New Mexico

The disconnect between macroeconomic indicators and the lived experience of the American voter has reached a breaking point. While the White House and Donald Trump point toward robust GDP growth exceeding 2% and an S&P 500 that recently climbed 15%, the psychological state of the electorate is flashing a warning sign. Donald Trump's approval rating has plummeted to a 36% low, driven primarily by dissatisfaction with the economy. This is not a paradox of statistics, but a failure of distribution and perception. We are witnessing a "vibe session" where the prosperity is real, but it has been hoarded by the top 1% who now control 32% of total U.S. wealth—a figure roughly equal to the bottom 90% combined. Consumer Sentiment Decouples from the S&P 500 The fundamental problem for the current administration is that people do not eat GDP. They experience the economy through four distinct touchpoints: housing, jobs, groceries, and gas. In each of these categories, the signals are grim. Mortgage demand fell 10% last week, and the average age of a first-time homebuyer has jumped from 31 to 40 in just a single decade. Jerome Powell recently noted that private sector job creation was effectively zero, and consumer confidence in finding a quality job has cratered from 70% in 2022 to just 28% today. When Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council, suggests that war-related consumer pain is the "last of our concerns," he is saying the quiet part out loud. This administration is price-insensitive because the people in power occupy a different planet. If you fly private, you don’t care about TSA lines. If you are a billionaire, a 30% jump in gas prices is a rounding error. However, for the bottom 99%, the economy is not a series of charts; it is a series of daily humiliations. The Gini coefficient, a measure of wealth inequality, has reached 0.85 in the United States. Historically, when France reached 0.83, they began separating people from their heads. We are treading on dangerous ground where the middle class is no longer a self-healing organism but a vanishing species that requires urgent redistribution to survive. Prediction Markets Face a Bipartisan Reckoning As the traditional economy falters, a new corner of finance is exploding: prediction markets. Two U.S. Senators have introduced the Prediction Markets are Gambling Act, a bipartisan effort to ban sports-related betting on CFTC-regulated platforms. This legislation seeks to draw a hard line between financial hedging and pure dopamine-driven gambling. Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket have become vital data providers, often outperforming Wall Street analysts and Federal Reserve economists in predicting inflation and interest rate decisions. Kalshi, for instance, maintains a perfect record on predicting Federal Reserve rate hikes. The value of this data is undeniable for market analysts, yet the inclusion of sports betting threatens to muddy the waters. The argument is simple: if it looks like gambling and smells like gambling, it should be regulated like gambling. This means age-gating at 21 and prohibiting operations in states where sports betting is illegal. The real danger, however, isn't just for the prediction markets; it’s for the options markets. If regulators decide that betting on the outcome of a Super Bowl is gambling, they will eventually have to ask why a zero-day option on Apple stock—essentially a high-speed bet on a binary outcome—should be treated any differently. The CFTC is rightfully nervous because the distinction between "investing" and "speculating" has almost entirely evaporated. The End of the Beginning for Big Tech Immunity For nearly two decades, social media giants have operated in a regulatory Wild West, shielded by Section 230 and an aura of "innovator" invincibility. That era ended last week. A New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for failing to protect users from child predators, and a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for social media addiction. While the $4.2 million addiction penalty is chump change for Mark Zuckerberg, the market reacted with a 5% sell-off in Meta stock. This is because these were jury trials, not bench trials. When a judge decides a case, they focus on statutory minutia. When a jury of parents decides a case, they focus on the reality of their children’s rewired brains. The discovery process in these trials is revealing a horror film of corporate negligence. The New Mexico Attorney General created a dummy account for an 11-year-old girl and was instantly bombarded with explicit solicitations. Meta knew this was happening. They ignored any friction that threatened profitability. We are now entering the "Big Tobacco" phase of social media, where the legal precedent is set and thousands of follow-on lawsuits are looming. Insurance companies are already signaling they may not cover these liabilities because the harm was intentional. Mark Zuckerberg has made more money while damaging more young lives than perhaps any individual in history, but the check is finally coming due. Nike and the Perils of Stagnant Growth Looking toward the corporate horizon, Nike serves as a cautionary tale of brand erosion. Despite its status as one of the greatest advertisers in history, the stock is languishing at a 10-year low. This is the brutal reality of the public markets: investors hate a plateau more than they hate a dip. Nike's revenue has grown 50% over the last decade, yet it trades at the same valuation it held when it was a much smaller company. This is driven by margin compression and a failure to right-size the workforce. Since 2020, Nike has only increased its headcount by 3%. While that sounds conservative, the lack of aggressive profitability growth has left the company vulnerable. My prediction is clear: an activist investor will soon emerge to demand massive layoffs—potentially between 10,000 and 20,000 employees—to restore EBITDA growth. The brand is iconic, but the business model has become flabby. In an era where the top 0.1% are capturing the majority of wealth, even a titan like Nike cannot afford to be average. The coming years will be defined by a painful recalibration for both the American consumer and the corporations that failed to see the tide turning.