All-Time Highs. All-Time Disconnect.
The Market Isn’t Policy.
I’m all for a green market and positive investor sentiment. Personally, I'm a permabull. However, in the current investor market, there are green benchmarks and red flags everywhere.
The United States is in a situation where we’re in a "conflict entanglement," one we thought would ultimately be resolved more quickly than it has been. We tried to institute a ceasefire, but that broke down as negotiations failed. There is no lesser of two evils. There is no clear way out. We’ve gone from bad to worse at break neck speed.
As this has unfolded, we have not (re)instilled trust in the American people, or even earnestly tried, in my opinion. We also have not articulated any clear direction. And yet, the stock market continues to rise after 168 young children died in an “Oops, our bad” bombing. Twenty percent of the world's oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz could become taxed (still not 100% clear if this is happening yet) when it was toll-free prior to February 28. But the stock market, and the S&P in particular, continues to go up as if nothing is wrong. Looking at the daily chart, it looks like a student with their hand raised in class, anxiously waiting to be called on by their teacher.
I understand the importance of ensuring that malicious actors aren’t shorting the valuation of American companies during times of tumult. But what’s taking place at the moment isn’t going to win back favor for the fractured reputation of the United States. This isn’t the way. What is the way? I have ideas, not all the answers. However, what I do know is that the stock market, busting up like bamboo growing in wetlands in China, the S&P up over 600 points over 11 sessions during an unresolved "conflict," is insensitive, tone-deaf, and the optics are terrible. I remember when for 9/11, the stock market closed for 4 days.
The market cannot virtue signal what policy has failed to do, which is communicate honestly and sincerely with the American public and restore confidence based on a clear, achievable American goal. And even when that goal is achieved, or any goal for that matter (because there have been so many), the stock market cannot substitute for policy failure.
Just as we can’t bomb an ideology out of the minds of a people, we cannot pump the stock market to win over the hearts of people either. As smart as the people in Washington think they are, the American people aren’t stupid. Recent Pew data shows that roughly 60% of Americans don’t agree with what we’re doing in Iran, and they’re not going to change their minds because their stock portfolio is “hopefully” up. And I say “hopefully” because while the indices are at all-time highs, actual stock prices are not. Contrary to this market exuberance, likability can't be bought. People will still feel the way they feel, even if their stock portfolio is up.
The cachet of all-time highs used to mean something. On Wall Street, it seemed to be something we strived toward through strong company performance and quarterly earnings, it felt like a national accomplishment, if you will. But in the last six months, the S&P has hit all-time highs twice. When something happens repeatedly, it loses its allure. The question I've been asking myself today in particular is what exactly are we celebrating? Earnings season just started. Is this supposed to be exciting, amid the long-term cost of being back again in the Middle East, doing God knows what, for how long? What happened to our commitment to tackling our own issues and minding our domestic business?
I don’t agree with him often, but I think Ken Griffin is right; if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for an extended period of time, it could push not only the United States, but the world, into a global recession. Not to mention, if others decide to join this entanglement in the Middle East on Iran’s side (and why wouldn’t they at least consider it), I think it will weaken America domestically (that’s another post for another day). Talk about turning lemons into lemonade, we've served Iran a (new) revenue stream on a silver platter it didn’t have before February 28. Additionally, we gave China the opportunity for oil trade to shift from the petrodollar to the petroyuan. And if that isn't enough, this is a gigantic distraction from what we need to be focused on for American 3.0’s growth: artificial intelligence and technology dominance, digital currency, clean and renewable energy innovation, infrastructure advancement, and continued healthcare development.
No amount of shorting oil, pocket-watching the ships entering and leaving the Strait of Hormuz, publicly picking at Jerome Powell, and the Pope, or pumping the stock market for umpteen sessions will change that. The derailment of America’s growth, at least what I thought would be four years of America First, is disappointing to say the least.
The stock market can be green for another eleven sessions, but that doesn't matter to the 60% of Americans who oppose being in a war, or to those who can’t pay for groceries, are working two jobs just to cover rent, and still can’t afford healthcare.
Is the thought that if the volatility index (VIX) dives to 2, that makes America look strong because our stock market is at ATH on all indices? Or is it possible it shows our adversaries exactly where our pain points are, especially when the market tries to respond fundamentally to current events? There’s actually a Lego diss track depicting such. It’s embarrassing.
What’s happening right now is illogical. It reflects how disconnected Wall Street is from Main Street, and from the real concerns of the majority of Americans, who have been frustrated by issues like layoffs and the fact that wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living.
The market can’t carry what policy refuses to confront, and the signal is like nails on a chaulk board.
The answer isn’t for the stock market to rise, and the desired effect doesn’t hit at all.
Sources:
UNICEF — Brutality of war measured in children’s lives as hostilities escalate in Iran https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/brutality-war-measured-childrens-lives-hostilities-escalate-iran
BBC — Strait of Hormuz tensions and global oil impact https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n6p09pzno
Pew Research Center — Americans broadly disapprove of U.S. military action in Iran https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/03/25/americans-broadly-disapprove-of-u-s-military-action-in-iran/
In 20 Months, Bitcoin Will Be 20 Years Old. Is It Ready Yet?
Update (April 9, 2026): This article was written on April 8. At the time, I had not yet read the Financial Times reporting that Iran is asking tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz to pay in cryptocurrency.
This morning, catching up on the news, I saw that this is, in fact, what’s being proposed.
Not weighing in on the legitimacy of the toll itself (I’ve also seen Britain’s position that tankers in open waters should not be charged), but this may be the kind of geopolitical moment that tests Bitcoin’s transactional legitimacy in a real way.
This is (now) a developing story.
Source:https://www.ft.com/content/02aefac4-ea62-48db-9326-c0da373b11b8?syn-25a6b1a6=1
April 8, 2026 - I was listening to the latest episode of Diary of a CEO featuring Professor Steve Keen when a comment stopped me mid-thought. Keen suggested that Bitcoin could ultimately go to zero, not because of regulation, not because of competition, but because of energy. Specifically, because Bitcoin and artificial intelligence may eventually compete for the same finite power infrastructure. It’s the kind of statement that sounds Jamie Dimon back in the day extreme until you realize it shifts the conversation away from belief and toward something less negotiable: capacity.
Short Clip: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxuP3seJ4OFa_6jC6zZUHrnvwgzCKtAteW?si=m_Nme-T3rW2ltLI1
The real question isn’t whether Bitcoin works in theory versus whether AI will transform the economy. The real question is what happens when both demand more from physical systems than those systems can provide. We’ve grown comfortable evaluating technologies based on narrative, valuation, and the potential of adoption. But infrastructure doesn’t respond to potential. It responds to load and transactional value. At some point, load and validated transactional value forces decisions.
I want to be clear about what I have not done. I have not conducted a comparative analysis of the energy consumption of Bitcoin versus artificial intelligence. I have not fully evaluated the scale or implications of Bitcoin following the Genius Act. Bitcoin’s role in real geopolitical transactions remains, from what I can see, largely unsubstantiated. But uncertainty in data does not invalidate the question. If anything, it sharpens it. Even without precise measurements, we know enough to recognize that both systems are energy-intensive, and that the grid they depend on isn’t infinite.
Part of the reason this question resonates with me is personal. I grew up around men who understood infrastructure not as an abstraction, but as a skill. My grandfather, a police sergeant and a World War II veteran, and "the father that raised me," a Vietnam veteran who later worked as a bus driver, were both trained in electrical work through the military. That training didn’t just serve them in uniform, it translated into everyday life. It made our household more resilient, more efficient, more cost-effective. I’ve seen firsthand what it looks like when people are trained to build and maintain the systems everything else depends on. So when I think about national infrastructure, I don’t think in policy language. I think in terms of capability, labor, and execution. At a minimum, I think we should think about trying to scale technologies that demand enormous amounts of energy on top of an infrastructure that has not kept pace (especially in comparison to China, yes, I'm always looking at what the 5000 year old society is doing and how).
Artificial intelligence is being positioned as essential. It sits at the center of conversations about productivity, competitiveness, and future GDP growth. Governments are aligning behind it. Capital is flowing into it. There is very little ambiguity about its perceived necessity. Bitcoin, on the other hand, occupies a more ambiguous position (I think in comparison). It has achieved cultural awareness, financial significance, and political attention. The level of lobbying from the crypto industry during the most recent general election made that clear, and policy developments like the Genius Act suggest that institutional legitimacy has taken shape. But legitimacy is not the same as reliance.
For all of Bitcoin’s valuation and visibility, its real-world usage, particularly at the geopolitical level, remains difficult to point to. Over the past two years alone, we’ve seen enough global instability to test any system (or instrument) claiming to function as a decentralized alternative to traditional finance. Wars, sanctions, commodity shocks, and shifting alliances have all created moments where new forms of currency or settlement could have emerged. And yet, in those moments, traditional assets reasserted themselves. Gold, oil, and other tangible resources (even the consideration of fertilizer and helium) continued to anchor value and influence. Bitcoin rises in price at times, yes, but price movement is not the same as functional adoption.
This is where my skepticism comes into sharper focus. I’ve always approached investing from a fundamentalist, "Peter Lynchian perspective," grounded in fundamentals, financial transparency, and leadership accountability. The idea of allocating capital to something that cannot be evaluated through those lenses has always felt, at minimum, incomplete. I fully acknowledge that this bias shapes how I see cryptocurrency (I currently hold $50 in Doge coin for fun). At the same time, I also recognize that Bitcoin and blockchain technology have expanded the conversation in meaningful ways. They’ve introduced concepts like tokenization, fractional ownership, and the possibility of digital-native financial systems. Those contributions matter. But contributing to a conversation is not the same as becoming embedded in the systems that govern real-world exchange.
Which brings me to what I’ll admit is a slightly unfiltered take: from where I sit, Bitcoin increasingly behaves like an “S&P prop.” When traditional markets come under pressure, Bitcoin often moves in ways that feel less like an independent monetary system and more like a reactive financial asset within the same ecosystem it was meant to disrupt. That doesn’t make it useless, but it does raise a critical question about what role it is actually playing. A currency and a volatility instrument are not interchangeable.
All of this becomes more pressing when you return to Keen’s constraint: energy. If both AI and Bitcoin continue to scale, and if infrastructure does not expand at the same pace, then prioritization becomes inevitable. And when that happens, decisions will not be made based on ideology or even innovation. They will be made based on perceived necessity. Which systems are indispensable? Which ones justify their resource consumption not just in theory, but in practice?
That is the question I find myself at: which of these systems, when put under real constraint, proves that they're for real and can't be turned off.
Which leads to a set of questions that I don’t think we’ve answered clearly. What will determine which technology gets priority in constrained infrastructure systems? Can Bitcoin survive purely as a store of value without meaningful transactional relevance? What would real geopolitical adoption of Bitcoin actually look like, not in theory, but in execution? Are we overestimating the power of decentralization while underestimating the importance of physical infrastructure? When does legitimacy come from actual usage rather than narrative or policy support? And if Bitcoin has been in existence for nearly two decades without fully realizing its most ambitious use cases, what exactly is the catalyst that changes that trajectory?
I don’t have definitive answers to these questions. But I am increasingly convinced that they matter more than the debates we’ve been having.
In systems under pressure, belief doesn’t allocate resources.
Will Energy Shocks Reshape the Workweek?
A Signal in a Social Media Post
This morning a social media post from Professor Jiang Xueqin caught my attention. Professor Jiang, a Yale-educated professor from China who now lives in Canada, has built a large audience explaining geopolitics through history. He teaches through and through (and doesn't monetize his content), which creates a level of trust that is increasingly rare online. His commentary connects historical patterns to current events in ways that resonate across generations, which could be why almost a million people follow his analysis on Instagram.
In a recent post he highlighted something keenly simple. Parts of Southeast Asia are exploring a four-day workweek and expanded work-from-home policies. The motivation isn’t culture. It’s energy. Rising oil prices tied to conflict in the Middle East, and disruptions affecting the Strait of Hormuz, are forcing governments to reconsider how energy flows through their economies. This morning via Bloomberg, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, indicated the Iran conflict could last several more weeks.
Together these developments point to a deeper question. What if the next evolution of remote work is driven not by employee preference or corporate culture, but by energy economics?
The Pandemic Work Experiment That Never Fully Reversed
During COVID-19, remote work expanded almost overnight. Companies discovered that large portions of knowledge work could function without being in person. Productivity impressed, record profits were achieved. Collaboration tools improved quickly. Hybrid work became normal.
Then the reversal began. Corporate leaders pushed employees back into offices. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon became one of the most outspoken advocates for return-to-office mandates, arguing that in-person work strengthens mentorship, collaboration, and company culture. Critics offered a different explanation. Commercial real estate (and asset managed portfolios) needed workers back, butts in seats.
Downtown economies rely on office traffic. Transit systems depend on commuters. Restaurants and retail depend on weekday foot traffic. Empty office towers disrupt entire urban ecosystems. Despite these pressures, the workplace never returned to its pre-pandemic structure. Roughly 27% of workdays in the United States are now performed remotely. That means about one out of every five workdays happens outside the office. Hybrid work is no longer a temporary experiment. Not to mention, 16% of all US companies are fully remote. It is a (here to stay) structural equilibrium.
The Energy Variable in the Future of Work
Most conversations about remote work focus on productivity, collaboration, or employee preference. Energy is rarely a part of the discussion. However, if geopolitical conflict pushes oil prices higher, the effects ripple across the entire economy. Transportation costs increase. Electricity costs increase. Heating and cooling costs increase. Office buildings are energy-intensive systems. Lighting, elevators, HVAC systems, security infrastructure, and thousands of computers operate simultaneously every day.
For commercial landlords, energy already represents roughly 5 - 10% of gross revenue (conservatively assuming similar to residential landlord cost, could be higher or lower). In cities like New York, where energy costs are already elevated, those expenses carry even more weight. If energy prices double or triple during a prolonged geopolitical crisis, operating costs should be expected to rise across the board.
Employees experience the same pressure. Higher gas prices increase commuting expenses. Higher electricity costs strain household budgets. With wages relatively stagnant (in relation to pre-Covid household expense levels) and hiring at a crawl, workers have to absorb these rising costs simply to maintain employment. This creates a question corporate leaders may soon have to be for real about. If energy becomes more expensive across the economy, does it still make sense to require employees to commute to the office every day?
Pressure on Commercial Real Estate
Commercial real estate markets in the U.S. are already navigating a “fluid” recovery from the pandemic. Many office buildings remain partially occupied. Leasing markets in major cities remain uncertain. Some properties are exploring conversions into residential or mixed-use spaces (albeit this transition has lagged becuase of other issues, e.g. skilled labor). Now introduce sustained energy inflation (yes, inflation) into the mix. The equation becomes difficult: higher operating costs combined with lower occupancy and uncertain leasing demand.
At the same time another structural force is most definitely reshaping corporate strategy. Artificial intelligence is changing how companies think about hiring and productivity. Many organizations have admitted slowing hiring while exploring AI-driven efficiencies. Others are restructuring teams as automation absorbs routine tasks.
If fewer employees are required to produce the same output, and those employees can work remotely, companies will eventually ask a straightforward question: how much office space do we actually need (maybe even assess energy costs per headcount)?
AI Enters the Chat (Per Usual)
The irony entering the chat is none other than AI. At the same time companies are pushing employees back into offices, artificial intelligence is dramatically increasing global energy demand. Training and operating large AI systems requires enormous computing power. Data centers consume vast amounts of electricity. Entire regions of the United States are now debating how to expand power generation to support AI infrastructure.
The digital economy is increasing demand for electricity while geopolitical tensions threaten the stability of (cheap) energy supply. That dynamic introduces a resource allocation question I don't think workplace strategists have yet considered.
Where should energy go?
Toward millions of daily commutes and office buildings?
Or toward digital infrastructure that powers the next generation of economic growth?
Workplace strategy rarely intersects with energy policy (at least not in my experience). That separation could be old news.
When External Systems Redesign Work
The pandemic revealed how quickly workplace norms can change when external systems shift. One public health crisis reshaped global work patterns in a matter of weeks.
Energy shocks could create a similar shift.
If oil prices remain elevated due to prolonged conflict in the Middle East, companies may quietly revisit policies they only recently enforced. Return-to-office mandates were framed as cultural decisions. Under a different economic environment they begin to look like infrastructure decisions. Infrastructure decisions change when systems apply pressure. Energy is one of those systems.
Questions for Executive Rountables
Could remote work become part of national energy management strategy rather than simply a corporate flexibility policy?
Will CEOs reconsider return-to-office mandates if commuting costs place sustained financial pressure on employees?
Could rising energy prices accelerate the long-term decline of already pressed business districts?
As artificial intelligence continues expanding energy demand, how will governments as well as companies decide where electricity should be allocated?
The pandemic forced companies to rethink how work happens. Energy shocks may force them to rethink where work happens…again.
Sources:
https://www.instagram.com/predictivehistory_/
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/asia-already-making-big-changes-oil-prices-iran-war-rcna263105
https://www.flowlu.com/blog/productivity/remote-work-statistics/
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/energy-cost-burdens-in-rental-housing
In Praise of the Impartial Listener: A Case for Platforms That Let Ideas Collide
What I have really come to appreciate, particularly post-COVID, is the rise of creators who pride themselves on being impartial listeners. They create space for people to develop their own opinions, regardless of how unconventional those opinions may be.
In many ways, these creators have become what audiences have been yearning for, and openly complaining about not receiving from mainstream media, over at least the last two US election cycles.
There are a few platforms that do a phenomenal job of bringing different voices together so people can engage in healthy discourse. The goal is not to force a particular viewpoint or push narratives in a manipulative way. Instead, the conversation allows ideas to surface naturally so that, as an individual and as a consumer in the moment, you can say:
“Okay, I can consider this.”
“I can challenge myself here.”
“I hadn’t thought about that, that’s interesting.”
Or even, “No, that sounds completely unreasonable.”
One platform that consistently does this exceptionally well, particularly during moments of more turbulent public conversation is The Diary of a CEO, hosted by Steven Bartlett.
For example, when Dario Amodei came to the forefront of AI discussions last year warning about potential risks, Bartlett brought together entrepreneurs and thought leaders in the space to have a thoughtful conversation about the benefits, risks, and broader implications of artificial intelligence. The discussion included perspectives from multiple sides rather than reinforcing a single narrative.
And now he has done something similar again.
In a recent episode addressing the Iran conflict, he brought together three thought leaders (Ex-CIA spy Andrew Bustamante, national security journalist Annie Jacobsen, and Iran expert Benjamin Radd) to discuss the question of whether the United States should, or should not, be involved.
To be clear, I am writing this before watching the entire episode itself (I saw clips that prompted this “note”), so I am not offering an opinion on the content of the discussion. What I am recognizing is the structure of the platform.
This podcast consistently breaks away from the “one thought, one brain, one band, one sound” dynamic that often characterizes large segments of mainstream media. Instead, it creates an environment where competing viewpoints can be heard and evaluated.
For professionals who value independent thinking and thoughtful debate, this is the kind of platform worth paying attention to.
If you are not already watching The Diary of a CEO, it is absolutely one to keep on your radar.