BHere's one that sounds like a car commercial but is really about the next decade of world trade.
BThat's a big leap. What have you got?
BThe Wall Street Journal opinion page posted on X a question from Andy Kessler.
BGive me the question.
BIn the race to remake the U.S. auto market, which wins first—Chinese cars, autonomous cars, or click-to-buy cars?
BAnd the target?
BSomething like 20 percent of the market.
B20 percent is not a niche. That's one in five new cars.
BExactly. Kessler isn't asking which is cool. He's asking which business model breaks through.
BMy money is on autonomous, but not in the next ten years. The technology still can't handle a snowstorm.
BYou're dodging the Chinese. BYD is already selling electric cars in dozens of countries. They'd eat into the U.S. if tariffs dropped.
BTariffs won't drop. Washington treats Chinese cars like a national security threat. The EU just put up its own wall.
BBut Chinese firms can build in Mexico, use the trade agreement, and sell a 20-thousand-dollar EV while Ford's electric truck costs 60.
BAnd Congress would shut that loophole the second a Chinese-brand car rolls off a Mexican line. It's politics, not economics.
BSo you're saying protectionism wins and the consumer loses? That's exactly my point—click-to-buy at least gives buyers a direct path.
BClick-to-buy is just a sales channel. It doesn't make a car Chinese or autonomous.
BIt killed the dealership monopoly. Tesla proved you can sell millions without a single franchise dealer. That's a market-share shift already underway.
BTesla's share is small. 20 percent would need every legacy automaker to go direct and survive.
BThey're already moving that way. Ford split its EV business partly to sell more online.
BFord's EV business is losing money. That's not a takeover; that's a retreat.
BNo, no, wait—losing money now is the cost of building capacity. You can't judge 2035 by this quarter.
BI'm not judging. I'm saying autonomy is the only one that changes the product itself. The other two are just different ways to buy a car.
BThen why would Kessler even ask? Because he sees Chinese cars undercutting everyone and direct sales eroding dealers. Those are real.
BHe's an opinion columnist. His job is to ask a spicy question.
BAnd mine is to answer it: Chinese cars get to 20 percent first, but only through Mexico or a policy U-turn. I'll take that bet.
BAlright, but if a Chinese-brand plant opens in Mexico, this show's next segment is the trade war. That's a promise.
BFair. But that's where the world economy is heading.
BAutonomy is also a national security race. The U.S. is pouring billions into robotaxi pilots.
BRobotaxis in a few sunny cities don't equal 20 percent market share. Americans still want to own cars.
BBut if the tech works, fleets could replace millions of personal vehicles. That's a bigger shift than a cheap Chinese sedan.
BYou keep moving the goalposts. First it was tariffs, now it's robotaxis. Pick a lane.
BI pick the one where the car actually drives itself. That's a product revolution, not a pricing trick.
BAnd I pick the one where people vote with their wallets. Cheap Chinese cars and direct sales both do that.
BCheap Chinese cars won't be cheap once Washington adds a 100 percent tariff. The politics are too raw.
BYou sound like you've read the trade representative's talking points.
BBecause they're right on this. The U.S. won't cede its auto industry to a geopolitical rival.
BBut ceding to Tesla and online sales is fine? That's still an American company winning.
BThat's my point: click-to-buy is an American advantage, not a Chinese one.
BSo we actually agree: the winner is American direct sales, not Chinese cars or autonomy?
BNot agree. The question was which hits 20 percent first. I still say autonomy—if it actually works.
BIt hasn't worked for a decade. Direct sales is already here. That's the difference.
BFine. We'll check back in 2035. Neither of us will admit the other was right.
BThat's the only prediction I'd bet real money on.
BDifferent corner of the world: a post on X from a user named Rallenac asks why so many Catholics support policies that discourage family formation in the U.S. and Europe.
BThat's a live wire. Is it a fair question?
BI think yes. Catholic teaching is pro-family, but a lot of Catholic voters back parties that don't prioritize it.
BWhich parties? Because the policies that make family formation hard—zoning, taxes, expensive childcare—are often progressive ones.
BBut conservative governments also oppose paid leave or subsidized childcare. Plenty of Catholics vote for them. So both sides fail.
BI'd argue most Catholic voters aren't voting on family economics at all. They're voting on abortion and religious liberty.
BThat's the problem. Family formation gets deprioritized, and Europe is living with the result: birth rates below replacement.
BAnd Europe's welfare states are built on a growing taxpayer base that isn't there. This isn't just a Catholic issue; it's an everyone issue.
BThe post is a provocation, but it names something real. The U.S. is heading the same way, just slower.
BI'll say this: if the Church wants families to form, it should get louder about the policies that make it possible—not just the ones that prevent it.
BNow that's a homily I'd listen to.