That is not false modesty. It is arithmetic. I can see the open rates. I know the difference between a subscriber and a reader. I have written four books, with a fifth on the way. I write this newsletter, and over the years I have written for Forbes, Entrepreneur, and The Wall Street Journal. Which is to say I have spent a meaningful portion of my adult life producing exactly the kind of writing that people are reading less and less of, and I have the anecdotes to prove it.

I have lost count of the people who have congratulated me on a book, quoted its title back to me, or told me they bought a copy, while making it gently clear in the same conversation that they never actually read the thing. Friends ask me for “the gist” of an essay I spent a week thinking through. Colleagues respond to a long piece within ninety seconds of it landing in their inbox, which tells me exactly how much of it they absorbed. My students at ASU, some of the brightest young people I have ever worked with, will admit without much embarrassment that they ran the assigned reading through an AI summarizer and skimmed the output on their phone.

None of this offends me. I understand the forces at work, and I will get to them in a moment. But I recently read a piece in The Atlantic by Rose Horowitch called “The End of Reading Is Here,” and it has been rattling around in my head ever since. It crystallized something I have felt for years as someone who writes for a living audience that is quietly disappearing. The piece argues that the age of reading, the roughly five centuries in which ordinary people routinely engaged with long, complex written works, may turn out to be a brief interlude in human history rather than a permanent achievement.

I think she is largely right about the diagnosis. I want to talk about what we do with it.

The Fire Is Not What Killed the Library

Horowitch opens her essay with the Library of Alexandria, and the detail she surfaces is the one worth holding onto. For centuries, the popular story was that the library died by fire: Julius Caesar’s siege in 48 B.C.E., or the mob that sacked the temple four hundred years later. Dramatic, external, sudden. A tragedy inflicted from outside.

Contemporary historians mostly reject that story. The library died of negligence. Papyrus scrolls do not keep themselves; humidity, mice, and insects eat them slowly, and scribes had to continually recopy the collection just to hold ground against decay. At some point, the cost of maintaining the library exceeded the will to maintain it. The classics scholar Roger Bagnall put it in terms I have not been able to shake: it is not that the loss of the library caused a dark age. The fact that the library was allowed to die showed that the dark age had already arrived.

Think about that for a moment. The greatest collection of knowledge in the ancient world was not destroyed by an enemy. It was simply not renewed by its friends.

That is the correct frame for what is happening to reading now, because nobody is burning anything. The numbers Horowitch assembles are stark. Fewer than half of American adults read a book of any kind in 2022. The share of Americans who read for pleasure on a given day fell from 28 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2023. More Americans placed a bet last year than read a novel. Reading stamina among students has collapsed to the point where most middle and high school English teachers now assign somewhere between zero and four full books a year, and college professors report teaching students how to comprehend a text at all before they can teach anything else.

And here is the detail that should concern anyone who cares about institutions: the decline cuts across every demographic. Retirees, women, college graduates, the groups that always read the most, are all reading dramatically less. This is not a story about one generation or one class. It is a story about the whole culture quietly deciding, one evening at a time, that the maintenance is no longer worth the effort.

We Are Not Illiterate. We Are Postliterate.

The precision of that word matters. Americans are probably consuming more written words than at any point in history: texts, posts, captions, headlines, chat threads, notifications. What has evaporated is not decoding. It is sustained attention to long, complex, structured argument. The cognitive neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf calls this the loss of deep reading, the higher-order work of comprehension, inference, and synthesis. You can still read the words. You are just losing the ability to hold a long thought in your mind while an author builds it.

I see the evidence everywhere, and if you are honest with yourself, so do you. Horowitch cites a study in which English majors, students who chose to study literature, were asked to read the opening paragraphs of Bleak House. A quarter of them interpreted Dickens’s figures of speech literally and concluded that dinosaurs were walking the streets of nineteenth-century London. Only 5 percent came away with an accurate understanding of what they had read. These students had the entire internet available to look up anything they did not understand. They did not bother.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Every generation panics about the new medium. Jefferson worried that novels would ruin young women. In 1900, The Atlantic itself published a lament that the newspaper was destroying Americans’ capacity for serious thought. The doomsayers are always the people most invested in the old way. Fair enough. That skepticism is healthy, and Horowitch takes it seriously; she quotes a Harvard literature professor who spent his whole career dismissing exactly these panics, right up until the last few years, when he stopped dismissing them. What changed his mind is what should change yours: this time the data all point the same direction, the decline is accelerating rather than plateauing, and there is no plausible mechanism for a return. Television competed with books for evenings. The phone competes with books for every conscious minute.

What Atrophies When Nobody Reads

I watch what happens inside organizations when reading atrophies. Decisions get made off summaries of summaries. A carefully constructed memo gets skimmed, and the nuance that took hours to get right, the qualifications, the second-order risks, the reasoning behind the recommendation, evaporates somewhere between the second paragraph and the reply button. People form strong opinions about documents they have not read, and because everyone is doing it, nobody flags it. At B:Side, we work in small business lending, a world of credit memos, loan agreements, and regulatory guidance where the substance lives in the details. In our industry, the person who actually reads the document has a quiet, compounding advantage over the person who read the executive summary. I suspect that is true in yours as well.

The classroom version of this is more painful because the stakes are more personal. My students are not lazy, and I want to be clear about that. They are rational actors responding to the environment they were raised in. They have never known a world without infinite short-form video, and they have been trained by every institution around them, including their schools, to treat text as an inefficient container for information: something to be compressed, summarized, and extracted from, rather than experienced. Horowitch quotes a Harvard administrator explaining that some students now genuinely believe professors who assign whole books are arbitrarily withholding information by forcing them through a needlessly difficult medium. I have heard versions of that sentiment in my own classroom, delivered without irony, by students I admire.

And here is where my own experience as a writer stops being an anecdote and becomes evidence. When people engage with my books through their titles, or my essays through their subject lines, they are not being rude. They are being modern. The gist, the summary, the takeaway: this is now the default unit of intellectual exchange. What gets lost is precisely the thing long-form writing exists to carry, which is not information at all. It is reasoning. A summary can tell you what I concluded. Only the essay can show you how I got there, where I almost went instead, and what it would take to change my mind. Strip that away and all that remains is a stranger’s opinion, which you are free to ignore, and probably should.

Why Reading Still Matters

So why keep at it? Why read whole books in a world that has politely moved on?

The first reason is cognitive, and it is not sentimental. Reading is a workout for the attention span, and attention is upstream of everything else you do. The research Horowitch surveys is consistent: deep reading builds the capacity for inference, synthesis, and holding complex ideas in mind across time. Watching video, for all the information it carries, is passive by comparison; the frames keep moving whether or not you have understood anything. The less you read, the harder reading becomes, and the harder reading becomes, the harder thinking becomes. That loop runs in both directions, which is the good news. It is a muscle, and muscles respond to training at any age.

The second reason is that reading is becoming scarce, and scarce capabilities command a premium. Just 20 percent of adults now account for more than 80 percent of the books read in America. A historian of reading quoted in the piece compares it to stamp collecting or growing orchids: a niche hobby. I would put it differently. When a foundational skill becomes a niche practice, the niche inherits the advantage. The person who can sit with a forty-page credit agreement, a dense regulatory proposal, or a serious book on the history of financial crises, and actually comprehend it, is no longer competing with everyone. They are competing with the one person in five who still can. I have written before about the evaporating bottom rungs of the career ladder, and this is the same dynamic in another costume. In an economy where AI generates infinite plausible text, the ability to evaluate text, to notice what is missing, what is wrong, and what is manipulative, becomes one of the few genuinely defensible human skills.

The third reason is older and harder to quantify. Books are how the dead talk to the living. They are the vertical transmission of culture, wisdom passed down across generations, and that channel is being replaced by a horizontal one in which twenty-two-year-olds learn primarily from other twenty-two-year-olds, at 2x speed. James Baldwin said that Dostoevsky and Dickens taught him that the things which tormented him most were the very things that connected him with everyone who had ever been alive. I felt that as a young man reading Marcus Aurelius for the first time, discovering that a Roman emperor lay awake at night wrestling with the same doubts about duty and mortality and self-command that I did. No feed will ever give you that, because the feed is optimized for this hour, and the books that last were written for the centuries.

The Writer Gets More Than the Reader

Now for the part of this argument that I believe most strongly, and that the postliterate world understands least.

Even if nobody read a word I wrote, I would keep writing, because writing is not primarily an act of communication. It is an act of cognition. The writer benefits before the reader ever arrives, and more than the reader ever will.

Here’s the truth: you do not actually know what you think about something until you have tried to write it down. Before the writing, what you have is a comfortable fog, a set of intuitions and borrowed phrases that feel like a position. Writing is the process of running that fog through a compressor. Every vague notion has to become a sentence, every sentence has to survive contact with the next one, and the weak links do not survive. Cal Newport makes this point in Horowitch’s essay: writing forces thought into an orderly, linear form and exposes flabby reasoning like nothing else. Orwell compared writing a book to a long bout of a painful illness, and he kept doing it anyway, because the pain is the point. The difficulty of writing is not friction on the way to the product. The difficulty is the product. The struggle is where the thinking happens.

The best evidence for this claim is also the best book I know. Meditations was never meant to be read by anyone. Marcus Aurelius wrote it to himself, at night, in a military camp on a frozen frontier, with no audience and no expectation of publication. It is literally a private notebook, and it has survived for nearly two thousand years precisely because writing without an audience is the most honest thinking a person can do. The most enduring work of practical philosophy in Western history has an intended readership of one. If that does not settle the question of whether writing is worth doing when nobody is reading, I am not sure what would.

This is also why I am wary of the frictionless promise of AI writing, even as I run a company that embraces AI aggressively and teach my students to do the same. The early research Horowitch cites matches what I see: when people outsource the writing, the output improves and the thinking degrades. Students who studied with AI performed worse on tests that demanded reflection, not because the machine gave them wrong answers, but because it did their struggling for them. If writing is how the writer learns, then a tool that eliminates the writing eliminates the learning, no matter how good the prose looks. Use AI to critique your draft, pressure-test your argument, and find what you missed. Do not use it to spare yourself the labor of the first draft, because that labor was never overhead. It was the whole exercise.

What This Means in Practice

I try to avoid diagnosis without prescription, so let me be concrete about what I actually recommend, whether you are running a company, building a career, or raising the next generation of readers.

1. Read whole books, slowly, on paper if you can. Not excerpts, not summaries, not the podcast where the author repeats the introduction. The compounding benefit lives in the sustained middle chapters that the summary skips. Start with thirty minutes and accept that it will feel difficult at first. It is supposed to. That is the muscle rebuilding.

2. Write regularly, whether or not anyone reads it. A journal, a weekly memo to yourself, a letter you never send. Judge the practice by the clarity it produces in you, not by the audience it attracts. Marcus Aurelius had no subscribers.

3. Do the first draft yourself. Let AI sharpen your thinking after you have done the thinking. The moment you delegate the blank page, you have delegated the learning, and the learning was the only part that was ever yours.

4. If you lead people, read what you decide on, and be seen doing it. The reading culture of an organization is set at the top, the same way its emotional ceiling is. When the boss visibly engages with the full document, summaries stop being a safe substitute for everyone below.

5. If you have children in your life, read to them, past the age when it seems necessary. The single most protective factor in Horowitch’s essay is the one that costs nothing: a family where reading is simply what people do. Her father read to her through middle school. That, more than any curriculum, is why she can write for The Atlantic.

Tending the Scrolls

I keep returning to those scribes in Alexandria, because their job description turns out to be the moral of the whole story. The scrolls did not need to be defended from armies most of the time. They needed to be recopied, continually, by people who decided the effort was worth it. Literacy was never a possession. It was a practice, renewed one generation at a time, and it dies not by fire but by the quiet withdrawal of effort.

The worst thing you can do with all of this is despair, and conclude that the culture is lost and your own habits do not matter. The second worst thing is to congratulate yourself for having read this far and change nothing. The people who will thrive in a postliterate age are the ones who keep the practice alive in themselves and pass it on: who read the whole book, write the hard draft, and raise readers, not because it is nostalgic, but because it is now a competitive advantage and has always been a human inheritance.

An astonishing wealth of wisdom has been left to us, more accessible than at any moment in history, sitting one search away. Whether it gets read, and whether anything worthy gets added to it, was never going to be decided by the crowd. It is decided by the holdouts, one evening at a time.

I know which side of that line I intend to be on. I suspect, since you made it to the end of this essay, that you do too.

Everything I argued above about writing, that the struggle of it is where the thinking happens, is not theoretical for me. My new book, Honor Under Pressure, came out of exactly that struggle: years of slow reading and slower writing on a question I could not shake. Not whether you can perform under pressure, but whether the person you become while performing is still someone worth being. If this essay resonated, I think the book will too. It asks only for the thing that has become countercultural: a few hours of your sustained attention. You can find it on Amazon, and if you read it, truly read it, I would love to hear what you think.

On Saturday evening (7.11.26, just a little while ago as of this writing), Iran’s Revolutionary Guard navy fired on a commercial container ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz, struck it, and declared the strait closed indefinitely. Within hours, the United States began conducting strikes against Iranian targets in and around the waterway. Crude prices jumped roughly three percent in early weekend trading, before most of the world had even seen the headlines. The fragile ceasefire that has held, barely, since June is now functionally dead.

Think about that for a moment. On Friday, the most expensive stock market in modern American history closed near record highs while the ceasefire it was pricing as permanent was already visibly failing. By Saturday night, warships were exchanging fire in the channel that carries a fifth of the world’s oil.

That gap, between what the market believes and what the world is doing, is the subject of this piece.

A Crisis That Never Actually Ended

Regular readers know I wrote about the Strait of Hormuz back in March, when the first closure stranded roughly twenty thousand mariners and two thousand ships in the Persian Gulf and I called it the forty-mile hostage crisis. It is worth recapping how we got here, because the market’s amnesia on this subject is part of the problem.

In late February, coordinated American and Israeli strikes on Iran killed the Supreme Leader and triggered a spiral of retaliation. Within weeks the IRGC had mined the strait, attacked merchant shipping, and choked traffic to a near standstill. Brent crude went from double digits to a peak of $126. Dubai crude hit a record $166. Gulf producers cut output by ten million barrels a day. Fertilizer prices rose fifty percent. Then came a partial reopening, tolls of more than a million dollars per vessel, a collapsed reopening, another reopening, and finally the June memorandum that everyone agreed to call a ceasefire.

Here’s the truth: the strait never really reopened, and the war never really ended. It merely went quiet enough for markets to stop looking at it. Tankers were attacked again on July 7. By July 9, traffic through the strait had ground to a near halt. On Friday, Washington issued an ultimatum demanding Iran publicly declare every channel open and toll-free by Saturday. Iran’s answer came in the form of gunfire aimed at a container ship.

Not slowly, not quietly, not at some hypothetical future date: the confrontation is re-escalating now, with American munitions striking Iranian targets and the IRGC promising “severe” retaliation.

And through all of it, from the February strikes to this weekend’s exchange of fire, the Nasdaq rallied to new all-time highs.

The Most Expensive Market in a Century

Let me be clear about what this piece is and what it isn’t. I am not predicting a crash on a schedule. Nobody can do that, and you should be deeply skeptical of anyone who claims otherwise. What I can do is describe the conditions, because the conditions are extraordinary.

The Shiller CAPE ratio, which measures the S&P 500 against ten years of inflation-adjusted earnings, sits at roughly 41.8. In the entire recorded history of that metric, spanning more than 150 years, it has been higher only once: the final months of the dot-com bubble. The long-term average is about 17.

The Buffett Indicator, total US market capitalization measured against GDP, recently crossed 230 percent, an all-time record. For perspective, it peaked near 140 percent in March 2000, just before the Nasdaq lost more than three quarters of its value. Warren Buffett himself wrote in 2001 that when this ratio approaches 200 percent, “you are playing with fire.” We are not approaching 200 percent. We are a full thirty points beyond it.

This is the context in which a widely followed technician published a chart this week arguing that the major indices face a decline of forty percent or more from current levels, with the only open question being, in his words, the “angle of descent.” His wave counts and trendlines are interpretive, as all technical analysis is, and I hold them loosely. But I could not shake that phrase, because it reframes the debate in exactly the right way. At these valuations, the question is not really whether the market reverts. Markets always revert from extremes; that is what makes them extremes. The question is whether the descent is a slow glide over a decade of disappointing returns or a sudden drop compressed into quarters. History suggests the difference between those two paths usually comes down to a single variable.

A catalyst.

1973 and the Anatomy of a Catalyst

Students of market history will recognize this setup, because we have run this experiment before.

In the early 1970s, American investors fell in love with the Nifty Fifty: a small group of dominant growth companies, Polaroid, Xerox, Coca-Cola, IBM, that were considered “one-decision stocks.” You bought them and never sold, because their growth was inevitable and their franchises were unassailable. Valuations stretched to levels that made no arithmetic sense, and sophisticated people constructed elaborate justifications for why the old math no longer applied. The market grew narrow, expensive, and serenely confident, all at once.

Then, in October 1973, war broke out in the Middle East, and Arab oil producers embargoed the West. Oil quadrupled. Inflation, already smoldering, caught fire. The Federal Reserve was forced to tighten into a slowing economy, and by the bottom in late 1974 the S&P 500 had been cut nearly in half from its peak. The Nifty Fifty, those unassailable one-decision stocks, fell further still, and some took a decade to recover.

Here is what matters about that episode: the embargo did not cause the bear market. The valuations caused the bear market. The embargo merely selected the date. Overvaluation is the dry forest; the catalyst is only the match. And the cruelest feature of oil shocks in particular is that they attack an expensive market at its most vulnerable point, because they push inflation up while pushing growth down, which strips central banks of their ability to ride to the rescue. The Fed put, the assumption that rescue is always coming, works in a deflationary crash. It does not work at $150 oil.

Now look at the present arrangement. A market more concentrated in a handful of AI champions than at any time since, well, ever. Valuations exceeded only by 1999. A collective belief that these companies’ growth is inevitable and their franchises unassailable. And this weekend, a shooting war in the body of water that carries twenty percent of the world’s oil, with the world’s largest military now striking targets along its shores.

I don’t know if this is the catalyst. Nobody does; the strait has closed and reopened before, and markets shrugged each time. But notice that the shrugging is itself part of the pattern. Hyman Minsky taught that stability breeds instability, that every uneventful day strengthens the conviction that days will remain uneventful. Each time the market looks past a Hormuz closure and gets rewarded for it, the reflex deepens, positioning grows more aggressive, and the eventual repricing gets larger. The market has cried wolf about the wolf, if you will. The fable does not end with the wolf never showing up.

The Economy That Never Got Invited to the Party

The loan files that cross my desk at B:Side tell a different story than the indices do. Small business owners are still digesting the spring’s fuel costs, freight surcharges, and fertilizer prices. Their margins have no cushion left for a second oil shock. The regional banks that serve them are still nursing balance sheets marked for a rate environment that may be about to lurch again, in the wrong direction, if energy inflation forces the Fed’s hand. Wall Street’s euphoria and Main Street’s exhaustion have been diverging for two years. Events in the strait threaten to resolve that divergence the hard way.

And there is a generational dimension to this that worries me just as much. Most of the young professionals entering the workforce today, including the students in my classroom at ASU, have never experienced a real bear market. They have learned from every dip since 2020 that drawdowns are buying opportunities that resolve in weeks. An entire cohort has been trained by the most forgiving decade in market history. The dissonance between what the data shows and what their experience has taught them is one of the things that keeps me up at night, and it is why I refuse to stay quiet just because the timing is unknowable.

The Playbook

So what do you actually do? Not as a trader, but as a leader, an owner, a steward of a household or a team. A few disciplines matter more than any forecast.

• Stress test now, while it’s cheap. Run your business and your personal finances against $150 oil and a 30 to 40 percent equity drawdown. Not because either is certain, but because the exercise costs nothing today and everything later. If the numbers break, you want to know on a quiet Sunday, not in the middle of the storm.

• Prize liquidity over cleverness. In every crisis I have lived through, from the BodeTree days to the regional bank strains we watch at B:Side, the winners were rarely the smartest people in the room. They were the ones with cash and committed credit when others had neither. Boring balance sheets are what buy the bargains.

• Ignore the sirens on both sides. The permabears will tell you to sell everything; they have been wrong for fifteen years. The permabulls will tell you valuation never matters; they were saying that in March 2000 too. Position so that you are never forced to be a seller, and a forty percent decline becomes an event you endure and exploit rather than one that ends you.

• Lead visibly. If you run a team, your people will read this weekend’s headlines and look at you. Calm is contagious, and so is panic. Marcus Aurelius reminded himself that the mind adapts and converts every obstacle into fuel. Say plainly what you know, what you don’t, and what the plan is. That conversation, held early, is worth more than any hedge.

The Descent Is the Terrain

Here is where I land. The market is priced for a world without accidents, and we live in a world that is currently producing accidents on a weekly basis. Whether this weekend’s fire in the strait proves to be the catalyst or merely another rehearsal, the underlying arithmetic does not change: from a CAPE of 42, the next decade’s returns will be earned the hard way, and some portion of the descent, gentle or violent, is coming regardless.

The worst thing you can do is pretend the risk isn’t real. The second worst thing is to liquidate everything and hide, surrendering to a forecast that no one, bull or bear, can actually make. The people who come through periods like this intact are the ones who prepare while others party, who hold enough liquidity to act when others can’t, and who understand that surviving the angle of descent matters more than predicting it.

The forest is dry. The matches are lit and falling. You cannot control the weather in the Strait of Hormuz, but you can control whether your house is made of tinder.

That has always been enough. It still is.

P.S. If this piece resonated, it’s because moments like this one are not really about markets. They are about leading through a period of historic upheaval, what Neil Howe calls a Fourth Turning, when institutions buckle and the old rules stop working. I’ve been building a dedicated home for that conversation at thefourthturningleader.com, focused on the leadership disciplines this era demands. If you lead anything, a company, a team, a family, I’d encourage you to join me there.

If that scene sounds invented, ask around. Some version of it is playing out in businesses across the country right now, and the mechanics behind it guarantee it will get more common, not less.

You have probably noticed that the conversation around AI’s economics has changed. The industry’s financial critics spent two years being dismissed as cranks. They are not being dismissed anymore. Their argument, that the companies selling AI access are losing staggering amounts of money on every customer and have no credible path to stop, has migrated from contrarian corners of the internet to the mainstream financial press. The numbers stopped being disputable. The largest AI lab’s audited 2025 financials showed roughly thirteen billion dollars in revenue against thirty-four billion in costs, with net losses growing nearly eightfold in a single year. The Bank for International Settlements, an institution not known for drama, warned this June that data center spending is outrunning the cash flows meant to justify it. One infrastructure giant has taken on more than a hundred billion dollars in debt to build capacity for demand that exists mostly in projections, with its founder pledging personal shares as collateral.

I run a regulated SBA lender that was early to serious AI adoption, and I founded Main & Machine, an AI implementation firm, which means I get asked two questions almost weekly now. If the critics are right, is AI finished? And if I invest in this now, am I building on quicksand?

Here’s the truth: they are largely right about the money, and the technology is going to be fine. Both of those things are true at once, and the space between them is where every owner reading this should be doing their thinking.

So concede the critique. Assume the reset comes. What then?

The Bubble Is a Business Model, Not the Technology

Let me name what is actually happening in plain language, because the coverage keeps blurring two different things.

The thing inflating past reason is a specific business model: charging by the query for access to enormous general-purpose systems that cost more to run than customers will ever pay. The frontier labs priced their products below cost as a bet. Either running the models would get cheap fast enough to close the gap, or one winner would take the whole market and set prices at will. Neither outcome has arrived. Both look less likely with each earnings report.

Beneath the labs sits a second layer of exposure. The companies building the data centers have borrowed against the assumption that the demand curve holds forever. If the curve breaks, the debt breaks with it, and debt problems at that scale have a way of becoming everyone’s problem.

And then there is the third layer, the one that matters most to you: the customer. Owners have spent three years being trained to treat AI as a metered utility, priced per query, billed monthly, exposed to the balance sheet of a company they do not control. Every workflow built on that arrangement inherits its fragility. The shop owner from the opening scene learned this the expensive way. She thought she had bought a capability. She had actually rented one, at an introductory price, from a landlord who was losing money on the lease.

Now, the concession that keeps this piece honest. AI is real. The capability is real. I am confident enough in it that we are building our own lending operation around it right now, under the eyes of regulators and a board, and I will walk you through that decision shortly. The productivity potential inside well-designed workflows is as concrete as anything I have seen in twenty-five years of operating businesses.

What is fake is the pricing. AI is real. The bubble is a business model, not the technology. Hold those two sentences together and most of the panic, and most of the hype, resolves into something you can actually plan around.

Subscribe now

What the Dot-Com Collapse Actually Taught Us

We have run this experiment before, and recently enough that most Ampersand readers lived through it.

Between 2000 and 2002, the dot-com crash wiped out roughly five trillion dollars in market value. Pets.com died. Webvan died. Hundreds of companies whose entire thesis was “the internet, plus our logo” died. Serious people wrote serious columns declaring the internet a fad, a mania, a tulip craze with modems.

The internet did not die. What died was a set of business models built on the assumption that traffic itself was worth money, that growth could substitute for revenue indefinitely, and that being early was the same as being right. The technology kept improving straight through the wreckage. The crash killed the pricing and the ownership structure and left the capability standing.

Two things happened next, and both matter for the decade in front of us.

First, the companies that treated the internet as infrastructure rather than as a business model inherited everything. Amazon existed before the crash and survived it because it was a retailer first and a website second. It had inventory, margins, logistics, and customers who paid actual money for actual things. The internet made its operations better; the internet was never the product. When the froth burned off, the businesses built that way kept compounding while their flashier competitors liquidated office chairs.

Second, the overbuild itself became the foundation. The telecom companies of the late nineties laid staggering amounts of fiber optic cable at ruinous cost to the people who financed it. Most of those companies went bankrupt. The fiber stayed in the ground. That dark fiber, bought out of bankruptcy for pennies, became the physical substrate for everything the next two decades delivered: streaming, cloud computing, the modern web. The people who paid for the infrastructure and the people who profited from it were two different groups.

Think about that for a moment. The bubble’s investors funded the future and then handed it, at a discount, to whoever was still standing.

That is the pattern, and it is remarkably consistent across technology bubbles going back to the railways: the bubble destroys the pricing and the ownership, never the technology. The next generation of winners buys the wreckage cheap and builds on it. The question for an owner is simply which side of that handoff you want to be on.

The Six Things That Change When the Bubble Pops

If the pattern holds, and I believe it will, here is what the morning after looks like for business AI. Six predictions, each one already visible at the edges if you know where to look.

1. The token meter dies. Metered, per-query pricing exists because it lets vendors pass their unpredictable costs on to you. It survives only as long as customers tolerate it. After the reset, owners will pay for a workflow that works, priced as a fixed cost against a defined outcome, the way they pay for every other piece of operational infrastructure. Vendors who cannot commit to a fixed outcome will lose the customer segment that pays its bills on time, which is the only segment that matters in a downturn.

2. Small models eat most of the work. The industry spent three years chasing frontier scale because scale was the story investors funded. But sit inside an actual business and count the tasks. Ninety percent of the daily work in a lending office, a dental practice, or a fabrication shop involves reading documents, summarizing them, checking them for completeness, classifying them, and drafting routine language. None of that requires the largest system ever built. It requires a competent one that runs cheaply, predictably, on hardware someone you trust controls. The economics of the reset will force the industry toward what the work actually needs.

3. The workload moves in-house. Regulated industries figured this out first because they had to. When the system doing the work runs on a machine in your own building, three hard conversations get simple at once: the compliance conversation, the vendor conversation, and the pricing conversation. The direction of travel is toward local capability handling the bulk of the work, with selective use of larger outside systems for the small fraction of tasks that genuinely demand them. The frontier becomes a specialist you consult, and stops being a landlord you pay rent to.

4. Judgment stays human, on purpose. The bubble narrative sold “AI does the work.” The durable version draws a harder and more useful line. The machine drafts, summarizes, retrieves, and classifies. A person decides. Every business built around that boundary keeps running after the reset, because the reset touches the price of drafts and leaves the value of judgment exactly where it was. Businesses that handed decisions to the machine will spend the next few years discovering what that boundary was for.

5. Implementation beats subscription. The subscription era rewarded distribution: whoever could sign up the most users fastest won the funding round. The implementation era rewards delivery. The winning firms on the other side will be the ones who come inside your operation, learn your workflows, do the unglamorous integration work, and hand you a system that keeps working when the market convulses. Selling access was the old business. Building capability is the next one.

6. The most interesting companies after the reset will be mid-size operators, in every industry, who built AI into their operations quietly and now hold a durable cost advantage their larger competitors cannot match without ripping out the plumbing. The frontier labs will dominate the headlines through the correction, the way the telecom giants dominated the headlines through 2002. The compounding will happen somewhere much less glamorous: in the fabrication shop and the regional lender and the forty-person logistics firm that spent the bubble years building instead of subscribing.

Run all six predictions through a single filter and they say one thing. The bubble rewarded scale. The reset will reward control.

How We Are Building for the Morning After at B:Side

I want to show you what control looks like in practice, and I can do it from the inside, because we are in the middle of building exactly this kind of system right now.

B:Side Capital, the company I lead, is a nonprofit SBA lender operating across Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. We are regulated, examiner-audited, and board-governed. Every borrower file we touch contains sensitive financial data, and every credit decision we make is a decision a specific person has to own, in writing, in front of a regulator if it comes to that. When AI got hot in 2024, the temptation was the same one every executive team felt: buy the flashy vendor tools everyone else was buying and announce an AI strategy.

Our board approved a different path. We are building an internal system, named MARCUS, with an executive owner and a set of constraints that came before a single line of anything else. No borrower data leaves the building. No machine ever approves or denies a loan. No vendor sits between us and our regulator. The system runs on hardware we own, inside our own walls, using small models that fit on that hardware, with a deterministic rules engine making every eligibility and pricing determination the same way every time. The models draft. A person decides.

Here is what the system is being built to do. It reads incoming borrower files. It summarizes them. It runs a completeness check against what the file should contain. It drafts the first pass of internal memos, and it traces every claim it makes back to a source document, so the human reviewing the draft can verify rather than trust.

And here is what humans kept, deliberately and permanently. Every credit decision. Every hardship conversation with a borrower going through the worst stretch of their business life. Every submission to a regulator. The operating rule underneath all of it is simple enough to fit on an index card: the machine can hold knowledge, and it cannot hold responsibility.

Notice what building this way does to the economics. The cost of the system is knowable before it runs: the hardware, the electricity, the people who maintain it. Every one of those numbers sits on our side of the ledger, which means the cost does not move when someone else’s board decides to reprice. That is the part that matters for this article. The shop owner from the opening absorbed a tripled rate on ninety days’ notice. Our exposure to that kind of Tuesday is the electric bill.

I will offer the honest coda, because a case without mistakes is a brochure, and we are far enough into the build to have already collected a few. When we announced the project to our staff, I led with what the technology could do. I should have led with what would not change. People hear “AI initiative” and privately calculate their own odds, and I let that anxiety run longer than better leadership would have. We also learned that the operating rhythm around a system like this, the weekly review of what it drafts and where it fails, belongs on day one rather than on the list of things to formalize later. Whatever you build, at whatever scale, start there.

Three Questions Every Owner Should Ask a Vendor This Quarter

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You run a twelve-person company, you are never going to build an internal system with a name and an executive owner, and a nonprofit lender’s architecture is not your Monday morning problem. Fair enough. You do not need our system. The design principles underneath it are fully portable, and they compress into three questions you can ask any AI vendor this quarter. Three, and only three.

One. Where does the work run, and who controls that hardware? If the answer is a vendor’s cloud, priced per query, you are exposed to the reset and to every repricing decision made between now and then. If the answer is hardware you or your implementation partner controls, at a fixed and knowable cost, the reset becomes a headline you read about rather than a bill you receive.

Two. What does the machine decide, and what does a human decide? If the pitch involves the machine making a decision your business will be held responsible for, a credit call, a medical judgment, a safety determination, walk away. The machine drafts. A person decides. Every time, in every workflow, with no exceptions carved out for convenience.

Three. What happens to your workflows if this vendor triples the price, gets acquired, or shuts down? If the honest answer is “we start over,” then what you have bought is a dependency wearing a workflow’s clothes, and dependencies fail on someone else’s schedule, usually at the worst possible moment.

That is the whole test. A vendor who answers all three cleanly is selling you capability. A vendor who cannot is selling you subscription-era plumbing at implementation-era prices, and the clock on that arrangement is already running.

Build So the Next Morning Belongs to You

Come back to the shop owner one last time. Eighteen thousand dollars, three tools, one tripled rate, and a workflow held hostage on a Tuesday. What she needed was a workflow she owned, running on infrastructure she controlled, priced against a result she could measure. A bigger subscription solves none of that. A better-designed operation solves all of it, and that option is available to her right now, at her scale, for owners willing to treat AI as an operating decision rather than a shopping decision.

The correction, when it comes, will be loud. Write-downs, bankruptcies, columns declaring the whole thing a mania. Remember the fiber in the ground. The technology will keep working straight through the noise, and it will get cheaper on the other side, and the owners who spent this era building workflows they control will wake up with a cost structure their competitors cannot touch.

AI is real. The bubble is a business model, not the technology. The bubble rewarded scale, and the reset will reward control, and control is built the same way it has always been built in a small business: deliberately, unglamorously, one workflow at a time.

The bubble will do what bubbles do. The businesses built on top of it, thoughtfully and quietly, will keep running the next morning. Build so the next morning belongs to you.

Share

To learn more about MARCUS or to see what human-centric AI adoption could look like in your business, check out Main & Machine.

Here’s the truth: the American work ethic was never the whole story. It was one half of a bargain. The other half was a promise, renewed by each generation, that ordinary effort would be met with extraordinary tools. Work hard, and the country would hand you something that multiplied your work: land, literacy, electricity, an education, a road. The dream was never just about effort. It was about effort meeting a lever.

For the last fifty years, we kept preaching the first half of the bargain while quietly letting the second half lapse. And now, for the first time in my working life, I believe we have a real chance to renew it. That is what this piece is about. Not nostalgia, and not another elegy for a fading dream. This is about the second draft, and who gets to write it.

The Coin Flip

Start with the number that should be carved above every economics classroom in the country. The economist Raj Chetty, whose research anchors David Leonhardt’s Ours Was the Shining Future, measured the most basic version of the American Dream: the odds that a child would grow up to earn more than their parents. For Americans born in 1940, the answer was 92 percent. It didn’t matter much whether you were born to a machinist in Toledo or a banker in Boston; the escalator carried nearly everyone upward.

For Americans born in 1980, the odds are 50 percent. A coin flip.

Think about that for a moment. In the span of a single lifetime, the defining promise of this country went from near certainty to a toss-up. And here is what makes that number so clarifying: nobody believes it happened because Americans born in 1980 work half as hard as their grandparents did. The work ethic held. I see it every semester at ASU, in students who are hungrier and more anxious and working more hours than any generation I have taught. I see it every week at B:Side Capital, in the loan files of people doing everything they can to open machine shops and childcare centers and restaurants. The effort never went anywhere.

What broke was the other half of the bargain. The levers stopped reaching ordinary hands.

The Dream Was Always a Bargain

We like to talk about the American Dream as if it were a natural resource, something discovered here like timber or oil, woven into the founding and guaranteed by it. The history tells a different story. Every era in which the dream expanded, every period when Chetty’s escalator ran fast, was an era in which the country made a deliberate decision to put that generation’s most powerful tools into the hands of ordinary people.

The pattern is remarkably consistent once you look for it. In 1862, in the middle of a civil war it was not yet clear the Union would win, Congress passed the Homestead Act and handed 160 acres of productive capital to anyone willing to work it. That same year, the Morrill Act seeded land-grant colleges across the country, taking the most valuable technology of the industrial age, engineering and scientific agriculture, and teaching it to farmers’ kids. In the 1930s, when nine out of ten American farms had no electricity because private utilities saw no profit in serving them, rural electrification put the defining power source of the century into the hands of families that Wall Street had written off. In 1944, the GI Bill sent millions of working-class veterans to college. In 1956, the interstate system gave a trucking company in Wichita the same national reach as a railroad baron.

None of these were charity. Every one was a bargain: the country supplied the lever, and ordinary people supplied the work. The combination is what built the broadest middle class in human history. Effort alone never did it. Effort was always abundant. What made America exceptional was not that its people worked harder than everyone else, but that an ordinary person’s hard work was matched with more productive capacity, more multiplying force, than anywhere else on earth.

That is the machinery under the poetry. The dream, mechanically speaking, is a work ethic multiplied by a lever. And a multiplication has two terms.

How the Bargain Broke

Leonhardt traces the breakdown to three forces that gathered strength after the mid-1970s, and I find his framework hard to argue with. Political power was captured by narrow interests who bent the rules toward those who already had the levers. Corporate culture shifted from building institutions to maximizing quarterly returns. And national investment, the share of our wealth we plant rather than consume, fell decade after decade, from the highways and research universities of the postwar years to a country that now spends its money largely on healthcare, incarceration, and the past.

I would add a fourth force, because I watch it operate every day from the lending side: the levers themselves changed hands. The defining tools of the last forty years, enterprise software, global supply chains, data at scale, cheap institutional capital, were never really available to Main Street. They came with seven-figure price tags, procurement departments, and consultants. A Fortune 500 company could buy an ERP system and a small manufacturer could not, and compounded over decades, that gap became a canyon. The technology of the postwar era, the tractor, the truck, the storefront, scaled down to fit a family business. The technology of the information era mostly did not. It rewarded whoever already had scale, and it punished whoever did not, and we called the result a productivity paradox when it was really a distribution problem.

So the escalator slowed, and then it stalled, and an entire political era grew up inside the wreckage of the broken bargain. Both parties now campaign on some version of restoring the dream. Almost nobody talks about the actual mechanism: not the sermon about hard work, which was never the missing piece, but the lever.

The First Permissionless Lever

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Here comes the AI section, and with it the hype. Fair enough. I have spent two years writing skeptically about this technology’s effect on employment, and I am not going to un-write those pieces now. The ladder is still evaporating; the entry-level rungs are still disappearing; the disruption is still real and still accelerating. Nothing in what follows is a retraction.

But there is a second story unfolding at the same time, and it gets a fraction of the attention because it is quieter and more hopeful. Here it is, stated plainly: for the first time since the postwar era, the most powerful tool in the economy scales down. The frontier technology of this generation, the one the giants are spending hundreds of billions to build, is available to a five-person company for roughly the cost of a pickup truck. Less, in most cases.

This has never been true before. The mainframe belonged to corporations. Enterprise software belonged to enterprises; it says so in the name. Even the internet, which promised to level everything, quietly consolidated into platforms that charge Main Street a toll for access to its own customers. Every previous lever of the information age required scale, capital, or permission.

AI requires none of the three. A ten-person insurance agency can now field the kind of analytical capacity that used to require a floor of junior staff. A machine shop can have every quote, every job, every customer interaction organized and searchable and acted upon, the way only its largest competitors once could. The technology does not care whether you have a procurement department. It does not require a relationship with a vendor’s enterprise sales team. It is the first lever in fifty years that does not ask Main Street to wait its turn.

I want to be careful here, because the point is not that AI is automatically good for small business. Left alone, the default path probably favors concentration, as defaults usually do. The point is narrower and more practical: for the first time in decades, the raw material of the bargain is lying on the ground, cheap and unguarded. Whether it becomes a lever for Main Street or another moat for the giants depends entirely on what happens next. Which brings me to the failure rate.

What the 78 Percent Get Wrong

Boston Consulting Group studied companies investing in AI and found that 78 percent of them had spent the money and seen essentially nothing move. Only 22 percent turned the spending into measurable results. Most commentators read that statistic as an indictment of the technology. I read it as the single most encouraging number in the entire story, and I want to explain why.

If 78 percent of adopters get nothing, then access was never the moat. The moat is implementation: the unglamorous work of mapping how a business actually operates, finding the three workflows where the technology actually pays, building the fix, and training people to run it. And implementation, unlike scale or capital or permission, is learnable. It is a discipline, not a birthright. A canyon that took forty years to form because the tools only fit the giants can close in a few years if the tools fit everyone and the difference is simply who does the work of adopting them well.

Notice what that means. The barrier between Main Street and the lever is no longer money or access. It is knowledge, method, and follow-through. Those are exactly the terrain where small businesses have always been able to compete, because they are the terrain of the work ethic itself.

The knowledge is already moving. My students at ASU walk into class fluent in tools most executives have not yet touched, and it is spreading faster than any technology I have seen. I have lived the implementation story too. B:Side is a regulated SBA and CDFI lender, about as far from a technology company as you can get, yet over the past two years we have quietly rebuilt much of how we work around AI systems we run in-house, where our borrowers' data stays. None of it was glamorous. We mapped our own workflows, found where the technology actually paid, and did the work. If we can do it, the local contractor can do it. The dental practice can do it. The forty-person distributor can do it.

That conviction is why, earlier this year, I founded Main & Machine, a firm with exactly one purpose: putting working AI systems inside small and mid-size businesses, at a fixed price, with a human being accountable for every decision the machine drafts. I mention it not as an advertisement but as a disclosure of where I have placed my own bet. The firm’s founding premise is the thesis of this essay compressed into six words: the machine belongs to Main Street. I got tired of watching the 22 percent be made up almost entirely of enterprises, and I decided the numbers should be argued with rather than accepted.

What This Means for You

If you own or lead a small business, I want to leave you with more than a historical frame. Here is what I believe the moment asks of you, in rough order of importance.

1. Treat this like the arrival of electricity, not the arrival of a gadget. The farmers who prospered after rural electrification were not the ones who bought the fanciest fixtures. They were the ones who rewired the whole operation around the new power source: the milking machine, the refrigeration, the pump. Do not ask “where can we sprinkle some AI?” Ask “which three workflows cost us the most, and what would it mean to rebuild them?”

2. Start with the boring work, because the boring work is the moat. Map your processes before you buy anything. The 78 percent who got nothing skipped this step. You cannot automate what you have not understood, and nobody understands your business but you. That understanding is an asset no enterprise competitor can buy.

3. Keep a person accountable for every decision. The systems worth building draft the routine work and route the judgment calls to a human who owns them. The moment the machine becomes the answer to “why did this happen,” you have not automated your business; you have abdicated it. Build the other kind.

4. Move now, while the window is genuinely open. Every previous lever eventually got fenced. Land ran out, tuition soared, the platforms imposed their tolls. There is no reason to believe this one stays cheap and permissionless forever. The advantage belongs to those who build the capability while the canyon is still closing.

The Second Draft

The men who signed the Declaration 250 years ago did not inherit a dream. They drafted one, on deadline, under pressure, with no assurance it would survive the year. Everything we celebrated this weekend, we celebrate because later generations treated that draft not as a relic but as a working document: amended it, extended it, and above all renewed the bargain at its core, each era finding a way to put its defining tools into ordinary hands.

Our generation let the bargain lapse. That is the honest reading of the coin flip, and no amount of holiday sentiment should soften it. But a lapsed bargain is not a dead one, and for the first time in fifty years, the renewal does not require an act of Congress. The lever is cheap, the window is open, and the work ethic, as I argued two years ago and will keep arguing, never went anywhere.

The first draft of the American Dream was written in Philadelphia by lawyers and farmers who pledged everything they had to an uncertain idea. The second draft will not be written anywhere so grand. It is being written now, in machine shops and dental practices and forty-person distributors, by people who take the tool in front of them and do what Americans have always done with a lever: find something enormous, and move it.

Happy 250th. Now back to work.

Both halves of the bargain are within reach. If you're ready to fund your American Dream, my team at B:Side Capital would be honored to help: start at bside.org/get-started. And if you're interested in learning more about implementing AI in your business, visit www.mainandmachine.com.

He was right. He was also early, and in a bull market early and wrong look exactly the same. For the better part of two months he was a punchline. Then the tide went out.

Seventy years later, Jeremy Grantham’s firm called the dot-com top. GMO was correct about 2000, and also two and a quarter years early, and in the interval it lost close to half its book as clients fled to the managers still riding the thing up. The names change. The script does not. The prophet is always credible, always early, and always punished, and the punishment looks identical to being wrong until the tide finally goes out.

Grantham is saying now that this AI market is the biggest bubble in American history, and that a seventy percent fall in the high-flyers would not surprise him. He may be early again. That is rather the point. We are living inside another version of the same story, and the only useful question is which part you intend to play in it.

Why this matters before the cost arrives

The script repeats with enough fidelity that you can cast the roles in advance, which means you can see your own role before the moment forces you into it.

Andrew Ross Sorkin’s account of the crash makes a claim that sounds financial and turns out to be about character. The crash was set in motion by specific men who rationalized their own positions while defending a structure of leverage they could not imagine failing. Confidence is the architecture of an economy, and confidence goes the way Hemingway said bankruptcy does. Gradually, then suddenly. The lesson moves from regulation to human nature. People forget. They dress hope up as certainty. They fall hardest from the height of their own conviction.

A regulatory problem you could solve with a rule. A human problem outruns the rule. The only thing that holds is a standard you chose before the pressure made the choice expensive.

We are deep inside a Fourth Turning, the stretch where the institutional debts of an eighty-year cycle come due at once. The cheap money that defined the last era is unwinding, and the technological optimism is real and also weaponized. In a season like this, complexity fails and only character scales. The question is not whether you can call the top. You cannot, and neither can anyone selling you a model that says it can. The real question is what code you have already written for the day the prophet is mocked, the optimist is believed, and you have to decide which of them you are funding.

The optimists are usually right

Here is the part most commentary gets wrong, because getting it right means conceding something painful.

The articulate optimist in these episodes is generally correct about the technology. In 1929, Irving Fisher described a coming age of prosperity built on mass production and a wave of invention the world had never seen. Fisher was telling the truth. Mass production was transformative. The American century he saw coming arrived. He was wrong about exactly one thing, and that thing was the price.

Read Fisher beside the 2026 case for AI and you cannot tell them apart. Mohamed El-Erian calls AI a genuinely transformative innovation with winner-take-all tendencies, and he is right. Didier Sornette lists the justifications that powered the dot-com mania: capital-light models, network effects, first-to-scale advantage, the real-option premium on futures nobody can yet see. Every one maps onto the foundation-model bull case. The optimists hold a coherent theory that is partly true. That is what makes a bubble seductive rather than stupid.

So the three roles are set. The prophet is punished for being early. The optimist is right about everything except valuation. The system metabolizes the warning instead of acting on it. The information is never missing; the structure is built to discount whoever carries it.

Keep one sentence from this essay: the optimists are usually right about the technology and wrong only about the price. It guards against the two errors that wreck leaders here, throwing out the technology because the valuation is absurd, and swallowing the valuation because the technology is real. A bubble is a true story told at the wrong number.

What actually ends these episodes

There is a comforting fiction that bubbles burst when the technology disappoints. It lets you watch the product roadmap and feel safe. It is also wrong.

The unifying cause is monetary. Speculative phases are most often stopped by successive increases in the cost of money. In 1929 the discount rate climbed from 3.5 percent to 6 percent; in Japan around 1990 it moved from 2.5 percent to 6 percent; the dot-coms broke the same way. The technology held. The rate rose, and the future got discounted back to a price the present could no longer pretend to afford. This is what Edward Chancellor calls the price of time. WeWork’s fall from a forty-seven-billion-dollar valuation to a fraction of it was not creative destruction but the plain kind: money mispriced long enough that a real-estate company could be sold as software.

So do not wait for the AI products to underwhelm; they may not. Watch the cost of money, the one mechanism that has ended every comparable episode. Tie your judgment to the rate path, not to the demo.

The honest counterweight, or this is just propaganda: overpaying for real growth can still work over a long enough horizon. Amazon rewarded the people who held it through valuations that looked insane. Being correct and being proved correct right away are different things, and the tension does not resolve cleanly. Distrust anyone who says it does.

Where the 1929 rhyme breaks down

In 1929 the concentrated, levered vehicle was the investment trust. Trusts owned other trusts, which owned the market, and when the cascade started the leverage ran in reverse and the structure ate itself. The temptation is to call the seven companies driving today’s index the same thing.

The logic rhymes. The circular nature of current AI revenue, where the same capital flows between the model labs and the chipmakers and the clouds and back, looks like a closed loop pretending to be a market. But the 1929 trusts ran on explicit margin leverage; today’s giants run on fortress balance sheets, and their spend is borrowed against capex, not margin. The bull’s strongest defense lives inside the Amazon playbook: take a long enough view and a company that grows fat and inefficient dies a Darwinian death, which makes the enormous AI capex read as vision rather than recklessness.

So two disciplined companies can read the same war and write opposite codes. The hyperscalers pour cash into the buildout, betting scale is the only moat that will matter. Apple, so far, has declined the arms race, content to license what it needs and let everyone else fund the experiment. Both are defensible, and the line has to be drawn before anyone can know who was right.

I have drawn that line myself, at a smaller scale and with far less margin for error. At B:Side Capital, the small-business lending company where I serve as CEO, our balance sheet is not a casino chip and the people we serve cannot absorb our mistakes. When we built MARCUS, our internal AI system, the loudest version of the project was the expensive one: buy the enterprise platform, sign the long contract, take the vendor’s maximalist vision on faith. We chose the disciplined build instead, a small team of ASU students and recent graduates building a focused system tied to the actual work of lending. The line was simple. We would let AI do real work for us, and we would not bet the institution on a future nobody could yet price. I made that call on purpose, in the calm, and I could still defend it in the cold light of a downturn. That is the part that matters.

The question is who knew what they were betting before the bet became irreversible.

The warning cannot save you

This is the most unsettling part, and the most valuable.

The warning, once widespread, gets absorbed. Babson warns, the market dips, and then it folds the warning into the price and goes back to buying. The system holds all the information it needs and is built to neutralize whoever carries it. There is no cynicism in saying so; it is just structure. No help is coming, because the architecture metabolizes warnings the way a body metabolizes a stimulant: a brief spike, then baseline, then tolerance. You cannot outsource your judgment to the prophet, because his rightness will not arrive on a schedule you can use.

The career mechanism is brutal. You get fired for underperforming your peers in a bull market, not for being early on a bear, because by the time the bear arrives everyone is losing together. Howard Marks names the instinct it breeds: never be wrong on your own. The system punishes independent early correctness and rewards consensus late error, and the prophet who acts on the data takes on what looks, in real time, like pure downside.

This is where a code stops being philosophy and becomes operational. John Kenneth Galbraith left three tools. The twenty-year rule: ask whether the thing sold as unprecedented has any memory older than the last cycle. The intelligence test: separate the appearance of brilliance from the mere possession of money, because in a boom the two get confused and the confusion is the engine. And the this-time-is-different test, run on every claim that the old rules have been repealed, because the old rules are never repealed, only forgotten.

A leader who has internalized those has drawn a bright line before the pressure arrives, and when the moment comes the decision is execution, not deliberation. The one who has not will build a line in the moment, in a room full of people telling him the future is here, and a line built during the crisis is built too late. The warning will not save you. Only the standard you wrote down before the warning became fashionable will.

The fork that is darker than the crash

There is one more turn, the one Grantham himself flinches from. He has said he almost hopes AI fails, because the success case produces a very dangerous world. Picture it: labor’s share of output slides, and the economy generates ghost output, numbers that show up in the accounts but never circulate, because machines produce and machines do not consume. The bubble bursting is the smaller danger. The larger danger is the bubble being justified, because a justified bubble is the world where nobody ever installed the brake.

So the audit you run on your own institution has to ask not only whether the AI spend pays off, but what it sets as precedent for whoever comes after you. An organization that displaces its own people for a margin it never decided was right has made a choice about transmission, and the transmission is what outlives the quarter. This is the work George Marshall understood: building standards meant to hold long after the builder is gone. Nobody gets a bonus for the brake they installed on a machine that had not yet run away. The leaders worth following ask what their decisions teach, in a market that pays only for what they earn.

The code the moment requires

Write the line before the offer. Decide now, in the calm, what valuation, what concentration, what borrowed capex you will not fund. A line you can name in the calm is a bright line; a line you find under pressure is a rationalization wearing a line’s clothes.

Separate the technology question from the price question, and refuse to let conviction about the first contaminate judgment about the second. The technology is real and the price may be insane, both at once.

Watch the cost of money, not the demo. That is the mechanism that ends these episodes, and it will keep you sober when the launches dazzle.

Run the midnight test on the decision that feels fine. Ask what it looks like if you are wrong about your own motivation, because the most dangerous decisions are the ones that feel like governance.

Decide what you are transmitting, not just what you are earning. The quarter will pass. The standard you set for the people on the other side of your optimization will not.

None of this requires you to predict the crash. It requires you to be someone whose decisions still hold up after the prophet is vindicated and the optimist is humbled and everyone discovers, gradually and then suddenly, that the confidence was the whole structure.

The crash of 1929 eventually produced reform: Pecora, Glass-Steagall, a system that remembered for a generation. But it came slowly, and it held only as long as the memory did. We may not get even that this time, because the incentives that built the bubble are the same ones that will write the after-action report. So the reform has to be personal before it can be institutional. Write your line now, while the cost of holding it is still abstract. The prophet will be punished and the optimist will be believed and the system will metabolize every warning you might hope to get. None of that decides who you are when the tide goes out. You do, and you do it now, in the room where nobody is yet asking you to choose.

The work this essay describes, drawing your line before the pressure arrives, is a practice rather than a one-time decision. I built a new leadership app to keep that practice close at hand: a companion to Honor Under Pressure and The B:Side Way that brings the frameworks and the discipline into the moments you actually face them. Have a look at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

Whatever happens, the market shrugs it off and grinds higher. A war in one region, a debt downgrade, a hot inflation print, a political crisis that would have rattled an earlier generation of investors. Each one hits, the screen wobbles for a day, and then the momentum reasserts itself and prices push to new records. The optimism feels almost untethered. And it runs directly against what many of us are actually seeing. In our small business portfolio, the strain is real and getting harder to miss: thinner margins, slower payments, a smaller buffer than there was a year ago. A lot of the people I talk to carry the same quiet dissonance in their own lives, a sense that the numbers on the screen and the conditions on the ground have come apart.

So the question sharpens into something more pointed. Why are the powers that be so willing to pull out every stop, to go to any length, no matter how unprecedented the move, to keep the market from falling?

The answer is the uncomfortable one. They have no other choice.

To understand why, you have to set aside the way most of us instinctively think about the stock market. We treat it like a thermometer, a reading of how the economy is doing. The number goes up and we feel good about where things are headed; the number goes down and we worry. But the people who actually run the financial system know something the thermometer framing hides. The market does two jobs at once. It measures the economy, and it helps hold the economy up.

That second job is the one almost nobody talks about, and it is the reason a falling market is so much more dangerous than a falling thermometer. A thermometer that drops only tells you it is cold. A price that drops, in a world this leveraged, makes it colder.

The Market Looks Calm. That Is the Setup.

Right now the conditions look benign. The S&P 500 is sitting just under its record high, less than a percent off the top. The VIX, the market’s fear gauge, is down around 16, near the sleepy end of its range, even though it touched 35 within the past year. Volatility is low. Confidence is high.

That calm is not the opposite of risk. It is how risk gets built. Hyman Minsky spent his career on this single idea, and it is worth saying plainly: stability is destabilizing. When times are good for long enough, borrowers and lenders both relax. Loans that once looked prudent start to look timid. Leverage that once felt aggressive starts to feel normal. The longer the calm holds, the more debt the system piles on top of it, until the whole structure quietly depends on the calm continuing.

You can see the pile in the numbers. Investor margin debt, the money people borrow against their portfolios to buy still more, hit a record in April: $1.3 trillion, up more than fifty percent in a single year. As a share of the economy, analysts put it at an all-time high, well past where it stood at the dot-com peak in 2000. The borrowing did not climb in a smooth line, either. It dipped earlier in the year and then jumped by more than $80 billion in one month to set the record. That is not the behavior of patient money. That is the procyclical reflex the leverage literature has described for decades: people borrow more precisely when prices are high and the mood is good, which is exactly when they should be doing the opposite.

A Price Drop Is a Credit Event

To see why a drop is so dangerous, you have to understand what collateral actually does in a modern financial system.

When you borrow against an asset, the lender protects itself by lending a little less than the asset is worth. The gap is the haircut, the cushion. As long as the asset holds its value, everyone is fine. But the moment the price falls, two things happen at once. The borrower’s equity shrinks, and the collateral backing the loan is suddenly worth less than it was. The lender, doing nothing wrong and following its own rules, asks for more: more cash, more collateral, a bigger cushion. The borrower can raise that cash quickly in only one way. By selling.

Here is the part that turns a correction into a crisis. When enough borrowers are forced to sell at the same time, their selling pushes prices down further. Lower prices mean lower collateral values, which trigger more calls, which force more selling. The loop feeds itself. Economists have given the two halves of this loop precise names. There is the loss spiral, where falling prices wipe out the equity of leveraged holders and force them to dump assets, and the margin spiral, where the same falling prices and rising fear lead lenders to demand fatter cushions at the worst possible moment. Brunnermeier and Pedersen showed that the two spirals reinforce each other, and that the combined damage is larger than the sum of the two.

Underneath it all sits Irving Fisher’s cruel arithmetic from 1933. When everyone deleverages at once, selling assets and paying down debt together, they drive prices down so fast that the real weight of the remaining debt actually rises. In his phrase, the more the debtors pay, the more they owe. Trying to climb out of the hole collectively digs it deeper.

This is the insight the thermometer framing misses. In a collateralized system, the price level helps determine how much credit can exist at all. Collateral value sets borrowing capacity. So when prices fall, the system’s capacity to lend contracts on its own, by mechanics rather than mood. The drop in price is the drop in credit.

The Leverage Has Moved

The margin-debt record is the figure that makes headlines, because it is visible and it is retail and it is easy to picture: ordinary investors borrowing against their stocks. But if you are looking for where the next spiral actually starts, that regulated retail number is no longer where the real danger sits.

The bigger and faster risk has migrated into the plumbing, into the part of finance that does not have a ticker. Hedge funds have built enormous positions in the Treasury market, the supposedly safest market in the world. Their long Treasury exposure has grown from roughly $600 billion a decade ago to about $2.4 trillion at the end of last year. They fund much of it through repo, short-term borrowing against those same Treasuries, and their net repo borrowing has reached around $1.8 trillion, more than double what it was at the start of 2024. The Federal Reserve describes this leverage as near all-time highs, concentrated in a small number of very large funds.

Here is the detail that should make you sit up. Much of that borrowing is done at zero haircut. No cushion at all. In 1929, the speculative fuel was the call loan: investors buying stocks with as little as ten percent down. We look back at that leverage as reckless. The modern version is larger, it sits inside the Treasury market rather than the stock market, and in places it runs with no cushion whatsoever. It is the same machine, bigger and better hidden.

And this is only one room in a very large house. The non-bank financial system, the hedge funds and private credit funds and money market funds and all the rest, has grown to roughly $257 trillion globally. It is now larger than the traditional banking system. Leverage behaves like water. After 2008, regulators built strong walls around the banks, so the leverage flowed downhill to the places where the walls were lowest. That is where it pooled.

Safer in the Banks, More Fragile in the Shadows

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Haven’t we been through all this? We rebuilt the system after 2008. Banks hold far more capital than they used to. They get stress-tested every year against brutal scenarios. The Fed has a standing facility that can pump cash into the repo market on demand. All of that is true, and none of it should be waved away.

But the honest answer to “is it different now?” is unsettling. We are safer in the banks and more fragile in the shadows. The reforms did their job at the core. Large banks carry capital near historic highs and would survive losses that would have killed them two decades ago. What the reforms did not do, could not do, was stop the leverage from moving. It moved to the funds and the markets where supervision is thinnest, and where a spiral can run before anyone with authority can see it clearly.

There is a backstop coming. New rules will push much of the bilateral Treasury market into central clearing, with real margin and a mutualized structure behind it. It is a genuine improvement. It is also not live yet. The cash-clearing piece is not scheduled to begin until the very end of this year, and the repo piece not until the middle of next. The protection we are counting on is still months away. The exposure is here now.

The Spiral Doesn’t Stay on Wall Street

It would be easy to read all of this as a Wall Street story, a problem for hedge funds and the people paid to regulate them. Watching credit conditions for a living, I think that is the most dangerous misread of all.

When a deleveraging spiral runs, it does not stay contained. The first channel is the wealth effect in reverse. Stock ownership in this country is extraordinarily concentrated: the top ten percent of households own roughly eighty-seven percent of all stocks. When the market falls hard, it hits exactly the households that drive the bulk of discretionary spending and investment, and they pull back. A market event becomes a spending event.

The second channel is the one I watch most closely. As collateral values fall and risk rises, lenders retreat. They tighten standards, shrink credit lines, and back away from anything that looks uncertain. And the lending that dries up first is rarely to the largest, safest borrowers. It is to small businesses, the Main Street borrowers who have the least collateral and the smallest margin for error. They feel a Wall Street spiral as a closed door at the bank, often before the headlines have caught up to what is happening. The banks themselves are now lending heavily into those non-bank funds, which means stress in the shadows flows right back onto bank balance sheets, and from there into the real economy that the rest of us live in.

This is why the speed of a drop matters as much as its size. A market can fall ten percent in a matter of days now, and modern tools compress those moves further. The counter-forces, the bargain hunters and the policymakers, both need time to act. A spiral does not give them time. The clearest recent warning is Britain in the autumn of 2022, when a sudden jump in government bond yields forced pension funds to sell those same bonds to meet collateral calls, which drove yields higher, which forced more selling. That loop ran in hours, not weeks. Only an emergency central bank intervention stopped it. Most market falls do not become spirals. The ones that do, though, can run faster than judgment can keep up.

What You Do Before the Floor Moves

Let me be clear about what this piece is and what it isn’t. This is not a market call. I am not telling you to sell, or to predict the timing of something no one can time. The whole point of a spiral is that it is unpredictable in its trigger and merciless in its mechanics. What you can do is decide, in advance, which side of it you want to be on. Because every one of these episodes, from 1929 to 2008 to 2020, comes down to the same brutal sorting: the forced sellers lose, and the people with cash and patience buy what the forced sellers have to dump.

So the work is to make sure you are never the forced seller.

For anyone leading a business, that means treating your own leverage as a deliberate choice rather than something you back into. Borrow for things that produce durable cash flow, not for things that only work if prices keep rising. Hold more liquidity than feels efficient in good times, because the entire value of that liquidity reveals itself in the moment everyone else is scrambling for it. Taleb’s framing is the right one here: in a fragile system you want optionality, the capacity to act when others can’t, rather than the brittle efficiency that looks brilliant right up until it shatters.

For the small business owners and the lenders who serve them, the message is more specific and more urgent. Secure your credit before you need it. A line of credit you arrange in calm conditions is a very different thing from one you go looking for in a panic, when the same spiral hammering Wall Street has quietly convinced your bank to stop saying yes. Credit availability does not fade gently in a crisis. It vanishes at exactly the moment you reach for it. The businesses that come through these periods are usually the ones that built their buffer while they still could, while it still felt unnecessary.

What the Number Actually Is

When you hear a policymaker or an executive talk the market up in a tense moment, it is tempting to dismiss it as cheerleading, or vanity, or spin. Sometimes it is. But underneath the spin is a hard structural truth they understand better than most. In a system this leveraged, the price level is load-bearing. The number on the front of the building tells you what the building is worth. It is also one of the beams holding the building up.

A market that falls and then recovers quickly reseats the beam, and the structure holds. A market that falls and stays down long enough lets the spiral do its work, pulling the beam out one stress at a time. That is the difference between a correction and a crisis, and it is far thinner than most people assume.

None of this is a reason to live in fear of a number on a screen. It is a reason to understand what the number actually is. The students I teach will spend their careers being told the market is a scoreboard, a measure of how well things are going. The truth is heavier than that, and more useful to carry. The market is part of the structure now. And the first job of anyone responsible for anything, a portfolio, a company, a payroll, is to make sure that when the structure shakes, you are standing on something of your own.

The market is one place where change can arrive suddenly and violently, but it is hardly the only one. The same is true of the pressures that test a leader. My book, Honor Under Pressure, is about cultivating your leadership code before that pressure hits, because in an era when the ground can shift in hours rather than years, character is the one thing that has to be built in advance. You can find it at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

The clip is from 2023. You have probably seen it pass through your feed three or four times in the last month, because it keeps resurfacing for reasons people cannot quite articulate. Anderson Cooper sits across from Rick Rubin, one of the most successful music producers alive, in the producer’s Malibu studio. Cooper asks if Rubin plays any instruments. “Barely,” Rubin says. Can he operate a soundboard? No. “I have no technical ability. And I know nothing about music.”

Cooper, half-laughing: “You must know something.”

“Well, I know what I like and what I don’t like. And I’m decisive about what I like and what I don’t like.”

“So what are you being paid for?”

“The confidence I have in my taste and my ability to express what I feel has proven helpful for artists.”

That clip was a curiosity when it first aired. People shared it because Rubin is such an unusual character, because the exchange has the quality of a Zen koan, because it felt vaguely subversive that someone could win nine Grammys and admit he could not plug in a microphone.

It is doing different work now. It has become a meme because it is also, accidentally, the answer to the question every white-collar professional in America is currently trying not to ask.

The Floor Is Collapsing

Across every knowledge-work field I look at, the same thing is happening at different speeds. The execution layer is being eaten alive. Code writes code. Decks build themselves. Memos draft themselves. Models run analyses that used to take a team of analysts a week. The work that used to define a junior associate’s first three years is now a four-minute prompt and a senior reviewer.

This is the part everyone is now willing to talk about openly, so I will not belabor it. The deeper question is what is left when the execution layer disappears. What does a career look like when the thing you spent five years learning to do gets done by software in seconds? What does seniority mean when the apprentice’s ladder has no rungs?

The honest answer is that we do not know yet, in detail. But we do know one thing, because someone proved it to us forty years ago and we just were not paying attention. The thing that scales when execution commoditizes is taste. Judgment. The willingness to look at a hundred options and say “this one” with conviction, and live with the consequences when you are wrong.

Rubin built a forty-year career proving this in advance. We are about to be forced to catch up.

What Rubin Was Actually Doing

If you watch the longer cuts of that 60 Minutes piece, you start to see it. Rubin lies on a couch in his studio, eyes closed, while a track plays. To Anderson Cooper it looks like he might be asleep. Then he sits up, says three sentences, and the song reorganizes itself.

Chuck D, who has worked with him for decades, described it the same way: “Is he asleep or awake or what? And then makes a couple suggestions. Boom, boom, boom. And sure enough, it unfolds itself.”

What Rubin is doing during those silences is the only thing that actually matters in his job. He is paying attention. He is comparing what he hears against a vast internalized library of what is possible. He is noticing what the track is reaching for that it has not yet found. And then he is offering the artist a single redirection that closes the gap.

He prefers the word reducer to producer. He likes the idea of getting the point across with the least amount of information necessary. In his book The Creative Act, he describes a discipline he calls the ruthless edit. When a project is nearly complete, you do not trim five percent. You cut to half, or even a third, and then add back only what is genuinely essential. The goal is not the final length. The goal is to discover what the work actually is by stripping away everything it is not.

This is the skill. This is what gets paid. The ability to recognize, at speed and with conviction, what should exist that does not yet. The willingness to remove things that are good in order to protect the thing that is great. The discipline of attention that lets you see what a hundred people walking past the same problem have all missed.

There is one more piece of the Rubin philosophy worth pulling forward, because it lands harder now than it did when he said it. Cooper asked him whether his job was to figure out what audiences want. “The audience comes last,” Rubin said. “The audience does not know what they want. The audience only knows what has come before.”

That observation reads differently in the age of AI. Every large language model in existence is, by design, a perfect aggregator of what has come before. The training data is the past. The output is a statistical pattern-match against that past. AI is, in Rubin’s framing, the ultimate audience-pleaser. It cannot tell you what should exist that does not yet. Someone has to do that part. And whoever does it is the one who actually gets paid.

The Counterargument I Hear Most

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Taste is downstream of technical mastery. You cannot be a great editor without first being a great writer. You cannot be a great producer without first being a great musician. The taste people do not exist in a vacuum. They earned their judgment by doing the technical work for years, and the kids coming up now will need to do the same.

There is real truth in this, and I do not want to wave it off. Most great judgment is built on a foundation of having done the underlying work. Rubin is the exception that proves the rule. For every Rubin there are a thousand great producers who can play five instruments and run their own sessions.

But here is what the counterargument misses. The ratio is inverting. Where once ninety percent of a career’s value-creation was technical execution and ten percent was judgment, that proportion is flipping fast. The technical floor is rising under everyone, which means the technical ceiling matters less. What you used to earn through ten thousand hours of execution practice is now available through software that any twenty-year-old can run.

What is not available through software is the discipline of attention. The library of internalized examples. The willingness to defend a point of view in a meeting when the data is ambiguous. The courage to say “no, not that one, this one” when everyone else is hedging. Those things take ten thousand hours too. They just take them in a different shape, and very few people are training for them deliberately.

The students I teach are starting to understand this in their bones, even if they do not have the language for it yet. They watch AI do their homework better than they can. They know what is coming. The ones who will do well are the ones who stop competing with the machine on its terms and start building the human skills the machine cannot reach.

Subscribe now

Three Roles That Replace Execution

When I look across my portfolio and the broader business landscape, the careers that are actually growing in value as AI eats the execution layer collapse into three archetypes. None of them are new. All of them have always been the highest-paid roles in any organization, which is your first clue. They are simply becoming the only roles that survive.

The first is the curator. The person who chooses what gets attention in a world of infinite output. AI can generate a hundred drafts of anything in seconds. Someone has to decide which one is worth shipping. That someone is the bottleneck and the value-creator now, in media, in product, in research, in design, in education, in capital allocation. The curator is the person who has internalized enough of the field to compress a hundred options into one with conviction. The judgment moves faster than the deliberation.

The second is the coordinator. The person who orchestrates work across multiple AI systems, human teams, partners, and external constraints. The skill here is connection. Understanding how the pieces fit. Knowing which lever to pull when. This is what good general managers have always done, and it is what gets harder to automate as the number of moving pieces grows. The coordinator is the person who holds the whole picture in their head when no individual contributor can.

The third is the tastemaker. The person who calls the shot on direction. Who decides what should exist that does not yet. Who is willing to be wrong in public, take the credit, take the blame, and try again. This is the role Rubin plays in a studio. It is the role a great editor plays at a publication. It is the role a great investor plays in a partnership. It is the rarest and most valuable of the three because it requires not just judgment but conviction, and conviction is the thing most professionals spend their entire careers trying to avoid having to display.

These were always the elite roles. They are now becoming the survival roles. The middle layer of pure execution is the part that disappears.

The Playbook

If you accept the argument, the question becomes what to actually do about it. Here is what I am telling my students and what I am building into my own habits.

Build a deliberate consumption diet. Spend an hour a day with the best work in your field. Read the original sources. Study the case studies. Look at the moves great practitioners made when the stakes were real, instead of the ones that get the most clicks. Taste is built by exposure to excellence, and you will not develop it scrolling through algorithmically-curated content.

Form opinions and defend them in writing. A point of view that lives only in your head is not a point of view yet. Put your judgments on the record somewhere. A weekly memo to your team. A Substack. A note to clients. Whatever forces you to commit. The act of writing it down is the act of finding out what you actually think.

Practice the ruthless edit. Take something you have made and cut it in half. Then cut what remains by another third. What survives is what you actually meant. Do this with documents, with strategies, with meetings, with org charts. The skill of subtraction is what distinguishes a curator from a hoarder.

Spend time with people whose taste you trust. Find three or four people in your professional life whose judgment you would defer to in a hard call. Stay close to them. Ask them what they are noticing. Watch what they cut and what they keep. Taste is contagious in both directions, which is why your inputs matter more than your outputs right now.

Make decisions with incomplete information. Taste lives in the gap between data and action. If you wait for certainty, you have outsourced the decision to whoever or whatever brought you the data. Build the muscle of saying “this is the call, and I own it” before the spreadsheet is finished.

Audit your own portfolio of skills. Be honest about which of your competencies are technical execution and which are judgment. The execution ones are at risk and you should treat them as such. Reinvest the time you save into the judgment ones, deliberately and on a schedule.

The Shape of What’s Coming

There is a strange grief in writing this. I have spent years building technical skills that are now being absorbed into software in front of me, and I know many of you have done the same. The instinct is to fight the absorption, to find some technical niche the models cannot quite reach yet, to outrun the curve for another five years. That instinct is understandable and largely wrong.

The deeper move is to climb up a layer. Stop trying to be the best executor in the room. Start trying to be the person whose judgment about what to execute carries the most weight. That is the move Rubin made forty years ago by accident, before there was a name for it, and the move every knowledge worker is going to have to make on purpose now.

The future does not belong to the people who can do the most. AI will do more than any of us, and the gap will widen every year. The future belongs to the people who can see what should exist that does not yet, and have the conviction to say so out loud, and the discipline to remove everything that does not serve it.

That is the Rubin posture. It was unusual when he had it. It is about to be the only one that holds.

For small and mid-size businesses ready to make this shift operational, B:Side Advisors is the AI implementation firm I built on top of B:Side Capital’s 35 years of small-business operating experience. Fixed-price audits and implementation sprints, with a free 30-minute opportunity assessment available at www.bsideadvisors.com.

Almost every senior leader I know is currently overstaying something. A role. A decision. A project. A position they should have stepped back from two years ago. The pattern is so consistent it has stopped registering as a problem. We have come to expect it. The leader who cannot let go has become the default version of leadership rather than the failure mode.

Our founding generation built a country around a different assumption: that the highest virtue available to a powerful person was the willingness to stop. To step back. To leave power on the table when stepping forward was still an option. To refuse the third term, the second escalation, the next deal, the additional acquisition, the further consolidation. To know when one had done enough.

That assumption was anchored by a single name. Washington. And the entire architecture of restraint that holds up American leadership at its best traces back to what he did with the position he had earned.

That assumption is now in trouble.

The Newburgh Moment

In March of 1783, the Continental Army was camped at Newburgh, New York. The war was effectively won, but Congress had not paid the officers. A faction was forming. They were ready to march on Philadelphia and force the issue. Some of them wanted to make Washington king. Most of them just wanted what they were owed, and they were prepared to use the force they commanded to get it.

Washington walked into the meeting where the conspiracy was about to take its final shape. He gave a speech that did not move the room. The officers were polite but unconvinced. Then he started to read a letter from a congressman, and he stopped. He took out a pair of reading glasses, which his men had not seen him wear, and he said something close to this: gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service, and now I find myself growing blind.

The room broke. The officers wept. The coup attempt died on the spot.

The lesson is what Washington did with the loyalty he had just secured. He had the army. The army would have followed him into the Capitol. He could have used that force. He chose not to.

Eight months later, he rode to Annapolis and resigned his commission to Congress. He handed back the sword. George III, when he heard that Washington intended to give up power voluntarily, reportedly said that if he did that, he would be the greatest man in the world.

Washington did it. The American experiment depended on his doing it, and he understood that.

Then he did it again. Two terms as president, and he walked away. Could have run again. Would have won. Chose not to. The two-term precedent held until Franklin Roosevelt, and the country amended its Constitution to put the restraint back where Washington had set it.

The country we inherited was built on a structural assumption: that powerful people would voluntarily limit themselves. Almost every American institution depends on that assumption holding somewhere in the system. When the assumption stops holding, the institutions start failing in ways that no procedural fix can address.

What Has Replaced It

What has replaced the discipline of restraint is the cult of more. More growth. More reach. More tenure. More authority. More leverage. More platform. More acquisitions. More influence. The leadership culture of this moment treats voluntary limitation as a category error, a failure of nerve or ambition that has to be explained rather than admired.

This is the air every leader currently breathes. The CEO who steps down before the board pushes him is seen as having lost something. The senator who declines to run again is seen as having faded. The founder who hands over operational control is seen as having capitulated. The strategist who calls for de-escalation is seen as soft. The executive who passes on the acquisition is seen as having missed it.

In each case, restraint is being read as weakness. And the people doing the reading are responding to the actual incentives of the current moment. Attention markets reward escalation. Quarterly earnings reward expansion. Political donors reward maximalism. Cable news rewards anyone willing to keep talking. The structures around modern leadership pull every leader toward more, and the people who resist that pull pay an immediate visible cost while the benefits of their restraint compound invisibly over decades.

Washington understood this asymmetry. He understood that the things restraint produces, like institutional credibility and durable peace and earned succession, do not show up in any current measurement. They show up later. They show up in the country still functioning when he is gone. The reward for restraint is delayed and impersonal. The reward for grabbing more is immediate and felt directly. The leader who chooses the first over the second is choosing against everything the present rewards.

Subscribe now

What Restraint Actually Looks Like

Restraint is operational discipline, often mistaken for spiritual posture. It is a set of specific moves that the strongest leaders practice with care, often without naming what they are doing.

Restraint is the deal you decline because the price you would pay in culture or focus is greater than the revenue is worth. Restraint is the meeting you do not call because the answer can be reached without you. Restraint is the decision you do not make because the person two levels down needs the experience of making it. Restraint is the public statement you do not issue because the situation is volatile and your weight on the scale will distort it. Restraint is the leverage you have over a counterparty that you choose not to exercise, because the relationship matters more than the moment. Restraint is the third term you do not seek, the additional acquisition you walk away from, the argument you do not finish, the post you do not publish, the response you do not send.

Each of these choices requires more effort, more discipline, and more clarity than the alternative would have required. Stopping short of what you could do is harder than doing it. That is why almost no one practices it.

The framework in Honor Under Pressure names this The Restraint and identifies it as one of the structural code elements that holds a working leadership identity together. The Restraint is voluntary limitation practiced as a regular operating discipline. It is what separates leaders who build institutions that survive them from leaders who consume the institutions around them in the course of trying to lead.

The Five-Part Practice

If you suspect that restraint has gone missing from your own working repertoire, the practical work breaks into five pieces.

First, write down three things you could legitimately do this quarter and have chosen not to. Be specific. The list should name the actual moves you are declining, the acquisitions you are passing on, the escalations you are not pursuing, the authority you are not asserting. If the list is empty, restraint is not currently part of your practice.

Second, set yourself a personal term limit for your current role. Private, written down, with a date, even if no one else has imposed one. The discipline of having an internal sunset on your own tenure changes how you make every decision before that sunset arrives. It forces you to build for succession from day one rather than from the day the board raises the question.

Third, practice strategic non-response on at least one channel where you currently respond reflexively. This might be social platforms, internal messaging, customer escalations, or public commentary. The exercise is to develop the muscle of not engaging when engagement is technically available and would feel productive in the moment.

Fourth, develop a successor before you need one. One specific person whose authority and visibility you are deliberately expanding, whose decisions you are deferring to where appropriate, and whose mistakes you are willing to absorb in the short term to build their capacity for the long term. If the role you currently hold could not be transferred within ninety days, you have not been practicing restraint.

Fifth, write your own Farewell Address. Two pages, drafted in quiet hours, that name what you believe the institution you serve will need most after you leave, what you would warn your successor against, and what voluntary limits you wish you had imposed on yourself earlier. Update it annually. The exercise will tell you, faster than any other diagnostic, how aligned your daily practice is with the legacy you intend to leave.

The Cost of Its Absence

The absence of restraint is the most expensive condition in current leadership, and the cost is showing up in every domain it has touched. It shows up in companies whose founders cannot let go and whose institutions hollow out behind them. It shows up in political careers that extend past every honest measure of usefulness. It shows up in escalation cycles that have no off-ramp because no one is willing to be the first to stop. It shows up in family businesses where the patriarch will not yield. It shows up in the slow erosion of every working relationship where one party will not let the other party finish a sentence.

The country was built by people who understood that the leadership virtue most worth practicing was the one that left power on the table. They built the architecture of American government around that assumption. They built their personal codes around it. They built their reputations on the moves they did not make.

We have inherited the architecture without the discipline. The architecture is now under more strain than it has been in living memory, and the strain is coming from the simple fact that almost no one is practicing the virtue that the architecture was designed to require.

The leaders who do practice restraint will be the ones still standing when the present cycle ends. The reward is delayed. The reward is impersonal. The reward is durable.

Washington understood the trade. He left power on the table because he knew the country needed the example more than he needed the office. The hardest move he made was the one he chose not to make. Everything he built rested on it.

Share

Washington’s restraint is one of five leadership modes profiled in Honor Under Pressure, Book One of The Fourth Turning Leader series. Interactive tools for working through your own version of voluntary limitation, including the Bright Line Test, the Midnight Test, and the Compromise Calculus, are available at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

The chaos of this place is on full display. Negotiations are on, then off, then on again by lunchtime. Decisions made at 10 a.m. get reversed by 3 p.m. Staff members who spoke confidently before lunch carry visibly different orders by dinner. The whiplash is the work. And it raised a question that travels with me when I leave Washington. How do the people one level down from chaotic leadership do their jobs, hold their values, and come through the experience intact?

Lincoln offers one answer, and it is the easy one. He was, by every reliable account, exhausting to work for. He wandered into other people’s meetings. He told stories at the wrong moments. He reversed himself on military strategy with maddening regularity. The men around him absorbed his volatility because the substance underneath was sound. They trusted where he was going even when they could not predict the route.

That is the easy version of the problem.

The harder version is what made me start writing this. Most leaders who serve chaotic masters face something worse than what Lincoln’s cabinet faced. They are serving someone whose substance they are no longer sure about. The chaos is real, but so is the doubt. And every day they stay, they wonder whether their presence is moderating the damage or legitimizing it.

That question has a name. It is the proximity paradox, and it has been around as long as power has had advisors.

Seneca and Nero

Seneca spent the back half of his life inside that question. He served Nero as tutor and chief advisor through some of Rome’s most volatile years. He used his proximity to moderate the emperor’s worst instincts. He drafted speeches that bought the empire stability. He counseled restraint when restraint was unfashionable. And he watched, slowly, as his presence became something other than what he had intended.

This is the structure of the trap. Influence and complicity grow together. The longer you stay close to chaotic power, the more capable you become of shaping it, and the more responsible you become for what it does. The skills you develop to remain effective are the same skills that produce your complicity. You learn to read moods. You learn which battles to fight on which days. You learn to write the version of the order that does the least damage. You become, over time, indispensable to a system you would never have chosen to build.

Seneca’s letters from those years are remarkable for what they reveal about a man trying to hold the line internally while losing it externally. He kept his philosophy. He maintained correspondence with people who knew him before the imperial court. He told himself the work mattered. And by the time he understood that his moderation had hardened into rationalization, he had no clean exit. Nero forced his suicide in the end. The historical irony writes itself.

The proximity paradox is what Seneca lived. It is what Honor Under Pressure calls the rationalization warning, and it is the leadership shadow that haunts every advisor, deputy, chief of staff, partner, and trusted lieutenant in a volatile organization. Every leader will encounter it sooner or later. The real work is seeing the transition point before it has passed.

Subscribe now

Why This Comes Up Now

We are in a period of institutional strain that Neil Howe correctly identifies as a Fourth Turning. In Fourth Turnings, the old structures stop holding their shape. Volatile leadership stops being the exception and becomes a feature of the landscape. Economic uncertainty, technological disruption, and social fragmentation create conditions where the people at the top operate under stress they cannot fully manage, and the people one level down are left to absorb the consequences.

This dynamic runs far beyond politics. It shows up in corporate boards, family businesses, professional partnerships, military commands, and nonprofit leadership. Almost every leader I know is currently managing upward to at least one principal whose judgment under pressure has become unreliable. The honest ones admit it. The rest are still telling themselves a story.

The Compromise Calculus from Honor Under Pressure applies directly here. Every accommodation has a price. The question is whether you are tracking the price honestly, or whether you have started discounting it because the work feels too important to leave.

The Transition Points

Strategic patience and moral surrender look identical from the inside. That is the central difficulty. You cannot rely on how you feel to tell you which one you are practicing, because the feelings are the same. You feel useful. You feel necessary. You feel that the alternative to your presence is worse than your presence. These feelings are accurate right up to the moment they stop being accurate, and they do not announce the shift.

The Bright Line Test exists for this reason. You decide in advance, in calmer hours, what you will not do and what you will not enable. You write it down. You tell it to at least one person who is not in the situation with you. The line is a commitment drawn in clear weather and held when the weather turns.

The Midnight Test sits next to the Bright Line. At three in the morning, when the rationalizations go quiet and the day’s pressures recede, what does the work look like from outside? Would the person who took this position five years ago recognize the person doing it now? Would they be proud, or would they be quietly horrified?

These tests are uncomfortable by design. They exist to interrupt the slow drift that the proximity paradox produces. Seneca, by all evidence, stopped doing some version of them. He told himself the next compromise would be the last one, and then the next one, and then he was out of moves. Most people who get trapped get trapped this way, through two hundred small decisions that no single test could have caught in isolation.

The Grant Counterweight

There is another way to navigate proximity to power, and it is worth holding alongside the Seneca example. Ulysses S. Grant served Lincoln through some of the worst conditions any American commander has ever faced. He absorbed Lincoln’s chaos, translated his shifting instructions into coherent action, and earned the autonomy he eventually had by producing outcomes nobody else could produce.

What protected Grant was the clarity of the mission and the alignment of the values. He was winning a war whose object he believed in. The measuring stick was external. He did not need to interpret Lincoln’s moods to know whether he was doing the right work, because the work spoke for itself. Battles were won or lost. Armies advanced or did not. The volatility of his principal was real, but it did not contaminate his sense of direction.

Grant’s example matters because it tells you what the Seneca trap requires to develop. It requires moral ambiguity in the underlying mission. When the mission is clear and the values align, proximity to a difficult leader is sustainable, even productive. When the mission is muddy and the values are drifting, proximity becomes the slow erosion that Seneca lived. The first diagnostic question to ask yourself concerns the mission you are part of, and whether you can still see it cleanly. The leader you serve is a secondary consideration.

External Accountability

Proximity produces a specific kind of cognitive distortion. The longer you serve someone, the more invested you become in making the relationship work, and the more sophisticated your rationalizations become. This is psychological adaptation. The brain adjusts to its environment, and the environment around volatile power is constant low-grade emergency.

The only reliable correction is external. You need people who knew you before this job, who do not depend on your continued presence in it, and who are willing to ask uncomfortable questions when your answers start to drift. Seneca tried to maintain this through his correspondence, and his letters survive partly because he was using them to hold himself accountable. The fact that he ultimately failed does not invalidate the method. It tells you what the method has to be: regular, structured, and immune to your own justifications.

Mentors who profit from your rise become a chorus over time. The check has to come from somewhere quieter, from people whose stake in the truth is greater than their stake in your career. Give that voice real weight when it speaks, especially when what it says is inconvenient.

A Working Framework

If you are inside the proximity paradox right now, the practical work breaks into five pieces.

First, identify three people who knew your principles before you took this position. Establish a regular cadence with them. They serve as mirrors. They reflect back whether your current decisions match the values you told them you held.

Second, run the Fresh Eyes Test on a monthly schedule. Imagine someone with your stated principles walking into your situation today, without your accumulated context. What would they conclude? If the gap between their conclusion and your current behavior is widening, you are approaching a transition point whether you feel it or not.

Third, track the ratio of influence to complicity. Keep a simple record. For each significant decision, note whether your presence moved the outcome toward your values or away from them. If the answer has been consistently negative for six months, the moderation argument has stopped holding.

Fourth, preserve independent capability. The moment you cannot afford to leave is the moment your judgment becomes compromised. Keep your skills current. Keep your network alive. Keep your finances in a shape that lets you walk if you need to. Optionality is the structural condition that lets honest judgment survive.

Fifth, write down three things you will not do under any circumstance. Review the list every quarter. If you find yourself revising it to accommodate recent decisions rather than to guide future ones, you have your answer.

Don’t Wait Too Long

Seneca’s tragedy was the waiting. He stayed too long, hoping for conditions that were never going to improve, and his presence at the end was legitimizing outcomes he could no longer defend. The historical record gives us his death and his letters. It gives us a man who understood the proximity paradox better than almost anyone and still got caught by it.

The leaders who navigate this terrain successfully share two things. They build external accountability before they need it, and they draw bright lines they have told someone else about. They know what they will not do, and they have arranged their lives to allow them to walk away when the line gets crossed.

That is the discipline this moment calls for. The chaos at the top is not slowing down. The volatility is becoming a permanent feature of the working landscape. What you can control is whether you stay honest about the trade-offs you are making, and whether the people qualified to judge that honesty have the access they need to do it.

The work is to be the lieutenant who can leave. Everything else follows.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Share

Seneca’s rationalization warning is one of five leadership modes profiled in Honor Under Pressure, Book One of The Fourth Turning Leader series. Interactive tools for working through your own version of the proximity paradox — including the Bright Line Test, the Midnight Test, and the Compromise Calculus — are available at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

The dangerous thing about historical inevitability is that the people who believe in it tend to produce it.

Every great power conflict in modern history began with at least one side, often both, convinced that war was coming whether they wanted it or not. The conviction shaped the preparation. The preparation shaped the incentives. The incentives shaped the choices. By the time the actual decision arrived, it had stopped feeling like a decision and started feeling like the completion of a script that everyone had been writing for years.

This is the structural problem with calling something a trap. The word implies fate, an outside force closing in. The reality runs in the other direction. The trap is built from the inside, slowly, by leaders who keep telling themselves the outcome is being forced on them while making the choices that force it. Calling something inevitable is half the work of making it so.

This week in Beijing, Xi Jinping said the words out loud.

What Xi Said

At the May 14 summit with President Trump in the Great Hall of the People, Xi opened with a direct question. “The world has come to a new crossroads. Can China and the United States transcend the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’ and forge a new paradigm for major-power relations?”

He went on to frame the answer in language that has become characteristic of his recent diplomacy. The trap is a test of strategic choices rather than a verdict of fate. Mishandled, the rivalry could “collide or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a highly perilous situation.” Handled well, the rejuvenation of China and the renewal of America could go forward together. The choice, in his framing, belonged to leadership.

Whatever you think of Xi as a leader or China as a strategic competitor, the choice of phrase was deliberate. He has used the Thucydides reference before, in 2015 and again in 2023, always to make the same structural point. The pattern is downstream of leaders failing to see clearly and acting on assumptions that the rivalry forces on them. He is signaling that he understands the framework, and inviting the other side to choose with him.

That this came against the backdrop of last year’s tariff war made the framing land differently. 2025 was not an abstraction. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods reached as high as 145 percent on key categories. China retaliated with tariffs up to 125 percent and restrictions on rare-earth exports that rattled global supply chains. Bilateral trade collapsed by more than a quarter. American farmers lost their soybean market. American manufacturers absorbed input cost shocks. Chinese exporters watched their access to the largest consumer market in the world compress. The October truce in Busan paused the escalation. The May summit arrived as that truce neared expiration.

Both sides had spent a year operating inside the script. Both sides arrived in Beijing with the costs visible on their respective balance sheets.

The Pattern Allison Found

The Thucydides Trap as a concept was popularized by Harvard’s Graham Allison, drawing on the Greek historian’s account of why Athens and Sparta went to war in the fifth century BC. Thucydides wrote that “it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” Allison set out to test that observation against the historical record. He looked at sixteen cases over five centuries in which a rising power challenged an established one. Twelve ended in war. Four did not.

The twelve are the cases everyone remembers. Spain against the Dutch in the seventeenth century. France against the Habsburgs. Germany against Britain twice in the twentieth century. Japan against the United States. The list is long enough to do the rhetorical work the framework is designed to do, which is to make the inevitability feel earned.

The four exceptions are the more interesting cases. Spain and Portugal divided the new world by treaty in 1494 rather than going to war over it. The United States surpassed Britain as the dominant global power across the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries without an Anglo-American war. The Soviet Union and the United States competed for forty years and came closer to nuclear war than most observers realized, but they never actually fought one. Germany’s reunification at the end of the Cold War shifted European power without producing the kind of continental conflict the previous two such shifts had produced.

The cases that avoided war had different specifics, but they shared certain conditions. The incumbent power was willing to accept some loss of relative position rather than fight to preserve it. The rising power was careful not to humiliate the incumbent. Both sides built institutional channels that gave them ways to manage disputes without requiring either to back down publicly. Leaders on both sides did the work of restraining their own hawks. Economic interdependence created costs for escalation that were too high for either to absorb cleanly.

None of those conditions arrived by accident. They were chosen, deliberately, by leaders who recognized that the alternative was a war that would damage both sides more than any plausible victory could justify. The peace required sustained statecraft across decades. It did not arrive on its own.

Subscribe now

What the Script Costs

The 2025 tariff war was a small-scale demonstration of what it costs to follow the script.

Neither side won. The United States imposed historic tariffs and watched American consumers and manufacturers absorb the price increases. China retaliated and watched its export engine adapt at the cost of further straining a domestic economy already weighed down by debt. Both sides accelerated decoupling. American firms shifted production to Vietnam, India, and Mexico. Chinese exporters pivoted toward Europe and the Global South. The supply chains that had taken thirty years to build were partially dismantled in twenty-four months.

The pain landed unevenly, but it landed. Small manufacturers we work with in the lending portfolio spent the year trying to figure out whether their Chinese-sourced inputs were going to be affordable next quarter, and whether their pricing power was strong enough to pass any of the cost through to customers. Most of them found out the answer was no. Agricultural borrowers absorbed the loss of export markets they had spent two decades building. Some adapted. Some did not.

What did either side gain at the macro level? The United States did not bring back the manufacturing base whose loss had motivated the policy. China did not break American resolve. The geopolitical balance was not reset. The structural disputes over technology, Taiwan, and the South China Sea were not resolved. Both economies absorbed real damage. The damage produced no decisive advantage. The summit in Beijing was, in effect, both sides admitting that the script had run its course and produced exactly the result that script-following usually produces.

The lesson is that unbounded competition, framed as inevitable and executed without internal discipline, tends to produce costs that exceed any plausible gain. Competition itself was never the question. The question was whether either side had the framework to compete without escalating, and the answer for most of 2025 was no.

The Discipline of Refusing the Script

Here is what separates the four cases that avoided war from the twelve that did not.

In every case that ended in war, leaders on both sides made decisions in the heat of the moment that they would have made differently if they had been thinking about the question in advance. They escalated in response to provocations that, in retrospect, could have been managed. They drew lines they could not back away from without losing domestic political support they had not built the credibility to spend. They allowed institutional momentum, military planning cycles, and diplomatic rigidities to substitute for actual decision-making at the top.

In every case that avoided war, leaders had done the work in advance. They had internalized clear principles about what the relationship could absorb and what it could not. They had built domestic political space for accommodation by spending credibility before they needed it. They had developed personal disciplines that allowed them to absorb provocations without responding reflexively. They were able to distinguish between core interests that required confrontation and peripheral disputes that could be managed.

What mattered was the prior work that made tactical brilliance available when the moment arrived. The brilliance itself was downstream of the preparation. Leaders who had built no internal framework for managing rivalry under pressure tended to act on whatever framework the moment imposed on them. Leaders who had built one tended to act on theirs.

This is the actual answer to Xi’s question. The trap is transcendable, but only by leaders who have done the work of building the internal discipline that transcendence requires before they need it. Improvising that discipline in the middle of a crisis is almost always too late. The leaders who managed peaceful power transitions had spent years, sometimes decades, developing the operating frameworks that allowed them to choose restraint when restraint was costly.

The deeper question is whether the systems these leaders lead have prepared them to do so. That is harder than wanting to. Neither country’s political culture currently rewards the kind of patient, restrained, long-horizon thinking that the four-case pattern requires. Both political systems reward leaders who project strength, refuse to back down, and treat every concession as betrayal. The structural problem underneath Xi’s question is not the desire. It is the preparation.

The Playbook

For leaders, executives, and institutions watching this unfold, the practical work has a sequence.

Build the framework before the crisis. The leaders who managed the four exceptional cases did not invent their restraint in the middle of a confrontation. They had decided in advance what kinds of provocations they would absorb, what kinds of disputes they would manage rather than escalate, and what kinds of red lines were actually red. Improvising those distinctions in the moment produces poor decisions and worse outcomes.

Refuse the framing that treats escalation as inevitable. When both sides of a rivalry start using the language of inevitability, the framing itself becomes the problem. Leaders who can step outside that framing, even briefly, create space for choices that the framing would otherwise foreclose. The work of refusing the script begins with refusing to talk inside it.

Spend domestic political capital on accommodation before the moment arrives. The leaders who managed peaceful transitions had built credibility with their constituencies for restraint. They had not waited until the crisis to discover whether their political support could absorb a concession. They had spent the capital in advance.

Build institutional channels that allow management without humiliation. Most disputes can be handled by institutions that do not require either side to publicly back down. The four-case pattern shows that these channels do not appear when crises arrive. They have to be built in calm periods so that they can be used in tense ones.

Compete without confusing competition for confrontation. The four exceptional cases were intense competitions managed without war. They never resembled friendships. Leaders who treat every competitive pressure as a prelude to conflict tend to produce conflict. Leaders who can compete without escalating tend to produce sustainable rivalries.

Pay attention to the costs of script-following. The 2025 tariff war was an avoidable expense for both economies. The leaders who internalize what that year cost will be better prepared to refuse the script the next time it presents itself. The ones who do not will follow it again.

The Crossroads

Xi’s question in Beijing was framed for diplomats, but it applies to anyone running a serious institution in a serious era. The trap is transcendable. The transcendence is not automatic. It requires leaders who have done the work in advance, who have built the discipline to refuse the framing, who can compete without confusing competition for inevitability.

The four cases that avoided war were not exceptions because the leaders involved were exceptional in some mystical sense. They were exceptions because the leaders involved had prepared for the moment before it arrived. The preparation was the difference between writing the script and being written into it.

The next year will produce moments that test whether the current generation of leaders has done that preparation. Taiwan. Technology. Supply chains. Each of these will produce decisions that look in the moment like forced responses to the other side’s last move. The leaders who refuse that framing will be the ones who have built the internal discipline to see the choice as a choice. The ones who have not will follow the script, and the script will follow itself.

The trap builds itself when no one is paying attention. The leaders who refuse to build it are doing the work right now. Quietly. In rooms where the framing has not yet hardened. With assumptions they are still willing to test.

Share

The discipline to refuse a script before it forces your hand is the kind of internal code that holds when the pressure peaks. The leadership modes that make that discipline possible are profiled in Honor Under Pressure, Book One of The Fourth Turning Leader series. Interactive tools for building that capacity, including the Bright Line Test, the Midnight Test, and the Compromise Calculus, are available at www.thefourthturningleader.com.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Every other check on executive power has been worn down, captured, or worked around. The yield curve has not. It is the one price in the American economy that cannot be lobbied, regulated, jawboned, or politically captured for very long. The rate at which the federal government can borrow money for ten years is whatever the people buying that paper say it is, and nothing else. For most of the last fifteen years, that authority sat dormant. Quantitative easing kept a permanent buyer in the market. Zero rates erased the cost of holding cash. A long disinflationary trend let everyone, governments and households and corporations alike, operate as if discipline was a stylistic preference.

The authority was dormant, not gone. It was waiting for conditions that would summon it back. Those conditions have arrived.

The Dress Rehearsal

In April 2025, a sitting president unveiled the most aggressive set of tariffs in nearly a century. The policy was popular with his base. It was framed as a long-overdue rebalancing of the global trading system. Whatever you thought of it on the merits, it had the political cover to survive any normal kind of opposition.

It did not survive the bond market.

In the days following the announcement, the ten-year Treasury yield surged toward and above 4.5 percent. The thirty-year moved with it. Mortgage rates spiked. Credit spreads widened. The dollar wobbled. The administration had calculated for political resistance and gotten something else entirely. Foreign holders of Treasuries were quietly reassessing their willingness to fund American deficits at prevailing prices. Domestic investors were demanding more compensation to hold long-duration risk. The math on borrowing 30 trillion dollars at five percent and rising was reasserting itself faster than the policy could absorb.

Inside of ninety days, the tariff regime was largely paused. Congress had nothing to do with the reversal. The courts had nothing to do with it. Public opinion had not turned. The administration backed down because the cost of carry on the federal balance sheet became politically unbearable, and the only force in the country that could deliver that message in a way the administration had to listen to was the long end of the Treasury curve.

That episode should have been studied harder than it was. It was a clean demonstration of how the discipline gets imposed when no one inside the system is willing to impose it on themselves.

The same market is back at the door.

What Just Happened

On May 15, 2026, the ten-year yield broke above 4.5 percent for the first time since June of last year, trading at 4.52. The thirty-year cleared 5 percent and kept going, settling at 5.06. The two-year moved with them. Thirty-year mortgage rates moved back into the mid-6s, with market quotes suggesting further pressure if the 10-year Treasury keeps rising. The April CPI print came in at 3.8 percent year over year, the hottest reading in three years, with energy prices accounting for more than 40 percent of the monthly increase.

The yield curve did all of this in a few sessions, without a Fed meeting, without a press conference, without anyone in Washington signing off on the move.

The new Federal Reserve Chair, Kevin Warsh, was confirmed by the Senate two days before the spike. He inherits an environment that has already moved past him. The market is repricing in real time on its own assessment of inflation persistence, fiscal sustainability, and the credibility of the central bank under new leadership. The era of waiting for Fed guidance to set the tone is over. The market is moving first, and the central bank is being asked to catch up.

The base case for most of late 2025 was that the Fed would resume cutting in 2026. That base case is gone. Markets are now pricing a meaningful probability of a hike before the end of the year. Higher for longer is the consensus again, and the trigger for the repricing came from the market itself.

That distinction matters more than anything else in this piece. There is no pivot to wait for. The standard playbook for the post-2008 era assumed the Fed would always blink first. That assumption is being retired in front of us.

Subscribe now

Why the Discipline Returned

There is an old line from James Carville, when he was advising the Clinton administration, that if he came back in another life he wanted to be the bond market because it could intimidate everybody. He was not exaggerating. He was describing what it felt like to watch every major policy decision get filtered through the question of whether the long end would tolerate it.

Three forces are now reinforcing each other to produce a regime in which that intimidation is back.

The first is supply-side inflation. The conflict in the Middle East has kept the Strait of Hormuz a live geopolitical wound, and the energy price shock has flowed through to nearly every category of the consumer price index. The Fed cannot drill for oil. Monetary policy can lean against demand, but it has no instrument for a sustained supply shock. Until the geopolitical picture changes materially, energy will keep feeding the inflation print, and the bond market will keep pricing that reality into duration.

The second is fiscal weight. Federal debt has crossed 39 trillion dollars. The last time the ten-year yield was at current levels, in 2007, total debt was nine trillion. The math on servicing 39 trillion at five percent and above is the kind of math that quietly forces a term premium back into long bonds. Investors are demanding more compensation to hold the long end because the arithmetic has stopped working at any other price.

The third is the credibility transition at the Fed itself. A new chair inheriting a regime change is being asked to demonstrate, quickly, that he understands what the market is telling him. The market is pricing that uncertainty into the curve and letting the new chair respond.

The thread running through all of this is the same thread that ran through the original Carville era. When leaders, governments, and institutions refuse to impose discipline on themselves, the market eventually imposes it on them. The form that discipline takes is almost never the form anyone would have chosen.

The bond market sets the price. Everyone else accepts it.

What the View From the Credit Side Looks Like

Running a small business lending operation through the last twelve months has been an exercise in watching a regime change happen at the underwriting level before it shows up in the headlines.

The 504 product is directly tied to the five- and ten-year Treasury. A deal that penciled at five and a half percent eighteen months ago does not pencil at seven. Refinance walls that looked manageable in late 2025 are no longer manageable, and the conversations we are having with borrowers about how to restructure those obligations have a different quality to them than they did even six months ago. The math has changed underneath people, and the people who are doing well are the ones who recognized it early.

Aggregate unrealized losses had eased through late 2025, but the renewed rise in long rates threatens to rebuild the same balance sheet pressure that made 2023 so dangerous. The mechanism is the same. The trigger is different in a way that should make every bank executive pay attention. SVB broke because the Fed was tightening into a portfolio mismatch. This time the Fed is not doing anything. The market is repricing on its own authority, and the duration risk is showing up in bank books regardless of what the central bank chooses to do. Credit standards are tightening again, though the public Fed survey still describes the move as modest rather than severe. The loan officers I talk to are watching the data carefully and beginning to prepare their clients for what continued pressure would feel like.

The other view comes from the classroom. The class of 2026 is walking onto the floor of an economy where capital costs something for the first time in their adult lives. The assumptions about career-building they inherited from their professors and their parents were almost entirely downstream of zero rates. Leverage up. Optimize for growth. Worry about profitability later. Those assumptions had a shelf life, and the shelf life has expired.

I cannot honestly tell those students to plan for a return to the world that produced their playbook. That world is not coming back on a timeline that helps them. The graduates who will do well in this decade are the ones who internalize early that capital costs money, that discipline is the price of staying solvent, and that the asset price regime of the 2010s was the anomaly. The conditions we are entering are the longer-running norm.

Both of those things are true at the same time. I underwrite the new regime without flinching, and I tell the next cohort that the rules they were taught do not describe the world they are about to enter.

The Playbook

For leaders facing this regime, the work has a sequence.

Model your business at a sustained 7.5 percent borrowing cost for the next two years, and treat that number as the base case rather than a stress test. If the unit economics survive at that cost of capital, you have time to make adjustments deliberately. If they do not, the changes you need to make are best made now, while the timeline is yours, rather than in the fourth quarter when the bank calls and the schedule belongs to someone else.

Tighten the strategic plan. The cost of indulgent decisions on headcount, capex, and compensation just went up. The leaders I respect most are quietly resizing their plans now, before the board meeting that would have forced the issue. Discipline imposed early looks like prudence. Discipline imposed late looks like panic.

Build cash. The institutions and the businesses that come through this cycle intact will be the ones that resisted the temptation to chase yield with their balance sheets and resisted the parallel temptation to chase growth with their operating plans. Liquidity is option value, and option value in this regime is worth more than it has been worth in a decade.

Pay attention to pricing power. The businesses that survive a higher-for-longer environment with persistent inflation are the ones whose customers cannot easily walk away. If your competitive position depends on undercutting price in a market with rising input costs, the math is going to catch you. Understand where you have genuine pricing power and where you do not, and operate accordingly.

Stop waiting for the rescue. The Fed cannot cut its way out of an inflation print that is being driven by an energy shock and a fiscal trajectory. Warsh will not deliver a pivot that contradicts what the bond market is telling him to do. The rescue most people are imagining does not exist in this regime. The leaders who recognize that early will have time to operate. The ones who keep waiting will operate from a worse position every quarter.

The Reckoning

The bond market is asking the same question it asked in April of last year. Are you serious about the math, or are you not?

A press release will not be enough of an answer. A speech will not be enough. The answer has to be behavior, and the behavior has to start before the situation gets meaningfully worse.

Discipline imposed from outside is always more painful than discipline imposed from within. It is still discipline. It still works. The businesses, the banks, and the leaders who internalize this now will move into the next phase of the cycle with their footing intact. The ones who keep rationalizing will be moved against their will, on someone else’s schedule, at a cost they did not choose.

The market has reasserted itself. The cost of pretending otherwise is rising every day. The leaders who understand this are already adjusting. Quietly. Without announcement. Before the moment forces them to.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Share

The discipline the bond market is now imposing from the outside is the same discipline the strongest leaders learn to impose from within. The leadership modes that hold up when capital stops being cheap and markets stop being patient are profiled in Honor Under Pressure, Book One of The Fourth Turning Leader series. Interactive tools for building that capacity, including the Bright Line Test, the Midnight Test, and the Compromise Calculus, are available at www.thefourthturningleader.com.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Reverse course on a strategy and the shareholders revolt. Update your position on an issue and the opposition pulls the old footage from 2017. Admit you got something wrong and watch both your supporters and your critics call it weakness. We have built an information environment that treats consistency as the supreme virtue and evolution as betrayal, and we are paying for it in leaders we cannot trust to navigate anything new.

This is a problem because the world we actually live in does not reward static positions. It punishes them. Frameworks that worked for thirty years are breaking down in months. Assumptions about labor markets, capital flows, alliances, and technology are being overrun in real time. A leader who refuses to evolve under pressure ends up defending positions that reality has already abandoned.

So we are stuck. The cost of changing your mind has never been higher. The cost of refusing to change it has never been higher either. And the question every serious leader has to answer is this: how do you tell the difference between principled evolution and political convenience? How do you distinguish a leader who is growing in response to evidence from one who is simply moving with the wind?

There is a historical test case for this, and it is the cleanest one we have.

The Inadequate Position

Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in March 1861 believing slavery was morally wrong and constitutionally protected. In his inaugural address he promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed. He opposed its expansion into new territories but accepted its existence in the states that had it. The position was carefully constructed to hold the Republican coalition together long enough to preserve the Union. The political calculation was sound.

Four years later, the same man had issued the Emancipation Proclamation and pushed the 13th Amendment through Congress.

The conventional reading of this evolution treats it as inspiring history. The more useful reading treats it as a problem. A modern Lincoln, doing the same thing in front of cable news and a thousand quote-tweets, would be eviscerated. Every speech from 1858 would resurface. Every careful constitutional argument from 1861 would be played back. The flip-flop charge would write itself.

And yet what Lincoln did was the most important act of moral leadership in American history.

So the question is structural, not historical. What was Lincoln doing that distinguished him from a politician who simply read the room? How do we recognize that move when it happens in front of us, and how do we make it ourselves?

What Forced the Evolution

Four pressures converged on Lincoln’s original position between 1861 and 1862, and none of them were polling data.

The military situation became impossible. The Union needed more soldiers. Black Americans were ready to fight. Frederick Douglass had been making this argument from the start of the war: “Why does the Government reject the Negro? Is he not a man? Can he not wield a sword, fire a gun, march and countermarch, and obey orders like any other?” The math of the war forced the question.

The diplomatic situation hardened. Britain and France were edging toward recognition of the Confederacy. If the war remained framed as a constitutional dispute, European powers could side with the South at modest moral cost. If the war became explicitly about ending slavery, that calculation flipped. Recognition became politically impossible.

The moral pressure intensified. Douglass, Stowe, Sumner, and the abolitionist movement kept pushing Lincoln to follow his stated principles to their logical conclusion. They were not asking him to invent new convictions. They were asking him to act on the ones he already had.

And the ground itself shifted. Enslaved people were liberating themselves. They were walking to Union lines. They were providing intelligence. They were forcing the federal government to decide what to do with people the law still defined as property. Lincoln’s moderate framework had assumed slavery would remain static while the war was fought around it.

That assumption collapsed in a single summer.

The Growth Was Visible

Here is what separates Lincoln’s evolution from ordinary repositioning. He did the work in public. He met repeatedly with Frederick Douglass at considerable political cost, because Douglass was the most penetrating critic of his moderation. He walked through Union hospitals and listened to soldiers describe what they were fighting for. He read field reports and absorbed what his generals were telling him about escaped slaves arriving at Union lines with critical intelligence.

He did not change his mind in isolation. He did not change it based on what would play well. He changed it because he kept seeking out the evidence that contradicted his original framework, and at a certain point that evidence became impossible to defend against.

When he decided in July 1862 that emancipation was necessary, he told his cabinet it was “absolutely essential to the salvation of the nation.” Then he waited. He held the announcement until Antietam gave him a Union victory, because he understood that emancipation announced from weakness would read as desperation. The decision was made in the summer. The timing waited until September.

This is what principled evolution looks like in practice. The reasoning is done in advance. The evidence is gathered systematically. The conviction is real before the announcement is made. The only thing that gets calculated is the moment.

The Diagnostic

Principled evolution and political flip-flopping look identical from the outside if you only watch the moment of change. The distinction lives in what came before and what comes after.

Principled evolution shows four marks. The leader actively sought out the evidence that contradicted the original position, often at political cost. The change followed the evidence rather than the incentive structure. The new position built on previous principles rather than discarding them. And the leader was willing to explain the reasoning publicly and accept the cost of having been wrong.

Political flip-flopping shows the inverse. The change arrives suddenly and aligns suspiciously well with what is now convenient. No new evidence is offered, only new messaging. The previous position is denied, minimized, or memory-holed rather than integrated. And the leader avoids any clean accounting of why the change happened.

Lincoln paid the political cost in real currency. He lost War Democrats. He fractured moderates in his own party. He took the criticism. He defended the new position with the same conviction he had brought to the old one. Once the line moved, it stayed moved.

A flip-flopper would have called it a clarification.

What This Looks Like Now

The pressure on contemporary leaders to never evolve is structurally similar to the pressure Lincoln faced from his War Democrats. Hold the line. Don’t give an inch. Consistency is character. Movement is weakness. The chorus is older than American politics.

Running a small business lending operation through the last several years has been an extended exercise in updating my own positions. What I thought I understood about credit cycles in 2019 turned out to be partial. What I thought I understood about the resilience of small businesses got tested in ways no model anticipated. What I assumed about how capital would flow into community development finance got rewritten by a single administration’s reorganization of the federal agencies that touched our work. In each case the temptation was to defend the original analysis. The discipline was to ask what the evidence was actually showing and adjust before reality forced the issue.

The classroom version is harder. I teach students whose career assumptions are being invalidated faster than any cohort in my professional lifetime. The advice that worked for graduates in 2015 is partially obsolete. The advice that worked in 2020 needs major revision. If I keep delivering the same playbook because it would be embarrassing to admit it has changed, I am protecting my own ego at the cost of their preparation. The students can tell.

The cost of evolving in public is real. The cost of not evolving is borne by everyone downstream of you.

The Playbook

For leaders facing their own Lincoln test, the move has a sequence.

Gather the evidence before you announce anything. Lincoln did not float emancipation to see if it would land. He spent months in conversation with the people closest to the war’s reality. The conclusion was earned before it was spoken.

Lead with what changed, not with what you now believe. The evidence is the case. The new position is the conclusion. Reverse the order and you sound like a politician. Get it right and you sound like someone who took the evidence seriously.

Connect the new position to the deeper principle that drove the old one. Lincoln’s commitment to preserving the Union ran through both the 1861 inaugural and the Emancipation Proclamation. The continuity was the principle. The change was the application.

Be honest about the trade-offs. Lincoln called emancipation a war measure. He did not pretend it was the position he would have taken in peacetime. The honesty about context made the substance more credible, not less.

Hold the line once you have moved it. Principled evolution is not perpetual evolution. Once the new position is established, defend it with the same conviction you brought to the old one. The flip-flopper signals weakness in the second move. The leader who has evolved signals strength.

And accept the cost. Some constituency you valued will be disappointed. Some critic will use it against you. Some old footage will resurface. The price of leading anything serious through a period of real change is paying that cost without flinching.

The Growing Edge

The leaders who matter in the years ahead will not be the ones with the most consistent positions. They will be the ones who can grow their moral and analytical frameworks to match the scope of what they are facing, and who can do that growth in public without losing their authority. The two skills are inseparable.

There is a name for this capacity. The growing edge. The ability to let pressure expand rather than contract you. To integrate the crisis rather than retreat from it. To become larger and sharper through what would shrink most people.

We are about to find out who has it.

The Lincoln test is not a question of whether the moment will come for you. The moment is already arriving for every serious leader in every serious institution. The question is whether you have been doing the work in advance. Whether you have been seeking out the evidence that contradicts your existing position rather than the evidence that confirms it. Whether you have been building the kind of conviction that can change without breaking.

The leaders who pass this test are doing that work right now. Quietly. In rooms with people who disagree with them. With evidence they did not want to find.

Share

Lincoln's growing edge is one of five leadership modes profiled in Honor Under Pressure, Book One of The Fourth Turning Leader series. Interactive tools for working through your own version of this test — including the Bright Line Test, the Midnight Test, and the Compromise Calculus — are available at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

The headlines are all new, and all the same.

That is the strange feature of the era we are inside. Every shock arrives wearing a fresh costume, with new technical vocabulary and new geographic specifics, and every one turns out to be a variation on a single underlying condition: an architecture of supports we grew up trusting that is no longer carrying the weight it used to. The pandemic. The supply chain. The bond market. The institutional erosion. The kinetic conflicts on three continents. None of these is a freestanding event. They are the era expressing itself in different keys.

I have been writing about this for years on The B:Side Way. I have been teaching it to my students at Arizona State. I have been making operating decisions inside B:Side Capital that have been shaped by it. And for the last two years, I have been working on a book about it. Honor Under Pressure is the first in a series, and it is reaching readers as the world makes clear how badly it is needed.

Something happened over those two years that I did not expect. What began as research for myself, work I was doing privately to figure out how I could actually lead through this, became a practice. An actual one. A set of moves I run on real decisions. A code I check myself against when the pressure rises. A way of operating that does not get washed away when the news cycle turns.

And what I realized, somewhere in the middle of the third draft of the book, was this: telling people about a framework is not the same as giving them a tool they can use. The shelf of leadership books is already long. Most of them get read once and live out their days as decoration. I wanted to write something useful enough to stay open.

Why a Framework Wasn’t Enough

A book can name the pattern. It can put words on what you already feel. It can hand you a vocabulary. But a book closes. The decisions do not close. The board meeting on Friday does not close. The conversation with the team member you have been avoiding does not close. The choice between two options that both cost something does not close.

If the framework only lives on the page, the framework only helps on the page.

That gap, between the page and the call, is where most leadership work fails right now. We have produced a remarkably literate generation of leaders. They read the right things. They use the right language. They can tell you what the pattern is, often in real time, often with footnotes. And then they get to a decision where the supports they grew up trusting are not carrying the weight, and they improvise. Most of the improvisations do not hold.

The Pattern Underneath

The historians William Strauss and Neil Howe gave us the language of the Fourth Turning. Every roughly eighty years, a society moves through four phases: a high, an awakening, an unraveling, and a crisis. The fourth phase is when the supports a generation of leaders grew up depending on start to fail at the same time. Institutional legitimacy. Settled consensus. Predictable incentives. Time to deliberate. They do not weaken one at a time. They weaken together.

We have lived through three of these as a country before. The Revolution. The Civil War. The Depression and the Second World War. Each one looked unprecedented from the inside. Each one produced leaders we still study because they built and held something when the architecture around them failed.

We are seventeen years into the current one. That is the math.

The reason the practice has to be built now, not after the dust settles, is that pressure does not negotiate with anything you have not already decided. It negotiates with everything you haven’t. If you are still trying to figure out your line in the moment you are being asked to cross it, you have already lost the argument with yourself. The decision is being made under conditions designed to corrupt it.

The leaders we admire from past crises did not invent their code in the moment. They had laid it down in advance, written or unwritten, and the crisis tested what was already there. Washington declined power when the war ended because he had decided he would, long before the temptation arrived. Lincoln let the moment remake his moral framework, in public, at cost, because he had already committed to keep growing into the call. Marshall built people and institutions that outlasted him because he had decided early that the standard mattered more than his name on it.

The Call You Cannot Outsource

The pressure is concrete. Inside an SBA lender like B:Side, it lands as decisions made on shrinking runways with thinning information, stakeholders who want certainty the world cannot honor, and markets that reward speed and punish reflection. In a classroom of business students who did everything the old map told them to do, it lands as the slow recognition that the math they were promised does not run anymore, and that they are going to have to lead inside a system rewriting its own rules in real time.

Both of those point at the same conclusion. Leadership in this era cannot be borrowed. It cannot be downloaded. It cannot be outsourced to a process. The decisions that matter most are the ones no policy and no consensus will catch you on. You stand on them, or you don’t.

What I Built

That is why I built The Fourth Turning Leader.

It lives at thefourthturningleader.com. It is the companion to the book, but it is built to do something the book cannot do on its own. It turns the framework into a practice. It moves you through the work of building a code, testing it against real decisions, and tracking whether the code actually held when you needed it to.

Here is what is inside it.

You start with the Mode Finder. It is a free assessment that takes about eight minutes. It is built around the five historical figures who anchor the book: Cato, Washington, Seneca, Lincoln, and Marshall. Each one represents a different mode of leading under pressure. Holding the line when the order around you bends. Restraining yourself when you have the power to take more. Staying inside a system you cannot fix without becoming the corruption. Letting a crisis remake your moral framework in public. Building people and standards that hold without you. The assessment names which mode your current moment is calling for, and which shadow is most likely to distort it.

From there you move into what I call the Leader Lab. The Lab is a sequence of working tools. There is nothing to finish. There is only practice to return to.

The Shadow Audit is the second tool. It surfaces the failure pattern your mode is most likely to produce before the pressure makes that pattern invisible to you. Every mode has its shadow. The leader who holds the line can become rigid. The leader who restrains can become passive. The leader who compromises can become complicit. The Audit puts those patterns in writing so you can see them coming.

The Honor Code Builder is the heart of it. It walks you through writing a five-part code: the Line you will not cross, the Restraint you will impose on yourself when you have leverage, the Midnight Test you use to check the call when you are tired and the stakes are high, the Growing Edge you commit to keep developing, and the Transmission of the standard to the people who will inherit it. The code is yours. It is private. It is written. And it is the thing pressure has to negotiate with.

The Decision Room is where the code gets tested. You bring one real call you are working. You name the pressure on it. You lay out the options. You make the commitment in writing, against the code you just built. You log it. And then you come back to it later to see what it cost and whether you held.

The Endurance Ledger is the long view. It tracks the calls over time. What the code cost you. What it taught you. Where it bent. Where it broke. Where it strengthened. This is the part that turns a framework into a practice you can trust.

The Transmission Plan is the final piece. It maps the people whose development is going to depend on your code holding when you are tested. Team members. Students. Successors. Family. The standard you set in the hardest moment is the standard they will inherit, whether you mean for them to or not. The Plan makes that responsibility visible.

There are also Pressure Drills, short weekly scenarios calibrated to your mode and your active shadow, designed to sharpen judgment in writing before the real call lands. And there is a Field Notes library: the books I actually return to when I am thinking through this, with notes on how to operationalize each one. There is a difference between the books a leader cites and the books a leader opens. The library is the second kind. For executive teams and boards, there is a separate path: diagnostics, workshops, and advisory formats built for groups making calls under institutional stress together.

Who This Was Built For

The Fourth Turning Leader was built for three groups of people, the same three I find myself thinking about whenever I write.

The first is the leader who feels the ground shifting under their institution and is unsure what to do about it. The supports are still there, but they are not carrying the weight they used to. The frameworks they were trained on were written for a stable phase, and they can tell those frameworks are not built for this one.

The second is the student or early-career professional who is entering a system that is rewriting itself faster than they can finish a degree program. They do not have the operating reps yet. They are looking for a way to build judgment in advance of the moments that will demand it.

The third is the entrepreneur or founder who is carrying decisions that no playbook is going to help them with. The cap table call. The pivot call. The cofounder call. The protect-the-team-from-the-investor call. The kind of decision where you find out, in writing if you are lucky and in front of a room if you are not, what you had already decided you would do.

If you are in any of those three groups, this was built with you in mind.

How to Start

1. Take the Mode Finder. It is free, it does not require an account, and it takes about eight minutes. The output is a named mode and a named shadow. That is the beginning of the work.

2. Read the book if you have not already. Honor Under Pressure is the framework. The Lab is the practice. They are designed to operate together, but the practice can stand on its own if you want to start there.

3. Write the code. Use the Honor Code Builder. Take it seriously. Write what you actually believe, not what sounds good. Pressure will not negotiate with anything aspirational.

4. Bring one real decision into the Decision Room. The practice only matters if you run it on something that costs something.

5. Come back. The Endurance Ledger only does its work if you log what the code cost over time. Writing the code is the beginning of the practice, not the end.

Build Anyway

A long peace shaped a generation of leaders. The architecture of stability they trained inside was the exception in history, not the rule, and that architecture is ending. The next decade will ask leaders to make calls that no process can absorb and no consensus can carry. The frameworks built for a stable phase will not be the ones that hold.

The leaders history remembers did not invent their code in the moment. They wrote it down before the moment arrived, and the moment found out what they had already decided. The ones who waited improvised. Most of those improvisations did not hold.

The shocks will keep arriving new. The pattern will keep arriving the same. There is time to build, but the time is shorter than it was. If you are leading anything that matters to you, a company, a team, a classroom, a family, your own life, the work of building a code is not optional. It is the operating system for everything that comes next.

The site is thefourthturningleader.com. The assessment is free. The book is out. The Lab is open.

Build the code. The storm has not yet broken. Build anyway.

Share

Honor Under Pressure is available now. The full series, along with ongoing resources and community for leaders navigating the Fourth Turning, lives at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

The Picture Behind the Pump Price

Since late February, the Strait of Hormuz has been operating at a small fraction of its normal capacity. Iranian mining, attacks on shipping, and a US blockade of Iranian ports have collapsed flows from roughly 19.5 million barrels a day to somewhere between half a million and two million. Pipeline reroutes through Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu terminal and the UAE’s Fujairah port are offsetting some of the loss, but they are running at capacity and there is no surge buffer left in those systems either. Global onshore inventories are drawing at 5 to 8 million barrels a day. The International Energy Agency has coordinated the largest release of strategic petroleum reserves in history, more than 400 million barrels including a substantial draw from our own SPR. Brent crude is above $100. For the first time since the pandemic, global oil demand is falling, because too many people simply can’t afford to use it.

Asia is taking the worst of it. Petrochemical and fuel shortages are showing up in countries that depend on Gulf imports for the basics of their daily economic life. Europe is shifting hard toward liquefied natural gas alternatives, which is pushing those markets up in turn. The United States is somewhat insulated because we are now a net energy exporter, but global prices transmit pain regardless of who pumps the oil. The pain is here, and it is going to stay here for a while.

Most people are getting this story through fragmented headlines. Two minutes of cable news here, a chart on social media there, a higher number at the pump every other week. They feel the squeeze without seeing the full picture. The picture matters, because the picture changes how you operate.

Subscribe now

A System That Won on Price

The headlines focus on the conflict. The actual story is structural.

For decades, the global economy ran on the assumption that oil would keep flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. That assumption was never a guarantee. It was a bet that held for fifty years until it didn’t.

Inventory levels were optimized down to almost nothing because storage costs money and just-in-time always wins on a spreadsheet. Trade routes were consolidated through chokepoints because consolidation is cheaper than redundancy. Production was concentrated in the regions with the lowest extraction costs because concentration is more efficient than distribution. Refining capacity was located where labor was cheapest. Tanker fleets were sized to steady-state demand because excess capacity is dead capital. Each one of those decisions made sense in isolation. Stacked together, they built a system with no margin for error.

We optimized away the buffer because the buffer was expensive and nothing was breaking. Now something is breaking, and the cost of the missing buffer is being calculated in real time.

The spreadsheet is meeting reality. Reality is winning.

What the Indicators Are Telling Me

I watch a set of indicators every week to gauge what is actually happening underneath the headlines. Right now they are telling me something specific.

NFIB small business uncertainty has spiked to levels we have not seen since the early pandemic. Bank of America card data shows small business fuel spending up more than 23% year-over-year, with agricultural and transportation businesses running 25% or more above last year. The trucking sector, which moves nearly everything in the American economy, is absorbing diesel costs that fundamentally reshape the unit economics of every business on every end of the supply chain. Consumer sentiment surveys from the University of Michigan are at levels usually reserved for genuine recessions. Headline PCE inflation is moving up the way it always moves up when energy spikes, and the Fed is in an impossible position trying to balance growth against prices.

The personal savings rate was already near 2008 lows before this shock hit. That is the indicator that worries me most. American consumers have been the engine of global growth for two decades, and the engine is running with very little fuel of its own. Discretionary spending is the first thing to compress. Travel, dining, services, anything that can be put off without immediate consequence. The compression is already showing up.

The signal underneath those signals is the part that should concern everyone. The American economy went into this shock with thin buffers across the board. Consumers had already spent down their pandemic savings. Small businesses had absorbed years of input cost inflation and still hadn’t fully passed it through to their customers. The financial system was just starting to digest higher rates. State and local budgets were tight. There was very little slack anywhere in the system to absorb a hit of this magnitude.

The indicators are screaming compression. The absorptive capacity is thinner than the headline numbers suggest, and thinner than most people realize.

The Question That Actually Matters

Let me be direct about what we can and cannot know.

Nobody knows when Hormuz fully reopens. Estimates range from weeks to months. Mine-clearing alone is a multi-week operation under good conditions, and these are not good conditions. Insurance markets for tanker traffic have reset and won’t normalize quickly even after the shooting stops. Some Iranian fields take four to five months to ramp back to full production once the political situation allows. Goldman Sachs’s base case assumes a gradual recovery starting in late April or mid-May. That is the optimistic scenario. The downside scenarios involve persistent triple-digit oil through the second half of the year and a meaningful global slowdown on the other side of it.

The operative question is not when this ends. The operative question is how you operate inside it until it does.

What to Do This Week

If you run a business that touches fuel, freight, food, construction, or consumer discretionary spending, which covers most of the American economy, here is what I would do this week.

1. Audit your direct and indirect fuel exposure. Not next quarter. This week. Direct exposure is obvious. Indirect exposure is your suppliers’ costs, your shipping rates, your customers’ purchasing power. Map all of it on a single page so you can see it together. You cannot manage what you cannot see, and you cannot see it if it lives in five different spreadsheets.

2. Call your three most fragile suppliers and your three most fragile customers. Have the conversations before something breaks, not after. The relationships that survive a shock are the ones where the hard conversations happened early. Show up as a partner now and you have a partner on the other side. Wait until you need something and the dynamic flips against you.

3. Stress-test your working capital assuming this lasts six months. If you survive that scenario, you survive everything shorter. If you don’t, you have time to fix it now while you still have options. In two months you will not. Cash is the only thing that buys you the freedom to make decisions on your own timeline.

4. Renegotiate what you can while you still have a clean story to tell. Once you are in distress, the leverage flips. Banks, landlords, vendors, insurance carriers, and lenders are all more flexible right now than they will be in October. The conversation you have from a position of stability is a different conversation than the one you have when you need a waiver.

5. Watch your team. The employees with long commutes are absorbing this first, quietly. The ones with second jobs are feeling it. The ones supporting families on a single income are doing the math at their kitchen tables tonight. Pay attention. The cost of losing a strong employee right now is higher than the cost of a raise. The cost of losing trust is higher than either.

For investors and capital allocators, three things.

First, do not underwrite a fast normalization just because it is consensus. The physical lag is real and the recovery is non-linear. Tankers have to be redirected, insurance has to be repriced, fields have to be brought back online, and refineries have to be retuned for the crude they are actually receiving. Build your scenarios around delay, not around the base case.

Second, the repricing in energy infrastructure happened for a reason. The fragility is structural, not sentimental. The market is finally pricing in what was always true about supply concentration in geopolitically unstable regions. That repricing is going to persist, and it has implications well beyond energy.

Third, demand destruction is uneven. The businesses that can pass costs through to their customers will survive. The ones that cannot will reset. That reset is where the next cycle of opportunity begins, and the discipline now is to underwrite carefully through the dislocation rather than retreat from it. The best vintages of capital deployment are usually the ones laid down during periods that feel like this one.

What Comes Next

The point is not to predict when oil flows again through the Strait. The point is to operate well while it doesn’t.

Shocks like this one do not reward the loudest forecast or the boldest take. They reward the people who keep their heads, run their numbers honestly, and hold their teams together while the rest of the world tries to figure out what just happened. The leaders who emerge from this with stronger businesses are the ones doing the unglamorous work right now: the audits, the calls, the stress tests, the conversations with the people who matter.

We built a global system with very little in reserve, because reserves cost money and the system that won on price was the system that ran lean. That trade-off is being repriced in real time, painfully, in front of all of us. The leaders who internalize the lesson now and start building durable margin back into their own operations are the ones who will look up two years from now with something stronger than they had before.

The buffer is gone. The work is what we do next.

Share

My latest book, Honor Under Pressure is available now. The full series, along with ongoing resources and community for leaders navigating the Fourth Turning, lives at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

He said it plainly:

Wilson wasn’t writing about artificial intelligence specifically. He was writing about the fundamental mismatch at the core of the human condition: that our emotional wiring, our organizational structures, and our technological capabilities operate on wildly different timescales. Our brains evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. Our institutions evolved over centuries. Our technology evolves over months. And right now, the gap between the third item and the first two is accelerating into something that demands a response from every leader who is paying attention.

The question isn’t whether AI is powerful. It obviously is. The question is whether the culture and institutions inside your organization are capable of wielding that power with wisdom. And when I look at the evidence, from running B:Side to teaching students at ASU, I don’t think most organizations have seriously grappled with what Wilson was telling us.

Three Clocks Running at Different Speeds

Wilson’s formulation is elegant because it names three separate problems that usually get treated as one.

The first is our Paleolithic wiring. Human cognition evolved for small groups of roughly 150 people, moving across the African savanna, responding to immediate physical threats, competing for status and resources in real time. Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar identified 150 as the natural limit of stable human social relationships, the number at which our brains can track trust, reciprocity, and reputation. We are still, neurologically, tribal creatures. We anthropomorphize. We react to perceived threats faster than we reason about them. We discount the future in favor of the present. Daniel Kahneman spent a career documenting this: our System 1 thinking is fast, intuitive, and riddled with biases that made sense on the savanna but are actively dangerous in complex modern organizations. We trust what feels familiar. We fear what feels novel. We mistake busyness for progress and confidence for competence.

The second problem is our institutional architecture. Wilson called it “medieval” and he wasn’t being hyperbolic. The hierarchical structures that govern most organizations, rigid chains of command, annual planning cycles, siloed departments, risk-averse approval processes, were designed for a world that no longer exists. They were built to create predictability and control in slow-moving environments. They are not designed for speed, adaptation, or ethical complexity at scale. And here is what the data says: they have been getting worse, not better. The Edelman Trust Barometer, which has tracked institutional trust globally for two decades, describes the current period as a trust “avalanche.” Governments, media, universities, corporations: all declining. The institutions that were already insufficient for the pace of the twenty-first century have been further hollowed out by a decade of polarization, algorithmic noise, and compounding crises.

The third problem, the godlike technology, needs almost no introduction in 2025. Generative AI is not an incremental improvement. It is a capability discontinuity. Systems that can perform at or above expert human level across knowledge work, code, analysis, communication, and decision support did not exist in any meaningful form five years ago. They are now available to every organization on the planet, at commoditized cost. As Tristan Harris of the Center for Humane Technology has put it, we now have technology that can match or outperform us in domains we thought were exclusively human, running on infrastructure optimized to capture attention and accelerate adoption, crashing into the civilization we built before any of this was possible.

Three clocks running at three different speeds. That’s the problem.

Subscribe now

We Have Seen This Before

This is not the first time in history that technology has dramatically outpaced the culture and institutions designed to manage it.

In the early decades of the Industrial Revolution, factories appeared almost overnight. Steam power transformed production on a timeline that made existing social structures look like they were standing still, because they were. Child labor, sixteen-hour workdays, industrial accidents that killed workers by the thousands: none of these were the inevitable outcomes of industrialization. They were the outcomes of industrialization running ahead of the institutions designed to govern it. The technology existed. The wisdom to deploy it responsibly did not catch up for decades. And in the lag between those two things, real human suffering accumulated.

The labor movement, factory reform legislation, public health standards, worker protections: these didn’t emerge spontaneously from the technology itself. They required deliberate, painful institutional construction. They required leaders, inside and outside of government, who were willing to acknowledge the gap between capability and wisdom and then do the unglamorous work of closing it.

What the Industrial Revolution teaches us is not that technology is dangerous. It is that the gap between capability and governance is where the damage happens. And the organizations that navigated that era well were the ones that built strong internal cultures and governance structures before they were forced to by law or catastrophe.

We are in that lag right now. The question is how long we let it run.

The Campfire Nobody Is Tending

Here is what I am watching in real time, and it is not abstract.

At B:Side, we move capital into small businesses. Every credit decision is a judgment call that sits at the intersection of data, human context, and institutional values. AI can process the data faster than any analyst on my team. It cannot replicate the judgment, and more importantly, it cannot replicate the accountability. When something goes wrong with a loan decision made by a machine, the question of who owns that outcome is not theoretical. It is immediate and it is consequential. The organizations I watch navigate this well have invested heavily in the culture that surrounds the technology: clear values, defined limits, decision rights that are explicit rather than assumed. The ones struggling are deploying capability into an institutional vacuum and hoping for the best.

At ASU, I watch students trying to figure out what skills will still command value in five years. The ones who seem best positioned are not the ones who have learned the most AI tools. They are the ones with the deepest foundation in judgment, communication, ethical reasoning, and interpersonal trust, the capabilities that are not automated by the same systems that are automating technical tasks. That gap, between what the technology can do and what the human needs to provide, is the institutional design challenge of our era.

Wilson spent his career documenting how human creativity and culture emerged from what he called the campfire: the shared space where our ancestors told stories, built trust, adjudicated disputes, and transmitted values across generations. The campfire was the original institution. It was where the social contract was forged, not in legal documents, but in the lived practice of people who depended on each other being honest about what they saw. What Wilson was warning us about, decades before the current AI wave, is that we have been building algorithms without tending the campfire.

The campfire is still there. Most leaders just aren’t spending enough time at it.

What Leaders Can Actually Do

The answer to Wilson’s diagnosis is not to slow down AI adoption. It is to accelerate institutional development at the same speed. Here is how that translates into practice:

First, treat culture as infrastructure, not decoration. The organizations navigating AI well, companies like Microsoft and Unilever, have made culture and governance investment as fundamental as technology investment. This means dedicated AI oversight functions, cross-functional ethics councils, and executive accountability for how AI is deployed, not just whether it performs. Culture is the operating system. AI is an application running on top of it. If the operating system is weak, the application will corrupt.

Second, build the campfire deliberately. High-trust teams that deliberate together, that have developed shared norms for how to reason about hard decisions, are better equipped to exercise judgment when AI introduces complexity or ambiguity. This means investing in the quality of team dialogue, not just the volume of it. Psychological safety, the ability for people to raise concerns without fear, is not a soft HR concept. It is the mechanism by which institutions catch errors before they become catastrophes.

Third, design for long-term thinking in a short-term environment. Our Paleolithic wiring biases us toward immediate rewards and visible threats. AI deployment decisions often involve tradeoffs that are years out: reputational risk, regulatory exposure, talent dynamics, cultural erosion. Build the governance structures and incentive systems that counter that bias. Tie leadership compensation to long-term outcomes, not just quarterly metrics. Create deliberation processes that slow decisions down when the stakes are high, even when the technology moves fast.

Fourth, invest in AI literacy at every level, not just at the top. Institutional wisdom is distributed. The people closest to day-to-day operations are often the first to notice when something is going wrong. They need enough understanding of AI systems to recognize anomalies, surface concerns, and participate meaningfully in governance conversations. This is not about turning everyone into a machine learning engineer. It is about creating the shared vocabulary that allows an organization to reason collectively about powerful tools.

Fifth, name your bright lines before you need them. The organizations that maintain integrity under pressure are not the ones that reason from scratch when a crisis arrives. They are the ones that have already thought through the hard cases. What will you not do with AI, regardless of competitive pressure? Where does the line sit? Having that conversation now, writing it down, building it into your institutional DNA, is the campfire work of our moment.

The Upgrade Is on You

Wilson called it “terrifically dangerous, and now approaching a point of crisis overall.” He said that in 2012. He would be more emphatic now.

But here is what matters. Every one of Wilson’s three elements is, in principle, addressable from the inside out. We cannot rewire our Paleolithic brains overnight. But we can build institutions that compensate for our cognitive limitations. We can create cultures that make long-term thinking more likely, that make ethical reasoning more practiced, that make the deployment of powerful tools more deliberate and values-aligned.

The industrial age produced reformers who understood that technology without institutional wisdom is not progress. It is just acceleration. The people who shaped the better outcome were not the ones who slowed the technology down. They were the ones who built the governance structures capable of channeling it toward human ends.

That is the work in front of every leader right now. The campfire is still there. The question is whether you are tending it.

Honor Under Pressure is available now. The full series, along with ongoing resources and community for leaders navigating the Fourth Turning, lives at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

When the news broke last night, I was not in the least bit surprised. Neither would you be, if you had done the one exercise that almost no one does before sitting down at an important table: map the incentive structures first, honestly, before you have a preferred outcome to protect.

Charlie Munger spent six decades watching human beings make decisions, and he distilled it to a single line worth more than most graduate coursework in political science, organizational behavior, or negotiation theory combined.

“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.”

The ancient Romans said it first, cui bono, who benefits, but Munger stripped away the Latin dignity. Incentives don’t care about your preferences. They don’t negotiate. They produce their results, and if you are surprised by what happens, it means you weren’t paying honest attention to the structure going in.

The Islamabad failure was not a diplomatic failure. It was a predictability failure. And before I explain what happened in that room, I want to explain why it matters far beyond geopolitics, because I see this exact failure mode play out constantly, in business negotiations, hiring decisions, lending relationships, partnerships, and organizational dynamics. The mistake is always the same. We look at what we want to happen, and we reverse-engineer a theory about the other party’s behavior to justify that preference. What we almost never do is start from the incentives and follow them honestly to wherever they lead.

What Each Side Was Actually Optimizing For

To understand why Islamabad collapsed, you have to understand what each party was actually optimizing for, not what they said they wanted, but what they were structurally rewarded for doing.

The United States, in its stated position, wanted a firm, long-term commitment from Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program. That sounds like a reasonable ask until you map it against Tehran’s actual incentive structure. Iran’s revolutionary government has watched, in real time, what happens to regimes that surrender strategic leverage in exchange for diplomatic goodwill. They watched Muammar Gaddafi negotiate away Libya’s nuclear program in 2003. They know how that story ended. They watched Saddam Hussein insist he had no weapons of mass destruction and get no credit for it. From Tehran’s vantage point, nuclear capability is the only insurance policy they have against regime change. Asking them to surrender it before the conflict resolves is not a difficult ask. It is an existential ask. No one, in the history of organized human behavior, has ever willingly surrendered their existential insurance policy at the negotiating table. Incentives don’t allow for it.

Meanwhile, the American side has its own incentive pressures, and they don’t point toward compromise either. Domestic politics in the United States reward confrontation on Iran. There are powerful constituencies, in Congress, in the defense establishment, in the media ecosystem, for whom a deal creates more problems than it solves. Vance’s framing after the talks, that this was “bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States,” was not diplomatic analysis. It was audience management. That language only makes sense if the speaker is optimizing for a domestic reception, not an international outcome.

When both parties are structurally rewarded for not making a deal, the deal does not get made. This is not complicated. The incentive map predicted exactly this outcome before the first delegation boarded the plane. The twenty-one hours were theater. Necessary theater, perhaps, but theater.

Subscribe now

Why We Keep Getting Surprised

Barbara Tuchman spent years studying one of the greatest predictability failures in human history: the summer of 1914, when every European leader sleepwalked into a war that none of them claimed to want. Her conclusion, documented with meticulous precision in The Guns of August, was not that these leaders were stupid. It was that they were committed to models of each other’s behavior that bore no relationship to the actual incentive structures in play. Every general assumed the war would be short, because their models demanded it. Every diplomat assumed the other side would blink, because their models demanded it. The actual incentives, nationalism, the interlocking logic of mobilization timetables, domestic political survival, pointed toward exactly what happened. Nobody was willing to read them honestly, because doing so would have forced uncomfortable conclusions.

We have not meaningfully improved on this since 1914. We still routinely enter high-stakes situations having studied what we want, rather than having mapped what the other party needs. We prepare our arguments without preparing our understanding of the audience. We optimize our pitch without asking what success looks like from the other side of the table, and whether that version of success is compatible with ours.

The cost is predictable. You lose deals you thought you had. You hire people who leave in eighteen months. You build partnerships that fracture over disagreements that were always there in the incentive structure, just never examined. You walk out of Islamabad having spent twenty-one hours learning what the incentive map would have told you in twenty-one minutes.

The Same Structure, Every Table

The Iran talks are a vivid case study because the scale is enormous and the failure is public. But the structure of the failure is not unique to geopolitics. It is the default failure mode of human beings operating in situations where they have something at stake.

An entrepreneur walks into a capital conversation assuming the investor wants what they want: a funded business with strong potential. But the investor is optimizing for something different, portfolio fit, risk-adjusted return, the optics of the bet within their own firm, the timeline pressure of their fund cycle. Those incentives may or may not align with what the entrepreneur is offering. Whether they align is not a matter of chemistry or how good the pitch deck is. It is a matter of structural compatibility. The entrepreneur who maps that structure before the meeting has a fundamentally different conversation than the one who walks in hoping goodwill carries the day.

A hiring decision operates the same way. A candidate is optimizing for advancement, compensation, the credential the new role adds to their trajectory. The organization is optimizing for execution, cultural fit, long-term commitment. These may point in the same direction, or they may not, but neither party is required to name the misalignment out loud. They just live with the consequences of it later. Most turnover is not a surprise if you mapped the incentives at the point of hire. Most of it was visible. It just wasn’t looked at honestly.

The same dynamic runs through client relationships, vendor negotiations, strategic partnerships, and organizational politics. In every case, the question is identical: what is each party actually rewarded for doing, and does that reward structure point toward the outcome we are both saying we want? When the answer is yes, relationships are durable. When the answer is no, no amount of effort, goodwill, or communication skill fixes the underlying misalignment. You are building on the wrong foundation, and at some point the structure tells you so.

The Discipline of Reading Incentives First

Munger’s axiom works in both directions. If incentives predict outcomes, then anyone willing to do the honest work of mapping incentives before a consequential decision can predict outcomes too. This is not a gift reserved for Munger or for people with decades of pattern recognition behind them. It is a discipline, available to anyone willing to ask the right questions before they need the answers.

The practice is straightforward, even if the execution takes courage. Before any significant decision involving another party, make the incentive map explicit. Write it down. Ask what the other party actually gets rewarded for in this context. Ask what failure looks like from their vantage point, because their definition of failure is almost never identical to yours. Ask what they would have to give up to give you what you want, and whether giving it up is something their incentive structure permits. These answers are almost always available. They require observation and intellectual honesty, not inside information.

Then do the harder version of the same exercise on yourself. Ask what you are actually optimizing for. Is it the stated goal, or is it something else? Are you pursuing this deal because it is the right deal, or because the process has gone on long enough and you need it to be over? Are you holding a position because it is the right position, or because reversing it feels like a loss? In Honor Under Pressure, I argue that the leaders who fail under sustained pressure almost never fail because they misread the external environment. They fail because they never built the discipline of reading themselves honestly, their own incentives, their own rationalizations, their own quiet compromises. The same failure shows up here. The external map is difficult enough. The internal map is where most people simply refuse to go.

Finally, look for the structural misalignment before you commit resources to bridging it. If what you need and what the other party needs point in genuinely incompatible directions, cleverness and persistence will not reconcile them. This is what twenty-one hours in Islamabad made undeniable. The United States required nuclear commitment. Iran’s government required nuclear capability for regime survival. Those are incentive structures pointing in opposite directions. No framing, no creative language, no late-night session closes that gap. The gap was there before anyone shook hands. It just took twenty-one hours to confirm what the map already showed.

Two Chairs, One Lesson

I see this from two vantage points, and they arrive at the same place by different roads.

From the CEO’s chair, incentive mapping is the most underused tool in business leadership. At B:Side, we make lending decisions that require us to understand not just what a borrower is telling us, but what they are structurally positioned to do. Those are not always the same thing. A business owner may genuinely believe their projections. But if their incentive structure rewards optimism and punishes the kind of hard internal accounting that produces accurate forecasts, the belief doesn’t change the outcome. We have learned, sometimes the hard way, that the most important question is never what someone intends. It is what they are rewarded for doing. The deals we have walked away from have almost always been deals where the incentive structures, mapped honestly, pointed somewhere we didn’t want to go.

From the professor’s chair, the gap is more personal and more urgent. I watch students prepare for job interviews by researching companies, rehearsing answers, and sharpening their stories. These are not wasted efforts. But I almost never see a student walk into a conversation having mapped the incentive structure of the person sitting across from them. What is that hiring manager actually rewarded for when a hire works out? What does their professional reputation require them to avoid? What does the organization’s incentive structure demand of new entrants, and is that compatible with what the student actually wants from the role? These questions are not hidden. They are available. They require only the willingness to ask them before the conversation starts rather than after it ends badly.

The lesson is the same from both chairs. Preparation that doesn’t include incentive mapping is incomplete. It is the equivalent of building a model without one of the key variables, and then wondering why the output doesn’t match the result.

The Question Worth Wrestling With

The Islamabad talks collapsed on April 12, 2026, and the world expressed surprise. The incentive structures were visible. They were on the record. They pointed to exactly this outcome, and anyone who mapped them honestly before the first delegation landed in Pakistan would have told you so.

The question that matters now is not what happens next in the Gulf, though that question carries real weight. The question that matters is what in your own world you are reading through the lens of your preferred outcome rather than the lens of the actual incentive structure. What negotiation are you walking into assuming the other party wants what you want? What decision are you about to make based on what someone said, rather than what they are rewarded for doing?

Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome. This is the work. Do it before you sit down. Do it honestly, which means being willing to see things that complicate your preferred narrative. It will not always produce the result you want. But it will eliminate the worst outcome available to any leader: arriving at a result you should have seen coming, and finding you weren’t ready for it.

The signals are almost always there. The discipline is in choosing to read them.

Share

Honor Under Pressure is available now. The full series, along with ongoing resources and community for leaders navigating the Fourth Turning, lives at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

I want to tell you why that exhale worries me more than the crisis that preceded it.

There is a particular kind of structural danger that does not arrive during the visible crisis. It arrives in the pause immediately after. The threat appears to recede. The positioning shifts from defensive to opportunistic. Vigilance relaxes. And in that precise window, the systems that were supposed to absorb the next shock are at their most exposed, because everyone just decided they were no longer needed.

That is the moment we are in right now.

The Bet We Already Named

A few weeks ago, in “The Forty-Mile Hostage Crisis,” I wrote that we had placed a civilizational wager on forty miles of open water. Twenty million barrels a day. Nearly a third of globally traded fertilizers. The world’s most consequential chokepoint, treated for half a century as though it were simply there, like gravity, because it had always been.

That bet is now being called, and the terms are worse than what I described.

The ceasefire announced April 8 fractured almost immediately. Israel struck Hezbollah positions in Lebanon within hours of the announcement. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard declared the Strait effectively closed again. Both sides accused the other of bad faith before the terms were even distributed. The talks now (allegedly) underway in Islamabad, with the U.S. and Iranian delegations seated across a table at the Serena Hotel, are not a resolution mechanism. Pakistan’s stated goal is simply to keep the conversations going. That phrase tells you everything about the expected trajectory. When your diplomatic objective is continuity rather than outcome, you are managing a timeline, not solving a problem.

Here is the detail that matters most: as of April 9, Strait of Hormuz traffic remains at less than ten percent of normal volumes. Vessels are still loitering off Qeshm Island for security checks or payments. The infrastructure damage to port facilities and Qeshm-related assets ensures that even a best-case diplomatic result does not restore flows for six to eight weeks. The ceasefire exists on paper. The chokepoint remains effectively closed. Those are not the same thing, and markets spent thirty-six hours trading as though they were.

Subscribe now

The Architecture of Simultaneous Failure

What I want to describe here is not a single crisis. It is something more specific and, in some ways, more dangerous: simultaneous buffer failure. What happens when multiple systems lose their margins of safety in the same window. Each buffer, on its own, might absorb a shock. When they all thin out together, there is nothing underneath.

There are four of them converging right now.

The geopolitical buffer was the ceasefire. And a ceasefire that depends on mutual trust between parties who have demonstrated, repeatedly, that they have none, is not a buffer. It is a countdown dressed up as a resolution. The Islamabad talks are not a pressure release. They are the moment where the market discovers whether the buffer was real or performative. The early evidence is not encouraging.

The market structure buffer is subtler, but it follows the same logic. Markets rallied hard into the ceasefire announcement. The buying was confident, positioned aggressively for de-escalation. But confident buying into a single thesis creates its own fragility: when everyone is leaning the same direction, the order book thins out on the other side. There is no one left to absorb the selling if the thesis breaks. You do not need to understand options mechanics to grasp this. The concept is universal: a market that has priced in good news has already spent its optimism. What remains is the gap between expectation and reality. Gaps in load-bearing structures tend to close violently. Regular readers of these pages lived through the Liberation Day tariff shock last spring. Strong open, intraday reversal, and then a three-day cascade exceeding ten percent. The architecture was identical: consensus positioning, a single catalyst, and then the floor. The pattern is not new. Andrew Ross Sorkin’s work on 1929 traces the same sequence, a parabolic top running into thin liquidity, with concentration in a handful of names masking the fragility underneath.

The calendar buffer is the one no one is talking about. April 15 is the federal tax deadline, and April 17 is monthly options expiration. These are not dramatic events. They are mechanical. Cash leaves the system on the 15th. The structural guardrails that have been compressing volatility roll off on the 17th. In a normal week, these are manageable. In a week where the geopolitical buffer is already fracturing and the market structure buffer is already thin, the calendar removes the last layer of cushion. The calendar does not care about the negotiations in Islamabad. April 15 arrives whether or not the Strait of Hormuz reopens. And when cash leaves the system on a deadline that cannot be moved, whatever fragility exists in the structure is revealed.

The supply chain buffer is the one with the longest lag and the most certain consequences. I wrote about this in last week. The damage is already done. Fertilizer prices are up thirty to forty percent. Plants are idling in India, Algeria, and Slovakia. China has restricted fertilizer exports. Farmers across Australia, the United States, and Asia are planting less or facing margin squeezes severe enough to alter their decisions for the entire growing season. Diesel futures were up sixty-nine percent in the early conflict phases. Even if the Islamabad talks produce a genuine agreement this weekend, the supply chain does not reset on that timeline. Normalization takes six to eight weeks at minimum. The food-price shock is already baked into Q3 2026. The disruption to global fertilizer and energy supply is not a risk. It is a fact. It is already absent from the soil. The planting decisions being made right now, under these input costs, will determine food prices six months from now regardless of what happens at the Serena Hotel.

What It Looks Like When the Floor Disappears

The point is not that any single pillar causes a crisis. The point is that all four are arriving in the same seven-day window, and each one removes a layer of protection that the others depend on.

I am not making a market prediction. What I am describing is what it looks like when every buffer thins out at the same time, because that is something I have seen before, in markets, in organizations, and in the historical record. The pattern is consistent. When the cushions are removed simultaneously, the correction is faster and deeper than anyone positioned for continuation expects. The people paying attention to structure rather than headlines will see it. The people trading on the ceasefire headline will discover it.

I’ve written extensively about systems designed for problems that no longer exist. Every diplomatic framework being deployed right now was built for a different era of U.S.-Iran relations. Every market structure model was calibrated for conditions that no longer obtain. The architecture is being stress-tested by circumstances it was not designed to absorb. That is not a political observation. It is an engineering one.

What This Means on the Ground

I see this from a few vantage points, and they point in the same direction.

For business owners and operators: the time to stress-test your cash position is this weekend, not next month. If your margins depend on stable input costs, model a scenario where diesel remains elevated through Q3. If you carry inventory with Strait-dependent inputs, whether energy, fertilizers, or petrochemicals, examine that exposure now. The leaders who built thirty-day buffers after “The Forty-Mile Hostage Crisis” are in a materially different position than those who waited to see how the talks went. The gap between them is not intelligence. It is the discipline to act before the pressure is undeniable.

For investors and anyone with market exposure: the “crisis averted” narrative is itself a risk factor right now. When positioning is uniformly optimistic and the structural supports are thinning, the cost of caution is low and the cost of complacency is potentially severe. Nassim Taleb’s concept of the fragilista, the person who mistakes the absence of visible risk for the absence of actual risk, is precisely what this moment is manufacturing at scale. This is not a call to liquidate everything. It is a call to understand what you own, understand why you own it, and ask honestly whether your thesis accounts for four buffers failing simultaneously. If it does not, that is worth knowing before April 17.

For students and emerging leaders: What this week is teaching, if you are paying attention, is a skill that no curriculum covers: how to read structure instead of headlines. Every signal available to the public this week said "relief." The ceasefire was announced. Markets moved higher. The word de-escalation appeared in every feed. And underneath all of it, four load-bearing systems were simultaneously losing their margins of safety. The headline and the structure were pointing in opposite directions. Most people followed the headline. That gap, between what the surface says and what the architecture is doing, is where careers are made and portfolios are destroyed. Learning to see it now, before you have significant capital or significant responsibility on the line, is one of the more valuable things this moment has to offer. The tuition is high. Use it.

The collective exhale on the night of the 7th was understandable. After weeks of watching the Strait close and the headlines darken, the word “ceasefire” felt like oxygen. I felt it too. There is nothing cynical about relief.

But relief and safety are not the same thing. And the distinction between them, in this particular week, in this particular structural configuration, is precisely the kind of thing that serious leaders need to hold clearly in their minds, even when the headlines are pulling them toward relaxation.

I have been writing about these pressures, individually and together, for several years now. The geopolitical fragility. The market structure. The supply chain damage that accrues silently until it suddenly isn’t silent anymore. The calendar mechanics that no negotiation can move. They were risks then. They are facts now.

The people who hold through what is coming will not be the ones who predicted it most precisely. They will be the ones who built something to hold with before the floor disappeared.

Share

Honor Under Pressure is available now. The full series, along with ongoing resources and community for leaders navigating the Fourth Turning, lives at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

On the geopolitical front, the United States and Iran moved through the first direct military conflict of that magnitude in modern history to a moment Tuesday evening when the President issued a public ultimatum: a “whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened by 8 p.m. Eastern. A ceasefire was announced with less than two hours to spare. By Wednesday morning, Israel had launched large-scale strikes on Lebanon, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard had declared the strait closed again, and both sides were accusing the other of bad faith before the terms had even been distributed. The ceasefire that was supposed to open two weeks of formal negotiations was fracturing in real time, with markets watching and oil prices swinging on every dispatch.

The economic picture had already absorbed the blow. Roughly twenty percent of global oil trade moves through that forty-mile chokepoint, and the disruption had been running long enough to reach supply chains, energy costs, and the balance sheets of small businesses that carry no geopolitical exposure in any direct sense but cannot escape the downstream pressure. Tariff uncertainty was compounding the picture. The fiscal architecture of the country was producing interest payment obligations that, for the first time in peacetime, exceeded defense spending. The margin for error was narrowing on multiple axes simultaneously.

And then, in an entirely separate domain, one of the leading artificial intelligence laboratories in the world announced that it had built a model so capable of autonomous offensive action in the digital realm that it would not be releasing it to the public. Anthropic’s Claude Mythos, as it became known after an accidental document leak, could autonomously discover and chain cybersecurity exploits across major operating systems and software at a scale its own creators described as potentially catastrophic if broadly available. The company launched a restricted program, Project Glasswing, limiting access to approximately fifty vetted organizations focused on defensive security. The most sophisticated AI laboratory in the world built something and then told the rest of us: this one is too dangerous to share.

Three domains. Three different kinds of disruption. All of them arriving in the same week, in the same news cycle, competing for the same anxious attention.

Call it what it is: a perfect storm. Difficult does not come close.

What It Feels Like From the Ground

The conversations happening across my network right now keep arriving at the same place, and it is something quieter than anger. Closer to exhaustion than outrage. More resigned, with a heaviness that does not have a clean name. Panic implies a single acute event with a visible endpoint. What I keep hearing is something more corrosive: a sustained state of not knowing which variable to plan around, because the variables that used to be stable are now moving in combination. Interest rates, supply chain reliability, labor market norms, the prospect of AI reshaping cost structures and competitive landscapes all at once. These are resilient people. They have navigated hard things before. But they built their businesses and their careers inside a framework of assumptions that is no longer holding, and the conversations keep arriving at the same wall: no one has a replacement framework, because the replacement does not yet exist.

The leaders I speak with are reaching for their tools and finding that the outputs no longer match what they observe around them. The strategic plan was built on projections that were reasonable six months ago. The consensus process is moving at a pace the situation has already lapped. The metrics they were trained to track are telling one story; the market is telling another. This is not a failure of competence. It is a failure of fit. Process-dependent leadership in a situation that has rendered the process a lag indicator.

And then there are my students. They are carrying something harder to name than frustration, and I sit with it every time I walk into a classroom. Something quieter and more resigned than anger. They did everything they were told to do. They built the credentials, showed up with the work ethic, prepared for the interviews. The ladder they were promised has been quietly moved, and no one had the honesty to warn them before they had spent years and significant money climbing toward something that was already ending.

Share

The Pattern Behind the Storm

Regular readers of these pages know the Fourth Turning framework well. The historians William Strauss and Neil Howe identified a recurring eighty-year cycle in American history: a period of deep institutional crisis that restructures the entire order, clears what is no longer serving the republic, and defines the generation that lives through it by the quality of the choices made under maximum pressure. The Revolution. The Civil War. The Depression and World War II. And now this. We have covered this ground before, and at length, because naming the pattern accurately is not a small thing.

What a Fourth Turning does to leaders is specific and predictable. It collapses the middle ground, eliminating the moderate positions that calmer periods kept available. It strips process of its load-bearing function, because consensus mechanisms were designed to optimize within a stable system, not to function when the system itself is what is failing. And it runs long, far longer than the tools most of us carry were designed for: fifteen to twenty years of sustained pressure that outlasts intensity, exhausts cleverness, and eventually asks a question that strategy cannot answer.

The perfect storm described at the top of this piece is not a collection of simultaneous bad luck. It is the pattern announcing itself, in the same way it announced itself to every generation that has lived through a turning before this one. The leaders who feel like the ground has shifted beneath them are correct. It has.

The Problem With Diagnosis

But naming the pattern is not the same as answering it. Diagnosis without prescription is insufficient. Explaining the storm while people are standing in it, describing the failure of frameworks while leaders are reaching for those frameworks and coming up empty, eventually produces its own kind of paralysis. The writers and thinkers worth paying attention to do not stop at the observation. They push through to the question that follows: given that this is true, what do we actually do?

Leaders who misread the cycle, who apply Third Turning management to Fourth Turning conditions, produce outcomes far worse than the crisis itself. James Buchanan governing as though the institutions he inherited were still load-bearing, when they were not, is the clearest American example of what misdiagnosis costs. But Buchanan’s deeper failure was not that he misread the moment. It was that he had no answer for it even when the moment became undeniable. The diagnosis eventually reached him. The prescription never did.

That gap is what drove me back into the historical record, looking for an answer. Specifically: what did the leaders who actually navigated America’s prior Fourth Turnings have that the ones who collapsed did not?

What the Historical Record Actually Shows

The answer was not what I expected to find, and it was not comfortable. The leaders who held, held because they had built something inside themselves before the pressure arrived that functioned when everything external had failed.

Five figures anchored the research. Cato the Younger refused Caesar’s pardon because accepting it would have required becoming someone he could not be. Washington returned power to the republic before anyone asked him to, having built the restraint into himself long before the Newburgh conspiracy gave him the opportunity to violate it. Seneca is the warning portrait: his code was real, but insufficiently fortified against the specific mechanism by which sophisticated minds rationalize their own erosion, one defensible permission at a time. Lincoln’s moral architecture was still being rebuilt at the Second Inaugural, and his willingness to be remade by suffering is the most honest portrait of what character development under sustained weight actually looks like. Marshall spent a career making himself unnecessary by making everyone around him exceptional, and was at his desk in Washington on the night of June 5, 1944, while Eisenhower gave the order for D-Day, because he had built the situation that kept him from the room.

They were not the same kind of leader. They did not use the same mode. What they shared was something beneath mode: a moral architecture built through deliberate practice, internalized deeply enough to function automatically when the conscious mind was overwhelmed, tested against actual cost before the apex arrived. A practiced capacity. Behavior under genuine cost. The kind of code that holds because it has been tested, repeatedly, against conditions that made the comfortable choice genuinely available.

The conclusion that kept arriving, across two thousand years of history, is this: in a Fourth Turning, complexity fails and only character scales.

Character. A code. Something built before the pressure arrives, in the part of a person that holds when everything else has failed.

The Book

That conclusion is what made the book inevitable. Written as a response to the moment, for leaders who need something that functions when commentary runs out.

Honor Under Pressure: Building a Code That Holds When Everything Else Fails is Book One of The Fourth Turning Leader, a three-part series. This first volume addresses the individual level, which is where everything else has to start: what an honor code is, how it is built, what the five modes look like in historical practice, what the internal mechanisms are that cause codes to erode from within, and how to construct your own architecture before the apex demands it.

The book aims at something with more durability than inspiration. Inspiration has a short half-life, and the Fourth Turning runs longer than any inspirational feeling lasts. A working architecture is the goal: something specific enough to be broken, honest enough to survive scrutiny from the people who know you best, and personal enough that no one else could have written it.

These leaders were not exceptional people who arrived with exceptional character fully formed. The gap between the moral architecture they eventually carried and the one they started with was, in most cases, considerable. What separated them was the deliberate, sustained, sometimes costly work of building and maintaining a code in conditions that made the comfortable choice genuinely available, every day, for as long as the turning lasted.

That work is available to any leader willing to do it.

The series has a home at www.thefourthturningleader.com, where the ongoing work will live alongside resources from the second and third volumes as they develop.

What the Storm Is Actually Asking

The student sitting in my classroom who did everything right and is now watching the math not work out. The entrepreneur planning around variables that will not hold still. The executive whose consensus process has been lapped by a situation that did not wait for consensus. The military commander negotiating a ceasefire in the same hour that a separate conflict is fracturing its terms. The laboratory that built something and then announced to the world that it was too dangerous to share.

These people are failing, where they are failing, because the tools they were given were built for different conditions. The map is wrong. The territory has changed. Intelligence, work ethic, and good intentions are present and accounted for. The fit between those qualities and the demands of this moment is what has broken down.

A Fourth Turning does not fix that problem by handing out new maps. It fixes it by producing, from the pressure of the crisis itself, the leaders whose character became the new map. Washington did not wait for the republic to stabilize before building his code. Lincoln did not wait for the war’s moral clarity before carrying the weight. Marshall did not wait for the army to be ready before identifying the officers who would make it so.

The storm is here. It is producing the exact conditions that every prior Fourth Turning has produced at its apex: the collapse of middle ground, the failure of process, the compounding pressure across multiple domains simultaneously.

The question it is asking is whether we have built something to hold.

Honor Under Pressure is available now. The full series, along with ongoing resources and community for leaders navigating the Fourth Turning, lives at www.thefourthturningleader.com.

Subscribe now

The Roman Army figured this out two thousand years ago. Eight soldiers shared a tent under a decanus. Ten of those units formed a century under a centurion. Six centuries made a cohort. Ten cohorts made a legion. At every layer, a named commander held defined authority, aggregated information from below, and relayed decisions from above. The structure, 8 to 80 to 480 to 5,000, was not a management philosophy. It was an information routing protocol built around a single human limitation: a leader can effectively manage somewhere between three and eight people. The Romans discovered this through centuries of warfare. The U.S. Army still follows the same pattern today. We call it “span of control,” and it remains the governing constraint of every large organization on earth.

Jack Dorsey and Roelof Botha laid this history out in a recent piece for Block, tracing the line from Roman legions through Prussian military reform, American railroads, Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, and the Manhattan Project, all the way to the modern corporate org chart. Their argument is striking: for two thousand years, every innovation in organizational design has been an attempt to work around the same fundamental tradeoff. Narrowing span of control means adding layers. More layers mean slower information flow. And slower information flow means slower decisions, which means slower adaptation, which, in a volatile environment, means death.

Here’s what caught my attention, and what I think most readers will miss: the Block piece is not really about Block. It is about the fact that the foundational assumption beneath nearly every institution in the modern world, the assumption that humans must be the coordination mechanism in complex systems, is no longer necessarily true.

Think about that for a moment.

The Hierarchy You Don’t See

Most people, when they hear the word “hierarchy,” think of org charts and corner offices. That is the visible hierarchy, the one we can point to and critique. But there is a deeper hierarchy that operates beneath conscious awareness, and it shapes far more than corporate structure.

Our educational system is hierarchical. Not just in the obvious sense that there are teachers and students, principals and superintendents. The entire epistemological framework, the way we decide what counts as knowledge, who is qualified to transmit it, and how competence is credentialed, is built on a hierarchical model that dates to the medieval university. You sit in a room. An authority figure lectures. You demonstrate retention. You receive a credential. That credential signals to future hierarchies (employers, professional bodies, licensing boards) that you have been processed through the correct layers. The knowledge itself is almost secondary to the routing.

Our economic systems are hierarchical. Capital flows through layers of intermediation: central banks to commercial banks to regional lenders to borrowers. Information about creditworthiness travels up through those same layers, gets processed, and decisions travel back down. I see this every day at B:Side. The distance between a small business owner’s reality and the decision that determines whether they get funded is measured in layers. Each layer adds latency. Each layer adds friction. Each layer adds cost. And each layer, however well-intentioned, introduces the possibility of distortion.

Our political systems are hierarchical. Representative democracy itself is a hierarchical information routing protocol. Citizens transmit preferences to local representatives, who aggregate and relay them to higher bodies, who synthesize them into policy. The system was designed for an era when direct communication across large populations was physically impossible. The layers existed because they had to.

Even our mental models are hierarchical. We think in categories that nest inside larger categories. We evaluate ideas by checking them against authorities. We process information by routing it through frameworks we learned from people above us in some knowledge hierarchy. The way most people reason about the world, the way they evaluate what is true and what matters, is itself a product of hierarchical conditioning.

This is what I mean when I say the architecture is invisible. It is not just how we organize. It is how we think.

Subscribe now

The Entrepreneurial Exception

Entrepreneurs have always been the exception to this pattern, even if they could not always articulate why.

The defining characteristic of the entrepreneurial mind is not risk tolerance or creativity or vision, though those matter. It is the instinct to route around hierarchy. When an entrepreneur looks at a problem, they do not ask, “What does the existing structure say about how to solve this?” They ask, “What is the fastest, smartest, most frictionless way to solve this?” Those are fundamentally different questions, and they produce fundamentally different answers.

I built BodeTree on this instinct. The financial services industry had layers upon layers of intermediation between small business owners and the financial intelligence they needed to make good decisions. Banks had the data. Accountants had the expertise. Software companies had the tools. But the small business owner, the person who actually needed the insight, was at the bottom of every one of those hierarchies, waiting for information to trickle down through layers that each extracted value along the way. BodeTree’s entire premise was: what if we just connected the business owner directly to the insight?

That sounds obvious in retrospect. Most entrepreneurial insights do. But at the time, the idea that you could bypass the established hierarchy of financial intermediation was treated as somewhere between naive and dangerous. The layers existed for a reason, we were told. The complexity required expertise. The expertise required credentials. The credentials required institutions. The institutions required hierarchy.

Every entrepreneur has heard some version of this argument. Every entrepreneur who succeeded did so by proving it wrong, at least in one specific domain.

But here is what is different about this moment: the entrepreneurial instinct to route around hierarchy is no longer a personality trait or a business strategy. It is becoming a survival requirement. And it is not just about business anymore. It is about everything.

The Convergence

Two forces are converging right now that make the hierarchical foundation of our systems not just suboptimal but actively dangerous.

The first is artificial intelligence. The Block piece makes this case compellingly. For the first time in human history, we have a technology that can actually perform the coordination functions that hierarchy exists to provide. A system can maintain a continuously updated model of an entire operation and use it to coordinate work in ways that previously required humans relaying information through layers of management. The information routing problem that the Romans solved with centurions and the railroads solved with org charts and McKinsey solved with matrix structures can now, at least in principle, be solved by intelligence itself.

Block is building what they call a “company world model,” a continuously updated representation of everything happening across the organization, and a “customer world model” built from proprietary transaction data. Together, these form the foundation for what they describe as a company organized as an intelligence rather than a hierarchy. Instead of managers routing information up and down chains of command, the system maintains the picture. People operate at the edge, where the intelligence makes contact with reality.

This is not speculative. Block is reorganizing around three roles: individual contributors who build and operate systems, Directly Responsible Individuals who own cross-cutting problems, and player-coaches who combine building with developing people. There is no permanent middle management layer. The system handles alignment. The people handle craft, judgment, and the things the model cannot yet perceive: intuition, cultural context, trust dynamics, the feeling in a room.

The second force is the Fourth Turning itself.

I write about Fourth Turnings often in this newsletter because I believe the Strauss-Howe framework is the most honest description of the era we are living through. Fourth Turnings are periods when the institutional order that was built during the previous cycle reaches the end of its structural life. The institutions do not just need reform. They need replacement. The assumptions that undergirded them, assumptions that were so deeply embedded they felt like natural law, are revealed to be contingent, historical, and increasingly dysfunctional.

Hierarchy is one of those assumptions.

The institutional hierarchies that governed the postwar order, corporate, educational, political, financial, were not designed for a world of abundant information, instant communication, and artificial intelligence. They were designed for a world of scarce information, slow communication, and human-only coordination. The entire architecture was a response to constraint. Remove the constraint, and the architecture does not just become unnecessary. It becomes an active impediment.

This is what Fourth Turnings do. They expose the gap between the world as it actually is and the world as our inherited institutions assume it to be. And when that gap gets wide enough, the old architecture does not adapt. It breaks.

The Entrepreneurial Imperative

This convergence, AI plus Fourth Turning, creates what I would call the entrepreneurial imperative. It is no longer sufficient to be entrepreneurial in business. You must be entrepreneurial in everything.

What does that mean in practice? It means applying the core entrepreneurial question, “What is the fastest, smartest, most frictionless way to do this?”, to every domain of your life and work. Not as an optimization exercise, but as a fundamental rethinking of first principles.

In how you learn.

The hierarchical model of education, where an authority transmits knowledge to a passive recipient who demonstrates retention, is collapsing. Not because teachers are bad or schools are broken (though some are), but because the information routing problem that the model was designed to solve has been solved by other means. You can now access the world’s knowledge directly, interrogate it interactively, and apply it immediately. The entrepreneurial question is not “How do I get into the best program?” It is “What is the fastest path to genuine competence in the thing I need to know?”

In how you work.

The Block model is instructive here, even if you do not work at a technology company. The principle is the same across industries: identify the coordination functions that hierarchy performs in your organization, and ask honestly whether a human chain of command is still the best way to perform them. In many cases, it is not. The information that used to require three layers of management to synthesize and relay can now be synthesized and relayed by a system. The question is whether your organization has the courage to act on that reality, or whether it will cling to the old architecture because it is familiar.

In how you make decisions.

Hierarchical decision-making is inherently slow because it routes choices through layers of approval. In a stable environment, that slowness is a feature: it prevents rash action and ensures alignment. In a volatile environment, it is a liability. The entrepreneurial approach to decisions is not recklessness. It is the elimination of unnecessary intermediation between information and action. See the situation clearly, decide, act, learn, adjust. The people and organizations that can compress that cycle will outperform those that cannot.

In how you build institutions.

This is perhaps the most important and least understood implication. We are not just optimizing existing institutions. We are in a period where new institutions must be designed from scratch, and those institutions should not inherit the hierarchical assumptions of the ones they replace. Block’s model, where the intelligence lives in the system and the people operate at the edge, is one template. It will not be the only one. But the principle, design for intelligence rather than hierarchy, should inform how we build everything from companies to schools to civic organizations.

What This Means for You

I see this from two vantage points, as I often do.

As CEO of B:Side, I see the competitive reality. The companies that figure out how to organize around intelligence rather than hierarchy will move faster, serve customers better, and attract better talent. The companies that cling to hierarchical coordination because it is comfortable will find themselves increasingly unable to compete. This is not a prediction about the distant future. It is happening now. Block is already reorganizing. Others will follow. If your organization is not asking these questions, you are already behind.

As a professor at ASU, I see the human reality. I look at my students and I know that the hierarchical career ladder many of them are planning to climb, the one where you enter at the bottom, prove yourself through layers of increasingly senior roles, and eventually reach a position of authority, is evaporating. Not because ambition is dead, but because the layers themselves are disappearing. The students who will thrive are the ones who develop the entrepreneurial instinct: the ability to route around hierarchy, to connect directly with problems and solve them, to build competence that does not depend on institutional validation.

If you are currently leading an organization, the most important thing you can do right now is audit your hierarchy honestly. Not the org chart on the wall, but the actual information flows. Where does knowledge get created? How many layers does it pass through before it reaches a decision-maker? How much latency does each layer add? How much distortion? For each layer, ask: is a human chain of command still the best way to perform this coordination function, or could it be done faster and more accurately by a system? You will not like all the answers. Act on them anyway.

If you are building something new, whether a company or a team or a curriculum or a community, resist the instinct to replicate the hierarchical structures you grew up in. They feel natural because they are familiar, not because they are right. Start instead from the entrepreneurial question: what is the fastest, smartest, most frictionless way to achieve the outcome we are after? Build the lightest possible structure that can support that answer, and be willing to rebuild it as the answer changes.

If you are early in your career or still in school, understand that the most valuable skill you can develop is not expertise within a hierarchy but the ability to operate without one. Learn to find information directly rather than waiting for it to be transmitted to you through layers. Learn to make decisions with imperfect information rather than routing every choice through an approval chain. Learn to create value at the edge, where intelligence meets reality, rather than aspiring to a position in a middle layer that may not exist by the time you get there.

The Architecture Beneath the Architecture

We are living through a moment when the invisible becomes visible. The hierarchical architecture that has organized human activity for two thousand years, from Roman legions to corporate org charts, from medieval universities to modern school systems, from monarchies to representative democracies, is being exposed for what it always was: a solution to a specific set of constraints that are rapidly disappearing.

This does not mean hierarchy vanishes overnight. The Romans did not build their system because they were stupid. They built it because it was the best available solution to a real problem. And for two millennia, it remained the best available solution. What has changed is not the problem but the set of available solutions. For the first time, we have technology capable of performing the coordination functions that hierarchy exists to provide. That changes everything.

The entrepreneurial mind has always sensed this, even before the tools existed to act on it fully. The instinct to route around, to find the smartest and fastest path, to question structural assumptions that everyone else takes for granted: that instinct is no longer a competitive advantage for founders and startups. It is the baseline requirement for anyone who wants to remain relevant in a world that is being reorganized around intelligence rather than authority.

In a Fourth Turning, the old architecture does not get renovated. It gets replaced. The question is not whether this shift will happen. It is whether you will be the one building the new architecture or the one standing in the rubble of the old.

The hierarchy served us well. It is time to build what comes next.

Share

Brent crude touched $119 last week and the financial press treated it like weather — a passing front, soon to clear. Somewhere in a lower-third chyron, an analyst assured viewers that “markets are pricing in resolution.” Traders adjusted their models. Pundits moved on to the next segment.

They’re wrong. What we’re watching isn’t a price fluctuation. It’s a stress test of a civilization that spent fifty years choosing convenience over resilience, and the results are coming in faster than anyone in a television studio wants to admit.

Four Times ‘73

The 1973 Arab oil embargo is the reference point everyone reaches for, so let’s start there — and then retire it, because the comparison actually understates our exposure.

That embargo removed roughly five million barrels per day from global supply. It quadrupled prices. It produced gas lines, stagflation, a geopolitical reordering of the Middle East, and a decade of economic malaise that ended a presidency and rewired American domestic politics. Five million barrels did all of that.

The current disruption to the Strait of Hormuz threatens twenty million barrels per day. Four times the magnitude. When the IEA’s Fatih Birol calls this “the largest oil supply disruption in history,” he is not being dramatic. He is doing arithmetic — the kind of arithmetic that should be front-page news in every financial publication on Earth but is instead buried beneath reassuring language about “eventual normalization.”

Every major oil shock in modern history has been underestimated in its early stages because analysts model economics while history delivers politics. The 1979 Iranian Revolution removed only four million barrels per day and it gave us a decade of stagflation and a president asking Americans to turn down their thermostats. Markets priced in resolution then, too. Resolution took ten years.

The persistent faith that wars in the Persian Gulf resolve cleanly is not an analytical position. It is a psychological defense mechanism dressed in a Bloomberg terminal.

Subscribe now

Kharg Island Is Still Standing — For Now

Most people reading the headlines don’t understand the escalation ladder, so let me walk it rung by rung, because understanding the structure of what could happen next is the difference between preparation and paralysis.

Kharg Island processes ninety percent of Iranian oil exports. It remains standing today for one reason: American military planners chose restraint. That restraint is a policy decision, not a physical law. It can change with a phone call. Strike Kharg, and conservative estimates put Brent at $150 within seventy-two hours — removing eight million barrels from the market and exceeding the combined impact of the 1973 embargo, the Iranian Revolution, and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Combined.

But Kharg isn’t even the ceiling. Iran’s joint military command has explicitly identified its retaliation targets, and the name at the top of that list should keep every energy analyst on the planet awake at night: Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq processing facility. Seven percent of global oil supply flows through that single chokepoint. In 2019, a drone strike — a pinprick, an appetizer — hit Abqaiq and took weeks to partially restore. What Iran can deliver now would be categorically different in scale, precision, and intent.

And then there is the variable that no pricing model I’ve seen accounts for, the one that transforms a severe economic shock into something civilizationally different: desalination.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar produce the vast majority of their drinking water by desalinating seawater. Strike those plants and you have not created an energy crisis. You have created a humanitarian emergency without modern precedent — populations of millions facing evacuation, institutional capacity collapsing, the very workforce needed to restore oil production scattered across the region or worse. You are no longer removing barrels from the market temporarily. You are removing the human and institutional capacity to bring them back at all. The timeline shifts from weeks to years.

Michael Oren’s account of the Six-Day War remains essential reading precisely because it documents how Middle Eastern conflicts consistently exceed every participant’s “reasonable scenario” planning. Conflicts in this region do not respect the neat escalation frameworks built in Washington think tanks. They have a persistent, documented habit of going further and faster than anyone imagined, and then further still.

The Math Stops Working

Let me bring this down from geopolitics to your kitchen table, because that is where this crisis will actually be felt.

At $200 a barrel, gasoline hits roughly eight dollars a gallon in the United States. That is not an inconvenience for most American households. It is a restructuring of daily life. The two-income family commuting sixty miles round-trip doesn’t adjust their budget. They fundamentally cannot afford to get to work.

Every calorie in America travels by diesel. Grocery inflation at twenty-five percent or higher isn’t a forecast — it’s the mechanical result of fuel costs propagating through a logistics network that was designed for efficiency, not resilience. Airlines ground routes. Amazon’s delivery economics invert. The owner-operator — the backbone of American freight — parks his truck in the driveway because the math no longer works, because every mile driven costs more than the load pays.

David Hackett Fischer documented in The Great Wave that energy and food price shocks have preceded every major social upheaval of the past eight hundred years. This is not a modern phenomenon with modern solutions. It is a pattern so old and so consistent that ignoring it requires active effort.

Here is the class dimension that polite economic commentary refuses to name directly: the professional class will experience $200 oil as portfolio damage — a bad quarter, an uncomfortable conversation with a financial advisor, a deferred renovation. The working class will experience it as survival arithmetic. Heat or eat. Medicine or gas. These are not hypothetical dilemmas. They arrived in softer forms during 2022’s diesel spike. At $200 Brent, they arrive harder, faster, and for a much larger share of the population.

The 1970s gave us malaise over the course of years — a slow grinding down that became the background hum of an era. This would be different. The speed of modern supply chains, which is their great advantage in normal times, becomes their great vulnerability in disruption. The pain doesn’t build gradually. It cascades.

Fifty Years of Pretending

What makes this moment truly dangerous isn’t the price of oil. It’s the accumulated negligence that made us this vulnerable in the first place.

Run the timeline. 1973: the Arab embargo. Brief national alarm, talk of energy independence, some investment in alternatives. Then the price stabilized and we went back to sleep. 1979: the Iranian Revolution. Same cycle — crisis, rhetoric, reversion. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. Strategic Petroleum Reserve gets tapped, crisis passes, dependency deepens. 2008: oil hits $147 and the economy buckles. And each time, the same pattern: a season of concern followed by a longer season of comfortable amnesia.

“Energy independence” in American political discourse became a slogan untethered from strategy — something candidates said during debates and then filed away once the inauguration confetti was swept up. We substituted financial engineering for structural resilience. Futures markets, hedging instruments, strategic reserves — these are sophisticated tools for managing volatility within a system. They are not the system itself. You cannot hedge your way out of twenty million barrels disappearing from the physical market.

Nassim Taleb built an entire intellectual framework around this exact failure mode. In Antifragile, he identifies what he calls the “fragilista” — the person who builds systems optimized for efficiency in calm conditions and is then stunned when those systems shatter under stress. We have built a fragilista civilization with respect to energy. Every barrel of efficiency we squeezed out of our supply chains, every redundancy we eliminated in the name of cost optimization, every buffer stock we drew down because carrying inventory hurt quarterly returns — all of it was a bet that the calm would continue. The Strait of Hormuz is forty miles wide. We bet the entire architecture of modern life on forty miles of open water.

Marcus Aurelius governed the Roman Empire during the Antonine Plague, which killed between five and ten million people across two decades. He did not pretend the plague away. He did not convene a panel to assure Roman citizens that conditions would normalize. He adapted — raising new legions, restructuring tax policy, personally financing the war effort from the imperial treasury. He met the real conditions with real adjustments because Stoic philosophy demanded exactly that: see clearly, accept what is, act on what you control. We have done the opposite for half a century. We have practiced sophisticated denial and called it risk management.

The Fourth Turning framework helps explain why this negligence persists across generations. Strauss and Howe observed that crisis eras punish the accumulated complacency of the preceding cycle. The bill comes due not to the generation that incurred the debt but to the one that inherited it. The leaders who deferred structural investment in energy resilience during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s will not be the ones standing in line for gasoline or explaining to their employees why the business can’t absorb another month of input cost increases. Their children will. Your employees will. The communities downstream of every deferred decision will.

This is what makes the current moment a moral question, not merely an economic one.

What You Control, What You Build

So what do you do? Not abstractly. Not as a policy recommendation that requires congressional action or a UN resolution. What do you do in the sphere you actually command?

Lincoln’s most important leadership quality wasn’t optimism. It was the capacity to act decisively while holding profound uncertainty — to make choices with incomplete information and live with consequences he could not control. He learned, through genuine adversity, to stop waiting for the picture to be complete before moving. Because by the time the picture is complete, the window for action has usually closed. That quality is what this moment demands from every leader reading this.

Here is what acting now actually looks like:

1. Stress-test your operation for a sixty-day fuel shock. Not a one-week spike that the strategic reserve can blunt. Sixty days. Two full months of input costs jumping eighty percent. Map every expense line that is directly or indirectly exposed to transportation and logistics — and then ask honestly whether your margins survive it, or whether you need to restructure something before the shock arrives rather than during it. Most organizations have never done this exercise. Do it this week.

2. Audit your household and organizational supply chain dependencies. How many days of essential inputs — food, fuel, medical supplies, key materials — do you have on hand? Not in a prepper sense. In the basic prudential sense that every generation before the last two took for granted. Your grandparents kept a pantry stocked. They weren’t paranoid. They had living memory of what happens when systems fail. A thirty-day buffer in the things that matter most is not excessive caution. It is the minimum that a competent leader maintains.

3. Map your community’s critical vulnerabilities and put your name on one. If you lead within a community — as an employer, a board member, a local official — identify which local systems are most exposed to logistics breakdown: food distribution, fuel supply, medical logistics. These are knowable vulnerabilities, and most communities have done zero work to chart them, much less build contingencies. Pick one. Convene the people who need to be in the room. Start the conversation before the crisis makes it urgent, because urgent is too late.

The leaders who matter in the next eighteen months will not be the ones who called the price correctly. They will be the ones who stopped asking “when will things return to normal” and started building as if normal has already left the building.

Because it has.

The Forty-Mile Question

The Strait of Hormuz is forty miles wide. Through it passes twenty percent of the world’s oil. We have known this for half a century. We have experienced shocks, debated policy, published white papers, and then returned to comfortable dependency with the reliability of an addict promising to quit tomorrow.

Tomorrow has arrived. The question is no longer whether fragility will be tested. It is being tested now, in real time, with real consequences cascading toward real people. The question is whether you — in whatever domain you lead, at whatever scale you operate — will spend the next six months narrating the crisis from the sidelines, or building resilience within the sphere you actually command.

Fragility isn’t an event. It’s a choice repeated until the bill comes due.

Share