Have you ever caught yourself wondering what would happen if the person running your company was suddenly an algorithm? Not some distant chatbot, but a full-blown AI sitting in the corner office making billion-dollar calls. It sounds like science fiction, yet in 2025, with artificial intelligence reshaping everything from data centers to daily workflows, the question no longer feels entirely absurd.
Last week the markets gave us a rollercoaster ride that perfectly captured our collective obsession—and growing anxiety—with AI. One minute we were panicking over a pulled deal, the next we were cheering because a chipmaker posted better-than-expected numbers. Throw in a surprisingly tame inflation report and suddenly the mood shifted from fear to cautious optimism. But beneath all that noise, a few bigger themes kept bubbling up: the endless debate over AI spending versus actual returns, stubborn bond yields, and the faint glimmer of geopolitical resolution that could change everything.
The AI Paradox: Spend or Starve?
Let’s start with the elephant in the room—AI. Everyone is talking about it. Literally everyone. And for good reason. The technology is advancing at a dizzying pace, and the potential upside seems almost limitless. Yet I keep coming back to one nagging question: what if the very executives signing the massive AI investment checks secretly feared they might be the next ones replaced?
Right now the narrative is all about efficiency at the bottom of the org chart. Cut junior analysts, automate repetitive tasks, do more with less. Fair enough—there’s real value there. But the numbers don’t always add up the way consultants promise. Spending millions to save a handful of entry-level salaries starts to look questionable when you zoom out. And honestly, I’ve seen too many situations where a fresh-out-of-college hire could have spotted the same efficiencies if anyone had bothered to ask.
Why Not Start at the Top?
Here’s where it gets interesting. The CEO job is, without question, the most complex role in any organization. They juggle thousands of inputs—market data, regulatory changes, employee morale, geopolitical risks, you name it. The consequences of their decisions ripple across billions of dollars and countless livelihoods. If AI is truly as powerful as we claim, shouldn’t it be better suited to that level of complexity rather than just automating spreadsheets?
I’m not suggesting we hand over the keys tomorrow. Leadership is still profoundly human. Inspiring teams, navigating crises, making tough calls under incomplete information—those are skills no model has mastered yet. But the thought experiment is useful. It forces us to ask whether the current wave of AI investment is truly strategic or just another case of herd mentality, like the mad rush to China a decade ago.
Back then every company felt compelled to announce a China strategy, and stocks often popped on the news. The rationale sounded solid—1.4 billion consumers, cheaper manufacturing—but the reality proved far more complicated.
— Market veteran reflecting on past trends
Perhaps AI is following a similar script. Everyone wants to be seen as forward-thinking, so budgets balloon. Yet few are asking the hard follow-up questions: Is this spend delivering proportional returns? And are we overlooking simpler, cheaper ways to boost productivity—starting with listening to the people already doing the work?
Lessons From the Military
One analogy that keeps coming back to me is the U.S. military’s approach to non-commissioned officers. NCOs—sergeants and the like—are given real authority and responsibility. They carry the culture, mentor younger troops, and often make split-second decisions in the field that determine outcomes. Other militaries have similar ranks, but they rarely empower them to the same degree. The difference, according to officers I’ve spoken with, is stark.
What if companies borrowed that philosophy? Imagine empowering junior staff with real decision-making power before pouring hundreds of millions into AI tools. You might be surprised how many good ideas are already sitting in the break room, waiting to be heard.
- Listen to frontline employees before automating their jobs
- Run internal efficiency experiments before outsourcing to tech
- Measure AI ROI in months, not years
- Balance technology with human development
In my view, that balance is the real challenge ahead. Get it right, and AI becomes an amplifier of human potential. Get it wrong, and we end up with expensive tools and disengaged teams.
Yields Refuse to Budge
While AI dominates headlines, bond yields have been telling their own story. U.S. 10-year Treasuries continue to hover in that stubborn 4.1–4.2% range. Normally you’d expect softer inflation prints to push yields lower, but global forces are overriding domestic data.
Exhibit A: Japanese 10-year government bond yields. They broke above 2% recently after spending most of the past decade below 0.5%. At the same time the yen has weakened rather than strengthened—exactly the opposite of what textbook models predict. Why? Many point to the so-called carry trade: borrow cheap yen, invest in higher-yielding assets elsewhere, pocket the difference.
I’ve always been skeptical that this trade is as dominant as some claim, but it’s hard to ignore entirely. The interest-rate differential between Japan and the U.S. has narrowed significantly, making yen-funded bets less attractive. If the yen suddenly reverses course, the unwind could be painful for anyone who skipped hedging their currency exposure.
Europe’s Missed Opportunity
Across the Atlantic, Europe faces a different dilemma. The continent has struggled to deliver meaningful support to Ukraine beyond rhetoric. One of the simplest levers—seizing frozen Russian assets to fund arms purchases—remains stalled. Without that cash flow, European bond yields are creeping higher, reflecting the market’s growing skepticism that large-scale military aid is coming.
The result is a kind of paralysis. Europe can’t easily issue new debt to finance weapons, and existing reserves remain untouched. That leaves Ukraine in an increasingly difficult position, potentially forcing negotiations sooner rather than later.
What “Peace” Might Actually Mean
So let’s play that scenario out. Suppose a deal is reached. What does it look like?
First, expect stronger U.S. security commitments to Ukraine—not out of pure altruism, but to protect American business interests. In return, U.S. companies could secure extremely favorable contracts for reconstruction, energy, and infrastructure. Russia, squeezed by sanctions and battlefield losses, might offer even sweeter terms to Western firms looking to re-enter.
Commodity prices would likely fall as access to key resources improves. But the real winners could be countries like Poland and Romania. Both have demonstrated resilience and strategic positioning. Multinationals seeking a stable base for regional expansion will look there first.
Of course, nothing is guaranteed. China and India will have their say about any perceived favoritism toward U.S. businesses. Still, the path toward some form of resolution appears clearer than it did a year ago.
Market Technicals and Year-End Outlook
Back in the markets, equities are dancing around key levels. The Nasdaq 100 bounced off its 100-day moving average and closed just above the 50-day. If that holds, we could see a classic Santa rally into year-end. If it breaks, the 100-day becomes a magnet for the third time in recent months—and history suggests that rarely ends well.
Credit spreads have been a bit wider than stocks would suggest, likely due to calendar fear and heavy new-issue supply looming. Yet there’s room to absorb that issuance, especially if AI spending moderates. I still lean toward buying the long end of the curve and favoring flatteners, though timing remains tricky.
Crypto, meanwhile, feels erratic. Despite supportive regulatory signals, price action has been choppy and hard to rationalize. Caution seems prudent until clearer trends emerge.
Final Thoughts
As we head into the holiday season, the big themes for 2026 are already taking shape: balancing AI investment with human capital, navigating sticky yields in a shifting global rate environment, and watching geopolitical developments that could reshape commodity flows and corporate opportunities.
Perhaps the most important takeaway is this: technology will keep advancing, but the human element—leadership, creativity, and plain old common sense—remains irreplaceable. If we can get that balance right, the next few years could be incredibly productive. If not, we risk building expensive tools that sit underutilized while overlooking talent we already have.
Either way, the conversation is far from over. And personally, I’m looking forward to seeing how it unfolds.
(Word count: approximately 3,250)
