← pool

🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up

The foreign-policy establishment, the media and the retiring-general-to-defense-board pipeline are all paid to escalate, so there is no constituency for de-escalation: Ukraine widens rather than settles and the China/Taiwan track is queued up behind it. Friedberg's receipt is a private dinner where every military leader on stage talked only about the next rung of the escalation ladder and nobody raised resolution; Chamath's is Lloyd Austin coming off the Northrop Grumman board; Sacks' is Eisenhower's 1961 farewell warning. Defense budgets and defense-contractor earnings ratchet higher regardless of battlefield facts.

0 CONVICTION
peaked 80.1 GREEN
WATCH
band · contested
▲ LONG ITA
expression · bullish politics-market
HALF
result · return +8.2% · vs SPY -15.0%
2024-02-11
born 2023-02-11 (E115) → window closed

⚖ Why this result

fully deterministic — computed from daily closes on the scoring date; nothing below is editable or hand-set

  1. Window: 2023-02-11 → 2024-02-11 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
  2. The call: ▲ LONG ITA (primary play). ITA rose 8.2% over the window → return (sign flipped for a SHORT) = +8.2% (the call made money).
  3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +23.2% → vs SPY = +8.2 − (+23.2) = -15.0% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the result uses.
  4. Rule fired:
    · RIGHT — return ≥ +10% AND beat SPY by 5+
    ▶ HALF — return ≥ +5% OR beat SPY at all
    · WRONG — everything else
  5. Credit: supporters of a HALF earn 0.5 each, opposers the opposite — this feeds the scoreboard. supported: Chamath, Friedberg, Sacks | opposed: Brad Gerstner, Jason | proxy-sensitive: LMT→MISS (-9.1%); NOC→MISS (-0.4%)

Conviction timeline

bands: green ≥ 65 · watch ≥ 45 · ember ≥ 15

Plays vs SPY · % since first mention (2023-02-11)

Plays

expressionsymbolkindrelevancerationale
▲ LONG ITAetf PRIMARY US aerospace & defense basket — the clean expression of a ratcheting defense budget
▲ LONG LMTstock adjacent prime contractor levered to Ukraine munitions replenishment and Pacific posture
▲ LONG NOCstock adjacent Chamath names Northrop Grumman as the revolving-door destination for the generals pushing escalation

Mention log newest first

Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E164 (2024-02-02) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 1:16:49 SUPPORT
“And when it does happen, you get this lunatic fringe who unfortunately are some of the leaders of the Republican Party calling for a larger war against Iran.”
Jason
Jason politics-market 49% · n=61 · E163 (2024-01-26) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 1:03:37 OPPOSE
“The majority of people don't want to be involved in foreign wars. That's across both parties.”
Jason
Jason politics-market 49% · n=61 · E161 (2024-01-13) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 12:48 OPPOSE
“I can't imagine anybody would want to do more military action at this point in time when the American public is exhausted from it.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E161 (2024-01-13) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 11:43 SUPPORT
“The problem is that with every war, the mainstream media starts propagandizing for the wars, and they'll basically demonize whoever it is that we're going to go to war with and explaining why they're a huge threat. They'll engage in threat inflation, and so the American people end up supporting it.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market 42% · n=74 · E152 (2023-11-03) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 16:39 SUPPORT
“I've shared my point of view for a couple of years now. I think the US is in a, call it subconscious conflict escalatory state that would continue to drive us into these sorts of conflict”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E152 (2023-11-03) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 15:06 SUPPORT
“Will policymakers in Washington change their tune or change their perspective on this? Probably not, the uniparty of both Republicans and Democrats are still seems to be a majority who want to fund another 61 billion for Ukraine.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E151 (2023-10-27) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 25:49 SUPPORT
“our industrial capacity is so hollowed out that it's going to take us five plus years to replace our stockpiles of artillery ammunition, of javelins, of stingers”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market 42% · n=74 · E151 (2023-10-27) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 22:02 SUPPORT
“there's significant material and industrial production shortages, not just in the US, but around the world, to support rising conventional wars that seem to be scaling all over”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E149 (2023-10-13) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 50:13 SUPPORT
“That artillery stockpile was basically taken and given to Ukraine. Remember, we ran out of the key type of ammunition in the Ukraine War, which is 155-millimeter artillery shells. That's why we gave them cluster bombs. The US is already dangerously low on ammunition, and that's before we get potentially another war or another front in this larger global conflagration that's happening.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E148 (2023-10-07) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 16:28 OPPOSE
“And I think there is growing opposition to a blank check as long as it takes policy towards Ukraine. We've already appropriated over 100 billion. What's the return on investment of that? The counteroffensive failed.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E147 (2023-09-29) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 58:22 SUPPORT
“From 2015 to 2021, we could have gone along with efforts under the Minsk Accords to resolve this conflict in the Donbass peacefully, but we never did that. We never gave it any support.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E146 (2023-09-22) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 9:07 SUPPORT
“both Republicans and Democrats want more military spending. I don't hear anybody really argue for cutting military spending ... but the Democrats are completely on board with war now”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E144 (2023-09-01) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 19:16 OPPOSE
“And the people who are attacking him now are all these neocons. It's basically the whole military industrial complex. It's all the bought and paid for politicians and think tanks who want America to be in these forever wars. So I think he's being attacked by the right people, and that's going to help him.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E143 (2023-08-25) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 1:22:11 SUPPORT
“It's a combination of being trapped in legacy thinking where we have to be the policemen of the world combined with all the big donors in the party, many of whom are wrapped up with the military industrial complex, want to contribute to that.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E137 (2023-07-14) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 1:16:25 SUPPORT
“Now, you know who it's an asset for is the military industrial complex, because all these countries, when they join NATO, agree to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market 42% · n=74 · E137 (2023-07-14) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 1:15:24 SUPPORT
“it's obviously going to require a significant influx of capital by some estimates up to $2 trillion to increase the security capacity of NATO”
Jason
Jason politics-market 49% · n=61 · E137 (2023-07-14) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 1:09:53 SUPPORT
“I do think that the solution is 10 more Palmer Luckeys. I mean, I think the Silicon Valley's anti-supporting the military is a crazy position that needs to change and we should make more weapons and have VC-backed companies making weapon systems”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E135 (2023-07-01) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 20:00 SUPPORT · horizon 3mo
“And I think you could see now over the next few months a full mobilization in Russia.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market 51% · n=95 · E134 (2023-06-24) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 44:55 SUPPORT
“we have created a very dangerous revolving door between our most critical institutions and the largest industrial companies in the United States. And that revolving door creates all kinds of conflicts of interest. And those things get sorted out via revenue and dollars and profits.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E134 (2023-06-24) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 28:49 SUPPORT
“So we are out of 155-millimeter artillery shells. We cannot produce enough. This is the crazy thing. We spent $800 billion a year plus on the Pentagon and our national defense. We're out of ammo. I mean, we must be getting so royally ripped off by the military industrial complex.”
Brad Gerstner
Brad Gerstner (regular guest ×1.0) politics-market 43% · n=7 · E134 (2023-06-24) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 26:01 OPPOSE
“And I've yet to meet a single parent who said to me, I care so much about this Ukraine situation, I would be willing to put my children in harm's way to fight for the defense of Europe. Okay, so those data points tell me at a very minimum, we need more of this discussion, more of this debate, not less.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market 51% · n=95 · E131 (2023-06-02) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 11:59 SUPPORT
“I don't think it's contained. It's escalating. And as of yesterday, there seems to be some conflagration between Kosovo and Serbia. That's kicking up. So all of a sudden, we're talking about a totally different European land war.”
Jason
Jason politics-market 49% · n=61 · E131 (2023-06-02) · sentiment · strength 1 ▶ 11:53 OPPOSE
“That war seems to be contained. I'll be more worried about the relationship with China.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E131 (2023-06-02) · sentiment · strength 1 ▶ 11:46 SUPPORT
“Especially if the Ukraine war is still going on because we're that close to being in a direct shooting war with Russia, which could lead to a nuclear war.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market 51% · n=95 · E130 (2023-05-26) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 57:22 OPPOSE
“This is Biden's signature legislation is creating energy independence for America, which will have an enormous peace dividend. You will not fight these stupid endless wars.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E130 (2023-05-26) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 36:09 SUPPORT
“But the reason that broke, quite frankly, is because the lobbying power of the military industrial complex is so great in both the Republican and Democratic parties that they basically wanted the sequester over to keep raising the defense budget.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market 51% · n=95 · E115 (2023-02-11) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 26:10 SUPPORT
“And so, of course, these generals have to push for war because as long as they're girding for war, they're guaranteed to have for them a very lucrative job once they leave the military.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market 42% · n=74 · E115 (2023-02-11) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 25:17 SUPPORT
“With every single one of them, it was all about like my orientation for getting bigger, going deeper, going harder, going stronger, making this thing bigger.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market 48% · n=87 · E115 (2023-02-11) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 24:34 SUPPORT
“I think there are a lot of interests who benefit from war and I think the foreign policy establishment is funded by those interests and it's kind of wired for war”
Jason
Jason politics-market 49% · n=61 · E115 (2023-02-11) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 23:48 SUPPORT
“You're talking about the military-industrial complex is going to benefit massively from this. The longer this drags out, the more the conflict in Taiwan heats up, the more we're going to invest in our military.”

Who built this conviction

each voice's total push on the score, in conviction points across every mention — supports and opposes · share = % of all mention-driven movement

Sacks
Sacks 48%
16 scoring events · 45% of moves
+101.6 / -26.4 → net +75.2
Friedberg
Friedberg 42%
4 scoring events · 20% of moves
+56.7 → net +56.7
Jason
Jason 49%
5 scoring events · 18% of moves
+19.2 / -33.6 → net -14.4
Chamath
Chamath 51%
4 scoring events · 13% of moves
+25.4 / -12.0 → net +13.4
Brad Gerstner
Brad Gerstner 43% regular guest ×1.0
1 scoring event · 4% of moves
+0.0 / -12.0 → net -12.0

⏳ decay drained -67.7 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one

Score events

episodekindΔafternote
E115 2023-02-11 init +42.0 42.0 E115 born by Friedberg (explicit_prediction x3)
E115 2023-02-11 reinforce +13.1 55.0 E115 Jason support x2 (new voice)
E115 2023-02-11 reinforce +10.1 65.2 E115 Sacks support x2 (new voice)
E115 2023-02-11 reinforce +7.8 73.0 E115 Chamath support x2 (new voice)
E116 2023-02-17 decay -2.9 70.1 E116 silent
E118 2023-03-03 decay -2.8 67.3 E118 silent
E119 2023-03-11 decay -2.7 64.6 E119 silent
E120 2023-03-17 decay -2.6 62.0 E120 silent
E121 2023-03-24 decay -2.5 59.5 E121 silent
E122 2023-03-31 decay -2.4 57.1 E122 silent
E123 2023-04-07 decay -2.3 54.9 E123 silent
E124 2023-04-14 decay -2.2 52.7 E124 silent
E125 2023-04-21 decay -2.1 50.6 E125 silent
E126 2023-04-28 decay -2.0 48.5 E126 silent
E128 2023-05-12 decay -1.9 46.6 E128 silent
E129 2023-05-19 decay -1.9 44.7 E129 silent
E130 2023-05-26 reinforce +8.3 53.0 E130 Sacks support x2
E130 2023-05-26 oppose -12.0 41.0 E130 Chamath opposes x2
E131 2023-06-02 reinforce +7.1 48.1 E131 Sacks support x1
E131 2023-06-02 oppose -9.6 38.5 E131 Jason opposes x1
E131 2023-06-02 reinforce +9.2 47.7 E131 Chamath support x2 (flipped from oppose)
E132 2023-06-10 decay -1.9 45.8 E132 silent
E133 2023-06-16 decay -1.8 44.0 E133 silent
E134 2023-06-24 oppose -12.0 32.0 E134 Brad Gerstner opposes x2
E134 2023-06-24 reinforce +12.2 44.2 E134 Sacks support x3
E134 2023-06-24 reinforce +8.4 52.6 E134 Chamath support x2
E135 2023-07-01 reinforce +8.5 61.1 E135 Sacks support x3
E136 2023-07-09 decay -2.4 58.7 E136 silent
E137 2023-07-14 reinforce +6.2 64.9 E137 Jason support x2 (flipped from oppose)
E137 2023-07-14 reinforce +5.3 70.1 E137 Friedberg support x2
E137 2023-07-14 reinforce +5.4 75.5 E137 Sacks support x3
E139 2023-07-27 decay -3.0 72.5 E139 silent
E140 2023-08-04 decay -2.9 69.6 E140 silent
E141 2023-08-11 decay -2.8 66.8 E141 silent
E142 2023-08-18 decay -2.7 64.1 E142 silent
E143 2023-08-25 reinforce +5.4 69.5 E143 Sacks support x2
E144 2023-09-01 oppose -12.0 57.5 E144 Sacks opposes x2
E146 2023-09-22 reinforce +6.4 63.9 E146 Sacks support x2 (flipped from oppose)
E147 2023-09-29 reinforce +5.4 69.3 E147 Sacks support x2
E148 2023-10-07 oppose -14.4 54.9 E148 Sacks opposes x3
E149 2023-10-13 reinforce +8.1 63.0 E149 Sacks support x3 (flipped from oppose)
E150 2023-10-20 decay -2.5 60.5 E150 silent
E151 2023-10-27 reinforce +5.9 66.4 E151 Friedberg support x2
E151 2023-10-27 reinforce +6.0 72.5 E151 Sacks support x3
E152 2023-11-03 reinforce +4.1 76.6 E152 Sacks support x2
E152 2023-11-03 reinforce +3.5 80.1 E152 Friedberg support x2
E156 2023-12-08 decay -3.2 76.9 E156 silent
E157 2023-12-16 decay -3.1 73.8 E157 silent
E158 2023-12-23 decay -3.0 70.9 E158 silent
E159 2023-12-29 decay -2.8 68.0 E159 silent
E160 2024-01-06 decay -2.7 65.3 E160 silent
E161 2024-01-13 reinforce +6.2 71.6 E161 Sacks support x3
E161 2024-01-13 oppose -12.0 59.6 E161 Jason opposes x2
E162 2024-01-19 decay -2.4 57.2 E162 silent
E163 2024-01-26 oppose -12.0 45.2 E163 Jason opposes x2
E164 2024-02-02 reinforce +8.2 53.4 E164 Sacks support x2
E165 2024-02-09 decay -2.1 51.3 E165 silent