July 17, 2026

THE MIRACLE OF COMPOUND INTEREST:

In America, Almost Anyone Can Be a Millionaire: Critics of capitalism miss how hard work and savings can make any of us rich. (Daniel Di Martino, Jul 17, 2026, City Journal)

The Wall Street Journal recently profiled a Costco worker named Tony Barzar from Arizona. Barzar never went to college, only taking some community college classes without finishing. Nonetheless, working his entire life in grocery stores and Costco, he has amassed over $1 million in his 401(k) account. He also owns a home with a pool and has traveled to Europe twice in the last decade—all while making just shy of $33 per hour.

He got there not by some great feat, but by slow and steady saving. Costco has a conservative employer retirement savings match program, matching 50 percent of contributions up to $1,000. To amass $1 million over the last four decades, Barzar would have needed to put just over 5 percent of his paycheck plus the Costco match in a standard ETF tracking the S&P500.

This kind of growth is achievable for the vast majority of young people in America today. At age 20, Barzar had a starting annual salary of $35,000 in today’s dollars. Today’s median 20- to 24-year-old full time worker earns over $42,000—nearly 20 percent more.

THE TRIUMPH OF FAITH OVER REASON:

After 1776, the founders designed a government that accounts for ‘a degree of depravity in mankind’ (Donovan Fifeld, July 16, 2026, The Conversation)


Hamilton, Madison and Jay responded to these criticisms as a group. Adopting the pen name Publius, they published 85 essays in New York newspapers supporting ratification. In defense of the Constitution’s proposal to increase the powers of the proposed national government, these authors turned to some of the most basic philosophical questions about humanity.

Each argued that the inherent flaws of human nature necessitated a strong government to check political abuse, self-interest and even violence that they saw as inherent in the fabric of human society. They rallied around the position reflected in Madison’s famous statement in the essay known as Federalist 51 that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

The Federalist Papers include proposals for institutional solutions that sought to redirect the destructive drives of individuals toward positive social ends. To the authors, a new constitutional government that controlled both the impulses of the masses and the abuses of their leaders would serve as the means through which the new United States government could accomplish this task.

Each saw human nature as susceptible to corruption by base impulses and self-interest.

In Federalist 10, Madison argued that faction is “sown in the nature of man.”

Similarly, in Federalist 6, Hamilton rejected the commonly held idea that republics were automatically peaceful. Instead, he argued, political leaders and states were driven by ambitions and jealousies, which he saw as a characteristic shortcoming of the government under the Articles of Confederation as well as a law of nature governing relations between nations.

Hamilton wrote that if the states remained disunited, then “the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.” To argue otherwise, he wrote, would be “to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.”

Consequently, as Hamilton asserted in Federalist 15, governments must have effective coercive authority to enforce laws because they cannot rely solely on the goodwill and civic virtue of their citizens: “If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”

Ultimately, the defense of the Constitution provided by the Federalist Papers sought to frame the new government in terms of a skeptical view of humanity that recognized what Madison called “a degree of depravity in mankind.”

Man is Fallen.

SPURSY VERSES:

The People’s Game: The education of a soccer fan. (Salman Rushdie, May 24, 1999, The New Yorker)


I came to London in January, 1961, as a boy of thirteen and a half, on my way to boarding school, and accompanied by my father. It was a cold month, with blue skies by day and green fogs by night. We stayed at a huge barracks of a hotel, the Cumberland, at Marble Arch, and after we settled in my father asked if I would like to see a professional soccer game. (In Bombay, where I had grown up, there was no soccer to speak of; the local sports were cricket and field hockey.)

The first game my father took me to see was what I would later learn is called a “friendly” (because the result doesn’t count toward anything) between a North London team called the Arsenal and the champions of Spain, Real Madrid. I did not know that the visitors were rated as perhaps the greatest team ever. Or that they had just won the European Cup five years running. (The European Cup is an annual tournament held to determine the champion of all Europe’s national champions.) Or that among their players were two of the game’s all-time immortals, both foreigners: a Hungarian named Ferenc Puskas, “the little general,” and an Argentine, Alfredo di Stefano.

This is the way I remember the game: in the first half, Real Madrid tore the Arsenal apart. The London team was renowned for its tough defensive style of play—“Boring Arsenal” is a label it was stuck with for years—but Real Madrid went through the Arsenal’s defense almost at will, and at halftime led 3–0. Then, because this was, after all, just a friendly game, Real took off its star players and replaced them with a bunch of kids. Arsenal stubbornly kept all its first-team players on the field, and the game ended up tied, 3–3; but not even the most diehard Arsenal fans could pretend that the result accurately reflected the quality of the two teams.

On the way back to the hotel, my father asked me for my views. “Well, I didn’t think much of that English team,” I told him. “But I liked that Spanish side. Can you find out if there’s an English team that plays like Real Madrid?” Unknown to me, I had asked for the near impossible; as if, in Michael Jordan’s airborne heyday, I had asked, “Can you find out if there’s a team that plays like the Chicago Bulls?” My father, almost as much an innocent in these matters as myself, said, “I’ll ask at the front desk.” What he learned from that long-forgotten hotel clerk changed my life, because a few days later we went to watch the other famous team of North London, Tottenham Hotspur, and I lost my heart.

THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS AN EASY JOB:

How the World Cup Helped America See Itself Afresh: Visiting foreign soccer fans have fallen in love with the US, showing its residents a different version of themselves and their country (Surbhi Gupta & Danny Postel, July 16, 2026, New Lines)

In the last few weeks, as fans from across Europe and other parts of the world traveled through the United States for the World Cup, following their teams from city to city, they discovered an America that tends not to make it into global news headlines, at least not in recent years. They met friendly strangers who offered rides to and from stadiums, discovered big portion sizes and free refills in American restaurants, and developed an unexpected fondness for ranch dressing, wanting to take it back home as a souvenir. (Sensing an opportunity, the food company Kraft Heinz, in true American fashion, released a “TSA-Compliant Ranch” kit after the Transportation Security Administration repeatedly reminded visitors that full-size bottles could not be carried through airport security.) They felt relief at the near ubiquity of air conditioning in the summer and came face to face with the largesse and abundance of suburban America as they ventured outside the tourist hotspots of New York City, Washington and Los Angeles.

As visitors marveled at America and their reactions went viral, Americans watched them marvel and, in turn, found themselves looking at their country differently, through that foreign prism — recognizing, even celebrating, everyday aspects of life here as uniquely American. This outsider’s gaze offered a version of America that stood in sharp contrast with the one both Americans and people around the world tend to encounter through doomscrolling and the relentless churn of the news cycle.

“This World Cup is significant in terms of how we view America. Not because it changes America but because it illuminates America,” the journalist and author Simon Kuper told our colleague Faisal Al Yafai in a recent episode of the New Lines podcast, The Lede. The World Cup “tells you that America is not just Trump,” Kuper said, noting that from Europe it’s easy to conclude that since Trump was elected twice on a xenophobic platform, it defines all of the United States. But traveling through the country and meeting people, one realizes that even Trump voters “really like the world, they really like having foreigners there,” Kuper said.

This gap between the reel and the real was perhaps best captured in an interview with Sebastian Kraus, a German soccer fan who became teary-eyed while speaking to NBC10 Boston. “I fall in love with this country and this was so emotional, I even cried in the stadium,” he said. Before making the trip, Kraus admitted he had been apprehensive, his perception shaped by news reports about mass shootings and concerns over public safety. But buoyed by the generosity of local Americans, he was bidding goodbye to the country with a heavy heart.

Just do what Joe failed to do: undo all of Trumpism.