Welcome to the deep dive. We're here to cut through
all that noise, bring together the best sources
we can find and really distill what matters so
you can be truly well informed. And today, wow,
we're navigating some really complex, sometimes
just bewildering territory. It touches pretty
much all corners of our world. OK, let's unpack
this. We're going to start with the immediate
ripples from the latest election results, some
shifts in political power. Then we're diving
into some, well, policy choices that are frankly
sparking some serious questions about what's
really intended versus the impact. And finally,
we'll switch gears for a pretty crucial global
economic analysis that, honestly, affects every
single one of us. Our journey today is guided
by some sharp political analysis from electoral
-vote .com, always good for, you know, a surprising
detail or two, and also an incredibly insightful
economic perspective from Daniel Lacalle. Our
mission, like always, is to pull out those vital
nuggets of knowledge, connect the dots between
things that might seem separate, and hopefully
give you that aha moment where it all clicks.
Yeah, and it's crucial to see how these different
areas politics, administration decisions, court
rulings, global economics, they're all intricately
linked. We're going to dig beyond just the headlines
here, try to understand the underlying currents,
broader implications. We really want to encourage
you, the listener, to consider not just what's
happening, but why it matters and maybe what
it signals for the bigger picture. Absolutely.
So let's jump right in. Political shifts and
signals. What the latest numbers tell us. We've
got some fascinating special election results
that are really giving us a peek into those power
dynamics in Washington. First up, James Walkinshaw's
win in Virginia, VA 11 specifically. Now, this
isn't just some local story. It has immediate,
like direct consequences for the House. With
Walkinshaw seated, Republicans now control 219
seats. Democrats have 213. That means Speaker
Mike Johnson can only afford two defections on
any vote. Just two. That's incredibly tight.
It is. If three Republicans jump ship, assuming
all the Democrats stick together, that's 216
-216. A tie. And a tie means the bill fails.
Simple as that. Exactly. It's a razor thin margin.
Every single vote counts. But, you know, beyond
just the numbers, this win is leaving some interesting
tea leaves on the ground, politically speaking.
Watkinshaw won by nearly 50 points. It was 74
.9 percent to 25 .1 percent. Huge margin. No.
OK, this is a heavily Democratic district. D
plus 18, they call it. Leans Democratic by about
18 points over the national average. A typical
Democrat might win there, say 60 -40. He overperformed
that baseline by 30 points. 30 points is massive.
And he even outdid his predecessor, Jerry Connolly,
by like 16 -17 points. Now, we should always
be careful, right? Don't want to over -read one
special election in a super -partisan district.
But still. What does that kind of over -performance
signal to you, maybe about voter enthusiasm?
That's a really crucial observation. Yeah. And
it highlights how a fragile majority like this,
it doesn't just affect the day -to -day votes.
It can actually empower specific legislative
tools in ways you might not expect, like take
the Epstein -Files discharge petition. I'm going
to need that magic number, 218. Exactly. And
reports say they have 217 signatures already.
Yeah. So assuming Walkinshaw being a Democrat
adds his name. Which seems likely. Seems very
likely. Then the 218th is expected around September
23rd from Alita Grijalva in Arizona. So this
bipartisan push actually gaining traction even
with such a slim balance of power. It really
shows how determined lawmakers can shift the
agenda when majorities this narrow. That's a
fascinating point about how that power balance
can be, well, exploited or used. And speaking
of local elections, let's look at Boston. They
just had their mayoral primary. Michelle Wu just
dominated. She took seventy one point eight percent
of the vote. Josh Kraft got twenty three point
three percent. Boston, as you probably know,
is famously a one party town. I think the last
Republican mayor was Calvin Coolidge way back.
Yeah, long time ago. So it seems pretty much
a foregone conclusion. Wu gets another term and
that outcome raises an important question, doesn't
it? About money and politics, the lesson we seem
to learn over and over. Kraft, you know, backed
by his family's wealth, they own the Patriots.
still couldn't really make a dent against Wu's
popularity. It reminds me of what we've seen
elsewhere, you know, LA, maybe those Wisconsin
Supreme Court races. Huge money doesn't always
buy victory. And it also suggests Wu's popularity
might be tied to her strong stances, like against
Trump or ICE raids. It shows how local politics
can mirror national trends, but also diverge,
and how specific policy positions can really
resonate. OK, so shifting from those specific
results, let's look at some recent polls that
are giving us some intriguing insights into the
broader currents. First, this poll from the University
of Texas, Texas Politics Project. It's a real
head scratcher. It shows Texas AG Ken Paxton,
who's eyeing a primary challenge against Senator
John Cornyn, remember, with a 55 % approval rating
among Texas GOP voters. Cornyn, only 42 % with
that same group. That is pretty remarkable. Isn't
it? I mean. Paxson has this extensive history
of scandals, we're talking serious controversy,
versus Corden, who's seen as more of a normal
Republican decades of service. What do you think
that tells us about voter priorities right now?
Well, it's a crucial observation because it really
pushes against conventional political wisdom,
doesn't it? What's really striking here is what
it reveals about a pretty significant chunk of
the, let's call it the magenta voter base. Paxson
seems almost... bulletproof, maybe, despite this
whole lift of scandals. It suggests that for
a lot of these voters, politicians' controversies,
even ones that really challenge basic ethics,
they don't necessarily hurt their support. it
points to maybe a different set of priorities.
Could be loyalty to an ideology or a persona
that just overrides those traditional expectations
of integrity. It's a stark contrast. The normal
Republican faces more skepticism from the base
than someone who's constantly tangled up in legal
and ethical issues. OK, let's move to a different
landscape. New York City, a New York Times Sienna
poll for the mayoral race. It shows Zoran Mondani
with the commanding lead 46 percent, even against
former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who's pulling at
24 percent. Mondani's numbers just keep climbing.
Now, part of that could just be New Yorkers getting
to know him better. Sure. Name recognition builds.
But there's strong suspicion, you hear it talked
about, that the Trump effect might actually be
helping Mom Donnie here. Donald Trump has come
out really strongly against Mom Donnie. Right.
And it's plausible some voters are thinking,
well, if Trump hates this guy, he must be doing
something right, or maybe just using their vote
to poke Trump in the eye. An anti endorsement
almost. Exactly. And finally, let's glance way
ahead. A poll from St. Anselm looking at the
2028 New Hampshire primaries. Early days, I know.
On the Republican side, JD Vance is dominating
56%. For Democrats, Pete Buttigieg and Gavin
Newsom are tied at 23 % each. Kamala Harris is
way back at 6%. OK, interesting early snapshot,
but definitely need some context there. New Hampshire,
it's a highly educated, one of the whitest states.
Demographics there tend to favor candidates like
Buttigieg and Newsom. Good point. So while they're
probably happy with those numbers now, it really
highlights the challenge they face, right? Proving
they have broader appeal beyond that specific
voter base. And Harris's relatively low showing,
despite having huge name recognition, it suggests
these very early polls are maybe more about visibility,
maybe regional appeal, than deep widespread national
support yet. All these candidates, they'll need
to show they can connect with a much more diverse
electorate to actually have a shot at the nomination.
You know, sometimes you read the news and you
just have to stop and ask. What the hell are
you thinking? And that is exactly what we're
going to dive into next, because some recent
administrative actions are, well, truly baffling.
Let's start with this incredible series of events
at a Hyundai plant down in Georgia. The story
seems to have started with a woman named Tori
Branham, described as a conservative activist,
maybe a conspiracy theorist. Apparently, she
blew the whistle on undocumented laborers at
the plant. This led to an ICE raid, 450 people
arrested, mostly South Korean nationals. Many
led away in handcuffs, shackles, detained for
several nights. It's just a huge operation. Yeah,
it really is hard to believe the scale, but that's
what happened. And this situation, it's just
a fascinating study in unintended consequences.
OK, so on the surface, the administration's goal
might have been, you know, act tough on undocumented
immigration. Some key figures were reportedly
pushing for daily quotas. Right. Make the numbers
look good. Nearly 500 arrests. That might look
like a win on paper. But the reality, it reveals
a massive trade -off. These weren't the fentanyl
-smuggling criminals often described in rhetoric.
Many were skilled South Korean workers. Some
were perfectly legal. Others had visa issues
that were more like red tape problems. And most
intended to go home once the plant was running
smoothly. So best case for the White House, they
struck maybe a glancing blow against their perceived
immigrant problem. But the cost, what do you
think the actual cost was? It sounds astronomical.
Not just money, but relationships trust. Exactly.
The cost was infuriating the South Korean government,
harming foreign investment. I mean, this plant
is foreign investment. And shutting down a production
facility. So no money, no jobs, damaged supply
chain. And then the administration later released
the arrested South Koreans. flew them home on
a chartered flight. Which suggests? Which strongly
implies they recognized it was a massive screw
-up, right? It points to a level of maybe internal
disorganization, almost like a collection of
fiefdoms, where one department's actions just
completely undermine another department's goals.
Wow. You can just picture the chaos behind the
scenes. Okay, next. Let's talk about the uncharitable
cancellation of the Combined Federal Campaign,
or CFC. This is a federal program, been around
ages. It lets government employees donate easily
to charities through payroll deduction. It's
raised over $9 billion over its lifetime. And
it costs the government basically nothing because
the charities cover the admin costs. That's a
pretty good program. It does. And yet, the administration
issued a stop -work order for the CFC. They postponed
its website launch, and there are reports they're
discussing canceling the whole thing. Okay. That
move immediately raises questions. Especially
when you consider the administration often talks
about adhering to biblical principles, which
frequently emphasize charity. Right. You hear
that rhetoric. I mean, you look at Psalm 37 .21.
It talks about the righteous giving generously.
Luke 3 .11. Share with those in need. John 3
.17. potentially killing a program that facilitates
billions in charity, it seems to directly contradict
those stated values. It's puzzling. So what's
the likely motivation, then, do you think? The
suspicion is that the goal is to target specific
unfavored groups, maybe NPR, Planned Parenthood,
the ACLU, who benefit from the CFC. Oh. But the
problem is lots of other beneficiaries are totally
neutral. like the World Wildlife Fund, or even
groups favored by a conservative base like the
Wounded Warrior Project. So they can't just pick
and choose easily. Exactly. So the implication
is if they kill the entire program just to avoid
looking bad by only cutting specific groups.
Well, that seems incredibly petty, self -serving
even. It's like weaponizing a long -standing
government program for politics. And the impact
could be really negative for civic engagement,
for charitable giving overall, just throwing
the baby out with the bathwater. That's a really
sharp point about the inconsistency and the potential
ripple effects. OK, let's move to something even
more disturbing. The Charlotte murder as a political
opportunity. This involves the tragic murder
of Irina Zaruzka in Charlotte, North Carolina,
by DeCarlos Brown Jr. Awful story captured on
video. The administration's response was immediate
and, well, many called it extreme. Donald Trump
went on what our source calls an unhinged rant
on social media, linked the crime to cashless
bail, attacked the NC Governor Roy Cooper, endorsed
Senate candidate Michael Watley. We also saw
these immediate sort of thinly veiled dog whistle
comments from people like Elon Musk, press secretary
Caroline LeVitt. Right. Is this just standard
political opportunism or is there something more
going on here? Well, what's really unsettling
is how quickly, how instantly such a profound
tragedy became a political tool. The administration
has apparently been, and this is quoting our
source, itching for what they call a predicate
act. A predicate act, meaning? Meaning, like
a justification to allow federal intervention
in cities. They've tried to manufacture similar
pretexts before, apparently, but they didn't
really escalate beyond minor things. But this
murder, with its specific details, the young
white victim, the accused black assailant with
a distinctive appearance, The video readily available
it was seen as and again quoting the source manna
from heaven Wow, yeah a perfect opportunity to
create that justification They wanted the details
were leveraged instantly to ignite outrage push
a narrative about urban crime being out of control
But did it work? Did they intervene? No? Despite
all the rhetoric, the story ultimately didn't,
as the source put it, boil enough blood for actual
federal intervention in Charlotte. So it highlights
this significant gap between these really strong
presidential pronouncements and what's actually
actionable policy on the ground. OK, we've covered
a lot of political and administrative ground
there. Let's turn now to judicial interventions
and the global economic outlook. The Supreme
Court has been making some pretty significant
moves lately. Donald Trump has secured two recent
wins at the Supreme Court. First, the court allowed
him, at least for now, to refire FTC Commissioner
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who's a Democrat. A
lower court had put her back in her job, but
the Supreme Court put that ruling on hold. And
this has potentially massive implications. Huge.
Traditionally, presidents can't just fire Senate
-approved appointees on independent boards like
the FTC without cause. There has to be a reason.
Right. They're meant to be independent. Exactly.
Trump's argument was basically just because I
say so, an inherent presidential authority claim.
If that position is ultimately upheld by the
court, it could totally redefine presidential
power. It could turn hundreds of positions, maybe
even including the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome
Powell, into patronage jobs, totally dismantling
Congress's intent to insulate these critical
roles from politics. That's a huge potential
shift. And the second win. Second, the court
agreed to hear two tariff cases and on an expedited
timeline. Fast -tracked. OK. And what's the core
issue there? In both cases, the core question
is actually quite similar to the FTC one. It's
about presidential power. Is a president declaring
a national emergency enough justification? Just
because, again, I say so. Without Congress, without
clear criteria? Precisely. It could basically
subvert what Congress intended when granting
emergency powers, allowing presidents to use
them almost whenever they want, instead of for
actual real emergencies. And if you connect this
to the bigger picture... It's worth remembering,
SCOTUS has sided with Trump something like over
90 % of the time on these emergency -type matters.
Wow. But most of those were temporary stays,
procedural things. These upcoming decisions,
though, they're different. They're substantive,
precedent -setting. They could fundamentally
redefine presidential power. So these tariff
cases, they're going to be a really key indicator
of how the court plans to play its hand on these
massive constitutional questions. OK, that's
a lot to watch on the judicial front. Now let's
transition to that economic analysis. perspective
on the paradox of money supply and secular stagnation.
His central idea is pretty stark actually. He
argues the impact of printing new money, new
currency units is diminishing. It's leading to
what he calls secular stagnation. Secular stagnation.
Yeah. Basically a fancy term for a long period
of little or no economic growth. Right. Despite
efforts to stimulate exactly. And look at the
U .S. numbers he uses M2 money supply. That's
a broad measure. Cash checking accounts stuff
easily converted to cash had a record twenty
two point zero two trillion dollars in June 2025.
That's four point five three percent growth year
over year. But it's estimated to deliver only
about two point five percent real GDP growth.
So more money isn't translating directly into
much more growth. Right. Compare that to 20.
2021, M2 grew by a massive 26 .6 percent, but
GDP only grew 5 .7 percent, or 2022, five percent
M2 growth, just one percent GDP growth. Lacal
basically says there's just no multiplier effect
from all this new money being pumped in. So what's
going on here? Well, what's really illuminating
is Lacal's core argument. He says this sort of
anemic growth we're seeing in developed economies,
it seems to require more monetary stimulus just
to keep things afloat. But. And this is the key
part. The bulk of this new credit, this new money,
is being absorbed by government spending. Not
by the private sector. Not flowing effectively
to productive private investment, according to
him. It leads to weak productivity, unproductive
government expenditure. And he flatly rejects
using COVID -19 as an ongoing excuse for this
high government spending. He argues that spending
is what has led to this stagnation, not stronger
growth. It's kind of counterintuitive, right?
The idea that just printing more money doesn't
automatically lead to a healthy, expanding economy,
especially if the government is soaking most
of it up. And this isn't just a US issue, is
it? He points to the UK and Europe. Oh, yeah,
absolutely. He holds them up as cautionary tales.
The UK's M3 money supply grew over 3 % year over
year, but their economy is expected to grow less
than 1%. in 2025, maybe even zero growth. And
LaCalle explicitly blames bloated government
spending crowding out credit available for private
businesses. And the Euro area. Similar story.
Euro area M2 grew about 2 .76 percent year over
year, but their five year average M2 growth is
almost 6 percent. And what has that gotten them?
According to Lacal, almost no real GDP growth,
plus their burden by huge unfunded liabilities.
So what's the global picture then? Well globally,
Lacal points out there's an estimated $123 trillion
worldwide in circulating money M2 equivalents
in 2025, and yet it's delivering what he calls
the worst economic growth since the 2008 crisis.
His argument is that central banks are basically
prioritizing keeping the debt bubble afloat.
which has led to global public debt just soaring,
hitting $102 trillion in 2024. So you see this
pattern. Central banks fuel higher government
debt, maybe enabling irresponsible fiscal policies,
which then crowds out the private sector, leads
to higher taxes eventually, persistent inflation,
even with low money velocity, and ultimately
weak growth. It raises this really critical question
about the long -term sustainability of how we're
running things, fiscally and monetarily. So the
message for the U .S., if we want to avoid ending
up like Europe or the U .K. in his view, is pretty
clear then. Absolutely. Lacal's simple lesson
for the United States, as he puts it, is very
direct. To avoid that kind of stagnation, the
U .S. must cut spending faster and allow the
money supply to flow to productive private investment.
It's a really stark warning about the path we
seem to be on, and in his view, the need for
a pretty fundamental shift in economic strategy.
That is a lot to digest, isn't it? I mean, from
those nuanced signals and special elections.
To these really puzzling, politically charged
moves from the administration. Right. The critical
role the Supreme Court is playing now in shaping
presidential power. Yeah, huge implications there.
And then these stark warnings from the global
economic landscape about money supply and stagnation.
It really does paint a complex, but definitely
interconnected picture of where we are right
now. And that's exactly why understanding all
these different elements is so crucial for you,
the listener. They're not just isolated incidents
happening in silos. They are threads in a much
larger tapestry. Right? Each one influences the
others in really profound ways. These insights
hopefully help you discern the true forces that
are shaping our political and economic future,
let you look beyond just the daily headlines
and grasp those deeper currents at play. So what
does this all mean for you? As we've seen today,
what happens when political decisions may be
driven by short -term gains or ideological purity
or even just, you know, internal disorganization?
What happens when those clash with long -term
economic realities? establish institutional norms?
And how much does a strong declaration from a
politician or an administration truly shape reality
when it runs up against these powerful underlying
trends we've talked about? Something to consider
as you move through your week.