True economic prosperity for the majority comes from wage growth, which leads to inflation and higher rates. These factors are poison for the long-duration assets and leveraged models that Wall Street depends on, creating a direct conflict of interest in policymaking.

The current system is locked in because policymakers fear the consequences of letting asset prices fall. A genuine shift will only occur when a political figure gains power with a mandate to help the middle class, even if it means 'suffering the consequences' of a market crash.

The US government's focus on economic indicators has made the S&P and NASDAQ the primary arbiters of an administration's success. As long as the market is performing well, a president feels empowered to pursue controversial policies without significant pushback, as economic prosperity mutes corporate and public outrage.

The debate between liberals and conservatives over state intervention is based on a flawed premise. Both sides accept the idea of a pre-political market that sometimes "fails." The reality is that the market is always a product of political and legal decisions. The real question isn't *whether* to intervene, but who benefits from the current structure.

U.S. economic policy is no longer aimed at broad prosperity but at ensuring the S&P 500 index continues to rise. This singular focus creates negative side effects, like suffering for the majority of the population who rely on wage growth rather than asset appreciation.

Acknowledging that the Federal Reserve and government policy consistently bail out markets and inflate asset values creates a clear, if cynical, investment thesis. Rather than fighting the system, investors should align with it by owning assets, as the "house" is set up to benefit them.

Investors no longer react to underlying economic health but to the anticipated actions of the Federal Reserve. Bad news signals that the Fed will likely inject money into the system to prevent a crash, making asset prices go up. This creates a perverse incentive structure.

The U.S. is experiencing a rare combination of easing monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies at the same time. This trifecta of support, typically reserved for dire economic conditions, is creating a favorable environment where markets can run hot and valuations may overshoot their typical levels.

Criticizing AI presents a political dilemma because it's a primary driver of stock market gains. With more Americans viewing the market as a barometer of their financial health, politicians risk alienating voters if an anti-AI stance is perceived as a threat to their retirement accounts.