TRUMP’S META GAME, PAX AMERICANA, AND THE AI AGE:
A forces‑for‑2027 forecast looking to the end of the decade
In politics and markets, the decisive
contest is often the one being played
above the visible struggle. Elections,
earnings and summit communiqués are
the surface game—the real action lies in
the metagame, the contest over rules,
incentives and narratives that shape
outcomes long after today’s skirmishes
are forgotten.
Henry Kissinger, American diplomat and political scientist,
warned that most statesmen get lost in the “manifestations
of events”—daily crises, tactical choices and headlines—
and fail to read the deeper “trend of events” that gives
those crises meaning. Investors make the same mistake
when they trade every move in yields or volatility but never
ask which regime those data points are compounding into
over a five‑ or ten‑year horizon.
German‑American entrepreneur Peter Thiel’s line that
“competition is for losers” captures the business version of
the same instinct. The point is not to fight hardest inside
the old game, but to see how the game itself is changing
and reposition before everyone else
That lens is essential for understanding President Donald
Trump’s America First Policy, the artificial intelligence (AI)
driven economic regime now forming, and the likely path
of capital markets into 2027 and beyond. The forcing
function is debt. At extreme levels, debt ceases to be a
background statistic and becomes the constraint that
reshapes policy, politics and empire—much as British
historian Edward Gibbon suggested fiscal exhaustion,
debasement and obligations outrunning productive
capacity were central to Rome’s decline.
The metagame is that Trump appears to understand
this constraint. He is responding not with managerial
patchwork, but with a modernized version of the
sovereign‑development playbook used after the
American Revolution—a blend of Hamiltonian statecraft
and Henry Clay’s (American statesman) American System
aimed at rebuilding domestic industry, energy and
strategic capacity. The solution is a run‑hot economy
in which earnings growth rises above historical norms,
powered by AI‑led productivity gains and pro‑investment
policy, producing a re‑rating of the U.S. economy rather
than a speculative bubble. To treat tariffs, alliance
disputes, energy policy, deregulation, AI capex or
digital‑asset legislation as separate stories is to miss
the metagame. The real question is what historical phase
the U.S. is entering—and which assets benefit if that
reading is right.
Debt as forcing function
The global metagame now turns on a blunt fact—the
world has piled up more debt than its old growth model
can comfortably service. Total global debt sits just above
235 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP),
with public debt near 93 per cent and still trending higher,
according to International Monetary Fund estimates.
Global public debt alone approached US$100 trillion
in 2024.
No major electorate is volunteering for a lost decade
of austerity, and no policymaker wants to trigger
a synchronized refinancing crisis across sovereign,
corporate and household balance sheets. The implication
is simple—nominal GDP must outrun the effective
cost of servicing the debt. That is why policymakers
tolerate a hotter nominal economy, why austerity
remains mostly rhetorical, and why the search for a
credible productivity engine has become the central
macro question. The system needs growth more than
purification. If the world is too indebted for clean liquidation, the
policy premium shifts to whatever can raise output
per worker, reduce frictions, improve capital efficiency
and broaden the tax base without reigniting inflation. AI
therefore stops being a niche tech theme and becomes
a macro variable. The question is whether AI‑enabled
productivity can reconcile high debt with political stability.
From Pax Americana to America First
To see how this intersects with geopolitics, it is worth
recalling what made Pax Americana unusual. After
1945, the U.S. possessed unmatched industrial, military
and financial power, yet chose order‑building over
annexation. Bretton Woods1 created a rules‑based
monetary system, the Marshall Plan2 rebuilt former
enemies, and American power underwrote global trade
and security on terms far more generous than any
previous hegemon would have offered. This was restraint
at the moment of maximum leverage.
The post‑Second World War system depended not just
on American power, but on America’s willingness to
absorb costs others preferred not to acknowledge. Over
time, surplus economies, allied free‑riders and global
capital learned to rely on the American balance sheet and
Navy. British economist John Maynard Keynes warned
that any system becomes unstable when the burden of
adjustment falls too heavily on one side—that is what
happened as the U.S. hollowed out parts of its industrial
base, accumulated debt and watched allies treat U.S.
commitments as an entitlement rather than a bargain.
“America First” is best read as the political expression of
a system that had stopped pricing hegemony honestly.
It is also, in part, a modern derivative of Clay’s early
19th century American System, a program of protective
tariffs, internal improvements and national development
designed to build domestic industry and reduce
dependence on foreign powers. Trump’s economic and
national security strategy makes sense at the metagame
level. The point is not that every tariff is sacred or every
alliance expendable. It is that the U.S. can no longer
remain the world’s consumer of last resort, security
guarantor of first resort and fiscal shock absorber at a
discount. Hegemony is being repriced.
That repricing operates through several channels. Trade
policy becomes less about abstract efficiency and more
about repatriating strategic supply chains. Alliances are
subjected to harsher burden‑sharing demands. Energy policy is reoriented towards domestic production
rather than imported virtue. Underneath the noise,
the message is simple—late‑imperial America has
over‑promised against a weakened productive base,
and the only way to sustain great‑power obligations
is to rebuild that foundation.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the age of Trump
Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
offered a brutal taxonomy of late‑imperial decay: a
state living beyond its means, a weakening stock of
productive capital and a people drifting from citizens
into dependents. Measured against those categories,
contemporary America looks uncomfortably Roman—
and Trump’s America First Policy reads as a visceral
response to that diagnosis.
Gibbon’s Rome does not collapse in a single
catastrophe—it sags. Obligations accumulate faster
than wealth, coin is shaved, taxes proliferate and
extraordinary levies become routine. The governing
class refuses to live within society’s real productive
capacity. Debt and debasement are not clever tools but
visible marks of a deeper refusal to choose.
Alongside this fiscal drift, the productive core hollows
out. Independent citizens give way to dependents of
landlords, bureaucracies and patronage networks; local
initiative weakens; and more of society lives as recipients
rather than producers.
The third element of Gibbon’s framework is
psychological. Politics becomes spectacle, elite energy
is consumed by factional quarrels, and the public comes
to see the state less as something it upholds than as
something that exists to uphold it. “Bread and circuses”
is not merely a moral jab—it is the structure of a society
accustomed to being maintained.
Trump’s instinct starts from the recognition that the U.S.
has drifted into its own late‑imperial configuration—
federal debt towering over output, shuttered factories,
hollowed‑out towns, a stretched military and a capital
that can always fund the next foreign deployment but
struggles to license the next refinery. America First
treats excessive debt not as a technocratic nuisance
but as a verdict on a model that imports its goods,
outsources its energy, subsidizes dependence and
borrows to hide the contradictions.
The conclusion is not that America must shrink to fit its
weakened base, but that the base must be rebuilt so that
America can remain what it is. Hence the relentlessly
material focus of Trump‑era economics—deregulation as a solution to permitting bottlenecks that block wells,
mines, ports, grids and factories; onshoring as an effort
to drag productive capital back inside the political
community; and growth through ships, rigs and fabs
rather than abstractions in a spreadsheet.
The same logic informs his rough handling of
alliances and trade. For decades, Washington piled
up security commitments without asking whether
a de‑industrialized, energy‑importing economy
could support them indefinitely. Demands for fairer
burden‑sharing, rebalanced trade and meaningful
borders all reflect one Gibbonian instinct—late
empires fail when promises outrun capacity. Better
to renegotiate now than to default later, economically
or strategically. Trump is not Gibbon—he operates on
instinct, not footnotes. But the Gibbonian lens clarifies
what that instinct is reacting against—and what it is
trying, clumsily, to repair.
From AI to the productivity regime
Into this late‑imperial context comes AI. Much
commentary still treats AI as a speculative theme akin
to social media or early cloud computing. That is too
shallow. AI is emerging as a general‑purpose technology
and a macro regime variable: a source of economy
wide productivity gains, a driver of physical capex
and a justification for a policy mix that favours supply
expansion over demand micromanagement.
Supply‑side economics, properly understood, is not a
relic. It is the proposition that a nation escapes debt
and stagnation not by endlessly manipulating demand,
but by expanding its capacity to produce: more output
per hour, productive capital, innovation, energy and
logistical efficiency. Agentic AI sits near the centre of
that thesis.
Unlike earlier software waves that accelerated narrow
workflows, agentic systems can initiate, coordinate
and complete multi‑step tasks with limited human
supervision across coding, research, logistics, operations
and customer‑facing functions. That makes AI closer
to electrification or the microprocessor than to the
latest consumer app. General‑purpose technologies
diffuse through the capital stock over years and require
complementary investment, retraining, energy systems
and organizational redesign.
The plausible bull case is not that AI instantly abolishes
labour or produces overnight utopia. It is that agentic
AI lifts the long‑run ceiling on productivity and keeps
investment demand high through the end of the decade,
precisely when debt dynamics require faster nominal
and real growth.
Bottlenecks, Taiwan and the cycle’s duration
The strongest argument against the “AI bubble”
narrative is not rhetorical but physical. Taiwan remains
the narrowest point in the global AI value chain. Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC)
dominates leading‑edge semiconductor fabrication,
with some estimates putting its share of the most
advanced chips used in AI workloads above 90 per cent.
That concentration is obviously a geopolitical risk.
Any blockade, conflict or coercive disruption around
Taiwan would trigger a severe supply shock.
But it is also why this AI cycle is likely to last longer
than past tech booms. The hardware constraint
means the capex wave cannot be fully front‑loaded.
The combination of lithography, materials, packaging,
engineering depth and supplier ecosystems clustered
around Hsinchu cannot be recreated in a few quarters.
This is not fibre in empty office parks. It is an industrial
build‑out requiring fabs, substations, turbines, gas
infrastructure, transmission, cooling, advanced materials
and engineering talent.
The bottleneck stretches the cycle by forcing a
sequencing of adoption. Productivity gains arrive in
waves as compute, power and enterprise integration
expand. The right interpretation is not late‑cycle mania
but early‑stage diffusion under hard constraints.
Bottlenecked revolutions usually last longer because
the constraint rations upside over time.
Energy, security and a new peace dividend
None of this works without abundant energy. Training
and deploying large AI systems is power intensive and
the supporting ecosystem—data centres, grids, fabs,
industrial logistics—is even more so. Energy policy
thus becomes metagame strategy. Cheap, secure and
scalable power is no longer just a utility issue; it is
industrial policy, inflation policy and national‑security
policy at once.
Here, America First’s instincts, often mocked,
are strategically coherent. A nation that controls
hydrocarbons, generation, transmission capacity and
critical minerals, enjoys a structural advantage over
one that prioritizes scarcity while relying on fragile
supply chains. Energy dominance is not a slogan.
It is the precondition for AI dominance, manufacturing
resilience and credible deterrence. There is also a second‑order market effect—a harder
version of the peace dividend. Not the 1990s fantasy
that history has ended, but a rugged peace grounded
in deterrence, alliance burden‑sharing and control of
chokepoints. If American strategy reduces disorder
at the margin—keeping the Strait of Hormuz open,
securing semiconductor and energy routes, pushing
allies to shoulder more of their own defence and
deterring escalation—then capital markets gain
something invaluable; fewer catastrophic tails. Markets
do not need utopia. A rough peace underwritten by
strength and energy abundance is enough to compress
risk premia.
The policy triumvirate
The metagame is no longer just an intellectual frame—
it is acquiring institutional form. The most important
development in American macro policy is that the
people shaping money, fiscal strategy and market
psychology are increasingly aligned on supply‑side logic.
Kevin Warsh, U.S. Federal Reserve Board Governor, has
long argued that the Federal Reserve grew too large, too
discretionary and too entangled in fiscal and political
tasks that should never have been delegated to a central
bank. His critique of post‑2008 quantitative easing
was philosophical: an overgrown Fed distorts capital
allocation, socializes risk, weakens price signals and
tempts politicians to dodge structural reform.
Scott Bessent, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, brings a
complementary worldview, stressing fiscal discipline,
energy expansion and a shift from transfer‑heavy
programs towards productive investment and supply
side reform. Former hedge fund manager Stanley
Druckenmiller, though outside office, supplies the Wall
Street counterpart. He has long warned that cheap
money and reflexive bailouts misprice risk and degrade
capital allocation, and he has increasingly emphasised
AI infrastructure, chips and enabling hardware over
narrative‑driven speculation.
What unites this informal triumvirate is an agreement
on first principles: supply‑side reform is essential in
a debt‑heavy world, the Fed should be smaller and
more focused, and policy should raise the after‑tax,
after‑regulation return on real investment in energy,
semiconductors, logistics and AI infrastructure. That
alignment matters because it changes the regime.
Previously, new technologies often advanced against
policy that rewarded financial engineering over real
capex. In the emerging regime, the bull case is no longer
fighting Washington—it is increasingly embedded in it.
Markets, doomers and the AI stack
Wall Street’s narrative remains haunted by the last crisis.
In quick succession, investors were sold a private
credit crisis, told software was structurally doomed by
AI, and handed a Middle East scenario built around a
catastrophically shut Strait of Hormuz. Reality was less
theatrical. Credit bent but did not break. Software adapted
instead of evaporating. The strait stayed open. Risk
assets absorbed the shock, repriced and moved on.
The professional doom industry did not revise its
framework—it merely changed costumes.
Performative pessimism is not prudence. It is click bait
for those who confuse anxiety with insight. Serious
investors should expect mess, shocks and volatility as
part of the game. But they should also recognize that in a
regime shaped by AI‑led productivity, supply‑side reform,
energy abundance and a rough peace dividend, periodic
drawdowns are more likely to be resets inside an extended
expansion than preludes to systemic collapse.
The key is to stop treating AI as a single trade and start
seeing it as a stack. Behind every frontier model is a
data centre; behind every data centre is a chain of chips,
servers, memory, networking, power, buildings, cooling
and transmission. The investor’s job is not to worship
one charismatic CEO. It is to own the bottlenecks the
new regime cannot function without.
The hot‑run thesis for 2031
This leads to the question that animates markets—what
earnings and multiples can this regime plausibly support?
The answer looks less like the post‑Global Financial Crisis
stagnation era and more like a modernized version of
the late 1980s and 1990s, when growth, productivity and
valuation rose together. Then, the S&P 500’s trailing price/
earnings ratio (P/E) moved from roughly 10.4 x in 1985
to about 34 x by early 2000, while the peak forward P/E
reached roughly 24.4 x in March 2000.
In this story’s sequel, Trump runs the economy hot,
nominal GDP grows near seven per cent a year, and S&P
500 earnings grow not one‑for‑one with nominal GDP,
but at roughly 1.5‑2 x that rate, powered by AI‑driven
productivity and investment incentives such as full capex
expensing. If earnings are around US$400 in 2027, that
regime produces roughly US$600‑650 by 2031, implying
10.5‑14 per cent annual earnings per share growth.
From there, three valuation paths sketch the range of
outcomes. In the base case, the market believes the story
but stops short of mania. Earnings reach about US$600
and investors pay around 22 x forward earnings—rich by
long‑run standards but below the 2000 forward peak—delivering an S&P 500 in the low to mid 13,000s. In the
strong bull case, investors become convinced this is a
durable supply‑side boom. Earnings move to US$625‑650
and the market pays roughly 25 x trailing earnings,
nudging the index towards 15,000‑16,000.
In a euphoric 1999‑style case, earnings still land in the
US$625‑650 band but the multiple stretches towards 30 x,
taking the S&P 500 into the 18,000‑19,500 range. Dividend
reinvestment lowers the bar. With a two per cent yield
reinvested each year, part of total return comes from
compounding income rather than price alone, making
a 15,000‑16,000 destination easier to reach on a total
return basis.
By contrast, a consensus that sees the S&P 500 only
at 10,000 by 2031 implies a very different world. From
roughly 7,500 today, 10,000 in five years is about six per
cent annual price growth. With a flat multiple, earnings
growth must also be about six per cent—add a two per
cent dividend yield reinvested, and total return rises
to roughly eight per cent annually. Implicitly, that view
assumes only four to five per cent nominal GDP growth,
no structural re‑rating and no belief that supply‑side
reform and AI have changed the game.
A repricing, not a bubble
The baseline expectation into 2027 on the hotter thesis
looks very different. The metagame is the American
system updated for the AI age: run the economy hot,
rebuild productive capacity and let productivity do the
heavy lifting. On that view, earnings growth should run
above long‑run averages, driven by AI‑led productivity,
capex and broader operating leverage rather than by
financial engineering alone. Multiples can remain elevated
or expand as the market discounts a higher‑growth, lower
tail‑risk regime rather than a replay of secular stagnation.
Leadership broadens from early AI winners into energy,
industrials, infrastructure, logistics, semiconductors,
selected software and financial rails tied to the new
productive architecture.
On that framework, a path approaching 10,000 on the
S&P 500 by 2027 and 14,000 by 2029 is aggressive but
not deranged. It requires above‑trend earnings growth,
multiple support from lower perceived tail risk and
sustained conviction that this is a re‑rating of productive
capacity rather than a fantasy bubble. The point is not to
predict a straight line. It is to recognise that if productivity
accelerates while risk premia compress, historical
valuation anchors will look too low.
That is why this episode should be understood as a re
rating, not a bubble. If Wall Street’s models and beliefs
remain anchored in the secular‑stagnation era, it will be true to form for strategists to label earnings above trend
as speculative excess. But the only real bubble may be
in that mislabelling. Bubbles are built on imagined cash
flows, absent capacity and an eventual collision with hard
constraints. This cycle is being driven by hard constraints—
power, fabs, engineering talent and geopolitical
chokepoints—and policy choices designed to ease them.
The market is not pricing a hallucination—it is beginning
to price a new era.
Looking to the end of the decade
By the end of the decade, the central question will not be
whether bears invent another alarming acronym. It will
be whether the U.S. successfully translates its structural
advantages—deep capital markets, energy resources,
leading software and chip design, military reach and
institutional flexibility—into a new productivity era. If it
does, debt becomes more manageable through growth,
earnings rise faster than a generation trained in the 2010s
expects, and multiples remain above historical averages
because the economy has shifted onto a better nominal
and real growth path.
This does not mean every stock is sensible or every
moment is safe. It means the dominant error of the era
is likely to be underestimating duration. Investors remain
haunted by past bubbles and struggle to recognize when
a genuine re‑rating is underway because they are still
using the wrong mental model.
That is the metagame point. Most participants remain
trapped in the manifestations of events—the next sell‑off,
geopolitical scare or doom thread. The deeper trend points
elsewhere: towards a supply‑side, productivity‑led, AI
extended, geopolitically repriced American expansion that
can run further into the end of the decade than historical
norms suggest. Thiel’s line lands here as well. Competition is for losers in
the sense that the serious task for capital is not to fight
harder inside the daily noise, but to recognize when the
game itself has changed. Many investors make the mistake
of investing in the present. If you only respond to today’s
noise, your returns will suffer. Forcing yourself to look
out 12 to 24 months compels you, almost by definition,
to think about the metagame: what forces are driving
the trends, whether the rules are changing, and whether
structural shifts are underway. The simple lesson is to
look forward rather than stay anchored to the past. The
right stance is neither euphoria nor complacency, but
recognition—ignore the spectacle and accept that for
long‑term investors who are willing to play the metagame,
the opportunity in this new America‑system world is not
merely to survive the transition, but to finance the rebuild.
The information contained herein has been provided for information purposes only. The information has been drawn from sources believed to be reliable. Graphs, charts and
other numbers are used for illustrative purposes only and do not reflect future values or future performance of any investment. The information does not provide financial, legal,
tax or investment advice. Particular investment, tax, or trading strategies should be evaluated relative to each individual’s objectives and risk tolerance. This does not constitute a
recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities of any kind. Market conditions may change which may impact the information contained in this document. Wellington-Altus
Financial Inc. (Wellington-Altus) is the parent company to Wellington-Altus Private Wealth Inc. (WAPW), Wellington-Altus Private Counsel Inc. (WAPC), Wellington-Altus Insurance
Inc. (WAII), Wellington-Altus Group Solutions Inc. (WAGS), Independent Advisor Solutions Inc. and Wellington-Altus USA Inc. Wellington-Altus (WA) does not guarantee the accuracy
or completeness of the information contained herein, nor does WA assume any liability for any loss that may result from the reliance by any person upon any such information or
opinions. Before acting on any of the above, please contact your financial advisor.
©2026, Wellington-Altus Private Wealth Inc., Wellington-Altus Private Counsel Inc., Wellington-Altus Insurance Inc., Wellington-Altus Group Solutions Inc., Independent Advisor
Solutions Inc. and Wellington-Altus USA Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO USE OR REPRODUCTION WITHOUT PERMISSION. www.wellington-altus.ca
[1] –Bretton Woods (1944): Agreement that shaped the global financial system by pegging currencies to the U.S. dollar.
[2] –Marshall Plan: American initiative providing approximately US$13 billion in aid to help rebuild Western Europe following the Second World War.