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.