Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
The Chart That Quietly Explains America’s Next 20 Years
If you strip this thing down, it’s a simple story of a country that used to add workers every decade… and now mostly adds retirees and debt.
From the 1960s through about 2000, the U.S. grows by piling in millions of new people into the workforce. You can see it in the tall blue bars…huge gains in the 15–64 population and, more importantly, huge gains in actual employees. That’s the demographic engine that made 3–4% real growth feel normal.
The gray bars…the 65+ population are small. Retirees are steady, manageable, predictable.
And the red bars…marketable federal debt, barely move. We’re talking rounding error increases compared to today.
Then the chart flips. Starting in the 2000s, worker growth flattens. By the 2010s, it collapses. Meanwhile the 65+ population surges and the debt explodes upward. And the black line, the average Fed funds rate, sinks decade after decade. It’s not hard to see the connection…fewer workers, more retirees, more debt… and a central bank forced to keep rates lower just to keep the system moving.
What That Means Going Forward
This is the part people don’t always want to say out loud.
A country that isn’t adding many new workers can’t count on old school, momentum driven growth anymore. Trend growth slows. Productivity has to do more of the heavy lifting. Immigration matters more. And fiscal policy fills the gap, usually with borrowing, because politically that’s easier than asking anyone to sacrifice.
But that’s how you get to the right side of the chart…an aging population, a shrinking share of workers, and trillions of new debt layered on top. That’s not a temporary imbalance; it’s the new baseline.
And it tells you a lot about the future…
Rates will drift lower over time because the system can’t tolerate high ones for long.
Fiscal fights will get louder because the math gets harder. Growth will be more start and stop, with short bursts followed by long plateaus. And the U.S. economy will depend more on policy support than it did in the past.
This means a different era, one where demographics and debt shape the boundaries of what’s possible, and the old normal doesn’t come back just because we want it to.
That’s the message sitting inside this chart.
tweet
The Chart That Quietly Explains America’s Next 20 Years
If you strip this thing down, it’s a simple story of a country that used to add workers every decade… and now mostly adds retirees and debt.
From the 1960s through about 2000, the U.S. grows by piling in millions of new people into the workforce. You can see it in the tall blue bars…huge gains in the 15–64 population and, more importantly, huge gains in actual employees. That’s the demographic engine that made 3–4% real growth feel normal.
The gray bars…the 65+ population are small. Retirees are steady, manageable, predictable.
And the red bars…marketable federal debt, barely move. We’re talking rounding error increases compared to today.
Then the chart flips. Starting in the 2000s, worker growth flattens. By the 2010s, it collapses. Meanwhile the 65+ population surges and the debt explodes upward. And the black line, the average Fed funds rate, sinks decade after decade. It’s not hard to see the connection…fewer workers, more retirees, more debt… and a central bank forced to keep rates lower just to keep the system moving.
What That Means Going Forward
This is the part people don’t always want to say out loud.
A country that isn’t adding many new workers can’t count on old school, momentum driven growth anymore. Trend growth slows. Productivity has to do more of the heavy lifting. Immigration matters more. And fiscal policy fills the gap, usually with borrowing, because politically that’s easier than asking anyone to sacrifice.
But that’s how you get to the right side of the chart…an aging population, a shrinking share of workers, and trillions of new debt layered on top. That’s not a temporary imbalance; it’s the new baseline.
And it tells you a lot about the future…
Rates will drift lower over time because the system can’t tolerate high ones for long.
Fiscal fights will get louder because the math gets harder. Growth will be more start and stop, with short bursts followed by long plateaus. And the U.S. economy will depend more on policy support than it did in the past.
This means a different era, one where demographics and debt shape the boundaries of what’s possible, and the old normal doesn’t come back just because we want it to.
That’s the message sitting inside this chart.
America is F'd. Why you ask? In a system premised on perpetual growth in a finite world, somethings got to give (keep in mind the lack of growth...let alone decline...is a recession).
For each colored component, check chart below:
light blue=change per decade, 15 to 64yr/old population.
dark blue=change per decade, 15 to 64yr/old employees
(15 to 64yr/olds have about a 75% LFP rate and are at "full employment" presently...or for every 4 additional 15 to 64yr/olds, there are generally 3 net new employees).
grey=change per decade, 65+yr/old population.
white=change per decade, 65+yr/old employees
(65+yr/olds have about a 20% LFP rate and are at "full employment"...or for every 5 new 65+yr/olds, one net new employee).
Growth of working age has decelerated to very little while growth of elderly still accelerating...both at full employment but resulting employment growth will be pathetic based primarily on growth of elderly.
black=Average Federal Funds interest rate per decade
red=change per decade in marketable federal debt
(as potential growth in working age and working age employee's tanks, Federal Reserve drops interest rates to incentive higher governmental, corporate, and consumer debt to maintain the appearance of growth amid fast decelerating organic demand). Only question is how long the Fed Res and Fed Gov can get decelerating organic growth to keep accelerating synthetic, debt fueled consumption? tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
Retail Momentum Is Narrowing to a Knife’s Edge
This is basically the retail momentum trade splitting apart. A month ago, all these names were moving like one big swarm, high beta stocks feeding off the same flows, the same options activity, the same mood. Then the correlation breaks.
You can see it clearly where Carvana and Reddit shoot off in their own direction, HIMS hangs in there, and the rest like PLTR, OKLO, SMCI start drifting or rolling over. The group stops behaving like a single trade and turns into a handful of individual stories.
That’s what a real divergence looks like. It’s less about fundamentals and more about which names still have enough attention, liquidity, and narrative to keep drawing buyers.
What It’s Actually Signaling
To me, this usually shows up late in a cycle, not early. When a broad momentum basket starts to fracture like this, it means risk appetite is narrowing. There’s still money willing to speculate, but it’s crowding into a couple of the loudest or cleanest setups while everything else gets ignored or sold to fund those runs.
And that’s when the trade gets fragile. When momentum hinges on two or three names instead of the whole basket, it only takes one macro scare or one headline to snap the whole thing back into sync, usually to the downside.
So the message is there’s still juice in the system, but fewer stocks are benefitting from it and that’s a sign the steam is running out. That’s the deeper signal beneath the divergence.
tweet
Retail Momentum Is Narrowing to a Knife’s Edge
This is basically the retail momentum trade splitting apart. A month ago, all these names were moving like one big swarm, high beta stocks feeding off the same flows, the same options activity, the same mood. Then the correlation breaks.
You can see it clearly where Carvana and Reddit shoot off in their own direction, HIMS hangs in there, and the rest like PLTR, OKLO, SMCI start drifting or rolling over. The group stops behaving like a single trade and turns into a handful of individual stories.
That’s what a real divergence looks like. It’s less about fundamentals and more about which names still have enough attention, liquidity, and narrative to keep drawing buyers.
What It’s Actually Signaling
To me, this usually shows up late in a cycle, not early. When a broad momentum basket starts to fracture like this, it means risk appetite is narrowing. There’s still money willing to speculate, but it’s crowding into a couple of the loudest or cleanest setups while everything else gets ignored or sold to fund those runs.
And that’s when the trade gets fragile. When momentum hinges on two or three names instead of the whole basket, it only takes one macro scare or one headline to snap the whole thing back into sync, usually to the downside.
So the message is there’s still juice in the system, but fewer stocks are benefitting from it and that’s a sign the steam is running out. That’s the deeper signal beneath the divergence.
Significant divergence within Goldman's retail momentum basket https://t.co/TSEiTCPAZX tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
$8 Trillion Doesn’t Say Bull Market It Says Brace Yourself
Money market fund assets crossing $8 trillion isn’t a bullish signal. It’s the opposite. It’s people choosing the safest, simplest place they can put their money at a time when the economic picture feels cloudy. And the timing matters. The Fed has already cut rates four times since late 2024, a full percentage point of easing and another cut is coming next week. In a normal cycle, you’d expect lower yields to pull money out of cash. Here, it’s not happening at all. In fact, inflows are still rising. That tells you people aren’t chasing returns. They’re protecting themselves.
How Money Moves When the Economy Turns
There’s always a temptation to look at a big cash pile and think, “When this comes off the sidelines, stocks and crypto will rip.” But that’s not how downturns usually work. When the economy starts to weaken, money doesn’t jump from safety into risk, it moves deeper into the safest places it can find. That was true in 2000. It was true in 2008. It was true in March 2020. The instinct during stress is always the same: get liquid, get safe, wait things out. In those moments, money market funds become the holding pen while everyone waits to see how bad the slowdown really is.
Only after the recession runs its course, after the Fed cuts aggressively, after the job market stabilizes, after credit spreads calm down do investors start creeping back out of cash. And even then, they don’t leap straight into speculation. They move gradually…first into short duration bonds, then into broad equity exposure, then into high quality large caps. The more aggressive stuff only gets attention once confidence is restored.
Where This Likely Goes Next
Given where the economy is right now with slowing data, softer earnings, and growing signs of stress this $8 trillion doesn’t look like fuel for a new risk on wave. It looks like a market that still doesn’t trust the landscape. My read is that money probably stays parked here for a while, maybe even grows if the slowdown deepens. And if the downturn becomes obvious to everyone, the flows won’t head into stocks, they’ll rotate into longer Treasuries and high quality debt as people try to lock in yields and ride the rate cuts.
The cash coming into risk phase doesn’t happen in the middle of a downturn. It happens after the damage is done. And this chart is telling you we’re not there yet.
tweet
$8 Trillion Doesn’t Say Bull Market It Says Brace Yourself
Money market fund assets crossing $8 trillion isn’t a bullish signal. It’s the opposite. It’s people choosing the safest, simplest place they can put their money at a time when the economic picture feels cloudy. And the timing matters. The Fed has already cut rates four times since late 2024, a full percentage point of easing and another cut is coming next week. In a normal cycle, you’d expect lower yields to pull money out of cash. Here, it’s not happening at all. In fact, inflows are still rising. That tells you people aren’t chasing returns. They’re protecting themselves.
How Money Moves When the Economy Turns
There’s always a temptation to look at a big cash pile and think, “When this comes off the sidelines, stocks and crypto will rip.” But that’s not how downturns usually work. When the economy starts to weaken, money doesn’t jump from safety into risk, it moves deeper into the safest places it can find. That was true in 2000. It was true in 2008. It was true in March 2020. The instinct during stress is always the same: get liquid, get safe, wait things out. In those moments, money market funds become the holding pen while everyone waits to see how bad the slowdown really is.
Only after the recession runs its course, after the Fed cuts aggressively, after the job market stabilizes, after credit spreads calm down do investors start creeping back out of cash. And even then, they don’t leap straight into speculation. They move gradually…first into short duration bonds, then into broad equity exposure, then into high quality large caps. The more aggressive stuff only gets attention once confidence is restored.
Where This Likely Goes Next
Given where the economy is right now with slowing data, softer earnings, and growing signs of stress this $8 trillion doesn’t look like fuel for a new risk on wave. It looks like a market that still doesn’t trust the landscape. My read is that money probably stays parked here for a while, maybe even grows if the slowdown deepens. And if the downturn becomes obvious to everyone, the flows won’t head into stocks, they’ll rotate into longer Treasuries and high quality debt as people try to lock in yields and ride the rate cuts.
The cash coming into risk phase doesn’t happen in the middle of a downturn. It happens after the damage is done. And this chart is telling you we’re not there yet.
Assets in money market funds have crossed above $8 trillion for the first time. Inflows have continued despite 150 bps in Fed rate cuts since September 2024 with another 25 bps cut coming next week. https://t.co/KFExCHXWWf tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
The Curve That Explains the Century We’re Walking Into
When you strip away the lines and labels, this old Limits to Growth curve is telling a simple story…a system that grows quickly, pushes past its natural limits, and then loses momentum because the very things that fueled the boom start working against it.
The red population curve climbs through the 20th century, peaks somewhere around mid century, and then starts drifting down. Industrial output rises even faster, peaks earlier, and falls harder. Food follows a similar arc. Pollution rises, peaks, and then collapses, not because we fix it, but because industrial activity itself collapses. Resources trend downward the whole time as the system burns through its easy inputs.
It’s not predicting a Hollywood style apocalypse. It’s showing a world where growth overshoots, the feedback loops hit late, and the correction feels sudden even though it’s been building for decades.
Why Parts of This Feel Uncomfortably Familiar
You don’t have to treat the timing literally to notice how much of the shape fits the world we’re walking into. Demographics are the clearest example. Fertility rates in the developed world aren’t just low, they’re structurally below replacement. Even countries that once powered global population growth are rolling over. The red line bending is no longer theoretical.
The same thing is happening on the resource side. We’re not running out, but we’re running out of the cheap stuff, the easy oil, the easy minerals, the easy farmland. Every new unit of production takes more energy, more capital, and more complexity. Growth hasn’t stopped, but it’s heavier and more brittle than it used to be.
And then there’s the environmental feedback. Whether it’s climate disruptions, biodiversity collapse, or water stress, we’re reaching the point where nature itself is pushing back. Not all at once, but in a steady drip of friction in crop volatility, supply chain shocks, infrastructure breakdowns. These aren’t catastrophic events, but they slow the machine.
My Take on What It’s Pointing Toward
I think the world unravels unevenly, in waves. Some regions weaken fast, others adapt, and the long decline feels more like a slow grinding down of growth, stability, and resilience rather than a single dramatic fall.
But the broad direction feels right. The 20th century’s growth boom was built on young populations, cheap energy, and a forgiving environment. Those tailwinds are now turning into headwinds. The future is a long plateau with more volatility, slower growth, and societies that feel like they’re constantly managing scarcity, scarcity of labor, scarcity of resources, and eventually scarcity of stability.
So when I look at that curve, I see the end of a phase of history where expansion came easy, and the beginning of one where the world has to work a lot harder just to stay in place.
tweet
The Curve That Explains the Century We’re Walking Into
When you strip away the lines and labels, this old Limits to Growth curve is telling a simple story…a system that grows quickly, pushes past its natural limits, and then loses momentum because the very things that fueled the boom start working against it.
The red population curve climbs through the 20th century, peaks somewhere around mid century, and then starts drifting down. Industrial output rises even faster, peaks earlier, and falls harder. Food follows a similar arc. Pollution rises, peaks, and then collapses, not because we fix it, but because industrial activity itself collapses. Resources trend downward the whole time as the system burns through its easy inputs.
It’s not predicting a Hollywood style apocalypse. It’s showing a world where growth overshoots, the feedback loops hit late, and the correction feels sudden even though it’s been building for decades.
Why Parts of This Feel Uncomfortably Familiar
You don’t have to treat the timing literally to notice how much of the shape fits the world we’re walking into. Demographics are the clearest example. Fertility rates in the developed world aren’t just low, they’re structurally below replacement. Even countries that once powered global population growth are rolling over. The red line bending is no longer theoretical.
The same thing is happening on the resource side. We’re not running out, but we’re running out of the cheap stuff, the easy oil, the easy minerals, the easy farmland. Every new unit of production takes more energy, more capital, and more complexity. Growth hasn’t stopped, but it’s heavier and more brittle than it used to be.
And then there’s the environmental feedback. Whether it’s climate disruptions, biodiversity collapse, or water stress, we’re reaching the point where nature itself is pushing back. Not all at once, but in a steady drip of friction in crop volatility, supply chain shocks, infrastructure breakdowns. These aren’t catastrophic events, but they slow the machine.
My Take on What It’s Pointing Toward
I think the world unravels unevenly, in waves. Some regions weaken fast, others adapt, and the long decline feels more like a slow grinding down of growth, stability, and resilience rather than a single dramatic fall.
But the broad direction feels right. The 20th century’s growth boom was built on young populations, cheap energy, and a forgiving environment. Those tailwinds are now turning into headwinds. The future is a long plateau with more volatility, slower growth, and societies that feel like they’re constantly managing scarcity, scarcity of labor, scarcity of resources, and eventually scarcity of stability.
So when I look at that curve, I see the end of a phase of history where expansion came easy, and the beginning of one where the world has to work a lot harder just to stay in place.
Despite shady origins (Rockefeller), Limits to Growth studies remain accurate. Today, limits are being reached by industrial pollution: toxic food, water & air leading to fertility rates well below 2.
Look at Germany, Japan, China, Italy, USA. Even in India, fertility rate is 1.9.
The higher is the industrial production, the less populated is the next generation.
Hence collapse of population and therefore the economies (deflation) is written in stone; it is just imperceptibly slow for now. tweet
Offshore
Photo
Quiver Quantitative
BREAKING: Representative Eli Crane will be signing Rep. Luna's discharge petition to force a vote on a congressional stock trading ban.
Now at 6 signatures. https://t.co/eFNN4OosQq
tweet
BREAKING: Representative Eli Crane will be signing Rep. Luna's discharge petition to force a vote on a congressional stock trading ban.
Now at 6 signatures. https://t.co/eFNN4OosQq
tweet
Offshore
Photo
EndGame Macro
A Financial Head Start… or a Financial Capture?
On the surface, Invest America is pitched as a bipartisan effort to give kids a financial head start with tax advantaged accounts from birth, a $1,000 federal deposit for babies born 2025–2028, and a $6.25B philanthropic boost that seeds 25 million older children with $250. But if you look at it with a skeptical eye, it’s also the creation of a huge new pipeline that pushes families into the financial system from day one. It isn’t just about helping kids build wealth, it’s about expanding the base of long duration savers who will automatically be buying U.S. debt and broad market products for decades.
The federal money isn’t pure generosity. It’s borrowed funds handed out as “savings” that quickly cycle back into regulated portfolios holding Treasuries and index funds. The messaging is opportunity; the structure is system reinforcement. Millions of automatic accounts mean millions of predictable buyers of financial assets, precisely the kind of demand the Treasury and Wall Street want as debt loads rise.
Who This Really Benefits
Children will get something, but the largest beneficiaries are Treasury, asset managers, and policymakers. Treasury gains a long-term investor base that quietly absorbs federal issuance. Asset managers get sticky assets and fee revenue that last for decades. Politicians get to claim they’re helping families build wealth without touching the actual pain points like housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and stagnant real wages.
The philanthropic contribution is almost certainly structured for maximum tax efficiency…donating appreciated assets, avoiding capital gains tax, and securing charitable deductions while also earning goodwill and political access. That’s not cynical; it’s exactly how major philanthropy is designed to work.
The Inflation Reality
Here’s the part that never makes it into the talking points. A $1,000 deposit today does not feel like $1,000 in 18 years. At even 2.5–3% inflation and that’s assuming a benign future, the real value falls to roughly $560–$610. If inflation runs hotter for a few years, the erosion accelerates. Add in fund costs and administrative fees, and the drag grows. The $250 seed for older kids shrinks even faster. Unless families keep contributing meaningful amounts year after year, the real purchasing power of these accounts ends up being modest at best.
The Psychological Hook
The deeper genius of the program is psychological. Once parents see a dedicated account with their child’s name on it, they feel pressure to keep adding to it even when their day to day purchasing power is declining. It nudges households to pour scarce dollars into long duration financial products, rather than using that money now, when it may do more for their actual lives. Inflation makes today’s dollar stronger than tomorrow’s, yet the design encourages families to push more capital into a system that compounds slowly while costs rise quickly. It’s part social policy, part behavioral engineering.
My Read
This program will help families at the margins, but its deeper function is to build a national financial participation architecture that channels citizens’ savings into the markets that keep the U.S. system funded. The philanthropic boost accelerates that build out while allowing donors to reposition wealth tax efficiently. It’s part policy, part financial plumbing, part psychology, and part strategy and all of those layers are working at once. The story is about children. The structure is about securing the system.
tweet
A Financial Head Start… or a Financial Capture?
On the surface, Invest America is pitched as a bipartisan effort to give kids a financial head start with tax advantaged accounts from birth, a $1,000 federal deposit for babies born 2025–2028, and a $6.25B philanthropic boost that seeds 25 million older children with $250. But if you look at it with a skeptical eye, it’s also the creation of a huge new pipeline that pushes families into the financial system from day one. It isn’t just about helping kids build wealth, it’s about expanding the base of long duration savers who will automatically be buying U.S. debt and broad market products for decades.
The federal money isn’t pure generosity. It’s borrowed funds handed out as “savings” that quickly cycle back into regulated portfolios holding Treasuries and index funds. The messaging is opportunity; the structure is system reinforcement. Millions of automatic accounts mean millions of predictable buyers of financial assets, precisely the kind of demand the Treasury and Wall Street want as debt loads rise.
Who This Really Benefits
Children will get something, but the largest beneficiaries are Treasury, asset managers, and policymakers. Treasury gains a long-term investor base that quietly absorbs federal issuance. Asset managers get sticky assets and fee revenue that last for decades. Politicians get to claim they’re helping families build wealth without touching the actual pain points like housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and stagnant real wages.
The philanthropic contribution is almost certainly structured for maximum tax efficiency…donating appreciated assets, avoiding capital gains tax, and securing charitable deductions while also earning goodwill and political access. That’s not cynical; it’s exactly how major philanthropy is designed to work.
The Inflation Reality
Here’s the part that never makes it into the talking points. A $1,000 deposit today does not feel like $1,000 in 18 years. At even 2.5–3% inflation and that’s assuming a benign future, the real value falls to roughly $560–$610. If inflation runs hotter for a few years, the erosion accelerates. Add in fund costs and administrative fees, and the drag grows. The $250 seed for older kids shrinks even faster. Unless families keep contributing meaningful amounts year after year, the real purchasing power of these accounts ends up being modest at best.
The Psychological Hook
The deeper genius of the program is psychological. Once parents see a dedicated account with their child’s name on it, they feel pressure to keep adding to it even when their day to day purchasing power is declining. It nudges households to pour scarce dollars into long duration financial products, rather than using that money now, when it may do more for their actual lives. Inflation makes today’s dollar stronger than tomorrow’s, yet the design encourages families to push more capital into a system that compounds slowly while costs rise quickly. It’s part social policy, part behavioral engineering.
My Read
This program will help families at the margins, but its deeper function is to build a national financial participation architecture that channels citizens’ savings into the markets that keep the U.S. system funded. The philanthropic boost accelerates that build out while allowing donors to reposition wealth tax efficiently. It’s part policy, part financial plumbing, part psychology, and part strategy and all of those layers are working at once. The story is about children. The structure is about securing the system.
Politicians wanted to give kids a $1,000 kick-start on investing. The way Congress did it is complicated.
Here are the details of these IRAs for youngsters: https://t.co/DBrPypNcWS https://t.co/66qzBbDTam tweet
Offshore
Video
EndGame Macro
A Financial Head Start… or a Financial Capture?
On the surface, Invest America is pitched as a bipartisan effort to give kids a financial head start with tax advantaged accounts from birth, a $1,000 federal deposit for babies born 2025–2028, and a $6.25B philanthropic boost that seeds 25 million older children with $250. But if you look at it with a skeptical eye, it’s also the creation of a huge new pipeline that pushes families into the financial system from day one. It isn’t just about helping kids build wealth, it’s about expanding the base of long duration savers who will automatically be buying U.S. debt and broad market products for decades.
The federal money isn’t pure generosity. It’s borrowed funds handed out as “savings” that quickly cycle back into regulated portfolios holding Treasuries and index funds. The messaging is opportunity; the structure is system reinforcement. Millions of automatic accounts mean millions of predictable buyers of financial assets, precisely the kind of demand the Treasury and Wall Street want as debt loads rise.
Who This Really Benefits
Children will get something, but the largest beneficiaries are Treasury, asset managers, and policymakers. Treasury gains a long term investor base that quietly absorbs federal issuance. Asset managers get sticky assets and fee revenue that last for decades. Politicians get to claim they’re helping families build wealth without touching the actual pain points like housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and stagnant real wages.
The philanthropic contribution is almost certainly structured for maximum tax efficiency…donating appreciated assets, avoiding capital gains tax, and securing charitable deductions while also earning goodwill and political access. That’s not cynical; it’s exactly how major philanthropy is designed to work.
The Inflation Reality
Here’s the part that never makes it into the talking points. A $1,000 deposit today does not feel like $1,000 in 18 years. At even 2.5–3% inflation and that’s assuming a benign future, the real value falls to roughly $560–$610. If inflation runs hotter for a few years, the erosion accelerates. Add in fund costs and administrative fees, and the drag grows. The $250 seed for older kids shrinks even faster. Unless families keep contributing meaningful amounts year after year, the real purchasing power of these accounts ends up being modest at best.
The Psychological Hook
The deeper genius of the program is psychological. Once parents see a dedicated account with their child’s name on it, they feel pressure to keep adding to it even when their day to day purchasing power is declining. It nudges households to pour scarce dollars into long duration financial products, rather than using that money now, when it may do more for their actual lives. Inflation makes today’s dollar stronger than tomorrow’s, yet the design encourages families to push more capital into a system that compounds slowly while costs rise quickly. It’s part social policy, part behavioral engineering.
My Read
This program will help families at the margins, but its deeper function is to build a national financial participation architecture that channels citizens’ savings into the markets that keep the U.S. system funded. The philanthropic boost accelerates that build out while allowing donors to reposition wealth tax efficiently. It’s part policy, part financial plumbing, part psychology, and part strategy and all of those layers are working at once. The story is about children. The structure is about securing the system.
BREAKING: Michael and Susan Dell are donating $6.25 billion to fund "Trump Accounts" for 25 million US kids.
The commitment comes with a new federal government program which allows parents to open tax-advantaged investment accounts for children under 18.
Under the federal program, US citizens born from the beginning of 2025 through 2028 will receive a federal grant of $1,000 to their “Trump Accounts.”
Th[...]
A Financial Head Start… or a Financial Capture?
On the surface, Invest America is pitched as a bipartisan effort to give kids a financial head start with tax advantaged accounts from birth, a $1,000 federal deposit for babies born 2025–2028, and a $6.25B philanthropic boost that seeds 25 million older children with $250. But if you look at it with a skeptical eye, it’s also the creation of a huge new pipeline that pushes families into the financial system from day one. It isn’t just about helping kids build wealth, it’s about expanding the base of long duration savers who will automatically be buying U.S. debt and broad market products for decades.
The federal money isn’t pure generosity. It’s borrowed funds handed out as “savings” that quickly cycle back into regulated portfolios holding Treasuries and index funds. The messaging is opportunity; the structure is system reinforcement. Millions of automatic accounts mean millions of predictable buyers of financial assets, precisely the kind of demand the Treasury and Wall Street want as debt loads rise.
Who This Really Benefits
Children will get something, but the largest beneficiaries are Treasury, asset managers, and policymakers. Treasury gains a long term investor base that quietly absorbs federal issuance. Asset managers get sticky assets and fee revenue that last for decades. Politicians get to claim they’re helping families build wealth without touching the actual pain points like housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and stagnant real wages.
The philanthropic contribution is almost certainly structured for maximum tax efficiency…donating appreciated assets, avoiding capital gains tax, and securing charitable deductions while also earning goodwill and political access. That’s not cynical; it’s exactly how major philanthropy is designed to work.
The Inflation Reality
Here’s the part that never makes it into the talking points. A $1,000 deposit today does not feel like $1,000 in 18 years. At even 2.5–3% inflation and that’s assuming a benign future, the real value falls to roughly $560–$610. If inflation runs hotter for a few years, the erosion accelerates. Add in fund costs and administrative fees, and the drag grows. The $250 seed for older kids shrinks even faster. Unless families keep contributing meaningful amounts year after year, the real purchasing power of these accounts ends up being modest at best.
The Psychological Hook
The deeper genius of the program is psychological. Once parents see a dedicated account with their child’s name on it, they feel pressure to keep adding to it even when their day to day purchasing power is declining. It nudges households to pour scarce dollars into long duration financial products, rather than using that money now, when it may do more for their actual lives. Inflation makes today’s dollar stronger than tomorrow’s, yet the design encourages families to push more capital into a system that compounds slowly while costs rise quickly. It’s part social policy, part behavioral engineering.
My Read
This program will help families at the margins, but its deeper function is to build a national financial participation architecture that channels citizens’ savings into the markets that keep the U.S. system funded. The philanthropic boost accelerates that build out while allowing donors to reposition wealth tax efficiently. It’s part policy, part financial plumbing, part psychology, and part strategy and all of those layers are working at once. The story is about children. The structure is about securing the system.
BREAKING: Michael and Susan Dell are donating $6.25 billion to fund "Trump Accounts" for 25 million US kids.
The commitment comes with a new federal government program which allows parents to open tax-advantaged investment accounts for children under 18.
Under the federal program, US citizens born from the beginning of 2025 through 2028 will receive a federal grant of $1,000 to their “Trump Accounts.”
Th[...]
Offshore
EndGame Macro A Financial Head Start… or a Financial Capture? On the surface, Invest America is pitched as a bipartisan effort to give kids a financial head start with tax advantaged accounts from birth, a $1,000 federal deposit for babies born 2025–2028…
e Dells have committed to fund these accounts with $250 for children who are 10 or under.
The pledged funds will cover 25 million children age 10 and under in ZIP codes with a median income of $150,000 or less. - The Kobeissi Letter tweet
The pledged funds will cover 25 million children age 10 and under in ZIP codes with a median income of $150,000 or less. - The Kobeissi Letter tweet
Offshore
Photo
memenodes
Me in 1999 wasting time instead of making generational wealth by investing in Nvidia https://t.co/9K5TnCsdzZ
tweet
Me in 1999 wasting time instead of making generational wealth by investing in Nvidia https://t.co/9K5TnCsdzZ
tweet