Crash Into Me

I pulled a bunch of my investments when Trump got elected. This isn't to say I told you so, or look at how smart I am. The president said he was going to do something very stupid and I simply believed him. I'm obviously happy about that decision now but one can only be so happy when the world economy is in jeopardy and people have been and will continue to be losing their livelihoods. Being right about these sorts of things costs a little bit and it's offensive to gloat in any way about your assessment of the economy anyway. The market has baked you into its casserole in ways you couldn't even dream of and if you're right about a trend you probably got lucky anyway.

My father and I have had the same disagreement for about a decade now. We both think people can change but we have radically different theories on how that happens. I subscribe closer to the brute-force method, wherein you have to tell them that what they're doing is bad and that the people who do or say the bad things are in fact bad, so if said person doesn't want to be bad they have to stop doing the bad thing. Sort of like, sure, it'd be cool to own a house but if you're upwardly mobile and pricing out poor people in poor neighborhoods that's bad and you're bad for doing it. Now, do I think that every family who buys a home in an underserved neighborhood is comprised of terrible people? No, of course not. But I think the best way to inspire others to engage with their own biases is to directly confront the implications of their choices. This is the way it's worked best for helping me properly view my station, so I try and deploy it as tactfully as I can.

My father, however, is nicer than I am. He would simply be proud of such an accomplishment and examine it slyly, also with tact, but more to try and see how you view your own implications and if you've considered them. I imagine his approach would be more similar to saying, What kind of neighborhood is it? Are there young families there? Is it near anything cool?

Implicit in all of this is an examination of ourselves. Am I angrier because I don't seize every possible financial opportunity? Is he more graceful because he's never been afforded them? I am not a rich man by any standards but I'm well enough that I'm able to pay for the small wedding I'll be having this summer. I understand this is all very gauche but I'm trying to express a larger idea.

I don't know if he's right or I'm right but I do know that I believe people when they tell me who they are. I have had an extremely healthy distaste for Seattle Mariners president of baseball operations Jerry Dipoto since he declared the Mariners' 10-year-plan was to win 54% of their games. Striving for mediocrity in sports is absurd. You play the game to win. At least the players do.

Now, the Seattle Mariners ownership group does not. There is a revenue sharing system amongst the owners in Major League Baseball that incentivizes a team like the Mariners not to spend too much money as it will have an adverse effect on their profit margin unless they win the World Series. This creates a disconnect between the business of baseball and their customer base. Sure, there are teams like the Dodgers and Mets who have ownership that is championship obsessed, but truthfully this is not how most baseball teams operate. Their pockets aren't deep enough or they aren't willing to dip too far into said pockets. Either way, the result is the same.

We see this constantly in the economy as well. It's essentially the entire basis for futures trading. Futures contracts derive themselves from an underlying asset, like crude oil or Shohei Ohtani. You get to bet on its value over time, defer your payments, or sell when the asset seems to be at its highest value. This works until it doesn't. When you have a market betting on a market betting on an asset and the asset itself is failing, everything comes down. You've seen this in 2008 with the housing market and you've seen it in the NBA's Cleveland Cavaliers with owner Ted Stepien in the early 80s. Stepien traded away five consecutive first round picks and took on exclusively bad contracts in hopes to contend immediately but instead tanking the Cavs in the process. The NBA was forced to step in and protect their underlying asset. They introduced a rule (the Stepien Rule, great job buddy), that stated you couldn't trade consecutive first round picks and instituted a trade freeze on the Cavs to save them from their myopic owner. He was essentially forced to sell by that point and did so, with Cleveland losing millions in the process. The franchise was moribund until they were fortunate enough to select LeBron James in the 2003 NBA draft. I'm not sure anything else could have fixed them.

The sad reality of the world economy is that we don't get to draft LeBron James. Donald Trump traded our first round picks for Elon Musk which is proving to be the worst contract in the world. Me or my father couldn't change these folks, we know, and even the different approaches seem trivial when facing an issue this big.

So, now what?

I certainly can't solve the world economy and I don't know who the next LeBron James is, but you can believe people when they tell you who they are. And believe them when they say they're trying to change. And believe them if they don't. And believe them if they do. That costs you nothing.

-Michael Campana