Capitalogix

Is AI Making You And Your Team Smarter?

At the core of Capitalogix’s existence is a commitment to systemization and automation. 

At first, the goal was to eliminate fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes from trading.

Over time, we’ve worked hard at making countless things easier. Much like math, we found that the best practice is to simplify complex processes before trying to automate them.

I’m surprised by how many times I have had the same realization ... Less is more.

Likewise, I’ve learned the hard way that a great strategy is useless if people don’t get it. That is part of the reason that frameworks are so important.

Ultimately, the process, the system, and the automation should follow this basic recipe if you want it to succeed:  Simple, Repeatable, Consistent, and Scalable.

Finding ways to automate sounds great. Increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and certainty sounds great, too  ... but, routines and habits become ruts and limits when they become un-measured, un-managed, or forgotten. 

A practical reality of increasing automation and constant progress is that it becomes increasingly important to have expiration dates on decisions, systems, components, and automations. We need to shine a light on things to make sure they still make sense or to determine whether we have a better option.

Freeing humans to create the most value sounds great, too ... but, as the pace of technological progress increases, the importance of freeing people to do more diminishes if they don’t actively rise to the occasion.

 

My Use of Technology

I got my first computer in 1984. It was the original Macintosh. That means I’ve been searching for and collecting technology tools to make business and life easier and better since the mid-80s.

It has been a long and winding road. These days,  it seems like I’m constantly looking for new ways to use AI in my life.

As you might guess, I “play” with a lot of tools. Of course, I think of it as research, discovery, and skill-building ... rather than playing. Why? Because it is something I’m good at, it produces value – and it gives me energy ... so, I make sure to reserve a place for it in my routine.

While most of what I explore doesn’t make it into my “real work” routine, I now have a toolbox of dozens of tools that I use for everything from research, notetaking, brainstorming, writing, and even relaxing. 

It’s a little embarrassing, but my most popular YouTube video is an explainer video on Dragon NaturallySpeaking from 13 years ago. It was (and still is) dictation software, but from a time before your phone gave you that capability. 

As I focus on systemization, I also have to focus on optimization. 

Using generative AI tools for daily research has fundamentally changed how I approach information gathering. What began as a meditative practice—slowly reading, digesting, and reflecting on material—has evolved into a faster, more expansive process. With AI, I can now scan and synthesize a much broader set of sources in far less time. The quality of the summaries and takeaways is high, enabling me to deliver more value to others. I can write better articles, share timely insights with fellow business owners, and keep my team well-informed. The impact on others has grown — but something subtle has shifted in my own learning.

The tradeoff is that if I’m not as careful as I used to be while doing the research, and I don’t engage with the material in the same way I did before. When I did the research manually, I was “chewing and swallowing” each idea, pausing to make connections, reflecting on implications, and wrestling with the nuance. That process was slower, but it etched ideas more deeply into memory.

As a result, my favorite articles of the week or month would show up in how I spoke on stage, what I wrote about, and how I worked through roadblocks with employees. Now, I notice that although I’m exposed to more information, it doesn’t have the same weight or impact. I’m consuming more at scale ... but retaining less, or perhaps less deeply (at least in my head). In contrast, I store much more, both in terms of quantity and depth, in my second brain (meaning, the digital repositories available for search when needed).

This brings up a fundamental distinction between knowledge storage and knowledge retrieval. Storage is about accumulating information, while retrieval is about quickly accessing and using the correct information at the right time. It requires digestion. 

It’s kind of like Amazon. Amazon has made buying books and getting them on my shelves easier than ever. I’ve got 1000s of books with answers to many of life’s questions. But, I’d estimate that I’ve really only read around half of the books I currently have on my shelf. The point is that having a book on your shelf with the answer to a problem is not the same as having the answers. 

I now have many thousands of articles in my Evernote. There are probably over a hundred of them about better “prompt engineering” or using “prompting techniques better”... but I can’t pretend that each article has made me better at those things. I have gotten better at thin-slicing and knowing what I want to store to improve the quality of the raw material I search for.

So now, I’m exploring how to maintain a balance. I still want to leverage AI’s value, while reintroducing a layer of slowness and reflection into the process. Maybe that means manually summarizing some articles. Maybe it means pausing to journal about what I’ve read, or discussing it with someone. The goal is not to abandon the efficiency — but to ensure that efficiency doesn’t come at the cost of depth.

The priority is making sure I’m optimizing on the right thing. It’s not progress if you’re taking steps in the wrong direction.

Let me know what you think about that ... or what you are doing that you think is worth sharing.

Onwards!

The World Is Getting Older ... You Are Too

We're on the cusp of a major demographic shift. 

Fertility rates are dropping and life expectancy is rising, basically across the globe. On the surface, not explicitly bad. It's great that improvements in healthcare, technology, and quality of life are resulting in a larger senior population. 

 

via visualcapitalist

In 1980, the average person was 26.5 years old. Today, the average person is 33.6 years old. 

Meanwhile, population growth has halved in the same time period. 

Based on this chart, the global population would start declining in 2085, as the average age rises to 42. By 2100, the global population will begin declining. 

Of course, there's variation depending on the country. 

Most countries are thinking about how to increase fertility rates. If fertility rates decline, and your population lives longer, you end up with a larger percentage of the population that cannot or does not work anymore. That results in more expenditure - especially in pension and healthcare systems -  without an accompanying increase in GDP or productivity. 

It seems unlikely that something won't dramatically affect these trends over the next 60 years.

Even if expenditure becomes a non-issue, countries are unlikely to be happy with declining population growth, in part because of declining production resources and tax income, but also because of diminished global power. 

What do you think? 

Global Happiness Levels in 2025

Are you Happy?

What does that mean? How do you define it? And how do you measure it?

Happiness is a surprisingly complex concept comprised of conditions that highlight positive emotions over negative ones. And upon a bit of reflection, happiness is bolstered by the support of comfort, freedom, wealth, and other things people aspire to experience. 

Regardless of how hard it is to describe (let alone quantify) ... humans strive for happiness.

Likewise, it is hard to imagine a well-balanced and objective "Happiness Report" because so much of the data required to compile it seems subjective and requires self-reporting. 

Nonetheless, the World Happiness Report takes an annual look at quantifiable factors (like health, wealth, GDP, and life expectancy) and more intangible factors (like social support, generosity, emotions, and perceptions of local government and businesses). Below is an infographic highlighting the World Happiness Report data for 2025.

World Happiness Report via Gallup

Click here to see a dashboard with the raw worldwide data.

I last shared this concept in 2022. At the time, we were still seeing the ramifications of COVID-19 on happiness levels. As you might expect, the pandemic caused a significant increase in negative emotions reported. Specifically, there were substantial increases in reports of worry and sadness across the ninety-five countries surveyed. The decline in mental health was higher in groups prone to disenfranchisement or other particular challenges – e.g., women, young people, and poorer people. 

Ultimately, happiness scores are relatively resilient and stable, and humanity persevered in the face of economic insecurity, anxiety, and more.

While scores in North America have dropped slightly, there are positive trends. 

The 2025 Report

In the 2025 report, one of the key focuses was an increase in pessimism about the benevolence of others. There seems to be a rise in distrust that doesn't match the actual statistics on acts of goodwill. For example, when researchers dropped wallets in the street, the proportion of returned wallets was far higher than people expected. 

Unfortunately, our well-being depends on our perception of others' benevolence, as well as their actual benevolence. 

Since we underestimate the kindness of others, our well-being can be improved by seeing acts of true benevolence. In fact, the people who benefit most from perceived benevolence are those who are the least happy. 

"Benevolence" increased during COVID-19 in every region of the world. People needed more help, and others responded. Even better, that bump in benevolence has been sustained, with benevolent acts still being about 10% higher than their pre-pandemic levels. 

Another thing that makes a big difference in happiness levels worldwide is a sense of community. People who eat with others are happier, and this effect holds across many other variables. People who live with others are also happier (even when it's family). 

The opposite of happiness is despair, and deaths of despair (suicide and substance abuse) are falling in the majority of countries. Deaths of despair are significantly lower in countries where more people are donating, volunteering, or helping strangers. 

Yet, Americans are increasingly eating alone and living alone, and are one of the few countries experiencing an increase in deaths of despair (especially among the younger population). In 2023, 19% of young adults across the world reported having no one they could count on for social support. This is a 39% increase compared to 2006. 

Takeaways

In the U.S., and a few other regions, the decline in happiness and social trust points to the rise in political polarisation and distrust of "the system". As life satisfaction lowers, there is a rise in anti-system votes.

Among unhappy people attracted by the extremes of the political spectrum, low-trust people are more often found on the far right, whereas high-trust people are more inclined to vote for the far left.

Despite that, when we feel like we're part of a community, spend time with others, and perform prosocial behavior, we significantly increase perceived personal benefit and reported happiness levels.

Do you think we can return to previous levels of trust in the States? I remember when it felt like both parties understood that the other side was looking to improve the country, just with different methods. 

On a broader note, while we have negative trends in the U.S., the decrease is lower than you might expect. The relative balance demonstrated in the face of such adversity may point towards the existence of a hedonic treadmill - or a set-point of happiness.

Regardless of the circumstances, people can focus on what they choose, define what it means to them, and choose their actions.

Remember, throughout history, things have gotten better. There are dips here and there, but like the S&P 500 ... we always rally eventually. 

Onwards!

What Do You Do When AI is Better Than You?

When Beethoven was at the peak of his career, several of his contemporaries struggled to deal with the realization that they may never create anything that lived up to his creations. Brahms, for example, refused to make a symphony for 21 years. Schubert is quoted as saying, “Who can ever do anything after Beethoven?”

We’re seeing the same effect as a result of Artificial Intelligence. 

 

via visualcapitalist

The gap between human and machine reasoning is narrowing fast. I remember when AlphaGo, an AI program created by Google’s DeepMind, finally got better than humanity at Go. It was a big deal, and it prompted us to think seriously about competition in a post-AI world. If you can’t be the best, is it still worth competing? To one former Go champion, it wasn’t. He retired after “declaring AI invincible.” 

Over the past few years, AI systems have advanced rapidly, surpassing humans in many more tasks. Much like Beethoven, AI is discouraging competition. 

Was Lee Sedol, the former Go champ, wrong to quit? It’s hard to say ... but as AI gets better at more activities, it’s an issue we’ll encounter more often.

There’s always someone (or something) better. Taking a purely utilitarian approach isn’t always necessary or productive. It often helps to take a longer view of the issue.

Sometimes, it's okay to just do something because you enjoy doing it.

Sometimes you have to “embrace the suck” and be willing to put in the work to learn, grow, and progress.

Sometimes, you need to invest effort in understanding a process better to determine whether others (or automation) are achieving the right results.

The most successful people I know don’t try to avoid things with powerful potential. Instead, they leverage those things to achieve more and become better.

I advocate intelligently adopting AI, in part, because I expect the scale of AI’s “wins” will skyrocket. That means I know AI will soon be better than I am at things I do now.

It doesn’t mean I should give up. It means I have to raise the bar to stay competitive.

I have another belief that helps here. What if you believed, “The game isn’t over until I win ...”? With that belief in place, I won’t let a 2^nd place ceiling stop me if something gives me energy. AI may change how I play the game ... or even what game I choose to play ... but I will still choose to play.

 

 

What Happens to Human Work When Machines Get Smarter?

AI is changing the playing field at work, too. 

As a result, some say that AI-driven job displacement is not a future threat but a present reality.

This past week, several prominent  CEOs publicly mandated AI use, marking a shift to “AI-first” work culture, which prioritizes and integrates AI into the core of an organization’s strategy, operations, and overall culture.

Here is what I think (and you've probably heard me say this before): 

At this point, AI won't likely replace you ... but someone who uses AI better might.

Let’s face it, doing more with less is a core goal and strategy in business.

But that doesn’t mean humans are doomed. There are lots of historical parallels between AI integration and past technological revolutions. If you think about AI as a transformative force, you can hear the echoes of historical shifts that redefined work practices and intellectual labor (like the printing press, the calculator, or the internet).

We’re seeing significant changes in how we work. Instead of just having a mix of people working from home or the office (a hybrid workplace), we’re moving to a situation where people are working alongside smart computer programs, called AI agents (a hybrid workforce).

 

The rise of the hybrid workforce signifies a transformative shift in workplace dynamics. Gartner predicts that one-third of generative AI use cases will involve AI agents by 2028.

In the age of AI, success doesn’t come from battling technology — it comes from embracing our uniquely human powers and building systems that let those powers shine.

AI is coming - but it doesn’t have to be joy-sucking. Ideally, it should free you up to do MORE of the things that bring you joy, energy, and satisfaction. 

Onwards!

The Next Gilded Age ... This Generation's Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts

Wealth is fascinating to those who have it, those who want it ... and even those who don’t.

Billionaires have always controlled significant amounts of wealth compared to the general population. However, now we’re seeing substantial wealth differences grow within the billionaire population itself. The very richest are getting much richer compared to just “wealthy” people. 

When Forbes published its first World’s Billionaire List in 1987, 140 billionaires accounted for a total of $295 billion in global wealth. Topping that list was Yoshiaki Tsutsumi from Japan, with $20 billion. A lot has changed since then. Elon Musk topped this year’s Forbes List and is now worth over $342 billion. His wealth is about 21 times more than Tsutsumi’s ... and over two million times more than the average American family’s.

A New Gilded Age

In 2017, The Guardian released an article stating that the world’s super-rich held the greatest concentration of wealth since the turn of the 20th century. According to The Guardian, 1,542 billionaires held approximately $6 trillion in collective wealth, which would put them as the fifth largest GDP at the time. 

Last year, less than a decade since the Guardian’s article, Forbes estimated that 2,781 billionaires had a combined net worth of over $14 trillion. For a little more context, some estimate that the world’s richest 1% own more than 43% of global financial assets. 

Currently, the world’s super-billionaire population is primarily made up of entrepreneurs who made their money in the tech sector, or whose industry was catapulted to new levels by technological advances. Six of the top ten wealthiest individuals on the Forbes list fall into that category.

In comparison, the first Gilded Age was established by a few entrepreneurs controlling monopolies in US rail, oil, steel, and banking.

 

The image is “Bosses of the Senate”.

The Vanderbilts amassed $185 billion (adjusted for inflation) from their railroad empire. Andrew Carnegie made $309 billion from his steel empire. John D. Rockefeller made $336 billion from an oil empire (that controlled about 90% of the American oil business). They were the stars of the Gilded Age ... and their control over major industries led to some of the largest individual fortunes in American history compared to the average population. 

It’s interesting to look at the transition from the richest in the late 1800s to the richest in 2025 ... the transition from industries like Steel, Oil, and Rail, into companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Tesla, and Walmart. While they certainly dominate the spaces they’re in, it is a far cry from the monopolies of the 1800s. 

While there are more “super-rich” individuals today than before, our wealthiest individuals still manage to have some impressive stat lines. As of the end of 2024, Bernard Arnault was worth an estimated $233 billion. Elon Musk was worth around $195 billion, and Jeff Bezos was right behind at $194 billion. Today, Bernard is sitting at $178 billion, Elon is up to $342 billion, and Jeff is up to $215 billion. Arnault is a clear example of how Trump’s tariff announcement impacted billionaires. 

With the AI gold rush in full swing, it will be interesting to see who gets added to the list in the coming years. 

Let me know when your name makes that list. I’ll do the same.

Are Your AI Fears Valid? What Experts Say

It's no surprise that there is often a disparity between what experts believe and what the average adult feels. It's even more pronounced in industries like AI that have been lambasted by science fiction and popular media.

Even just a few years ago, many of my advisors and friends told me to avoid using the term "AI" in our materials because they thought people would respond negatively to it. Back then, people expected AI to be artificial and clunky ... yet, somehow, it also reminded them of dystopian stories about AI Overlords and Terminators. An incompetent superpower is scary ... so is a competent superpower you can't trust!

As AI integrates more heavily into our everyday lives, people's hopes and concerns are intensifying... but should they be? 

Pew Research Center surveyed over 5,000 adults and 1,000 experts about their concerns related to AI. The infographic shows the difference in concern those groups had regarding specific issues.

 

Statista via VisualCapitalist

Half of experts (47%) report being more excited than concerned about AI’s future. Among U.S. adults, just 11% say the same.
Instead, 51% of adults say they’re more concerned than excited — more than triple the rate of experts (15%).

 

The most common—and well-founded—fears center on misinformation and the misappropriation of information. Experts and the average adult are in alignment here. 

I am consistently surprised by the lack of media literacy and skepticism demonstrated by otherwise intelligent people. Images and articles that scream "fake" or "AI" to me are shared virally and used to not only take advantage of the most susceptible but also to create dangerous echo chambers. 

Remember how bad phishing e-mails used to be, and how many of our elderly or disabled ended up giving money to a fake Prince from various random countries? Even my mother, an Ivy League-educated lawyer, couldn't help but click on some of these e-mails. Meanwhile, the quality of these attacks has risen exponentially.

And we're seeing the same thing now with AI. Not only are people falling for images, videos, and audio, but you also have the potential for custom apps and AI avatars that are fully focused on exploitation. 

AI Adoption Implications

Experts and the average adult have a significant disparity in beliefs about the long-term ramifications of AI adoption, such as potential isolation or job displacement. 

I'm curious, how concerned are you that AI will lead to fewer connections between people or job loss? 

I often say that technology adoption has very little to do with technology and much more to do with human nature.

That obviously includes AI adoption as well. 

Career growth often means abandoning an old role to take on something new and better. It's about delegating, outsourcing, or automating tasks so you can free up time to work on things that matter more.

It may sound like a joke, but I don't believe most people will lose jobs to AI. Instead, they'll lose jobs to people who use AI better. The future of work will be about amplifying human intelligence ... making better decisions, and taking smarter actions. If your job is about doing those things – and you don't use AI to do them – you will fall behind, and there will be consequences.

It's the same way that technology overtook farming. Technology didn't put people out of work, but it did force people to work differently.

Innovation has always created opportunity and prosperity in the long term. Jobs may look different, and some roles may be phased out, but new jobs will take their place. Think of it as tasks being automated, not jobs. 

Likewise, COVID is not why people have resisted returning to the office. COVID might have allowed them to work remotely in the first place, but their decision to resist going back to the office is a natural part of human nature.

When people found that technology enabled them to meet expectations without a commute, opportunities and possibilities expanded.

Some used the extra time to learn and grow, raising their expectations. Others used that time to rest or focus on other things. They're both choices, just with different consequences.

Choosing to Contract or Expand in the Age of AI 

AI presents us with a similar inflection point. I could have easily used AI to write this article much faster, and it certainly would have been easier in the short term. But what are the consequences of that choice?

While outreach and engagement are important, the primary benefit of writing a piece like this, for me, is to take the time and to go through the exercise of thinking about these issues ... what they mean, what they make possible, and how that impacts my sense of the future. That wouldn't happen if I didn't do it.  

I often say, "First bring order to chaos ... then wisdom comes from making finer distinctions." Doing work often entails embracing the chaos and making finer distinctions over time as you gain experience. With repetition, the quality of those results improves. As we increasingly rely on technology to do the work, to learn, and to grow, the technology learns and grows. If you fail to also learn and grow, it's not the technology's fault. It is a missed opportunity.

The same is true for connection. AI can help you connect better with yourself and others... or it can be another excuse to avoid connection.

You can now use an AI transcription service to record every word of an interaction, take notes, create a summary, and even highlight key insights. That sounds amazing! But far too many people become accustomed to the quality of that output and fail to think critically, make connections, or even read and process the information.

It could be argued that our society already has a connection problem (or an isolation epidemic), regardless of AI. Whether you blame it on social media, remote work, or COVID-19, for a long time, how we connect (and what we consider "connection") has been changing. However, many still have fulfilling lives despite the technology ... again, it's a choice. Do you use these vehicles to amplify your life, or are they a substitute and an excuse to justify failing to pursue connection in the real world?.

As said, actions have consequences ... and so do inactions.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these issues. Are you focused on the promise or the perils of AI?

The "Chart Of The Century" In 2025: A Look At Consumer Price Inflation

In an era of economic uncertainty, few visualizations have captured the attention of economists, policymakers, and everyday consumers like the “Chart of the Century” created and named by Mark Perry, an economics professor and AEI scholar. This chart tracks the dramatic shifts in consumer prices across various sectors of the American economy over a quarter-century, revealing patterns that challenge conventional wisdom about inflation, purchasing power, and economic well-being.

The most current version reports price increases from 2000 through the end of 2024 for 14 categories of goods and services, along with the average wage and overall Consumer Price Index. Here are the key findings.

 

• Wage growth has outpaced inflation by a significant margin (123.3% vs. 90%) from 2000 to 2024, resulting in a 16.1% increase in real purchasing power.
• Sharp divergence exists between sectors: Technology and tradable goods have become much cheaper, while healthcare, education, and childcare costs soared.
• Market competition and trade liberalization drive price decreases, while regulated markets and limited competition contribute to price increases.
• Despite objective improvements in purchasing power, many consumers still feel financial pressure due to changing consumption patterns and “quality of life creep”.
• Policy challenges remain in balancing regulation with market forces, particularly in essential services like healthcare and education.

 

Core Economic Metrics: The Big Picture

The foundation of this analysis rests on three critical metrics that provide context for all other price trends:

 

Metric	Change (2000-2024)
Consumer Price Index (CPI)	+90%
Average Hourly Income	+123.3%
Real Purchasing Power	+16.1%

 

From January 2000 to now, the CPI for All Items has increased by almost 90%. That is a big jump from its 59.6% level in 2019, when I first shared this chart.

 

These numbers tell a surprising story: despite widespread perceptions of economic hardship, Americans’ wages have grown significantly faster than inflation over these 24 years. This translates to a meaningful increase in real purchasing power – the ability to buy more goods and services with the same amount of work.

 

However, this aggregate picture masks dramatic variations across different categories of goods and services. Let’s explore these divergent trends.

 

The price of technology, electronics, and consumer goods — think toys and television sets — has tumbled over the past two decades. Why? These categories benefit from global competition, technological innovation, and manufacturing efficiencies.

Meanwhile, the cost of hospital stays, childcare, and college tuition, to name a few, have surged. Why? These sectors share important characteristics: they are typically non-tradable services (cannot be imported), operate in markets with limited competition, and are often subject to extensive regulation.

Below is Perry’s Chart of the Century. To help you interpret it better, lines above the overall inflation line have become functionally more expensive over time, and lines below the overall inflation line have become functionally less expensive. 

via Human Progress

For context, at the beginning of 2020, food, beverages, and housing were in line with inflation. They’ve now skyrocketed above inflation, which helps to explain the unease many households are feeling right now. College tuition and hospital services also have continued to rise relative to inflation over the past few years.

 

Market Dynamics: Understanding the Divergence

What explains these dramatically different price trajectories? Here are several (but not all of the) key factors:

Factors Driving Price Increases

• Government regulation creating compliance costs and barriers to entry.
• Quasi-monopolistic markets with limited price competition.
• Non-tradeable services protected from foreign competition.
• Limited technological disruption in certain service sectors.

Factors Driving Price Decreases

• Foreign competition putting downward pressure on prices.
• Technological advancement reducing production costs.
• Manufacturing optimization increasing efficiency.
• Market competition forcing price discipline.
• Trade liberalization expanding access to global markets.

Looking at the prices that decrease the most, they’re all technologies. New technologies almost always become less expensive as we optimize manufacturing, components become cheaper, and competition increases. According to VisualCapitalist, at the turn of the century, a flat-screen TV would cost around 17% of the median income ($42,148). Since then, though, prices fell quickly. Today, a new TV typically costs less than 1% of the U.S. median income ($54,132).

We should also consider the larger trends. For example, In 2020, I asked what Coronavirus would do to prices ... and the answer turned out to be way less than expected. If you don’t look at the rise in inflation but instead the change in trajectories, very few categories were heavily affected. While hospital services have increased significantly since 2019, they were already rising. There were some immediate impacts, but they went away relatively quickly. 

Another thing to consider is average hourly income. Since 2000, overall inflation has increased by 87.3%, while average hourly income has increased by 123.3%. This means that hourly income increased 38% faster than prices (which indicates a 16.1% decrease in overall time prices). You get 19.2% more today for the same amount of time worked ~24 years ago. This represents a mild increase in abundance since last year. 

via Human Progress

Although 10 of the 14 items rose in nominal prices over the past 24 years, only five had a higher time price when accounting for the 123.3 percent increase in hourly wages. Those items were medical care services, childcare and nursery school, college textbooks, college tuition and fees, and hospital services. 

The Consumer Experience: Perception vs. Reality

It’s interesting to look at data like that, knowing that the average household is feeling a “crunch” right now.

My guess is that few consumers distinguish between perception and reality. However, feeling a crunch isn’t necessarily the same as being in a crunch.

For instance, we must account for ‘quality of life creep,’ where people tend to splurge on luxuries as their standard of living improves. With the ease of online shopping and access to consumer credit, it has become increasingly easy to make impulse purchases, leading to reduced savings and feelings of financial scarcity. This phenomenon is a function of increased consumption (rather than inflation), yet it still leaves consumers feeling like they’re struggling to make ends meet. Our sense of what’s normal has risen, and that’s hard to unlearn. 

 

Perry’s ‘Chart of the Century’ reveals the complex relationships between inflation, consumption, and economic growth. While households may feel financial strain, the data shows that income has outpaced inflation, and technology has made many goods more affordable. Nonetheless, there is still a real sense of economic struggle. Especially in these last few months. 

 

Economic Patterns: Regulated vs. Free Markets

A clear pattern emerges when examining the relationship between market structures and price trends.

Regulated Markets (like healthcare and education) tend toward higher prices over time, feature less price competition, and offer limited consumer choice.

Free Markets, show price decreases over time, feature greater competition, and provide consumers more options.

This pattern raises important questions about the role of regulation in various economic sectors and the balance between consumer protection and market efficiency.

With that in mind, how can policymakers address sectors experiencing significant price hikes, such as healthcare and education, without stifling innovation in tradable goods and services? 

Future Outlook

Beyond all that, here are three other key trends to watch.

• AI Disruption: Telemedicine and online education could bend healthcare/education cost curves.
• Trade Wars: New tariffs risk reversing tech price declines (e.g., proposed tariffs on Chinese electronics).
• Generational Shifts: Millennials prioritize experiences over goods, potentially easing service demand.

As we continue to innovate and policy changes, it will be interesting to see if we can make essential services as dynamically competitive as consumer electronics. While America is one of the best countries in the world in countless ways, we do lag behind several countries in healthcare and education.

Onwards.

Why Don't We See Aliens?

So, if the math says it's likely that there are aliens ... why don't we see them?

In 2020, I mentioned Israeli officials who claimed they had been contacted by Aliens from a Galactic Federation - and that not only is our government aware of this, but they are working together.

There are many stories (or theories) about how we have encountered aliens before and just kept them secret. Here are some links to things you might find interesting if you want to learn more about this.

• NewsNation Segment: UFO Whistleblower Jake Barber Shares Allegations and Will Testify to Congress About Nonhuman Craft Retrievals.
• NewsNation Segment: UFO whistleblower David Grusch: 'We are not alone.'
• Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, Professor of Religious Studies, bridges the gap between religious studies, technological advancements, and the realm of UFO phenomena.
• Trailer for a film called "The Phenomenon."

So, while some may still believe aliens don't exist - I think it's a more helpful thought experiment to wonder why we haven't seen them. 

For example, the Fermi Paradox considers the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and the various high-probability estimates for their existence. 

To simplify the issue, billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (which is only one of many galaxies) are similar to our Sun. Consequently, there must be some probability that some of them will have Earth-like planets. It isn't hard to conceive that some of those planets should be older than ours, and thus some fraction should be more technologically advanced than us. Even if you assume they're only looking at evolutions of our current technologies, interstellar travel isn't absurd. 

Thus, based on the law of really large numbers (both in terms of the number of planets and length of time we are talking about) ... it makes the silence all the more deafening and curious. 

If you are interested in the topic "Where are all the aliens?"  Stephen Webb, a particle physicist, tackles that in his book and this TED Talk.   

via TED

In the TED talk, Stephen Webb covers a couple of key factors necessary for communicative space-faring life. 

1. Habitability and stability of their planet
2. Building blocks of life 
3. Technological advancement
4. Socialness/Communication technologies

But he also acknowledges the numerous confounding variables, including things like imperialism, war, bioterrorism, fear, the moon's effect on climate, etc. 

Essentially, his thesis is that there are numerous roadblocks to intelligent life, and it's entirely possible we are the only planet that has gotten past those roadblocks. Even if there were others, it's entirely possible that they're extinct by now. 

What do you think?

Here are some other links I liked on this topic. There is some interesting stuff you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand or enjoy. 

• 75 Reasons We Don't See Aliens 
• Wait But Why: The Fermi Paradox
• A New Theory on Why We Haven't Found Aliens Yet
• A List of Solutions to The Fermi Paradox
• Dissolving the Fermi Paradox, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University

To Infinity and Beyond!

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - April 20th, 2025

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye recently. Hope you find something interesting.

Lighter Links:

• OpenAI's Most Impressive Move Has Nothing to Do With AI. (ZDNet)
• AI Stuns Researchers by Rewriting Its Own Code to Overcome Limitations. (TalkAndroid)
• Meta’s New AI Tech Can Read Your Mind at Work…What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (AllWork)
• How to Enter a ‘Flow State’ on Command: Peak Performance Mind Hack Explained in 7 Minutes. (OpenCulture)
• British Anthropologist Claims Jesus' Tomb and Ark of the Covenant are Beneath the Great Pyramid. (JPost)

 

 

Trading Links:

• Trump’s Knives Are Out for Jerome Powell, Setting Up a Supreme Court Showdown Over the Fed’s Independence. (Fortune)
• First Shockwaves of Trump’s Tariffs are About to Hit the World Economy. (Bloomberg)
• America is Losing the Robot Wars. (Insider)
• The Only Way Some Manufacturing Jobs Will Return Stateside is If AI-Empowered Robots Do Them—And That’s a Good Thing. (Fortune)
• ‘China’s Elon Musk’ Uses Just Two Numbers to Demonstrate Why His Country’s Auto Industry is Now Outcompeting the U.S. And Europe. (Fortune)

Are We Alone In The Universe?

Last week, Astronomers announced the discovery of the most promising "hints" of life on an exoplanet, K2-18, 124 light years away. 

While it would only be signs of phytoplankton and other microscopic marine life, it would still be a massive finding. 

I tend to read a lot across a wide variety of sources. Recently, I've noticed a significant uptick in stories about aliens, UFOs, non-human intelligence, and non-human technology. In addition, several of my seemingly sane friends claim to have direct knowledge of projects and groups (funded by well-known billionaires) close to making very public announcements about missions, research, and discoveries in these areas, they hope will result in discontiguous innovations and asymmetric capabilities.

While I believe it's naive to assume that there's no other form of life in a universe as vast as what we understand ... I'm also highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they have specific knowledge or proof. With that said, I have seen enough stuff from people I trust to expect that our beliefs about these issues will shift massively in the very near future. As an example, check out Skywatch.ai, some of its videos, or this NewsNation broadcast.

Since we live in a time where technologies are rapidly advancing, I thought it might be interesting to test out an AI-powered chatbot designed to debunk conspiracy theories through evidence-based conversations. It is a spin-out project with roots at MIT and other top universities. Research shows that many people doubted or abandoned false beliefs after a short conversation with the DebunkBot. 

I first heard of this tool through these two articles: Meet DebunkBot, The AI Chatbot that Will Debunk Any Conspiracies You Believe and AI Chatbot Shows Promise in Talking People Out of Conspiracy Theories.

Here is a link to the conversation I had with it about the belief  "Life likely exists elsewhere in the Universe due to its vastness and the repeated conditions that can give rise to life."  To my surprise, this tool concluded that the belief is not a conspiracy theory and reminded me that:

Science for the sake of knowing is one thing. Belief for the sake of hope, curiosity, or imagination is another. The search for "life" might actually help us discover something more valuable than what we thought we were searching for in the first place.

You can test your beliefs against DebunkBot's AI. Let me know how it goes and whether you changed your mind.

Meanwhile, Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, it's well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with the Drake and Seager equations.

The Drake equation estimates the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy and the universe. It factors in variables such as habitable planets, the likelihood of life, intelligent life, and the duration of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation, focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, the % have life, and the % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

Click here to play with the Are We Alone in the Universe infographic. 

 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, the infographic lets you look at various default options, but also enables you to change the variables based on your beliefs. 

For example, the skeptic's default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy, which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.

 

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative estimates are 420 years, but optimistic estimates are 10,000 or more. 

One other thing to consider is that some scientists believe that life is most likely to grow on planets with very high gravity, which would also make escaping their atmosphere for space travel nigh impossible.

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry, I won't tell. But we will find out who you voted for in the last election.

Last week, Astronomers announced the discovery of the most promising "hints" of life on an exoplanet, K2-18, 124 light years away. 

While it would only be signs of phytoplankton and other microscopic marine life, it would still be a massive finding. 

I tend to read a lot across a wide variety of sources. Recently, I've noticed a significant uptick in stories about aliens, UFOs, non-human intelligence, and non-human technology. In addition, several of my seemingly sane friends claim to have direct knowledge of projects and groups (funded by well-known billionaires) close to making very public announcements about missions, research, and discoveries in these areas, they hope will result in discontiguous innovations and asymmetric capabilities.

While I believe it's naive to assume that there's no other form of life in a universe as vast as what we understand ... I'm also highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they have specific knowledge or proof. With that said, I have seen enough stuff from people I trust to expect that our beliefs about these issues will shift massively in the very near future. As an example, check out Skywatch.ai, some of its videos, or this NewsNation broadcast.

Since we live in a time where technologies are rapidly advancing, I thought it might be interesting to test out an AI-powered chatbot designed to debunk conspiracy theories through evidence-based conversations. It is a spin-out project with roots at MIT and other top universities. Research shows that many people doubted or abandoned false beliefs after a short conversation with the DebunkBot. 

I first heard of this tool through these two articles: Meet DebunkBot, The AI Chatbot that Will Debunk Any Conspiracies You Believe and AI Chatbot Shows Promise in Talking People Out of Conspiracy Theories.

Here is a link to the conversation I had with it about the belief  "Life likely exists elsewhere in the Universe due to its vastness and the repeated conditions that can give rise to life."  To my surprise, this tool concluded that the belief is not a conspiracy theory and reminded me that:

Science for the sake of knowing is one thing. Belief for the sake of hope, curiosity, or imagination is another. The search for "life" might actually help us discover something more valuable than what we thought we were searching for in the first place.

You can test your beliefs against DebunkBot's AI. Let me know how it goes and whether you changed your mind.

Meanwhile, Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, it's well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with the Drake and Seager equations.

The Drake equation estimates the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy and the universe. It factors in variables such as habitable planets, the likelihood of life, intelligent life, and the duration of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation, focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, the % have life, and the % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

Click here to play with the Are We Alone in the Universe infographic. 

 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, the infographic lets you look at various default options, but also enables you to change the variables based on your beliefs. 

For example, the skeptic's default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy, which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.

 

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative estimates are 420 years, but optimistic estimates are 10,000 or more. 

One other thing to consider is that some scientists believe that life is most likely to grow on planets with very high gravity, which would also make escaping their atmosphere for space travel nigh impossible.

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry, I won't tell. But we will find out who you voted for in the last election.