the nation's horizon physically. Today, in 2024, our frontiers are less geographic and more conceptual. They encompass unexplored ideas, evolving lifestyles, innovative policies, new business models, institutions, products, and cultures. The American choice is no longer simply a physical frontier but one that asks whether we embrace unknown ideas or cling to familiar ways.

Do Americans put their trust in tradition or innovation? In the familiar or the unknown? In nostalgia or hope? Are they eager to make the country great again or to make it great in genuinely new ways? This is one of the defining choices of each campaign: a vote for a culture rooted in continuity or one committed to progress. Every election reopens this profound choice—a cyclical conflict between preserving what we know and daring to move into an unknown frontier.

How the Election Could Impact the Stock Market

All the usual caveats apply to this stock market forecast. [which is to say, this is speculation not prophecy]

November could be a tough month for stocks. At the end of this post, I’ll share a tip for those of you who feel like you’ve missed out on the past year’s bull market and are wondering if now’s the time to jump in.

Election Impact on the Market

A Trump Victory: A Trump win could trigger a sell-off due to the potential for aggressive policies like mass deportations and tariffs. Deporting 16 million people would likely reduce GDP, and tariffs would disrupt supply chains and foreign markets critical to major companies like Apple and NVIDIA. Given that these top companies are deeply integrated into a global market, tariffs and retaliatory tariffs would threaten their supply chains and earnings. If the market believes Trump will pursue these policies, it may price in this risk, leading to a drop.

A Harris Victory: Harris’s election, on the other hand, might prompt a temporary sell-off but for different reasons. While she hasn’t proposed wealth or estate taxes explicitly, some investors might anticipate future tax changes and choose to lock in gains under the current tax code. However, her policies aren’t expected to disrupt economic fundamentals. Harris advocates for trade continuity, foreign investment, and tax policies favorable to new businesses, suggesting stability for the global brands driving the stock market. Any initial sell-off would likely be short-term.

The Opportunity
Here’s the tip: If Harris is elected, any post-election drop could be a good chance to buy in at a discount, as the long-term trajectory of the market is likely to stay positive. Her policies aim to sustain growth by supporting trade and investment, so a brief sell-off could offer a smart entry point.
If Trump wins, the market will face a different scenario. His policies would likely shift the economy away from the global approach that benefits major corporations. U.S.-based global brands depend on open trade, supply chains, and diverse talent pools, so immigration restrictions and tariffs would put strain on these companies. For investors, this could mean a stagnant or declining market if Trump follows through on his anti-globalization policies, as the values of globally oriented companies could suffer.

The MAGA Coalition and Next Week's Potential Reversal of Progress

MAGA is essentially a coalition of losers from history: those who opposed FDR’s regulation of capital, Lincoln’s shift from tariffs to income taxes and public investment, and Jefferson’s push to separate church and state. Each was a minority in its day, but together—and fueled by disinformation—they’ve turned next week’s election into a coin flip. Now, they have a real shot at overturning the three most defining and positive political transformations of the modern world.

What Was Possible With Even An Average COVID Response

In the first year after the outbreak, COVID fatalities in the U.S. occurred at roughly twice the rate of the average OECD country. This suggests that, had the pandemic been managed as effectively as in other countries, around 40% of the Americans who died from COVID in that first year might have survived.

Pennsylvania - Still a Swing State 224 Years Later

In the 1800 election between Federalist John Adams and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, Pennsylvania was the swing state that tipped the scales. 224 years later, it’s still a swing state with the power to deliver the presidency. (A client from Philadelphia once told me, 'Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in between.' That's a formula for a purple state.)


It’s almost as if the ghosts of the Founding Fathers are making sure the state that hosted the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution still has the final say in this country’s direction. (And if ghosts are haunting the country, it might explain why Election Day is just a week after Halloween.)

Zero-sum Thinking and Resultant Slowdown at the Heart of Economic Stagnation, BREXIT, and MAGA-nomics

The UK's GDP growth per person slowed dramatically from 2.5% to around 0.5% annually following Brexit—a drastic change, largely attributable to the economic effects of Britain's withdrawal from the EU and the global economy.
Just as Britons narrowly voted for Brexit, we Americans might similarly (and narrowly) vote for Trump, potentially embracing policies that involve withdrawing from the global economy through tariffs, deportations, and other isolationist measures. If so, we could experience a comparable economic slowdown, starkly contrasting with the thriving economy of recent years.
This isn’t surprising. While economies are complex and unpredictable, one certainty is that zero-sum thinking—where gains are seen only at others' expense—leads to economic decline. The mindset behind Brexit was that Europe was prospering at Britain's expense, just as Trump's supporters believe that the world is prospering at the expense of the U.S. Zero-sum thinking is not only the root of conflict but a path to scarcity. Unfortunately, it’s also at the core of both Brexit and "MAGA-nomics."