As we approach year-end and you look at your investment statements, there is bound to be much discussion about how your investments performed. As has become usual in the past couple of years, there will be questions about and comparisons between what we expected and what we actually got. In other words, with the economy doing well, why aren’t your investments doing better?

Yesterday’s market drop reversed all of Monday’s gain and then some, reportedly on growing doubts regarding the exact terms of the trade war truce announced by President Trump. That might be the case, but I suspect the headlines pointing out that part of the yield curve had inverted played a bigger role in the decline. This inversion is usually a sign of economic trouble, so it would make sense for the market to pull back. The problem is that, while technically true, the inversion we saw typically indicates that trouble will show up in a couple of years—if it does at all. If the market was reacting to the inversion, it was overreacting.

We closed yesterday's post with the idea that the U.S. has been the indispensable market for all rising economies since WWII—starting with Europe under the Marshall Plan and then extending to Japan and subsequently to China and eastern Europe. As the essential market, the U.S. could compel obedience in other areas, notably security, and other countries were happy—or at least willing—to comply.

In the last post, we laid out both the U.S. imperative (keep the status quo and improve it if possible) and the Chinese imperative (make a successful economic transition to a developed, wealthy economy). We also outlined how China has changed its strategy from what has been so successful over the past 40 years, and we closed with a teaser on the U.S. response.

We closed yesterday’s post with the conclusion that the confrontation to watch is between China and the U.S. and that, at least for the next decade, the conflict is likely to be economic and not military. This is often characterized as a trade conflict. Indeed, that is how it is playing out in the headlines. In fact, however, trade is a symptom and not a cause.

We closed the last post in this series on the note that while the now world (i.e., the world we live in) has benefited enormously from the economic freedom that came with the new world, changes are underway that might limit that freedom—to our economic detriment. As politics comes to the fore again, economics may once again take second place.

As I try to do a couple of times a year, let’s take a break and think about all the things we have to be grateful for. It has been proven that being grateful is one of the best ways to make your life better—to be both happier and more successful.

The last post in this series was about the old world, one that was dominated and defined by politics both between and within nation-states. Indeed, the nation-state was the defining entity of the period, with political borders determining economic relationships. But even within nation-states, economic actors were largely constrained by political forces, in the form of laws, regulations, and borders. It was a much smaller world from the perspective of most companies. Your competitors came from your industry, in your country. You knew them, they knew you, and you were all pretty much playing by the same rules and subject to the same constraints.

I closed my post two days ago with the observation that the now world—the world optimized around economics—has changed significantly from what came before it. It really became different this time, within the lifetime of most of the readers of this blog.

I want to take a break today from the next world discussion to check in on the stock market. Since the pullback in October and the bounce after the midterms, we have seen a slow and continuous decline. I have been hearing more questions and concerns, so let’s take a look at what is going on.