Hello family Yesterday I ended my day staring at my phone as usual. Staring back at me was an invitational article in THE ECONOMIST The headline read: “If you thought the global financial crisis was bad…” I almost just ignored it. Just another someone talking about the AI bubble. But then, the subheadline reeled me in. “When the crash comes, stabilising markets will be easy compared with reordering society for AI, writes short-seller Carson Block.” According to this guy in a few short years AI will replace a ton of the “world’s highest paid knowledge workers”. But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is why. I’ve never heard this argument before. Now, in the past, new technology increased productivity. Productivity reduces prices. You can afford more stuff. Everyone grows together. A small number of people miss out, but broader society climbs higher. Think about farming. In 1750, 43% of all employment in the UK was in farming. And yet, the number of malnourished and starving families was sky high. By 1850 only 22% of people worked in agriculture. And then, things got really bad… “The invention of global refrigeration and the expansion of steamships allowed cheap, surplus grain and meat from the United States, Australia, and South America to flood the British market. Domestic grain prices crashed by over 50%. Farms went bankrupt, and landowners converted crop fields into permanent pastures, which required far less labor… Between 1871 and 1901, the number of male agricultural laborers in England dropped by over one-third.” Yikes! It’s weird to think that today we are living with fridges and ships at the expense of workers in the 19th century. By 2025, just 0.85% of the workforce were in agriculture. A complete job apocalypse by all accounts, but people are better fed than ever. Also, the new technology meant people could reskill over time and create even better jobs, and living standards. Society as a whole benefited massively over the next 150 years, because technology kept replacing humans in every single industry.

Are you trading the market, or your emotions? Hi FAMILY https://youtu.be/tMRtojrPggY?si=A2YJF7Ea2womzpR2 One of the biggest challenges in trading is learning to separate what the market is actually showing you from what you want it to do. You might have a clear strategy, understand your risk management and know exactly what a good setup looks like. But when emotions enter the equation, even the best plan can go out of the window. Think about what happens after a losing trade. You might feel frustrated and want to make that money back. Suddenly, you're looking at setups you would normally ignore, entering trades without proper confirmation or increasing your risk because you feel your next trade has to be a winner. Are you making a decision based on your strategy, or are you trying to fix how the previous trade made you feel? The same thing happens after a winning streak. Confidence grows, you start believing your analysis is better than it actually is, and you become less selective. You might take trades that don't quite meet your criteria because everything seems to be working in your favour. In both situations, the problem isn't necessarily your strategy. It's that your decisions are being influenced by something other than your trading rules. The market doesn't know you've just had three losing trades. It doesn't owe you a winner, and it doesn't care how confident you feel. Every opportunity needs to be assessed on its own merits. This is why having a structured process is so important. Before entering a trade, you should be able to explain why the opportunity meets your criteria, where your stop loss belongs and whether the potential reward justifies the risk. If you can't answer those questions objectively, it's worth stepping back. Another important lesson is learning to accept that you won't always be in control of the outcome. You can identify a beautiful supply zone, see aggressive imbalance, wait patiently for a gradual retracement and receive strong confirmation. The trade can still lose.