America’s Drift Toward Autocracy Not Yet Priced Into Stock Markets

The rate at which Trump and his fascist thugs are installing an autocratic regime in the United States is breathtaking. Federal forces are deployed in cities with the instruction to use ‘maximum force’ against Americans, every institution that is not MAGA is attacked, and brown people are kidnapped off the streets by gestapo ICE agents by the hundreds. Every American who values democracy knows this is the fight of their lives.

The economic fallout of Trump’s policies is already visible. Tourism is struggling. Farmers are hurting. Ordinary people are seeing their spending power decline. Yet the stock market has held up surprisingly well since Trump took office. Certain sectors, especially tech, have enjoyed gains, even as volatility has spiked due to trade wars, tariffs, inflation risks, and global uncertainty.

Everyone understands America is facing serious long-term risks. Markets, however, are biased toward the short term: they price in near-term, quantifiable changes like tax or regulatory shifts. Longer-term and systemic risks – climate change, for example – are notoriously underpriced because they are difficult to time or quantify.

Authoritarianism, like climate change, unfolds gradually. Its costs are diffuse, slow to appear, and thus rarely priced in until too late. America’s drift toward authoritarianism under Trump is almost certainly underestimated by investors. Over time, it will be bad for U.S. companies and markets:

● Investors demand higher returns for exposure to countries where the rule of law is undermined.

● Arbitrary executive actions (e.g., against companies critical of the regime) would raise uncertainty and financing costs.

● Independent courts, regulators, and agencies provide predictability and contract enforcement. Authoritarian consolidation erodes these safeguards.

● Without reliable institutions, companies face a higher risk of politicized regulations, favoritism, or selective enforcement.

● Global capital depends on confidence in U.S. democratic stability. Authoritarian drift could lead to capital outflows, reduced foreign direct investment, and a weaker dollar as investors seek safer jurisdictions.

● Authoritarian systems often mean policy changes on a whim, benefiting allies and punishing opponents. That increases volatility, discourages long-term business planning, and incentivizes short-termism over innovation.

● U.S. authoritarianism could strain alliances (this is already happening), trigger retaliatory trade policies, and weaken American leadership in global standard-setting.

● U.S. competitiveness relies on being a magnet for global talent. An authoritarian shift could reduce immigration, drive skilled workers abroad (this is already happening), and create a climate of fear and censorship that stifles innovation and entrepreneurship.

● Institutional investors and consumers worldwide are increasingly guided by environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. A U.S. move toward authoritarianism would damage its ESG profile, pushing pension funds and global asset managers to divest.

Historical Comparisons
Other countries that consolidated authoritarian rule show a clear pattern: markets initially underprice the risk, only to suffer later when the costs become undeniable.

Russia (Putin):
In the early 2000s, Russia was attractive to foreign investors. But once Putin consolidated power, arbitrary interventions like the Yukos oil seizure scared off capital. Valuations remained permanently discounted due to ‘Kremlin risk’. By 2022, geopolitical aggression fueled by authoritarian control triggered massive capital flight, sanctions, and an investment collapse.

Turkey (Erdogan):
Turkey was once an emerging-market success story. As Erdogan weakened central bank independence and concentrated power, the lira collapsed, inflation soared (up to 84%), and foreign direct investment dried up. Unpredictable regulations, cronyism, and politicized courts continue to suppress growth.

Hungary (Orban):
Orban’s erosion of rule of law and press freedom led investors to see Hungary as politically risky compared to peers like Poland or the Czech Republic. Reliance on EU subsidies deepened as private capital inflows shrank.

Venezuela (Chávez/Maduro):
An extreme case. Venezuela was once South America’s wealthiest nation. But authoritarian populism led to expropriations, collapse of the private sector, and irreversible capital flight. Markets underestimated the risks until it was too late.

Will Trump’s attempt succeed?
The jury’s still out on this one. Crucial will be the mid-term elections from next year where democrats can win back dominance in the House of Representatives and part of congress. I am personally very pessimistic about this. Trump will not allow the democrats to win and rig the election any way he can. I have a hard time seeing any other scenario than violent revolution to turn this nightmare around and undo the untold damage Trump is causing.

An Open Letter to Bob Iger (and Other CEO’s)

Before Donald Trump was elected president, it was predicted that he would go full dictator the second time around. In his first term, he tested the waters and experienced the barriers of executive power. In the four years out of office, he figured out how he could change the game should he get in office again – helped by the Heritage Foundation, who drafted the diabolical Project 2025, an elaborate scheme to turn America into a conservative, Christian white nationalist hellhole.

So what the Trump regime is doing now is no surprise: he is implementing the authoritarian playbook step by step.

A little more surprising to me last year was how many business leaders in the US supported Trump. I thought: really? A convicted felon, con artist, and rapist with no morals whatsoever? I guess I was still pretty naive and did not realize yet that out-of-control capitalism in the United States is really in the terminal, self-destructive phase in which unlimited greed will bring down the entire system. I was naive because I thought that at least some leaders could also be a force for good and bring positive societal change.

These leaders – if they even existed – have now completely vanished. They supported Trump because they thought he would be good for business (boy, were they wrong). The level of greed is beyond appalling.

Just as appalling is the lack of push-back since Trump started his grand demolition of the former Land of the Free. I cannot name a single CEO who took a stance against Trump from a moral or even a business standpoint. Most CEOs, like Tim Cook of Apple, have sucked up to him and capitulated in advance. The disgusting tech billionaires have declared themselves morally bankrupt and decided to join the autocracy from Day 1.

The latest example of this cowardice and reprehensible behavior is Bob Iger’s (CEO of Disney) capitulation to Trump. And this is one of the most damaging instances for the nation yet. ABC, a subsidiary of Disney Entertainment, canceled the show of comedian Jimmy Kimmel. They did this after Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Trump sycophant, threatened to pull ABC’s license after Kimmel made remarks about Charlie Kirk’s killer’s political leanings (“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” ) and cracked a joke about Donald Trump’s ultra short grieving process.

The canceling of a comedian on orders of the regime is really the final nail in the coffin of America’s democracy. And one man is responsible for this atrocity. I am talking about you, Bob Iger.

Iger had a good reputation, but now – with one fell swoop – he has torched it. He will go down in history as a gigantic coward who gave up to the fascists and didn’t even try to stand up to them.

And he didn’t even have to comply. The FCC doesn’t even have the power to revoke ABC’s license over their content. And besides, Kimmel hadn’t even said anything that was over the line. Compare his remarks to Fox Media Host Brian Kilmeade, who in the same week said that homeless people in the United States should get a lethal injection. A remark that has probably led to the shooting at a homeless shelter soon after. But this guy works for Fox News, which is already in Trump’s pocket, so he can get away with anything.

Bob Iger presumably did it because he wants to make deals (mergers and acquisitions), and he needs the FCC’s approval for that. So it was a cold and calculated business decision, as though morals, rules, and common decency don’t count anymore.

The irony is that Disney is the company that delivers America’s democracy this deathblow. Disney, with its classic movies about good versus evil. Disney, which was a stern advocate for inclusion and diversity. Now we know what these values really mean to them: jack shit.

Earlier this year, Disney released the second and final season of the Star Wars show Andor, the ultimate series about how to stand up to tyranny. The answer is that it takes thousands of actions by thousands of different heroes to defeat an authoritarian regime. Did you even watch that show, Bob? Then you might have picked up lines like: “The Empire cannot win. You will never be right unless you’re doing what you can to stop them.”

I think Iger, and these other gutless business leaders, made the wrong decision. For several reasons. First of all, you should never ever capitulate to a fascist leader unless perhaps your family is at risk. Otherwise, it is even better to be thrown in jail than to capitulate. Because when you do that, you’re corrupting your soul and enabling evil by which you make life more difficult for millions of people.

Secondly, if your bottom line is all you care about, this will suffer as well. Not only is Disney getting boycotted, but also Trump is wrecking the US economy. You might think authoritarianism is good for business, but only look at Vladimir Putin’s Russia to see that this is not the case. All right, the oligarchs might do okay for a while, but when things go south, they tend to start flying out of windows fast.

Thirdly, you may think that Trump is for sale, and sometimes he is, but as soon as you meet the demands of a bully he will always come back for more. With Trump, we have seen this countless times. Eventually, he will take you for everything you’ve got.

In other words, you fucked it up, Iger. Why don’t you grow a pair and go on television and tell Brendan Carr to go fuck himself and that Disney supports freedom and will resist authoritarianism in every type, shape, or form? The people will love you for it, and your bottom line will grow. Yes, you will probably lose your job, but at least you will be remembered as somebody who used his prominent position to stand up to the fascists.

Same goes for all the other CEOs out there… Shame on you for remaining silent in this time of crisis.

To conclude, I’d like to share this hilarious video my countryman Lubach made about Disney’s pathetic capitulation:

Double Bill #14: Yesterday & Nowhere Boy

For the ultimate Beatles movie experience, we’ll have to Wait until 2028, when Sam Mendes is set to release a series of four biopics – one for each Beatle. This promises to be a magnificent, once-in-a-lifetime cinematic event. Until then, there are already some great films out there that celebrate the legacy of the Greatest Band Ever. A perfect place to start is with this Double Bill, featuring two films inspired by Beatles’ songs – one named after a John Lennon track and the other after a Paul McCartney classic. Once you’ve enjoyed these two movies, Across the Universe (2007) is another highly recommended Beatles-inspired film. For a deeper dive into their early days, Backbeat (1994) dramatizes the band’s formative years in Hamburg. But back to this Double Bill: Nowhere Boy (2009) explores John Lennon’s troubled childhood. Raised by his strict aunt Mimi after his parents couldn’t – or wouldn’t – take care of him, the film delves into his complex relationship with his biological mother Julia, beautifully played by Anne-Marie Duff, alongside Kristin Scott Thomas as Mimi. It also highlights the origins of The Quarrymen, the band that would eventually evolve into the Beatles, and Lennon’s legendary first meeting with Paul McCartney. Aaron Johnson shines as the young Lennon, perfectly capturing his wit, imagination, and artistic genius. Having read Lennon’s biography, I feel this film authentically portrays his early life and character. Mendes’ upcoming film will likely draw inspiration from Nowhere Boy, especially in its portrayal of touching moments from the band’s early days, such as their first gigs and the tragic loss of John’s mother, Julia. Yesterday (2019) takes a more fantastical approach, blending comedy and romance with a unique premise: what if the world forgot the Beatles, except for one profoundly unsuccessful singer-songwriter called Jack Malik? Malik suddenly finds himself performing these forgotten classics and skyrocketing to fame. The film delivers plenty of laughs, with witty lines like “The White Album has some diversity issues” and “A Hard Day’s Night – what does that even mean?” But it also offers deeper, more poignant moments, including a memorable scene where Jack competes in a songwriting duel with Ed Sheeran. Perhaps the film’s most touching sequence is Jack’s encounter with John Lennon, who, in this alternate reality, never became a Beatle but instead lives quietly as a fisherman, much like his father once did. It’s a beautifully imagined moment, one that makes the film much more than just a fun, nostalgic ride. Ultimately, both Nowhere Boy and Yesterday share a common message: All you need is love… and The Beatles.

John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs

‘Ticket to Ride’ glints with meanings; you can walk around it forever and see different shafts of light bounding off its surfaces. It’s about a break-up, viewed through a haze of pot smoke. It’s about a generational shift in the balance of power between men and women. It’s about a shift in the balance of power between John and Paul, as John comes to suspect that Paul doesn’t rely on him quite as much as he relies on Paul.’

This new book by British author Ian Leslie tells the story of John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s intimate relationship. Starting with their first meeting at the Woolton Village Fête and ending with Paul’s response to John’s death in 1980. It tells the story by way of the richest primary source of all: the songs they wrote together. Each chapter is anchored in a song that tells us something about the state of their relationship at that time. The main point is that even after the Beatles broke up, John and Paul were inseparable. They merged their souls and multiplied their talents to create the greatest bodies of music in history.

This is also a love story. John and Paul were more than just friends or collaborators in the sense that we normally understand these terms. Their friendship was in a sense a romance, full of longing and passion, riven by jealousy.

The biographical stories told aren’t new – although I certainly learnt new things – but Leslie’s approach still feels fresh. The psychology behind the stories is what sets it apart. Every anecdotal story is approached by how things must have felt and been experienced by John and Paul. It delves into their state of mind at the time certain songs were written.

The first song Leslie discusses is ‘Come Go With Me’, which John performed with the Quarrymen at the Woolton Village Fête. His improvised lyrics impressed Paul, who realized they might connect through a shared passion for music and songwriting. It moves on with their first songs: ‘I Lost My Little Girl’ by Paul and ‘Hello Little Girl’ by John. This was right away the first instance in which the two were borrowing and building on each other’s ideas.

They began writing songs together, something nobody was doing at that time except the Great Ones from America. The two trusted each other enough to let the other hear their unfinished work, and the more they shared the closer they became.

They bonded even more deeply over the loss of their mothers—Paul at 14, John at 17. Paul: “Each of us knew that had happened to the other. At that age you’re not allowed to be devastated and particularly as young boys, teenage boys, you just shrug it off.” It shattered them he later said, but they had to hide how broken they felt. “I’m sure I formed shells and barriers in that period that I’ve got to this day. John certainly did.”

Shells and barriers are defensive fortifications, but for John and Paul this shared trauma also blasted open an underground tunnel through which they were able to communicate in secret from the rest of the world, and even from themselves. In music they could say what they felt without having to say it at all. In 2016, McCartney told Rolling Stone Magazine: “Music is like a psychiatrist. You can tell a guitar things that you can’t tell people. And it will answer you with things people can’t tell you.”

The story goes on with their rise in Hamburg and then in Liverpool. Those who knew the pair marveled at how close they were. Bernie Boyle, a Cavern regular who did some work for the Beatles as a roadie, observed their eerie mental connection: “They were so tight, it was like there was a telepathy between them: on stage, they’d look at each other and know instinctively what the other was thinking.”

People were drawn to them, but were also wary of them, for both were capable of shriveling outsiders with wit. Together they had an aura of unbreachable assurance. This was partly the arrogance of the damaged. The well known trauma psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk observes: “After trauma the world becomes sharply divided between those who know and those who don’t.”

In their early years, McCartney brought in ballads to their performances like ‘Till There Was You’. John felt discomfort during those moments, but he realized that these songs contributed to the band’s more varied approach than just rock ‘n roll. Besides, John – despite his tough image – secretly also loved the genres that they both got familiar with in their childhood, like folk, music hall, jazz and show-tunes.

It was the song ‘Please Please Me’ that really got the Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership going. At that point, it became a second revenue stream within the band just for the two of them. ‘Please Please Me’ was their first number one hit and was the final move towards the Lennon-McCartney songwriting explosion that would soon be unleashed.

The book goes on to describe many of the songs that followed, focusing on how John and Paul conceived them, delivered them, and why their combination of voices and sensibilities made the music so enduring. Leslie also teases out the hidden meanings some songs carried for each of them; messages they sometimes couldn’t say directly.

There were also differences in their approach to songwriting. John’s song ideas were often used as a creative platform to which the others could bring their brilliant contributions. Paul – the most accomplished musician and instrumental allrounder – tended to bring more fully fledged songs to the band with clear ideas of what he wanted.

In the first five albums, John was mostly the song originator of the band. Paul’s ‘Yesterday’ was an important moment in their relationship, argues Leslie. John always felt uncertain about it, perhaps because it showed that Paul was such a brilliant songwriter in his own right and that he could do without John. After the break-up, John wrote ‘Imagine’ and according to a collaborator at that time, John felt he had finally written a melody as good as ‘Yesterday’.

After the creative highlight that was ‘Sgt. Pepper’s’, the disintegration of the band started in John’s mind. During their time in India, John was depressed as evident by songs such as ‘I’m So Tired’ and ‘Yer Blues’. The Beatles had been his closest connection and had pulled him through the most difficult of times. Now, it was time to start anew.

Leslie covers the break-up and post-break-up years in great detail, showing how the songs of that period reflect what was going on in their minds. For example, John’s ‘Look At Me’ – which was written in India – is about John’s sense of identity hanging on by being seen by Paul, his creative partner. And if he is not being seen by Paul, who is he supposed to be?

After the break-up, their connection always remained strong and they always kept communicating through music. There were the famous songs at which they were having digs at each other (‘Too Many People’ and ‘How Do You Sleep?’). There was also the instance of John’s final live performance at a concert by Elton John. He chose three songs to perform and one of them was ‘I Saw Her Standing There’. Why did he choose this Paul-song? Because he was scared and needed to summon Paul to get him though, Leslie argues.

The book ends with John’s murder and Paul’s heartbreaking response. The bond was severed forever, yet Paul found a way to keep speaking to John – as always through music. His song ‘Here Today’ is a conversation with the friend, rival, and partner he could never replace.