The inflation picture is getting better but we still have too much of it. Inflation is going but not gone, and probably won’t be gone anytime soon. Today I’ll tell you why.

We are in the time of year when Americans pack transatlantic airliners for their European vacations. I had actually hoped to be one of them. That didn’t work out but we can still talk about events in Europe. And we probably should, because potentially major changes are happening.

Long-time readers know I have not been a fan of the Chevron deference. I think it was one of the worst decisions of the last century. I've been aware of it because I'm in a regulated business.

The giant federal debt we’ve been talking about isn’t just borrowed money. It is also lent money. Loans are two-party transactions. One side receives temporary use of cash which it agrees to repay with interest. The other gives up the current use of that cash in exchange for receiving interest. Ideally, it works out for both… but not always.

The old saw about doing the same thing and expecting a different result is less simple than it seems. Sometimes you need a few attempts to get it right.

You know I’m highly concerned about government debt in the developed world, particularly the US. I’ve said for years a crisis is coming. We’ve blown right past all our chances to avoid it. Now all we can do is imagine what the crisis will look like… and how much it will hurt.

I’m writing you from Cape Town, South Africa, where I’ve been warmly welcomed and reminded how much I enjoy international travel (well, except for jet lag!). Our world has so many wonders most people never get to experience. Of course, “there’s no place like home,” but seeing other places makes me happy, too.

Data is important but not everything. Perceptions matter, too. Today we’ll look at how people feel inflation and what it may mean in the years to come.

When new inventions turn into market frenzies, the contrarian part of me wants to be skeptical. But the optimistic part of me wants it to be true, especially when the idea promises to change life for the better. Reality is usually somewhere in between.

Sometimes two seemingly opposite things can be true at the same time. Right now, we can correctly say inflation is both a) better than it was and b) higher than it should be.

Any way you care to measure it, the United States has the world’s largest economy. It is not, however, the fastest-growing economy. And growth rates matter because, other things being equal, a faster-growing economy might eventually challenge US leadership.

I’m entering my annual post-SIC decompression period. I say that only half-jokingly. The last two weeks were my version of a dive deep into the sea, where you see shocking things and endure crushing pressure. The weeks of preparation are fun, but the sheer volume of information creates its own kind of pressure. You don’t just shift back into normal life after that.

This week is part two of our conversation about alternative investments. As I pointed out last week, this space has evolved into a distinct asset class of its own. I believe investors need to understand the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of investing in alternatives.

Today, we look at the world of “alternative investing.” I put it in quotes because this was originally a somewhat pejorative term. Back in the 1960s (and maybe before?), brokers sold you stocks and bonds, saying that was how smart people invested

This week continues our series on dividends and dividend growth stocks. This is one part of my strategy to try to get through what I see as a coming crisis by the end of the decade with as much of my buying power as intact as possible.

A critical question is how do we get as much buying power as possible from the beginning of the crisis through to the other side? Part of the answer is Warren Buffett’s admonition to never bet against America. Better to do as he does, investing in specific parts of America.

Leaders take a lot of criticism. In fact, that’s part of the job. Presidents, governors, CEOs, football coaches, other top decision makers and even your humble analyst all have to answer for what happens on their watch—even when it’s not their fault.

If, like me, you’re old enough to remember the 1990s internet bubble, today’s AI excitement might be giving you flashbacks. The parallels are unmistakable.

You may have noticed the stock market rising lately. Much of the gain isn’t so much “the market” as a handful of mega-cap stocks. Nonetheless, the bulls are clearly in charge. The question is how long they will stay there. History suggests longer than many market bears think.

The idea that “market expectations” tell us anything about the economy’s future is – or should be – in serious doubt. That’s not to say the market is wrong. It just changes its mind so often as to be useless. And most of the time, it changes its mind after the fact.

Today, we have a different kind of letter. I’ve been in California for some rather innovative and hopefully life/health span-extending medical treatment.

Recently I saw a T-shirt for sale that said, “Science Doesn’t Care What You Think.” I used a similar metaphor recently, observing how many experiments show that jumping off a cliff will send you rapidly downward. If you want to test that theory, please add me to your will first.

If you’re a parent or grandparent, you may know of the “Choose Your Own Adventure” storybook series. Written in second person, they make “you” the hero.

One of the more fascinating and mysterious parts of watching the Federal Reserve is the ongoing dialogue between Fed leaders and Wall Street. We imagine private meetings held in great secrecy. Those may in fact occur, but I’m not sure they are even necessary.

Modern economies, even small ones, are unfathomably complex. The number of variables is far more than any human can comprehend or any model can track. It’s really no wonder so many forecasts are wrong.

In thinking about the 2020s, I often find myself looking back to the 1920s. That decade began with a deep recession/depression and ended with a stock market crash. While we now see the 1920s as a kind of “in between” period, people at the time didn’t know another depression and war were coming.

“Two is better than one” is a nice saying, but it really depends on what you’re describing. Two hurricanes or earthquakes aren’t better than one. Just one disaster at a time will suffice, thank you very much.

Having now spent almost six months describing the historical cycles and massive debt that surround us, I find myself looking for an “easy” exit.

It’s forecast season again, the time when people like me tell people like you what will happen this year. Sadly, we are often wrong.

It's that time of year when we start thinking about the old and envisioning the new. This has always been a special season for me, perhaps because of my unusual quirk of really wanting to divine the nature of the future—not just an investment in economics but in general.

First, let me wish you Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays or your favorite personal form of greetings for this time of year.

If you really want to reduce the federal debt, you don’t have to convince Congress of anything. You can just write a check. The Treasury Department gladly accepts gifts from anyone so inclined.

One thing you learn when writing about the debt problem, as I have been in recent weeks, is that many people think it’s not a problem at all.

Back in the Great Financial Crisis era, someone quipped that the federal government had become a giant hedge fund with an army attached. That wasn’t far off. Various agencies and entities were absorbing all kinds of risky assets to stabilize an overleveraged system.

Thanksgiving brings to mind not only turkeys, family, and friends, but also should help us recall the remarkable ideas and philosophies that helped shape, and indeed were, the foundation for the United States of America as a Republic.

The federal government starts a new fiscal year every October 1. In a rational world, Congress would fulfill its responsibilities by passing bills before that date to authorize spending in the various agencies and programs.

Exploring federal budget data is a journey through endless rabbit holes, some of which are eerily close to Alice in Wonderland insanity. Countless variables interact in unexpected ways. Seemingly small changes can cascade into billions of dollars within a few years.

Identifying problems is great. Identifying solutions is even better, especially when the politicians who are supposed to be solving our big problems don’t even try.

The ancient Greeks had a word κάθαρσις, which in English we now spell as “catharsis,” although it’s pronounced basically the same. It originally referred to purifying religious ceremonies, medical treatments, and so on.

We have been looking at big historical/economic/political cycles for the past two months.

When your system, whatever it may be, is working extremely well, we used to say it’s “firing on all 8 cylinders.” What does that mean?

One mark of true brilliance is the ability to make complex ideas seem simple. I think this is why so many of us fondly remember our early schoolteachers.

Intermission is over. Today we resume my series on the global cycle theories that, probably not by coincidence, all point to major change unfolding in the next few years. Finishing it may take some time since I keep finding new material.

Last week we began exploring the details of my personal portfolio. This week we will finish and then move back to our discussion of various cycles.

Today, I am going to do something that I've never done. I am going to start a two-part series describing what is in my personal portfolio and why. Let me start by offering two caveats: This letter is in the “do as I say and not as I do” category.

Greetings from Europe. I promised to write a letter describing my personal investment portfolio. I still plan to, but it won’t be this week.

Look up the word “cycle” in a dictionary, and you’ll find something like this: “A regularly recurring sequence of events.” Sounds simple, but that definition leaves a lot of ambiguity.

Today we continue our study of the historical cycles suggesting a major crisis is in our near-term (5‒8 years) future. We don’t know the precise timing or nature of the crisis, but the patterns indicate one is coming and could be severe.

My last three letters reviewed Neil Howe’s new book about the Fourth Turning. Today we’ll look at another set of patterns observed by my friend George Friedman in the geopolitical realm. George’s view of how patterns shape countries is different but not inconsistent with Neil’s generational cycles.

Today we’ll continue reviewing Neil Howe’s magisterial new book, The Fourth Turning Is Here, focusing on the Millennial Generation’s important role in the coming crisis. Then we’ll think about what the crisis may look like. Finally—because I always try to look on the bright side—we’ll consider what Neil expects in the “First Turning” that will follow.