As of the end of 2012, the average maturity of U.S. debt was around five years—65 months to be exact—up considerably from the October 2008 trough, and the longest average maturity in a decade, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Treasury intends to continue extending the maturity, with a goal of around 80 months in 2022.

Not long ago, I reviewed William Poundstone’s Fortune’s Formula, a very good and relevant book about the common mathematical roots of gambling and investing, which I originally picked up as part of my poker-playing research.

Poker is based on probability and, to a much greater degree, on psychology. I did all right in my poker playing, ending up well in the black, but ultimately became much more interested in the markets, which is why I’m doing what I do now.

[youtube=http://youtu.be/jhvAJeuFfds?rel=0hd=1]

One of the questions I’ve been getting lately has been about rising geopolitical tensions and what that means for investing. Recently, the focus has been on North Korea, but, with the Israeli strikes in Syria, that should be coming up as a topic soon.

My usual response, which isn’t meant to be flip, is that I’d be more worried if things were quiet. If they’re making noise, we at least kind of know what they’re thinking.

The good news just keeps coming. This week, we’ve had a seven-year record for home price increases, up over 10 percent from the year before, as well as a rise in the consumer confidence index to a five-year high.

Both show that the improvement in the U.S. economy is wide and sustainable. Representing two-thirds of the economy, consumer spending is the most important part, and higher consumer confidence and wealth suggests that spending will continue—and may well accelerate.

I’ll be out of the office for the next week on a trip to Europe, staying in Amsterdam for a week and then a couple of days in Dublin. This is a family vacation, so I’ll certainly be able to report on the five-year-old-boy perspective when I return.

On top of that, though, the trip will offer a valuable eyewitness look at two critical areas in the eurozone. The Netherlands is one of the core northern countries that’s paying the bills—and becoming increasingly conflicted about continuing to do so. I look forward to seeing how that national conversation looks on the ground.

I have written about energy before, but, based on the number of recent news stories on the topic, I think it’s worth taking another look at just how much the energy landscape has changed over the past couple of years.

Last summer, I wrote that, with so many new technologies brewing, it was almost certain that at least some of them would pan out. I wrote about the shift of narrative, recalling a meeting with clients in Massachusetts where I actually sparked an argument about which solar program was better. I wrote about how fracking would be a transition phase.

My family and I spent the holiday weekend in Maine. Unfortunately, it was in the 40s and 50s on Saturday and Sunday, and, unsurprisingly, there weren’t a lot of people at the pool. Fortunately, Jackson, my now five-year-old son, was happy to spend some quality time snuggled up next to Dad watching movies while Dad read. Sometimes, a quiet weekend is just right.

We did get out a bit, including a drive to the nature lodge on the top of Mount Agamenticus, a local mountain with wonderful views from the summit (on a clear day, which this was not) and miles of trails. Jackson and I have hiked up there before, but this time we just wanted to show it to Mom, who was duly impressed. We’ll be heading back later this summer to do some more hiking.

What we were talking about yesterday was the “inside view” of the market. As defined by Daniel Kahneman, the inside view builds up from details and is based on inside knowledge of a situation. Detailed analysis is invaluable, of course, but details can often be used to support our initial biases rather than what’s actually happening.

It is also usually worthwhile to consider the “outside view,” where we simply examine what has happened in the past, without considering the details or why things might be different this time. This bigger-picture view limits the extent to which our biases can influence the conclusions.

Yesterday, we talked about why future economic growth may well be at lower levels than it has in the past. Today, I want to look at what that might mean for future stock market returns.

It’s important to note that we’re not talking about the absolute level of growth but the difference from historical levels. This matters because, if the future is different from the past, then metrics that are based on past performance—such as stock market valuation levels—may also be different.